Aineo wrote:Rev wrote:Of course when someone’s assumptions are just plain crossways of the facts, we may reasonably presume the assumer is either ignorant of the facts or is strongly motivated to deny them.
However the so-called facts you are appealing to are in fact assumptions based on the best assumptions of men who think because they have qualified PhD's. can dictate assumptions as facts.
It is not an assumption that there are dinosaur footprints, dinosaur dung, and at least one dinosaur egg (the other was stolen) near Tuba City, Arizona, east of the Grand Canyon. You can go and see for yourself as I did. It is not an assumption that these trace fossils lie above the sedimentary rock of the Grand Canyon and below more than a mile of sedimentary rock north of them. You can go and see for yourself as I did. Given that if there were a global flood, the sediments the trace fossils are in must necessarily have been laid down under water, how did they get there? Did God put them there as a practical joke on the paleontologists?
About 20-25 years ago some scientists built a scale model of the ark and then tested in a facility that tests ship designs. You know what happened? No matter what the scientists tried to do they could not swamp their model. Therefore no matter what the earth and its oceans did when the waters came up from the deep the ark would not have sunk.
So what? Did it occur to you that an ant can lift things heavier than itself but if it were scaled up to the size of a human, it couldn't lift its own weight. In order to test whether a barge can be made the size claimed for the Ark can withstand the turbulence of a global catastrophe, one would have to make a boat that size, load it and test it in a hurricane. You willing to do that?
Have you reviewed the data that physicists are now taking seriously that show the speed of light has decayed over time or are you comments made from your own ignorance?