SoSick, no one has directly answered the questions I posted. How is it opinionated to say that there is no evidence of a global flood in sea or ice core samples, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck? And how does "ice floats and melts" address this in any way? I want to know how a model that is supposedly as viable as old earth and evolution can explain these things. This is what people want to teach children in schools. It needs to make sense and explain the actual evidence.

Russ seems to have decided to allow dissent here. If people post claims from creationists like Hovind, then others can come here and explain how they are wrong, or at least question. If he wants to disallow this then that's his call. Presumably you all are secure enough in your beliefs to feel you can defend them adequately when they are challenged? But if this becomes a creationists-only area then I will of course follow the rules and stop posting here. All I am trying to do is get explanations from people about how the claims posted here can actually fit the evidence. If that's too tall an order then perhaps the model needs to be revisited and revised.