Understandable pwcca, that works for you. No one is arguing that 2+2 does not =4. Though RAZD did claim that 1+1 does not =2 so... maybe you need to discuss that with him.

But anyway... your gods, shall we call them by their common name.. daemons? They are not the God that is being called into question with discussions of the flood.

It's impossible to have a discussion of the flood based only on facts of this nature while leaving God himself out of the equation. How do you do that? It's his flood. If he can make it rain and and rain for months on end then we have to assume he can do much more probably lots of things we haven't even thought of. RAZD's tree facts don't bother me at all btw, i did say that above, it's not problem for me to imagine a tree surviving a bout of 6-8 months underwater and then springing back to life with a bud or two. The only ones that would have died for sure for sure, are the ones that fell over (uprooted)due to soft muddy water bogged earth. that doesnt apply to trees that wrap their roots into rock, which is the example RAZD gave above. Rock doesn't get squishy when it gets real wet so those trees would have gotten quite a soaking but their roots would not have been affected. It's not as though they were underwater for 5 or 10 years. Visit a mangrove swamp sometime.

I think the evo group should do a bit more thinking of the contradicting possibilities before presenting evidence, and they do need to include God when presenting evidence against him.

They present their case as a .... if the flood occurred how come this looks like this... they do not ever say.. but IF God exists he could have managed to do this... so their arguments fail every time from the perspective of someone who does believe in God.

If they want to consistently leave God out of the equation, then they should be prepared, not to simply present 'fact' after 'fact' that they think proves his works are not true... but they need to disprove God himself, his existence, first, in order to even enter into it as serious discussion. Until that happens, their indirect accusations of what God can do and what God cannot do, simply remain in the realm of illogical insolence toward him, and great arrogance on their part due to seeing themselves as so knowledgable about God while denying he exists.

If you want to deny God exists, then prove it.