Originally Posted by LindaLou
Quote
The story of the flood has been verified in several ways.


Looks like selective memory is operating again. That pesky discussion of varves, ice cores and tree rings must be far enough in the past now for you to conveniently forget about it -- or, more predictably, to brush it off with, "I don't believe it." Why not employ some of your guidelines of hsitorical study by going back to that thread and reminding yourself of why it's difficult to reconcile "evidence for a global flood" with millions of layers of biannual varves in the same area.
Selective memory indeed! You have omitted verification, and misapplied reconciliation.

Reconciliation does not consist of overturning established history by comparing it to the worst possible interpretation of a single piece of evidence. Reconciliation consists of surveying all reasonable interpretations and seeing if any of them are compatible with what is already known. Not that I expect you to follow this formula...
Originally Posted by LindaLou
The story of the flood may be verified in your own head but you will notice that most people do not share this fantasy with you. Can you produce an article from a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal that gives solid evidence that a global flood has been verified, or does that not count in your book because scientists are liars?
Can you produce a peer-reviewed journal that has a record of being perfectly right 100% of the time despite centuries of hostile attacks by antihistorians?

I have told you what counts: discovery, verification, and reconciliation. The clearer I make this, the less likely I'll be seeing much of it. Which verifies that it is true, in an indirect but valid way.
Originally Posted by LindaLou
BTW your AiG links do not answer the questions that RAZD has put directly to you, about delicate organisms and prints of raindrops within very old sedimentary layers. All you are offering is "Woodmorappe says so," and we've shown you in various places before on this forum where Woodmorappe is wrong. Have a Google about chalk formation and you will see for yourself. These sorts of creationist articles rely on the geological ignorance of the people who read them.
I'm not terribly interested in loaded questions which assume I am wrong. The pertinent elements of the questions have been addressed. The chalk formations can be reconciled with history, and the White Cliffs of Dover specifically reconcile much better with actual history than they could with the antihistory of evolutionists.

And all you offer in response is to remind us of past slanders against Woodmorappe? Fine! This is to be expected, at least by those who are familiar with scripture or even human behaviour in general.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson