Well CTD, denial and obfustication again, and you still don't deal with the issues.

Which of course contradicts your earlier assertion that

And that, of course, was my point.

There is only one reality but history is not that reality, rather it is our understanding of that reality. Thus valid history must agree with the facts. Invalid history, of which we have examples, is contradicted by the facts of reality. Myths and fantasies are particularly prone to be contradicted by the facts of reality, and thus making up stories about how things could have happened in a way consistent with a myth does not rely on facts, but on selection of only those that can be bastardized to conform to the mythology.

The earth is old, that is a fact, it is a part of reality, and any "history" that says otherwise is invalid.

The universe is older than the earth, that too is a fact, a part of reality, and any "history" that says otherwise is invalid.

Life has existed on earth for at least 3.5 billion years, that too is a fact, a part of reality, and any "history" that says otherwise is invalid.

You answer yourself. But the real problem is that you don't need to reenact any past event to show the process by which the event occurred. When I said:

I was not talking about reenactments, but about the process of evolution. Forgive me if I incorrectly assumed you possessed common sense enough to know this.

Ah, so mythology is evidence. We also have evidence of local floods in all areas where there are flood stories, and we can also note that all those other flood stories differ in the details. Significantly. For instance in the Norse mythology that involves a flood it is the blood of a giant that causes the flood, and the hero escapes in a tree trunk, and the teeth of the giant become the mountains.

But I am not going to argue about mythologies and whether they may or may not be true, or partly true. You claimed there was lots of evidence of a biblical flood: where is it? Is the best you have are a bunch of inconsistent stories, then you will excuse me if I remain skeptical.

I could equally "remind readers" now that "evidence" according to CTD is any mythology of choice.

But this of course ignores CTD's misrepresentations of evidence as conclusions of evolutionists.

So you agree that the 20 year old clam is not evidence of a flood, having grown at a different time than this supposed event.

Now that we both agree that the clam did not grow during the flood the question is how you explain the evidence of the 20 year old clam on the mountain top. I can refer to the known process of plate tectonics that have been measured and which do in fact show that the building of mountains is entirely feasible given (a) the known age of the earth, (b) the known processes of subduction and uplift - processes that do not involve biology in any way.

This also explains multiple layers of marine sediment on mountains, and the alternation of marine sediment and non-marine formations. It also explains fragile structures being preserved unbroken in sedimentary layers.

The problem for you is to explain how this in any way supports a flood mythology.

And we still do not have any evidence presented that shows there was a flood. All we have are explanations of how evidence can be misinterpreted in order to fit a mythology, and nothing based on facts.

The basic problems with turning the cliffs of dover into an algae bloom are multiple, but the most telling is that the organisms at the bottom are not the same as the ones at the top, they show evolutionary change in hereditary traits from generation to generation.

Snelling's pretend scenario is nothing but fantasy built on falsehood, compiled ad hoc to attempt to wave away evidence, and it relies on ignorance for acceptance, ignorance of the rest of reality and the evidence of it.

It ignores the reality of algal blooms. Algal blooms are frequent (more so with pollution and global warming) and can be seen from space covering large areas of the sea, larger in fact than Snelling contemplates, and they are tracked and measured by biologists, and yet, curiously, in none of these instances is there any visible hint of even the beginning of an inkling of a "mini-cliff of dover" formation associated with any of these formations, even though their duration cannot be much different from any such bloom in a biblical flood that then forms the basis for magically being transformed into a solid rock cliff hundreds of feet above the sea level (ie - you are still missing over half the evidence that needs to be explained).

In other words, algal blooms cannot explain the cliffs of dover and anyone, Snelling included, that claims this is telling you a falsehood.

Now it's time to see some real evidence for a flood, or to concede that none of the evidence known to man supports a biblical flood.

You said there was lots: where is it?

Enjoy.