Yes CTD, we disagree.
So history isn't what has happened? We disagree.
History is not what happened, it is the the record of what happened, the understanding, the explanatory story, of what happened. The better that record\understanding is, the closer to explaining what really happened it is.
The evidence of what happened is not history either, but the objective evidence of reality, the reality that includes past events and the effects of them.
We obtain knowledge about history by discovery, verification, and reconciliation. It's so simple!
We obtain knowledge about what happened in the past by testing different historical theories against the facts, the objective evidence of reality. Those theories that aren't capable of explaining the facts, or that are contradicted by the facts are discarded.
Well, as you cannot explain what your clam has to do with anything at all, I won't venture to guess just now.
The layers and layers and layers of sedimentary rock with fossils of clams 10 20 and 30 years old, and part of a mature marine environment are fossil records of underwater life for hundreds of years. Thus they are not evidence of any hypothesized event whose duration is measured in days. Thus the flood hypothesis, simply put, does not in any way explain their presence on mountains. It fails.
The theory of plate tectonics, however, does explain their presence on mountains, just as it explains the presence of mountains in the first place. We can even measure the amount of rise currently occurring on mountains, and see if that rate is consistent with forcing sea bed sediments up into mountains. The conclusion of geologists is that modern rates of uplift are more than sufficient to explain, not only the mountains that exist now, but the ones that have worn away.
All we have is your word that no clam could be 20 years old if there was a flood. Given your record, especially recently, I'm not terribly concerned about this.
Seeing as this is another gross misrepresentation of what I actually said, your word\opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It is easy to mock what you don't understand, especially when you don't want to understand.
Well, if these processes don't involve biology, how did they grow a 20 year old clam? Really, your doubletalking nonsense invites some peculiar questions. You should read what you post sometimes.
Case in point. You really should read what I post sometimes.
And we still don't have a single piece of evidence that there really was a flood as portrayed in the biblical story, even though you claimed there was lots of evidence.
Why is there no evidence?
Enjoy.
