More CTD misrepresentation? Or is it failure to understand.
Earlier you argued that there could not be more than one worthwhile hypothesis about historic events.
No, CTD, I said that two contradictory hypothesis could not both be true.
And until you sort out what facts actually are, we can't have any profitable discussion anyhow. So spew some more nonsense & I'll see if any of it is mockworthy.
Again, such mockery is the last resort of those with no other argument to refute the valid conclusions based on evidence, facts, and the things we know from testing them against objective reality.
You have it so backwards. The high altitude fossils of sea creatures have been used to demonstrate the truth of the flood for ages. Just by saying they "prove it false" you think this will come to pass? Sounds a lot like Hitler's Big Lie theory.
Curiously the "history" of past hypothesis has no bearing on the validity of those hypothesis. As one of Russ's threads notes, many earlier theories have been invalidated or modified due to new knowledge.
What we do know is that plate tectonics results in uplift of mountains. We can measure it on a yearly basis, on Mt Everest and elsewhere. Uplift is a fact, and the rate of uplift measured happens to be less than that required to actually lift sea bottom up into mountains.
You have not show any difficulties whatsoever in reconciling a clam with the history you choose to reject, 20 years old or 100. If this is one of the many, many clams fossilized with a closed shell, it is powerful evidence indeed that the flood took place as recorded.
But you have it exactly backwards: you are the one that needs to explain how layer after layer after layer with 20 year old clams get onto mountaintops when -- as you agreed -- there is no way they could grow there during the (too brief) flood. I don't need to reconcile the clam with geological science, because plate tectonics and a 4.55 billion year old earth already do that, without needing a global flood in the process.
And because a flood is not necessary for this explanation, this means that the evidence is
de facto not evidence of a flood, unless you can demonstrate how such evidence
requires a flood ... and thus actually provide evidence
for your argument.
All contemporary flood models feature plate tectonics.
Which just shows how strongly plate tectonics is validated as a process to cause uplift of marine sediment into mountains. The problem that creationists run into is that when you scale the timeframe down to YEC mythological time, you would end up with lava instead of mountain due to the heat of friction.
All current creationist models also include variation and adaptation - "microevolution" - because it is so well validated that it is difficult to ignore.
Because rather than repost, it makes more sense for you to scroll up to the earlier parts of the thread. I shan't copy & paste that much just to waste my time.
In other words there is no evidence.
Enjoy.
