Boy, CTD, I have to give you 5 stars for that misrepresentation and classic creationist issue avoidance.

And yet what you quote has nothing to do with "Earlier you argued that there could not be more than one worthwhile hypothesis about historic events" nor does it disprove my point that "two contradictory hypothesis could not both be true" -- no matter how much you wish it were so, and so I have no need to retract nor edit a statement that still stands correct and unchallenged.

The fact remains that clams are not evidence for a world wide flood, and that claiming they are is not supported by the evidence.

You agree they did not grow there. You claim this is part of your evidence of a flood, but you have yet to provide any rational for connecting clams on mountains with a biblical flood.

I say they are explained by plate tectonics. You claim plate tectonics are "a part of flood geology" but don't show how this is so, nor how this means a flood is required for the clams to be on a mountaintop. All this kind of claim does is avoid the issue that geology adequately explains clams on mountaintops. Claiming plate tectonics is included in "flood geology" does not show how this evidence is indicative that a flood occurred.

The fact is that all known floods bury things in the low areas where the flood flows and fill, and erode things from the high areas on the way. They do not, in the evidence we have of known floods, make mountains or throw things up to higher elevations.

The problem is that you have yet to make any kind of case that this evidence in any way supports a flood. Before you can have a test between the ability of two competing theories to explain the evidence you need to have a second theory, you still need to "explain how layer after layer after layer with 20 year old clams get onto mountaintops" as a result of a flood.

Not so much straw man, CTD, as boxing shadows, shadows created by a total lack of argument for how 20 year old clams are evidence of a biblical flood. Perhaps, to cut to the chase, you should actually provide a hypothesis that makes clams climb mountains, instead of avoiding the issue and making more useless comments.

And yet, curiously, we still do not have any evidence from you or anyone else that shows how clams on mountain tops can be evidence of a biblical flood. Perhaps your mockery would actually carry some weight if you actually (a) had an argument and (2) supported you position/s with facts, evidence of objective reality. Fantasy and unsupported assertions are not an argument.

All I see so far is the evidence of inability to deal with the evidence and the actual issue of 20 year old clams on mountaintops, and a complete absence of any evidence that demonstrates a flood is necessary to explain it.

Enjoy.