The Problem of Complexity

[Agnostic75]

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Jn 3:21

That is irrelevant, and off-topic, at a science forum. Discussing evidence is what this forum was set up for. You are not interested in discussing evidence. Skeptics are not interested in listening to preaching.

 

[Krok]

Thanks for your explanation. From what I have read on some of the different methods of dating like radiometric, there are many problems with it, more than I care to type.

That's not true. Radiometric dating methods are very accurate, providing the person who does the dating knows what he or she is doing. You should read fewer creationist websites about dating methods: creationists never tell the truth.

Ice-core samples, ....

Go back to 1 million years. Scientists Take Million-Year-Old Ice-Core Sample | Fox News .No evidence for a global flood.

.... tree rings

Go back to about 26 000 years. Dendrochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .No evidence for a global flood.

....and sedimentary layering,....

Not any old sedimentary layers, but varves, for example. ABSOLUTE AGE . Goes back to around 40 000 years. No evidence for a global flood.

depending on how you look at them,...

1+1=2+1=3, etc. It doesn't matter on how you look at them. You just count them.

... agree with the Flood and YET just fine for me.

No they don't. If you are under that impression, you are under the wrong impression.

I am open minded so I will check out Bryson. I am not dogmatic on the science end of things but I do believe the Bible is God's Word and trustworthy and in the end God will show us just how he did all this. Peace!

If you are so open-minded, why do you keep on believing people who never tell the truth, but reject scientific consensus where everything is openly investigated and published before coming to a conclusion?

 

[fantome profane]

Of course. Remember, I believe Jesus walked on water, and Peter did, briefly.

So that would mean that even if we were able to convince you that the story of Noah’s Ark (for example) was in complete violation of the laws of physics it wouldn’t matter. Hypothetically it would make no difference even if you were completely convinced that it would be absolutely impossible for a boat of that size to float without breaking into a thousand pieces. Is that a correct analysis of the situation?

 

[Looncall]

So that would mean that even if we were able to convince you that the story of Noah’s Ark (for example) was in complete violation of the laws of physics it wouldn’t matter. Hypothetically it would make no difference even if you were completely convinced that it would be absolutely impossible for a boat of that size to float without breaking into a thousand pieces. Is that a correct analysis of the situation?

These people are puzzling aren't they? They just show how religion can destroy one's intellect.