Getting that Journal-WiP-Entry off my front page to move on From how rude
(Plus, issue the main points)
1# A Global Flood Remains a Scientific possibilty despite opinions to the contrary. I-Stamp in her comments ([link]) & links ([link]) failed to Prove this hypothesis of hers that a Global Flood was Scientifically Impossible. In fact, She, Seemed more interested/intent on trying to disprove the Bible's Great Flood, then on proving her opinion. Thus blatantly ignoring several billion years of earth history as well as the possiblity of a Global Flood in the near to distant future.
--- In addition, she seems hellbent on thinking/proving that Talkorgins page is sufficent evidence to disprove any evidence of a Global Flood. While admittedly bringing up some points not discussed in the Bible, most of the Article doesn't provide any evidence to support a claim that Global Flood is scientfically impossible. Indeed, at least three its sections can be summarily dismissed as relating only to the Bible story with an additional three dealing mainly...

To say disproving Noahs ark, proves that a global flood is scientifically impossible --- Is like saying "I can't build a Noahs ark, this proves building a Noahs ark is Scientifically impossible". which is what I-stamp seems to be saying by claiming that the top three points of talkorigins page are all scientifically undimissible when she responded to my post in which I dismissed those points because they don't matter to whether or not a global flood is possible in the least.


on timing