Goku: For example linguistics does not bear out the Tower of Babble story as the origin of all the different languages, archaeology does not support the Exodus story of Moses, geology and historical records do not indicate Noah's global deluge, and so on.
I think what this really portrays is that your information-source is giving you arguments you have accepted. There is plenty of evidence for the flood, proper evidence, qualified correctly, if you look at my recent topics alone it is unavoidably correct evidence. Really you are just selecting the arguments you think make the evidence 99% against the bible, but arguments aren't evidence, the evidence itself tells us nothing as such, in that a lot of it can be interpreted, especially circumstantial evidence which is highly open to interpretation. So I think it is 99% of the evolutionary/atheist worldviews arguments that actually contradict the bible, certainly there isn't any direct evidence that it's false.
Your evidence for a global flood, as best I can tell, is also perfectly consistent with local floods and disasters. Occam's razor would dictate that local events are a much more appealing explanation, even without going into the evidence and arguments against a global flood. Sure it may have consistent evidence, but there is also consistent evidence that a three-legged aardvark made the known universe by doing a happy dance: if such an event occurred we would expect a universe to exist, and alas here we are. The way you wield the argument of consistent evidence is not convincing, even for a tentative and provisional truth claim as a matter of personal belief.
There is no remotely convincing evidence that a global flood has ever occurred, especially as described by biblical fundamentalists. As I have said many times over the years if a global flood happened we would expect a global sediment layer (or close enough to global) all dating back to about 2,400 BC give or take a few centuries to account for the different chronological histories of various YEC paradigms. As far as I am aware no such layer in any capacity has ever been found. Similarly, we would expect to see a massive genetic bottleneck for all land species (and birds) all dating back to the time of the flood some 4,400 years ago, and this is not what we see in any way, shape, or form. All cultures around the globe should have been wiped out at the same time too, and again this is not what we see in the archeological record.
The story itself has many plausible problems as well. For example after the flood how did all the animals get to their endemic regions? - for example how did kangaroos get to Australia from Mt. Ararat in Turkey? There's also a question of food and water, both on the Ark and post-flood. The Ark itself is so large that it should have broken apart many times over due to all the stresses on it. The Ark would have been the largest wooden ship ever built, and wooden ships of lesser size (even when reinforced with metal) are not good in rough waters as the wood twists and turns letting in water, and the ship becomes prone to foundering/sinking. An even bigger wooden ship, not reinforced with metal, surviving a tumultuous flood that carved out the Grand Canyon would have no realistic chance of success.
Then of course, as has been discussed on the forum, the heat released from the amount of water required for a global flood would have rendered the planet lifeless many times over. We could talk about the problems all day, but these are some of the highlights off the top of my head.
Of course any and all problems can be solved with miracles. However, this is not something on par with turning water into wine or raising Jesus from the dead. Simply put the global flood is not only theoretically impossible from known science, like the miracles mentioned above, but there is also empirical evidence derived from the specific time-frame that the flood was supposed to occur, and we see no evidence of it or anything like it anywhere throughout history or natural history, and with no "consistent evidence" that cannot easily be explained by local flooding and such.
As for Piasan's post I think it was just a personal attack really, his motives are obvious, he saw that I wasn't particularly good at one type of riddle/puzzle and so now he most mendaciously PRETENDS that I have to be an expert at that particular puzzle in order to understand science. Lol. That comes off as a bit desperate. And calling logic, "binary thinking" is basically just an epithet, I would much rather be a logical thinker than an illogical thinker, Piasan, as it helps to assess science claims;
If I am defensive it's understandable give your argument is basically intepreted as this; "mike is a retard that doesn't understand science." If you are scientific and understand science, you should value what the evidence suggests. It suggests I am pretty good at evaluating claims. Not the best in the world for sure but then who is. And as for science and evolution, remember I recently created a quiz myself for evolution and you didn't get all of the answers correct, of which mikey was the creator of the questions!
I cannot comment for Piasan, but my own take is that you often see a line of logical thinking and jump down the rabbit hole, and in the process you get tunnel vision and forget other salient points that when put together is not complimentary to your position.
I don't think you are stupid, and I am confident Piasan and the other evolutionists don't think you are stupid either. However, I do believe you are extremely biased and this bias plays a big role in your posts. It is one thing to be able to use basic logic in an academic test talking about subjects in which no normal person would have a bias in, versus applying that logic in a complex interdisciplinary subject in which you do have a bias in.
I remember that quiz! I was inspired to come up with my own quiz, but never got around to it.
As for the 6,000 years being studied by creationists, that doesn't change my point anyway, that the bible doesn't give the age of things so technically if there is only a possibility that God done something miraculous with time or there is some time somewhere humans may have missed, that's significant. It's also important to listen to other creationists like OECs, and not arrogantly assume that only YECs are creationist. In other words, the bible might clearly say things like, "yom" or, "day" and we may even have to take that literally, but there are also many convoluted problems with taking it all in the same way. There are big discussions about this. For example the first day had no sun so would 24 hours be relevant to one revolution of the earth? Does Genesis give the science? Does it say that the earth was spinning at it's present rate? Would it even spin at all with no sun?
The Bible doesn't literally say Genesis happened in 4,004 BC, but you can deduce the age through genealogies. I'm not familiar with all the nuances that various people deal with to get slightly different numbers, but it basically comes down to genealogies plus a little logic. If I say I am driving to a far away city, and drive for 4 hours, take a 1 hour break, then drive for another 4 hours and reach my destination at 4 pm, although I never literally said my trip started at 7 am, you can still deduce that information with a little logic. With the Bible it is the exact same basic idea.
As for yom and the rotation of the Earth, the people who wrote Genesis did not think the Earth rotated or even that the Earth was a sphere/ellipsoid. I see no reason to think the first few days were anything other than what we would call standard 24-hour days, apart from imposing our 21st century understanding of science onto the text itself. The point of Genesis 1 is not to give us an accurate historical account in the sense of a science or history textbook, but to convey more fundamental truths about God, humanity, nature, and the relationship between them. These things were conveyed in a way people from 2,500+ years ago would have understood and connected to the stories told. To shoehorn modern science into the story, or shoehorn Genesis into modern science, is to miss the point altogether.
"Your evidence for a global flood, as best I can tell, is also perfectly consistent with local floods and disasters. Occam's razor would dictate that local events are a much more appealing explanation,"
1000s of "events" all over the globe AT THE SAME TIME is only "more appealing" if you wish to try to discredit what Jesus said and for philosophical reasons.. NOT because it makes more sense Scientifically using logic, reason, and critical thinking skills..