No one has ever proven that a golobal flood is impossible.
In science, no one has to. But scientists have discovered that it is highly improbable for a global flood to occur, for several reasons:
-There's not enough water for a global flood.
-The observed height and depths of the mountains and valleys as we have now could not have formed after the flood.
-There is no evidence to indicate that such a flood occurred. Sediments, noticeable change in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, or hiatus in trapped air bubbles are possible evidences, but they have not been observed.
-Formation of ice caps in Greenland as observed today would not be possible if a worldwide flood occurred.
-All models that depict how the flood occurred have problems because they require lots of energy for the flood to happen. That amount of energy would be enough to vaporize all the water on Earth.
1) Creationists are scientists, they are just not bound by materialism, and are not operating with blinders on.
They are not. Science is the study of nature, even if materialistic, and that's all it was ever meant to be and probably will be. If creationists study the supernatural, then they are not scientists.
2) If some people want to equivocate, and use speciation as evidence of molecule-to-man evolution, that fine, but whether they call themselves scientists or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans, and doesn't lend any more credibility to the claim.
"molecule-to-man" is kind of ambiguous because you've missed out all the steps in between. Specifically, one single event of speciation won't account for a molecule becoming a man, and that's certainly not what evolution suggests anyways. Instead, many, many events of speciation are happening, and simultaneously. The evolutionary relationship shows that starting from a prokaryote, evolution of eukaryotes, multicellular organisms, radial and bilateral symmetry, diploblastic body plan, triploblastic body plan, notocord and vertebrates, terrestrial organisms, bipedalism and opposable digits occurred.
3) You gave an example of flies and insects that become genetically isolated from other groups of flies and insects as observable evidence that pond scum can evolve into people. This is a good example of how evolution has damaged the scientific community to accept things as evidence for things they are not.
It shows that speciation is possible, and that such a mechanism works, but we didn't arrive at the conclusion of prokaryotes evolving into people. And that was a poor conclusion anyways, because it should be prokaryotes evolving into common ancestors, and generations, and generations of organisms with variation and speciation that later lead to people. We arrived at such a conclusion not only because the mechanism of speciation is possible, but because fossil evidence has shown us the development and diversity in life, and comparisons allow us to make evolutionary relationships, as does genetics, and comparisons of proteins produced in organisms. The problem with most people is that they think we use only one example to show the whole theory of evolution. I have given but one example, but I did not say that it shows the whole theory is correct.
4) Such equivocation is a violation of forum rules.
and is not allowed.
Let it be clear then, that when I speak of microevolution, I'm speaking of evolution that occurs under the speciation level. That is, the accounting of organisms in a species having variations arising from genetic recombination or mutation, but any member of that population is still the same species. However, this does not mean that all of the species have the same abilities for survival; some will be better than others, depending on which variation they have. Since microevolution is below the level of speciation, it can't say much about how we get diversity in the number of species or different forms of organisms, or if any species have any evolutionary relationships. It may predict what variations are observable or possible.
Speciation is required to account for the diversity of life that we see since the flood.
Such a diversity that we see today cannot account for what happened after the flood. I've already explained that the flood is highly improbable, but speciation cannot occur in only a mere 6000 years to result in the number of species that we see today. It would be possible for the diversity we see today to be a result of speciation from millions of years or more, but 6000 years is nothing compared to millions, or hundred millions.
Then you are certainly a "true believer".
As far as I'm concerned, any argument that any creationist has ever brought up has been debunked. If you can come up with a proper scientific hypothesis to support your theory and design an experiment for it, the scientific community would be more than happy to consider it. Of course, I realize I'm speaking to someone who believes science is a waste of time.
But never certain, and again, you are not testing anything by forming an opinon based on circumstantial evidence, and circular logic. You are only patting yourself on the back for celver explanations and nothing more.
It is not an opinion, it is a prediction and hypothesis. A forensic scientist can make the prediction that a fingerprint belongs to the murderer, but until he tests it, he cannot be certain. Or he can make a prediction that the blood on the floor belongs to the victim, but he cannot be certain until he has the blood sampled, as well as the blood directly from the victim. Are you suggesting that we cannot know these things? That forensic scientists cannot learn anything about the murder through experiments because they weren't there?
This is only true for observational science. Origins science cannot be tested emperically, only forensically, i.e. circumstantially.
Evolution does not say anything about origins. Even so, forensics can make experiments and determine what happened accurately. So can evolution. If traces are left behind in forensics, and they can be analyzed in detail to help us learn what happened, so too can fossils and genetics in evolution.
That's true, fossils and such are facts, but facts are interpreted within a philosophical framework, and do not speak for themselves.
The interpretations of facts in the form of hypotheses are tested. They can be tested in many different ways, and a different number of problems may or may not be found with the hypothesis. You can take it from any angle you want to increase or decrease the probability that the interpretation is correct.
You speak about a prebiotic earth as if you know there was one, when you don't know that.
There are ways of knowing what prebiotic Earth was like. They were found from observations like those of the ancient rocks and the mantle.