“Did they consider ANYTHING that would go against their preconceived notions? Of course not!”
I specialize in fluid flow and two-phase particle/fluid systems.
When I see the evidence of massive sedimentary layers with large entrained rocks and boulders in the midst of those layers, the evidence tells me they were deposited in a large worldwide flood.
But then others with a preconceived notion of tranquil millions-of-years-old seas say that uniformitarian conditions were responsible, then the gig is up.
This might be one of those situations.
“Global warming” is a classic example of “political science”. Darwnism is another.
Fishtank, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering
Science is of use in discovery and application.
Creationism is an intellectual dead end that has led to nothing in terms of discovery and useful application.
So it is not so much that creationists are WRONG - it is that they are absolutely USELESS.
It isn't so much that a scientific model is correct - it is that it is of use in explaining and predicting reality.
Why doesn’t this evidence exist on all the land surfaces? Why is there only evidence of a great flood in a few isolated areas? Areas that are down stream from former massive glacial melt-water lakes?