If you had, why would I have asked. Stay focused, Paul.
the reason I posted the information was to show that there
was enough water to cover the earth in the past!
The flooded Earth hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis. It would be interesting if you could find a leading geologist who has taken this seriously since 2008. It ignores any evidence for dry land prior to the time in question.
are you saying that it was correct in the past?
That you can even ask that question demonstrates either a poor understanding of English, or a wish to prevaricate. As this is a science discussion forum, not an English class, I will let that pass.
so you were assuming that then.
A little clarity would be appreciated, if it is worth pursuing.
I havent read that everyone on the earth has a right to their own personal beliefs.
Neither have I, but I do not necessarily base my opinions on matters of this nature on the writings of others.
you actually meant to use something more like
maybe they cant be linked to a worldwide flood.
or
perhaps they cant be linked to a worldwide flood.
Please do me the courtesy of allowing me to be the judge of what I meant.
Implicit in such statements as mine is the understanding that it is based on our current scientific knowledge. I credit you with the intelligence and understanding to appreciate that.
were you trying to show me that there is a realm of scientific dogma?
Paul, that’s way below your usual standard, even at your most argumentative.
I have responded to the points in your last post because I believe that is a matter of courtesy, but I think I shall opt out from here on, unless we can raise our sights a bit, and return to something resembling science. If I were looking for an exchange of smart-arsed comments, I'm sure there are forums dedicated to that.
