I didn't know dinosaurs were on Noahs Ark........

There is evidence of a GLOBAL flood event?! i'd be interested to see that evidence (as a geologist i've never come across any)...WAJ

Because you werent looking for it.

"as a geologist i've never come across any"

You should know that you are not going to find everything pertaining to the explanations of past events in nature.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Oh get over it. Some of you guys keep mentioning the "tax payers" money. Well considering this park will be a great tourist attraction, I don't see what's the problem of using the "tax payers" money. Get over yourself.limpbizkit818

The developers are seeking state tax incentives under the Kentucky Tourism Development Act, which allows up to 25 percent of the cost of a project to be recovered, Courier-Journal said.Atheist groups and church-state separation advocates noted that state involvement in the project may not appear to be right, but it does appear to be legal as state tax breaks are used to support tourism projects.

Thank you. There is nothing wrong with this getting tax payer money if the state has a law in place to encourage tourist attractions. I think this thing would be sweet to see anyway.

1. Its shameless. I am quite glad I am not a US taxpayer.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Oh get over it. Some of you guys keep mentioning the "tax payers" money. Well considering this park will be a great tourist attraction, I don't see what's the problem of using the "tax payers" money. Get over yourself.GazaAli

The developers are seeking state tax incentives under the Kentucky Tourism Development Act, which allows up to 25 percent of the cost of a project to be recovered, Courier-Journal said.Atheist groups and church-state separation advocates noted that state involvement in the project may not appear to be right, but it does appear to be legal as state tax breaks are used to support tourism projects.

Thank you. There is nothing wrong with this getting tax payer money if the state has a law in place to encourage tourist attractions. I think this thing would be sweet to see anyway.

Well, I can't say for sure because I obviously wasn't there. But considering the fact that dinosaurs have been found in the ground with intact flesh, blood vessels, and bone marrow...I'd say anything is possible.

Silly creationists...

[QUOTE="DudeNtheRoom"]

2 things:

1) Theres talk in Kentucky that they want to build a life size replica of Noahs Ark. they want to use tax payers money to pay for some of it. Do you believe this violates the seperation of church and state law?

Pixel-Pirate

That's sort of like asking if murder violates ones right to life.

It's unconstitutional, illegal, and should be stopped.

It's not unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="DudeNtheRoom"]

2 things:

1) Theres talk in Kentucky that they want to build a life size replica of Noahs Ark. they want to use tax payers money to pay for some of it. Do you believe this violates the seperation of church and state law?

Communistik

That's sort of like asking if murder violates ones right to life.

It's unconstitutional, illegal, and should be stopped.

It's not unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

wow talk about overreacting, they use some tax money and suddenly everyones butthurt

hoola

You don't understand the concept of seperation of church and state do you?

If it is Kentucky tax payer money then it is legal unless there is a law in Kentucky that specifically does not allow it. The first amendment specifically states that Congress can not pass laws respecting the establishment of religion. It doesn't say anything at all about states. But, if it is federal money then it might be a problem.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

That's sort of like asking if murder violates ones right to life.

It's unconstitutional, illegal, and should be stopped.

Theokhoth

It's not unconstitutional.

See, this is one of my pet peeves. Who decided that this situation falls within the scope of that rule? You? No, that's the job of the State or federal judiciary. Not you. This is not unconstitutional until a United States court looks at all facets of the controversy and renders a judgment saying it is unconstitutional.

Nothing is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such by the courts.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Communistik"]

It's not unconstitutional.

Communistik

See, this is one of my pet peeves. Who decided that this situation falls within the scope of that rule? You? No, that's the job of the State or federal judiciary. Not you. This is not unconstitutional until a United States court looks at all facets of the controversy and renders a judgment saying it is unconstitutional.

Nothing is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such by the courts.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Communistik"]

It's not unconstitutional.

Communistik

See, this is one of my pet peeves. Who decided that this situation falls within the scope of that rule? You? No, that's the job of the State or federal judiciary. Not you. This is not unconstitutional until a United States court looks at all facets of the controversy and renders a judgment saying it is unconstitutional.

Nothing is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such by the courts.

There is already presidence by the Kentucky supreme court that this is not okay.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The state cannot endorse or favor a religion over other religions. Theokhoth

See, this is one of my pet peeves. Who decided that this situation falls within the scope of that rule? You? No, that's the job of the State or federal judiciary. Not you. This is not unconstitutional until a United States court looks at all facets of the controversy and renders a judgment saying it is unconstitutional.

Nothing is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such by the courts.

That doesn't make this unconstitutional. It will become unconstitutional after somebody files a civil action, after a State or federal court looks at the case, and after said court rules that this replica of Noah's ark does in fact constitute an improper use of public tax money under the establishment clause (via the Fourteenth Amendment).

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The state cannot endorse or favor a religion over other religions. Pixel-Pirate

See, this is one of my pet peeves. Who decided that this situation falls within the scope of that rule? You? No, that's the job of the State or federal judiciary. Not you. This is not unconstitutional until a United States court looks at all facets of the controversy and renders a judgment saying it is unconstitutional.

Nothing is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such by the courts.

There is already presidence by the Kentucky supreme court that this is not okay.

I assume you meant either precedent or precedents.

Cite the precedent stating that a replica of Noah's ark constructed with public money constitutes a violation of the establishment clause.

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]Oh get over it. Some of you guys keep mentioning the "tax payers" money. Well considering this park will be a great tourist attraction, I don't see what's the problem of using the "tax payers" money. Get over yourself.GazaAli

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The state cannot endorse or favor a religion over other religions. Theokhoth

See, this is one of my pet peeves. Who decided that this situation falls within the scope of that rule? You? No, that's the job of the State or federal judiciary. Not you. This is not unconstitutional until a United States court looks at all facets of the controversy and renders a judgment saying it is unconstitutional.

Nothing is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such by the courts.

2.Never of heard that part and I'm a Christian

__Chris__

Lol making up over 9000 differet stories to accommodate new scietific discoveries to the so called word of god.

I've always been curious about what the 2 termites did on Noah's Ark.

[QUOTE="WAJ"][QUOTE="gaming25"] "a flood of that magnitude may not even be possible" I think that you are forgetting that God created it. "it was probably a localized flood in a high populated area for the time" You assume that it is smaller for no type of reason other than you thinking it couldnt have happened. "there is no evidence of a global flood at any point in history" There is evidence of such an event, its about whether or not you believed that it occured.gaming25

Because you werent looking for it.

"as a geologist i've never come across any"

You should know that you are not going to find everything pertaining to the explanations of past events in nature.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]

[QUOTE="WAJ"] There is evidence of a GLOBAL flood event?! i'd be interested to see that evidence (as a geologist i've never come across any)...DudeNtheRoom

Because you werent looking for it.

"as a geologist i've never come across any"

You should know that you are not going to find everything pertaining to the explanations of past events in nature.

Disregarding anything Christians believe, if you get OFFENDED by somebody else's mere perspective on life, that's a problem with you. It's not the other person's problem. Either you don't know the meaning of "offend," or you are the most sadly thin-skinned human being I've ever met.

I laughed pretty hard when I heard about that. I mean okay, religion stretches the boundaries and does scientifically impossible things like humans having babies without having sex. That's a "miracle". But dinosaurs? come on.XilePrincess

It's kind of amoot point. You are questioning the scientific validity of whether dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. The same Ark that magically held two of every animal species in the world and that survived a super flood that drowned the rest of the world . . . . Honestly, just go with it.

[QUOTE="DudeNtheRoom"]

2 things:

1) Theres talk in Kentucky that they want to build a life size replica of Noahs Ark. they want to use tax payers money to pay for some of it. Do you believe this violates the seperation of church and state law?

2)I had no idea that according to.......something, Noahs Ark had Dinosaurs on it. Thats seems....a little crazy doesn't it. I mean don't they have carbon dates for things that are older than that? Also when I was a child they never showed dinosaurs in the cartoons of Noahs Ark or never told us that in sunday school.

starfox15

If I lived in KY I'd probably leave. First of all, you're using taxpayer money to pay for it. Secondly, dinosaurs. I just don't have anything to say about that. I'm offended by that and I'm not even christian anymore.

No christians, you can't have it both ways. Dinosaurs did not exist in god's perfect world.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

See, this is one of my pet peeves. Who decided that this situation falls within the scope of that rule? You? No, that's the job of the State or federal judiciary. Not you. This is not unconstitutional until a United States court looks at all facets of the controversy and renders a judgment saying it is unconstitutional.

Nothing is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such by the courts.

Communistik

There is already presidence by the Kentucky supreme court that this is not okay.

I assume you meant either precedent or precedents.

Cite the precedent stating that a replica of Noah's ark constructed with public money constitutes a violation of the establishment clause.

Here

And the Kentucky Constituion

I'd say being forced to pay taxes to fund a religious themepark is indeed "compelling one to contribute to the erection of such a place."

Since the text doesn't specifically mention a themepark built over 100 years later with religious ideals using state money, I'm sure you'll say it doesn't count since they didn't have the foresight to write on incredibly detailed scenarios.

It seems pretty clear to me and anyone who isn't blinded by favortism of religion, that this is not okay. I'm sure this will go to court anyway.

[QUOTE="__Chris__"]

2.Never of heard that part and I'm a Christian

Dystopian-X

Lol making up over 9000 differet stories to accommodate new scietific discoveries to the so called word of god.

I wouldn't put too much faith in something called "The Beginner's Bible Coloring Book" :lol:

dinousaurs>TC

bwahahaha

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

There is already presidence by the Kentucky supreme court that this is not okay.

Pixel-Pirate

I assume you meant either precedent or precedents.

Cite the precedent stating that a replica of Noah's ark constructed with public money constitutes a violation of the establishment clause.

Here

And the Kentucky Constituion

I'd say being forced to pay taxes to fund a religious themepark is indeed "compelling one to contribute to the erection of such a place."

Since the text doesn't specifically mention a themepark built over 100 years later with religious ideals using state money, I'm sure you'll say it doesn't count since they didn't have the foresight to write on incredibly detailed scenarios.

It seems pretty clear to me and anyone who isn't blinded by favortism of religion, that this is not okay. I'm sure this will go to court anyway.

You don't understand. In order for it to be declared unconstitutional, it MUST go to court. That is why you cannot simply assert that something is "unconstitutional" before it is ruled on by a court, unless it has already been very specifically ruled on in the past (which this has not). Neither of those links supports your assertion that this is unconstitutional. One deals with funds going to a school's pharmacy program, which is not relevant; the other is the Kentucky Constitution, which can be construed to stipulate a number of different things. The quote you used above ("to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place") is referring to places of worship. It could easily be argued that this is not a place of worship, but a tourist attraction. It could thus also be argued that the state is not endorsing Christianity-- that they are in fact exploiting it for economic gain. That something relates to a religion or could be construed to have a religious connotation does not make it an endorsement or a preference of that religion. This is a situation of novelty in Kentucky. A court will have to look at the facts and ascertain whether these facts fall within the scope of the specific provisions of the Kentucky Constitution and relevant case law. If a court decides that they do, and if it rules that this is unconstitutional, you may then say that it is. Until that happens, you are objectively wrong. It is not unconstitutional. That is not my opinion; it's fact.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

I assume you meant either precedent or precedents.

Cite the precedent stating that a replica of Noah's ark constructed with public money constitutes a violation of the establishment clause.

Communistik

Here

And the Kentucky Constituion

I'd say being forced to pay taxes to fund a religious themepark is indeed "compelling one to contribute to the erection of such a place."

Since the text doesn't specifically mention a themepark built over 100 years later with religious ideals using state money, I'm sure you'll say it doesn't count since they didn't have the foresight to write on incredibly detailed scenarios.

It seems pretty clear to me and anyone who isn't blinded by favortism of religion, that this is not okay. I'm sure this will go to court anyway.

You don't understand. In order for it to be declared unconstitutional, it MUST go to court. That is why you cannot simply assert that something is "unconstitutional" before it is ruled on by a court, unless it has already been very specifically ruled on in the past (which this has not). Neither of those links supports your assertion that this is unconstitutional. One deals with funds going to a school's pharmacy program, which is not relevant; the other is the Kentucky Constitution, which can be construed to stipulate a number of different things. The quote you used above ("to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place") is referring to places of worship. It could easily be argued that this is not a place of worship, but a tourist attraction. It could thus also be argued that the state is not endorsing Christianity-- that they are in fact exploiting it for economic gain. That something relates to a religion or could be construed to have a religious connotation does not make it an endorsement or a preference of that religion. This is a situation of novelty in Kentucky. A court will have to look at the facts and ascertain whether these facts fall within the scope of the specific provisions of the Kentucky Constitution and relevant case law. If a court decides that they do, and if it rules that this is unconstitutional, you may then say that it is. Until that happens, you are objectively wrong. It is not unconstitutional. That is not my opinion; it's fact.

No, it is your opinion. But you're welcome to have your wrong opinion :)

Also totally called it "No, you see the constituion doesn't specifically state themeparks there for it's totally okay to use tax payers oney to further the religious agenda and religious teachings of one select religion."

I'm sure you'd be just as supportive if it was a muslim theme park. :roll:

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Here

And the Kentucky Constituion

I'd say being forced to pay taxes to fund a religious themepark is indeed "compelling one to contribute to the erection of such a place."

Since the text doesn't specifically mention a themepark built over 100 years later with religious ideals using state money, I'm sure you'll say it doesn't count since they didn't have the foresight to write on incredibly detailed scenarios.

It seems pretty clear to me and anyone who isn't blinded by favortism of religion, that this is not okay. I'm sure this will go to court anyway.

Pixel-Pirate

You don't understand. In order for it to be declared unconstitutional, it MUST go to court. That is why you cannot simply assert that something is "unconstitutional" before it is ruled on by a court, unless it has already been very specifically ruled on in the past (which this has not). Neither of those links supports your assertion that this is unconstitutional. One deals with funds going to a school's pharmacy program, which is not relevant; the other is the Kentucky Constitution, which can be construed to stipulate a number of different things. The quote you used above ("to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place") is referring to places of worship. It could easily be argued that this is not a place of worship, but a tourist attraction. It could thus also be argued that the state is not endorsing Christianity-- that they are in fact exploiting it for economic gain. That something relates to a religion or could be construed to have a religious connotation does not make it an endorsement or a preference of that religion. This is a situation of novelty in Kentucky. A court will have to look at the facts and ascertain whether these facts fall within the scope of the specific provisions of the Kentucky Constitution and relevant case law. If a court decides that they do, and if it rules that this is unconstitutional, you may then say that it is. Until that happens, you are objectively wrong. It is not unconstitutional. That is not my opinion; it's fact.

No, it is your opinion. But you're welcome to have your wrong opinion :)

Also totally called it "No, you see the constituion doesn't specifically state themeparks there for it's totally okay to use tax payers oney to further the religious agenda and religious teachings of one select religion."

I'm sure you'd be just as supportive if it was a muslim theme park. :roll:

You completely ignored my argument. Actually, it wasn't an argument; it was a statement of fact. I'm not saying I think this is ok. In fact, I don't agree with it at all. However, when people like you who are ignorant of the way the legal system works begin shouting "that's unconstitutional!!!," you don't realize that you are objectively wrong. This is NOT automatically unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that it APPEARS to be a prima facie violation of separation between church and state. Nothing in America is unconstitutional until it is ruled so by a court. That is FACT. Proof? How do you think they will be kept from funding this replica of Noah's ark? It has to be argued by both sides in a civil court of law, after which the court will render a decision as to whether or not this specific act is a violation. THEN it will be unconstitutional. You don't get to decide that. The courts do.

I thought dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by Satan to fool us into betraying god? SAGE_OF_FIRE

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

I assume you meant either precedent or precedents.

Cite the precedent stating that a replica of Noah's ark constructed with public money constitutes a violation of the establishment clause.

Communistik

Here

And the Kentucky Constituion

I'd say being forced to pay taxes to fund a religious themepark is indeed "compelling one to contribute to the erection of such a place."

Since the text doesn't specifically mention a themepark built over 100 years later with religious ideals using state money, I'm sure you'll say it doesn't count since they didn't have the foresight to write on incredibly detailed scenarios.

It seems pretty clear to me and anyone who isn't blinded by favortism of religion, that this is not okay. I'm sure this will go to court anyway.

You don't understand. In order for it to be declared unconstitutional, it MUST go to court. That is why you cannot simply assert that something is "unconstitutional" before it is ruled on by a court, unless it has already been very specifically ruled on in the past (which this has not). Neither of those links supports your assertion that this is unconstitutional. One deals with funds going to a school's pharmacy program, which is not relevant; the other is the Kentucky Constitution, which can be construed to stipulate a number of different things. The quote you used above ("to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place") is referring to places of worship. It could easily be argued that this is not a place of worship, but a tourist attraction. It could thus also be argued that the state is not endorsing Christianity-- that they are in fact exploiting it for economic gain. That something relates to a religion or could be construed to have a religious connotation does not make it an endorsement or a preference of that religion. This is a situation of novelty in Kentucky. A court will have to look at the facts and ascertain whether these facts fall within the scope of the specific provisions of the Kentucky Constitution and relevant case law. If a court decides that they do, and if it rules that this is unconstitutional, you may then say that it is. Until that happens, you are objectively wrong. It is not unconstitutional. That is not my opinion; it's fact.

I can't take seriously any one who thinks that the story of Noah's Ark is fact and not a metaphor or exaggeration..sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

You don't understand. In order for it to be declared unconstitutional, it MUST go to court. That is why you cannot simply assert that something is "unconstitutional" before it is ruled on by a court, unless it has already been very specifically ruled on in the past (which this has not). Neither of those links supports your assertion that this is unconstitutional. One deals with funds going to a school's pharmacy program, which is not relevant; the other is the Kentucky Constitution, which can be construed to stipulate a number of different things. The quote you used above ("to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place") is referring to places of worship. It could easily be argued that this is not a place of worship, but a tourist attraction. It could thus also be argued that the state is not endorsing Christianity-- that they are in fact exploiting it for economic gain. That something relates to a religion or could be construed to have a religious connotation does not make it an endorsement or a preference of that religion. This is a situation of novelty in Kentucky. A court will have to look at the facts and ascertain whether these facts fall within the scope of the specific provisions of the Kentucky Constitution and relevant case law. If a court decides that they do, and if it rules that this is unconstitutional, you may then say that it is. Until that happens, you are objectively wrong. It is not unconstitutional. That is not my opinion; it's fact.

Communistik

No, it is your opinion. But you're welcome to have your wrong opinion :)

Also totally called it "No, you see the constituion doesn't specifically state themeparks there for it's totally okay to use tax payers oney to further the religious agenda and religious teachings of one select religion."

I'm sure you'd be just as supportive if it was a muslim theme park. :roll:

You completely ignored my argument. Actually, it wasn't an argument; it was a statement of fact. I'm not saying I think this is ok. In fact, I don't agree with it at all. However, when people like you who are ignorant of the way the legal system works begin shouting "that's unconstitutional!!!," you don't realize that you are objectively wrong. This is NOT automatically unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that it APPEARS to be a prima facie violation of separation between church and state. Nothing in America is unconstitutional until it is ruled so by a court. That is FACT. Proof? How do you think they will be kept from funding this replica of Noah's ark? It has to be argued by both sides in a civil court of law, after which the court will render a decision as to whether or not this specific act is a violation. THEN it will be unconstitutional. You don't get to decide that. The courts do.

And once they do inevitably decide (because it is. Just like if you passed a law forcing everyone to be christian would also be unconstituional. It is not my problem if the courts take months/years to reach the conclusion we all knew at the start) I'll of always been right! Neat.

Also I didn't get an answer. Would you support using the money of a mostly christian tax payer base to fund a themepark that is directly pushing a Muslim agenda?

If not, why?

I am a Christian, and I don't think that it's constitution for them to use taxpayers money for a religious construction project. As for the dinosaurs, I think that they would have died out before the dawn of man.aRE-you-AFraid

Dakota says hi.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

No, it is your opinion. But you're welcome to have your wrong opinion :)

Also totally called it "No, you see the constituion doesn't specifically state themeparks there for it's totally okay to use tax payers oney to further the religious agenda and religious teachings of one select religion."

I'm sure you'd be just as supportive if it was a muslim theme park. :roll:

Pixel-Pirate

You completely ignored my argument. Actually, it wasn't an argument; it was a statement of fact. I'm not saying I think this is ok. In fact, I don't agree with it at all. However, when people like you who are ignorant of the way the legal system works begin shouting "that's unconstitutional!!!," you don't realize that you are objectively wrong. This is NOT automatically unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that it APPEARS to be a prima facie violation of separation between church and state. Nothing in America is unconstitutional until it is ruled so by a court. That is FACT. Proof? How do you think they will be kept from funding this replica of Noah's ark? It has to be argued by both sides in a civil court of law, after which the court will render a decision as to whether or not this specific act is a violation. THEN it will be unconstitutional. You don't get to decide that. The courts do.

And once they do inevitably decide (because it is. Just like if you passed a law forcing everyone to be christian would also be unconstituional. It is not my problem if the courts take months/years to reach the conclusion we all knew at the start) I'll of always been right! Neat.

Also I didn't get an answer. Would you support using the money of a mostly christian tax payer base to fund a themepark that is directly pushing a Muslim agenda?

If not, why?

You will not always have been right. You are wrong now. You will be right once a court rules it is unconstitutional, and I will be right also.

Of course I wouldn't support that. I believe it's a violation of separation between church and state, just like I believe this situation in Kentucky is a violation of separation between church and state. Like I've already said though, it's not my decision. It's up to the courts, and until they rule, it is factually incorrect to label it as unconstitutional.

And to whoever asked me "if a court rules censorship is ok is that constitutional?"...that depends on what kind of censorship and what court you're talking about. But if it was an obviously outrageous situation, that is why we have a hierarchy of courts in our judicial system. If blatantly "unconstitutional" censorship was suddenly ruled constitutional by a state or federal district court, the respective appeals court could immediately suspend that lower court ruling until it had time to hear the appeal and render a judgment of unconstitutionality.

The same goes for this situation in Kentucky; it may be ruled unconstitutional, but the appeals court can suspend that ruling and later reverse it, or it can affirm it. It's not ultimately settled until it reaches the highest court possible or is denied on subsequent appeal.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

wow talk about overreacting, they use some tax money and suddenly everyones butthurt

hoola

You don't understand the concept of seperation of church and state do you?

If it is Kentucky tax payer money then it is legal unless there is a law in Kentucky that specifically does not allow it. The first amendment specifically states that Congress can not pass laws respecting the establishment of religion. It doesn't say anything at all about states. But, if it is federal money then it might be a problem.

Wrong. The courts have routinely decided that the First Amendment applies to federal, state and local governments.

It boggles my mind how anyone can take the story of Noah's Ark seriously.

[QUOTE="WAJ"][QUOTE="gaming25"] "a flood of that magnitude may not even be possible" I think that you are forgetting that God created it. "it was probably a localized flood in a high populated area for the time" You assume that it is smaller for no type of reason other than you thinking it couldnt have happened. "there is no evidence of a global flood at any point in history" There is evidence of such an event, its about whether or not you believed that it occured.gaming25

Because you werent looking for it.

"as a geologist i've never come across any"

You should know that you are not going to find everything pertaining to the explanations of past events in nature.

Oh, and saying "it says so in the bible" or "fossil fish have been found high up on mountain sides" just won't cut it (i can explain the second very well without the flood myth and with actual evidence of the processes involved).

This topic reminds me of the time a classmate started to lecture the museum staff on how it was blasphemious to say dinosaurs existed and that the skeletons displayed of them weren't made from real bones but some kind of substance that looked like it. Oh how the rest of the class laughed that day.Treflis

Well to be fair fossils aren't made from actual bone material, but I'm sure your classmate had no idea understanding of fossils at all.

What about unicorns?

2)I had no idea that according to.......something, Noahs Ark had Dinosaurs on it.

DudeNtheRoom

...So.