A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea

[Drich]

There is evidence for solar winds, so we accept the idea that they are plausible.

Wait are you sure because just a few post back you were convinced that nothing I said was supported.

There is no evidence for a 30,000 ft increase in the height of the oceans, then all that water vanishing.

So you are now claiming we have no evidence for a whole planet's worth of water just up and 'vanishing?' Now take your time and be sure..

That is the difference between scientific principle and speculation.

You weren't clear, what was the difference? Because i can defiantly show 'evidence that the principles I have laid out could have indeed taken away a whole planet's worth of water.

If you accept NASA's word on scientific principle, why don't you ask them if what you think is plausible?

Silly doom-cuff, that's not how science works... Science is about peer acceptance, not about plausible fact. For instance their are several competing theories to Darwinism All of which are plausible, none of which have been vetted through the peer review stage. why? Agenda. Science, rather specific science is a growth industry. Tickle the right ego as countries give away billions and billions to fund research (*cough Hadron Super collider)

Our buddies at NASA are in the same boat. They want billions and billions from the gub-ment to build rockets. However the gub-ment will not fund a 'church' to build rockets. so NASA has to stay our of arguments like this even if they would indeed think it is possible.

so next best thing??? Take the principles of their theory and apply it to conditions here if a flood where to take place. would these very same principles work for the reason stated in the NASA theory on mars? Yes, and Yes.

That is called thinking for one's self sport... Think for one's self. might want to give it ago before you try and use a your next scripted argument.