>>Some trees, including those which would provide appropriate sources of food for many herbivorous animals, grow very quickly.<<

Olive trees however do not: I have one in my backyard. It is very healthy and produces a good but small crop of olives. But it doesn't grow very quickly. So how was Noah's dove able to find an olive tree from which to remove a leaf such a short time after the waters had receded? It's a mystery.

The Bible has a lot of them. They're usually referred to as miracles. Most Christians happily accept their existence without feeling the need to invent dubious hypotheses to explain them. It is a great mystery to me why some Christians feel the need to treat some chapters of Genesis as a science textbook instead of a religious document. Like other Christians they quite happily accept other miracles as events occurring in defiance of natural law through the supernatural intervention of God: they'll write huge volumes of material on their wacky flood-geology theories but I have yet to see a single paper on the topic of spontaneous human metamorphosis to sodium chloride.

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks Dan!
Your last post demonstrates my main point quite well.
Despite thousands of people working in fields of science that reinforce on another down to minute details...you prefer to throw all that away for a contrarian view that makes no useful predictions. Did yo know that geology is used to find oil and gas and other useful endeavours?
All contradictions (including decades of work) are seen as flaws in the science or scientist...but without any reference to details!
That, my friends is Hubris.

I certainly don't mind it when you contradict me, Dan S de Merengue. But it is considered polite when doing so to add some form of explanation, justification, or even a reference or two to back it up.

>>Pericles, Regarding your last sentence, I think it's quite common for people to hold conflicting ideas in different parts of their brain at the same time. That's also part of the fickleness of mankind.<<

I suspect that "quite common" is just a throwaway measurement, whose significance is only that you prefer your view to mine, but are too lazy to research it.

However, whether or not it is "common", the point I was making is that it causes discomfort, in which the "...human brain finds it extremely difficult to hold two conflicting ideas without going at least slightly crazy."

There is actually a scientific name for this: cognitive dissonance.

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/f/dissonance.htm

"The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance"

F Scott Fitzgerald reportedly claimed that the "...test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." And I accept that may well be true.

But first-rate minds are far from "common" in my experience.

And they are also at least slightly crazy, simply as a result of being first-rate.

And what's all that "fickleness of mankind" business anyway? If a first-rate minds can hold the conflicting notions that, say, the Greek population has brought its financial crisis upon itself, but should be protected as far as possible from its effects - where's the fickleness in that?

But I think that all you really wanted was an argument.

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

its sad that flod debri[stuff that floats]
dont get a mention...[clearly..if waters begin bubbling up..from terror firma...great lumping clumps of stuff will be set free[float]

the talk is stuf floated to islands..[like darwins galapidous islands..dodo..or finches..or land turtles etc etc]..all floated out 'there'..via flood debri..

anyhow
thats how a green leaf..COULD have been found
and the inferance of dry land..be made[not to be made by one wise in the ways of the seas..but good enough for the father..of all mankind[again]..adam phase two

not an ape/not neandertroll/not erectus.nor sapian
just the 7 wives

of all the 7
science [out of afrika]..eves..
via his sons.[yet the [saved]..mothers..have that hypocondrial joinder]..to the first of man..[modern mode um man]..who knows

science sure cant
it has a theory..

that land of that olive tree
might just be the place..the flood debri settled

It is obvious that many feel happy with what they consider holes in the creation/flood accounts. It allows them to continue smugly in their sin and ignore the obvious fact that they will one day give an account for their lives. They focus on what they consider holes in the creation account while continuing to hold their idiotic faith in the something from nothing dogma. The unscientific ever changing textbooks is clear proof they have no idea despite their pride filled assertions. Every time they open their eyes and see design they have to run back to their little pet theories because they have to ignore the obvious. The heart of man does not change from its wickedness. Thankfully some scientist are prepared to speak the truth.

Tony, 
I don't look at Genesis as a science textbook. (I don't think anybody does.) I look at it as an account of history. And I think that's the way its authors intended it to be read. Author's intention is the primary concern in seeking the correct interpretation for any literature. 

Ozandyh,
Your assertion that all scientists live in perfect agreement and reinforcement of each other is a fantasy. Just look at the current global warming debate, or just about any other topic we could care to raise. There is much disagreement (often healthy disagreement) everywhere you turn.

The ability to make predictions is no cause for celebration in itself. Under the old ptolemaic system astronomers were happily charting the stars and making predictions of astronomical occurrences. Yet their system was in radical need of reform.

It can be the same with geological theories. Different systems of approach can be used to make successful predictions. Uniformitarian geology is not necessary for finding oil and gas deposits. 

My friend at church is a chemical engineer who works for Mobil in gas exploration. She's a Bible believer. This month she's visiting an oil rig in Vietnam. (My wife was also chemical engineer years ago.)

Tas Walker who I mentioned earlier writes a website for biblical geology holds a degree in geology and a doctorate in engineering. (Reading from his CV) 'he has been involved in the planning, design and operation of power stations for over 20 years with the electricity industry in Queensland. He has conducted geological assessments of new fuel supplies for power stations across Queensland and has been involved with new mining proposals, including the effects of geological factors on the cost, reliability and quality of the coal produced.'

Overall, flood geology itself predicts the occurrence of oil and coal deposits as plant material from the old earth would have been carried and deposited by the surging of the waters and trapped by the movement of silt.