ronjs

So it seems that most sceptics don't  have a clue about what evidence a worldwide flood would cause, they just assert that there is none,. This doesn't seem like a very scientific approach to me.  

What evidence would be expected if a worldwide flood had occurred?

Then I assume you know what the evidence of a worldwide flood would be

Since I gave no details, you are merely contradicting me.

Because the evidence we see is consistent with what the results of a worldwide flood would be

Yes, people have been pronounced dead only to found actually alive and coffins sometimes show evidence of people being buried alive and waking up in their coffins , thus, it is prudent to confirm the death of individuals.

 Jesus was referring to the  timespan Jonah spent in the fish, not to the state of his health.

The guards noticed Jesus was dead so there was no need to break his legs, when they speared his side, blood and water poured out, thus confirming his death.

So the two most prestigious science journals are now crap.....is that what your saying, does the science community agree with your evaluation? 

One wouldn't expect to find all living things at the same level because some bloat and float before sinking and being covered in sediment.

Also, I have provided a directly observable and repeatable experiment which indicates that sedimentation happens in a short time, can you provide me with one that directly shows that it takes millions of years?

Dinosaurs were created on the same day as other animals until, like other animals died in the flood, with some becoming extinct and some with us still today.

 The article about scientists manipulating data comes from secular publications, Science or Nature magazines, from about two years ago, I do not recall which one it was but will look for the article.

The limitations of the dating method are well documented with many evolutionary scientists admitting that the results don't match their presuppositions (faith) and as a result they have also admitted, in publications, that they will fudge the figures to match their expected results. Personally, I prefer direct observation and repeatability to draw my conclusions. What one would expect to find from a global flood is millions of dead and fossilized animals buried in sediments laid down by water all over the globe, and that is what we find, how one interprets this evidence is the big difference.

Add various organisms, from the alleged simple and upwards,  into a container of water and sediments, shake it up and observe how everything settles, it simply doesn't take millions of years. Very few fossils  would likely form because decay and predators would destroy the dead animals before fossilization could occur

Actually 95% of fossils consist  of shallow marine animals which were likely the first to be buried whereas other animals with more mobility could survive longer and be buried higher in the sedimentary layers. Mammals tend to float to the surface and could be food and/or landing places for birds and their bodies would be destroyed so we would not expect to find as many mammal fossils. The fossils are not organized by complexity since even the simplest life forms are incredibly complex.

 The quick deposition of the sedimentary layers can easily be observed by putting various sediments with water in a large beaker or other container and shaking it up and watching the layers form within a few minutes.  

Fossils were created by dead animals being buried deep enough so that the natural elements, predators, scavengers, micro organisms etc. couldn't destroy them before fossilization could take place. A worldwide flood would provide very good conditions for this to occur.

So where in scripture are we told to venerate anyone other then God.

And as I said, calling ones biological father, father, is acceptable.

The Druids were pagan, so why would any Church emulate anything they do.

A Catholic priest I have known is my source of information regarding communion and other practises of the Catholic Church.

I haven't detailed any of the "others", so how do know what they are, let alone dismiss them as misinterpretations.

I mentioned the fact that the Catholic church considers Mary to be co-redeemer with Christ, also priests are referred to as father which the Bible says is only meant for God or ones biological father. Catholic Bishops also carry the cross on a long pole, which is a druid thing and communion is considered to be the actual blood and flesh of Christ whereas scripture proclaims it to be a symbol of the blood and flesh, and there are others as well, but that, of course, doesn't mean that individuals, including Catholics, can't be Christian if they reject these false teachings.

Individuals in any group can be Christian since it is an individual choice.

Catholic doctrine is often anti Christian such as considering Mary to be co redeemer with Christ, which is a concept nowhere to be found in the Bible.