> It seems
> that everytime a science problem comes up for the global flood, you say it
> was miraculous, but if you can explain it naturalistically, then you use
> science.
Someone who thinks complications of pulling off the Flood is evidence
against the Flood is using some real poor assumptions. God used all
the "magic" necessary to bring about what he wanted. If someone wants
to refute the Flood, he must do it by the complications of the Flood
explaining the modern world. If someone comes up with a natural
explanation for how God could have pulled off one less miracle in
producing the flood, so what?
The Flood was an act of God, not an act of nature. It is just as
unscientific as someone who chooses to believe in a natural
explanation for the world just because he dismisses acts of God
out of hand.
The burden of proof isn't on free-speech-loving Creationists of
faith, but on fascist censors who claim scientific authority.