Ok, so a single flood event didn't do that. Now what?
Many creationists hold that all strata was laid down in a single worldwide flood. Just to be clear, that's not in the cards.
Science is littered with it's errors, what's true today may not be true tomorrow. It's conclusions concerning this flood is not to be trusted, in other words.
Now that's just not true. While an ever-expanding amount of evidence can allow well-established ideas to be overturned, it is an iterative, not an inventive, process. That is to say, Newtonian physics was
wrong, but the error was small enough for it still to be useful. Einsteinian physics didn't
replace Newtonian physics, it
refined it. In other words, while "officially" science cannot offer us the truth, it offers us a method of getting ever closer to the truth, and many things that can be taken as truth. A mustard seed is not the smallest plant seed. No amount of new data will change that fact. The earth is not flat. No amount of new data will change that fact. We have dated rocks to be billions of years old. Again, it basically doesn't matter what new data is revealed; it almost certainly will not change that fact.
I mean, just to be clear. If a theory in science is proven wrong, that means any correct predictions made by that theory were lucky coincidences. What this means for, say, radiometric dating, is that somehow, countless scientists
just got lucky when they dated samples of known age correctly. That's kinda crazy.
I've found the bible to be extremely trustworty so now I have a decision to make. Do I trust ever changing science which, by the admission of some isn't interested in truth, or do I trust the bible which has given me life.
Science isn't interested in "the truth" because "truth" is a philosophical concept, but it boils down to pretty much the same thing, colloquially. The purpose of science is making correct and useful models of reality which we can base predictions off of. If these models are inaccurate - that is, if the claims they make are untrue - then they will almost certainly be useless when it comes to predicting reality.
I trust the bible and reject the conclusions of 'science' which disputes the biblical story.
Why? What epistemology have you used to determine that the bible is trustworthy? You say it's been reliable; what does that mean? Have you been able to use it to make predictions? To create new technology? To better understand the world? I mean, you're denigrating the method that allows you to talk to jerkwads across the world on a box of lights made up of billions of tiny switches which communicates at near light-speed with
other boxes made up of billions of tiny switches.
Here's a consideration for you - science is always changing; how do you know your computer won't suddenly explode? Because that's not how science works. Science is built upon observation and interpretation of data. The data itself
does not change. In order to replace one interpretation with another, you need an explanation which more accurately explains all the available data, and is thus
more certain than the previous one. You don't understand the thing you're fighting against. I strongly recommend reading IronChariot's
article on the subject.
Rivers meander and they meander during a flood. I live near the Mississippi River and if one were to look on a map, you'd find that over the past 200 years, new meandering channels have been cut during the many floods (before the river was 'engineered' with levees). Some of the channels are almost gone, but the state lines still follow the old riverbed and when you think you're in one state in the current channel, you're actually in another.
Lots of flooding and lots of meandering and lots of erosion changes lots of land.
Cite? Preferably from some source that actually knows a thing or two about geology?
