Myth About the Bible - Busted!

[CoreyD]

the biggest problem with all of the attempts to make the flood happen in a year, is it would kill everyone on the ark an all the fish. All that energy would build up and would super heat the water and the air.

Did anyone do an experiment on this? Are you certain?

 

[loveofourlord]

Ever read the story of Daniel's three friends in the burning, fiery furnace; and how God handled the heat problem?

Daniel 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

Here's a good question for you:

Do you think it's plausible that Jesus was on the Ark with them?

if god is going to do everything with a miracle why bother with the ark and drowning everyone? It's kinda silly to say, "Oh god protected everyone from the heat, but required a natural boat to survive."

 

[loveofourlord]

Did anyone do an experiment on this? Are you certain?

the same math you think proves the mountains could be faster proves that it would. it's basic physics, the amount of heat generated from moving that much dirt would fry the earths seas. you know how much heat an earthquake produces? Multply that by millions or what ever it would be.

 

[CoreyD]

OK, do it.

Kalaupapa, Hawaii - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Kalaupapa Peninsula remains one of the most remote locations in Hawaii due to unique volcanic and geologic activity over millions of years. Specifically, Molokai's famous sea cliffs, which reach up to three thousand feet above sea level and are among the tallest in the world, are most responsible for restricting access. Geologists thought that these cliffs were carved by wind and water erosion, but it is now believed that they formed after a third of the northern portion of the island collapsed into the sea.

Ames crater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Ames Crater is covered by about 9,000 feet (2,700 m) of sediment, so it is not visible from the surface. It was discovered only in 1991. Prior to its discovery, many geologists believed that impact craters were unlikely to contain petroleum. Wells had been drilled near the crater site since the 1960s, but none had been drilled within the crater. However, Continental Resources drilled deep into the crater. The well struck oil at a 10,000 feet (3,000 m) depth that initially produced about 200 barrels per day (32 m3/d).

The crater penetrated the Arbuckle Dolomite which resulted in vast amounts of oil and gas becoming accessible in the fractured rock. There were even rumors that the impact might have created diamonds. But no evidence of that was found. Iridium was also not found although it is used to identify astroblemes elsewhere.

Grand Coulee Dam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Grand Coulee is an ancient river bed on the Columbia Plateau created during the Pliocene Epoch (Calabrian) by retreating glaciers and floods. Originally, geologists believed a glacier that diverted the Columbia River formed the Grand Coulee, but it was revealed in the mid-late 20th century that massive floods from Lake Missoula carved most of the gorge.

Precambrian - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evidence of the details of plate motions and other tectonic activity in the Precambrian is difficult to interpret. It is generally believed that small proto-continents existed before 4280 Ma, and that most of the Earth's landmasses collected into a single supercontinent around 1130 Ma. The supercontinent, known as Rodinia, broke up around 750 Ma. A number of glacial periods have been identified going as far back as the Huronian epoch, roughly 2400–2100 Ma. One of the best studied is the Sturtian-Varangian glaciation, around 850–635 Ma, which may have brought glacial conditions all the way to the equator, resulting in a "Snowball Earth".[citation needed]

The atmosphere of the early Earth is not well understood. Most geologists believe it was composed primarily of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other relatively inert gases, and was lacking in free oxygen. There is, however, evidence that an oxygen-rich atmosphere existed since the early Archean.

At present, it is still believed that molecular oxygen was not a significant fraction of Earth's atmosphere until after photosynthetic life forms evolved and began to produce it in large quantities as a byproduct of their metabolism. This radical shift from a chemically inert to an oxidizing atmosphere caused an ecological crisis, sometimes called the oxygen catastrophe. At first, oxygen would have quickly combined with other elements in Earth's crust, primarily iron, removing it from the atmosphere. After the supply of oxidizable surfaces ran out, oxygen would have begun to accumulate in the atmosphere, and the modern high-oxygen atmosphere would have developed. Evidence for this lies in older rocks that contain massive banded iron formations that were laid down as iron oxides.

Caddo Lake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Caddo legend, the lake was formed by the 1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes. There may be some truth to the legend, as Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee has been documented as formed by that earthquake.

But most geologists believe that the lake was formed earlier, either gradually or catastrophically, by the "Great Raft", a 100 miles (161 km) log jam on the Red River in Louisiana. This likely caused flooding of the existing low-lying basin. According to a 1913-1914 survey that dated timber there, the lake formed about 1770 to 1780.

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The magnetic north and south poles reverse through time, and, especially important in paleotectonic studies, the relative position of the magnetic north pole varies through time. Initially, during the first half of the twentieth century, the latter phenomenon was explained by introducing what was called "polar wander" (see apparent polar wander) (i.e., it was assumed that the north pole location had been shifting through time). An alternative explanation, though, was that the continents had moved (shifted and rotated) relative to the north pole, and each continent, in fact, shows its own "polar wander path". During the late 1950s, it was successfully shown on two occasions that these data could show the validity of continental drift: by Keith Runcorn in a paper in 1956, and by Warren Carey in a symposium held in March 1956.

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, geologists assumed that Earth's major features were fixed, and that most geologic features such as basin development and mountain ranges could be explained by vertical crustal movement, described in what is called the geosynclinal theory. Generally, this was placed in the context of a contracting planet Earth due to heat loss in the course of a relatively short geological time.

It was observed as early as 1596 that the opposite coasts of the Atlantic Ocean—or, more precisely, the edges of the continental shelves—have similar shapes and seem to have once fitted together.

Since that time many theories were proposed to explain this apparent complementarity, but the assumption of a solid Earth made these various proposals difficult to accept.


I suppose that should be enough.

 

[CoreyD]

I could be wrong, but I feel that I know for certain that your interpretation of the geology of the earth and the AV's will be different.

It is highly likely that the interpretation I accept, is different to his, yes. Why?

 

[CoreyD]

the same math you think proves the mountains could be faster proves that it would. it's basic physics, the amount of heat generated from moving that much dirt would fry the earths seas. you know how much heat an earthquake produces? Multply that by millions or what ever it would be.

I quite understand what you are saying.
However, let me ask... if a growth spurt rate is 2,051 feet in 1 million years (which is an estimation rounded to a million, rather than a precise figure, why is it impossible for a growth spurt to be greater, in less time?

 

[CoreyD]

Faith in what? Faith in Christ? Or faith in the literal inerrancy of Scripture?

I believe she meant faith in God. However, you'd have to ask her, to be sure.

 

[loveofourlord]

I quite understand what you are saying.
However, let me ask... if a growth spurt rate is 2,051 feet in 1 million years (which is an estimation rounded to a million, rather than a precise figure, why is it impossible for a growth spurt to be greater, in less time?

as it was poitned out many times in the past, the change in how fast a mountain can grow by scientists is like saying a football field is a few steps shorter. what your proposing is akin to say new york is only a few dozen miles from LA, not even remoly on the same scale or related.

Also phsyics says that, you know the thing that isn't possible to get wrong, as it's based on math.

 

[CoreyD]

Faith in what? Faith in Christ? Or faith in the literal inerrancy of Scripture?

I believe she meant faith in God. However, you'd have to ask her, to be sure.

What goes through your mind, when you see scientists deny the virgin birth on the grounds that Jesus was a male, and it takes a male father to supply the y-chromosome?

Those scientists that do? Well, they are materialists, or naturalist, or whatever name they take.
It's expected.

There were so many people who did not believe in the supernatural, and miracles, but now they do.
I am certain that those with the right heart, will investigate the Bible, in search for truth, and will find it.

On the other hand, pride is at the root of heart of sinful mankind, and most people relish in it - BAs, PHDs, etc. These mean a lot to people - and these won't find the truth.
Even if they see it, they will let it go. Matthew 13:19
Otherwise, it will be materialism, riches, fame and glory, that robs people of the truth... Matthew 13:22 and these are many. Matthew 7:13, 14

Or what goes through your mind when you see the Flood denied, because there should be "watermarks" all over the earth of this event?

Many are truly sincere.
For some people, seeing physically, is believing. Although in some cases, that depends on what they want to see.
You are aware that most people do not like to be ridiculed with words similar to, "You believe that nonsense."
This is a hindrance, but it reveals what's inside the heart. Matthew 13:20, 21

Or what goes through your mind when you hear the Jews referred to as "ignorant, goat herding, desert nomads"?

Exactly.
Most people do not like that, but I love it. I LOL, because I know what they don't.
Remember, Jesus said,

“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household! Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.​

“Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows."​

Matthew 10:24-31

There are so many scripture that remind us of the joy God gives to those who trust him, that I can't quote all of them.
They laughed at Noah. "that idiot building a big box." You think it bothered Noah, and his sons? No. They went on building.

The Bible says Noah condemned the world. Why?
Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in godly fear built an ark to save his family. By faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

When they flogged the disciples, and told them to quit talking about Jesus, what did the disciples do?
The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Acts 5:41

They do not understand faith.
They have no idea about the joy that is from God. Galatians 5:22
I say, if they knew, they would become a follower of Christ. That's why I preach to all people, because some do come to know, and experience the joy of God's people.
Everyone is given that chance.

So, I see it as it is. It doesn't bother me.
I'd be angry if I did not know God. I haven't seen Richard lately. I hope he is well.

Or what goes through your mind when you hear we are "mutant, copy errors" made in the image and likeness of God?

Man, you got me cracking up.
I've never heard these before, but if I heard that, this would be my reaction , and I am not laughing at the person that said it. I just will automatically burst out laughing, because it does not affect me negatively.

I'm thinking about the person, and what they do not know, but what I would like them to know, and I will try to find a way to share that with them

I could go on and on and on ...

Please don't.
I think I've laughed hard enough for the day.

I'd say, if you have strong faith in God, and you are 1000% sure God is, you have more than what they can offer. Think about that, and you will quickly realize whom the ignorant are.
Many people have turned to God, and are happier that they have ever been.

 

[dlamberth]

It is highly likely that the interpretation I accept, is different to his, yes. Why?

Because your making a big deal if scientist have different interpretations.

 

[CoreyD]

as it was poitned out many times in the past, the change in how fast a mountain can grow by scientists is like saying a football field is a few steps shorter. what your proposing is akin to say new york is only a few dozen miles from LA, not even remoly on the same scale or related.

Also phsyics says that, you know the thing that isn't possible to get wrong, as it's based on math.

Nah.
You know as well as I do, that what scientist have said... what scientists believe... what scientists tell us... is not alway correct, and/or accurate, and we have seen many times over, how many millions of years have been cut off of previous estimations. I refered to one earlier - The Moon Is Millions of Years Younger Than We Thought, but there are many.

You know this, so I think you are just "playing the fiddle" here, if you get what I mean.
The universe may be billions of years younger than we thought

New calculations point to an age of 11.4 billion years rather than the generally accepted number of 13.7 billion years.​

New research suggest the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, according to researchers using observations from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) in Chile.

New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as previously believed

Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called "impossible early galaxy problem."​

I'm correct, aren't I?

Aside from the fact that I have solid reasons for believing the Bible is true, this adds emphasis to why sticking to the Bible will not lead us wrong, but science claims will.
The assumptions are built on, and the conclusions follow the same path the assumptions do.
When one is wrong, the other is also.

The Bible does not change. However, in time, the new data that is truly valid, does align with what the Bible said thousands of years ago.
The strongest evidence for the flood, is the Bible, and while there is evidence of an external kind out there, we don't need to rely on that evidence.

 

[CoreyD]

Because your making a big deal if scientist have different interpretations.

I was just explaining why what you were saying was not correct, in that the earth and rocks do not speak, but the interpretation do, and oftentimes are not correct. That's all. Sorry if that was wrong for me to do.

 

[CoreyD]

Sounds good to me.

One more question, please.

Should scientists see Israel as "the promised land"?

Or should scientists view Israel as just a geopolitical entity that was given to them by the British?

Whatever they see it as, is fine by me.
Everyone has beliefs. What they believe does not change the facts.

 

[dlamberth]

Kalaupapa, Hawaii - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Kalaupapa Peninsula remains one of the most remote locations in Hawaii due to unique volcanic and geologic activity over millions of years. Specifically, Molokai's famous sea cliffs, which reach up to three thousand feet above sea level and are among the tallest in the world, are most responsible for restricting access. Geologists thought that these cliffs were carved by wind and water erosion, but it is now believed that they formed after a third of the northern portion of the island collapsed into the sea.

Ames crater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Ames Crater is covered by about 9,000 feet (2,700 m) of sediment, so it is not visible from the surface. It was discovered only in 1991. Prior to its discovery, many geologists believed that impact craters were unlikely to contain petroleum. Wells had been drilled near the crater site since the 1960s, but none had been drilled within the crater. However, Continental Resources drilled deep into the crater. The well struck oil at a 10,000 feet (3,000 m) depth that initially produced about 200 barrels per day (32 m3/d).

The crater penetrated the Arbuckle Dolomite which resulted in vast amounts of oil and gas becoming accessible in the fractured rock. There were even rumors that the impact might have created diamonds. But no evidence of that was found. Iridium was also not found although it is used to identify astroblemes elsewhere.

Grand Coulee Dam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Grand Coulee is an ancient river bed on the Columbia Plateau created during the Pliocene Epoch (Calabrian) by retreating glaciers and floods. Originally, geologists believed a glacier that diverted the Columbia River formed the Grand Coulee, but it was revealed in the mid-late 20th century that massive floods from Lake Missoula carved most of the gorge.

Precambrian - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evidence of the details of plate motions and other tectonic activity in the Precambrian is difficult to interpret. It is generally believed that small proto-continents existed before 4280 Ma, and that most of the Earth's landmasses collected into a single supercontinent around 1130 Ma. The supercontinent, known as Rodinia, broke up around 750 Ma. A number of glacial periods have been identified going as far back as the Huronian epoch, roughly 2400–2100 Ma. One of the best studied is the Sturtian-Varangian glaciation, around 850–635 Ma, which may have brought glacial conditions all the way to the equator, resulting in a "Snowball Earth".[citation needed]

The atmosphere of the early Earth is not well understood. Most geologists believe it was composed primarily of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other relatively inert gases, and was lacking in free oxygen. There is, however, evidence that an oxygen-rich atmosphere existed since the early Archean.

At present, it is still believed that molecular oxygen was not a significant fraction of Earth's atmosphere until after photosynthetic life forms evolved and began to produce it in large quantities as a byproduct of their metabolism. This radical shift from a chemically inert to an oxidizing atmosphere caused an ecological crisis, sometimes called the oxygen catastrophe. At first, oxygen would have quickly combined with other elements in Earth's crust, primarily iron, removing it from the atmosphere. After the supply of oxidizable surfaces ran out, oxygen would have begun to accumulate in the atmosphere, and the modern high-oxygen atmosphere would have developed. Evidence for this lies in older rocks that contain massive banded iron formations that were laid down as iron oxides.

Caddo Lake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Caddo legend, the lake was formed by the 1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes. There may be some truth to the legend, as Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee has been documented as formed by that earthquake.

But most geologists believe that the lake was formed earlier, either gradually or catastrophically, by the "Great Raft", a 100 miles (161 km) log jam on the Red River in Louisiana. This likely caused flooding of the existing low-lying basin. According to a 1913-1914 survey that dated timber there, the lake formed about 1770 to 1780.

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The magnetic north and south poles reverse through time, and, especially important in paleotectonic studies, the relative position of the magnetic north pole varies through time. Initially, during the first half of the twentieth century, the latter phenomenon was explained by introducing what was called "polar wander" (see apparent polar wander) (i.e., it was assumed that the north pole location had been shifting through time). An alternative explanation, though, was that the continents had moved (shifted and rotated) relative to the north pole, and each continent, in fact, shows its own "polar wander path". During the late 1950s, it was successfully shown on two occasions that these data could show the validity of continental drift: by Keith Runcorn in a paper in 1956, and by Warren Carey in a symposium held in March 1956.

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, geologists assumed that Earth's major features were fixed, and that most geologic features such as basin development and mountain ranges could be explained by vertical crustal movement, described in what is called the geosynclinal theory. Generally, this was placed in the context of a contracting planet Earth due to heat loss in the course of a relatively short geological time.

It was observed as early as 1596 that the opposite coasts of the Atlantic Ocean—or, more precisely, the edges of the continental shelves—have similar shapes and seem to have once fitted together.

Since that time many theories were proposed to explain this apparent complementarity, but the assumption of a solid Earth made these various proposals difficult to accept.


I suppose that should be enough.

The subject as I understood it is that there is zero geological evidence of a Global Noah type of flood. So I was expecting something from you about the geology of that flood. So far you have come presented nothing regarding it.

 

[CoreyD]

The subject as I understood it is that there is zero geological evidence of a Global Noah type of flood. So I was expecting something from you about the geology of that flood. So far you have come presented nothing regarding it.

That's not the subject, but may I ask, where you saw it was the subject?
I gave you what you asked for, didn't I?

 

[AV1611VET]

if god is going to do everything with a miracle why bother with the ark and drowning everyone? It's kinda silly to say, "Oh god protected everyone from the heat, but required a natural boat to survive."

Think about it.

Noah warned the people for 120 years that a worldwide flood was coming.

This gave them plenty of time to repent and get saved.

But Noah just didn't go around warning people ... no ... he was doing something about it himself by building an ark.

This was a powerful testimony to the world that Noah believed what he was preaching.

James sums this up nicely:

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[sjastro]

You did? Would you be able to say which question you answered?

sjastro said:
Scientists are not making assumptions but using evidence based on GPS, geodetic data, thermochronology, strath terrace dating, sediment analysis, isostatic compensation and geological markers.

That is what you said, and I asked you to "Please clarify. Are you saying no assumptions are made here?"
I asked because your statement is not true.
In all those methods, or models, assumptions are made.

You notice you did not answer the question?

This is one of the better foot in mouth jobs I have come across in a while.
You ask a question which I answered and then you seek clarification on GPS, geodetic data, thermochronology, strath terrace dating, sediment analysis, isostatic compensation and geological markers thinking you have me in gotcha moment because they are models based on assumptions.
The joke is well and truly on you as they are not models based on assumptions but experimental and observational methods which generate evidence or data which is used to either support the model in question or disprove it.

To put it in a language you understand evidence ≠ assumptions.
You are surely familiar with GPS and use to navigate from point A to point B which is based on the data supplied by GPS and not a model based on assumptions.

Based on the assumption that the rate is constant, slow and gradual, they do.
We have passed that stage, though. Or at least I thought we did.

Once again you struggle to differentiate between evidence and assumptions.
Take a look at the graph in post #148, it is based on evidence using various methods such as described earlier in this post which you mistook for being models.
The evidence clearly shows mountain ranges such as the Himalayas are not moving at a constant slow gradual rate for the reasons also described in that post.

I used it as an example.
Persons were limiting it. Are you doing that as well?

No you used a false dichotomy fallacy in an attempt to justify the existence of the flood.

Your figures are at least correct.
There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans.
A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from.

Genesis 7:11 'all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.'
Water came from beneath, and water goes in the earth as well.

You are doing yourself no favours with this exhibition of dishonest quote mining.

The source of where water comes from is determined by its isotopic ratios deuterium/hydrogen ratio D/H and ¹⁸O/¹⁶O.
Water on the surface and in the atmosphere have different ratios to water in the mantle as it is affected by the hydrological cycle.

If the flood came from the mantle around 4500 years ago the ratios would be lower.
The source of water coming from the mantle as determined by the isotopic ratios comes from volcanos instead in minimal amounts.

Then there is the obvious problem if the flood came from the mantle explain how it disappeared after a year and don’t use Geneses as a reference.

If all factors are not taken into consideration, and included, I can see how this conclusion is reached.

The factors that should be taken into consideration is the lack of evidence which supports a flood which you have avoided like the plague like no evidence of mass extinctions, no evidence of global sedimentation, no evidence of erosion caused by the flood, no evidence of global marine deposits on mountain tops, no evidence of the disruption of tree ring patterns or no evidence of disruption of volcanic ash in ice core samples.

There are Basic assumptions of science, and you deny this, so I think we need to clarify this first.
I checked GPS, and geodetic data, and these both use assumptions.

If you actually attempted to understand the link you provided, the assumption being made is science is based on naturalism as its origins come from Greek philosophy.

What you have made perfectly clear amongst the confusion in your post is the zero understanding of how theories work.
While scientific theories are based on assumptions called postulates they must be falsifiable or in other words testable.
This is the part you don’t get, experiments and observations generate evidence which either supports or disprove theories.

I have emboldened the final sentence in your post as your conclusion is nonsense.
Let me reiterate evidence ≠ assumptions.

 

[dlamberth]

That's not the subject, but may I ask, where you saw it was the subject?
I gave you what you asked for, didn't I?

Not at all.
Go to post 179, 181, 184, 191, 195

 

[BCP1928]

I believe she meant faith in God. However, you'd have to ask her, to be sure.

It's a point worth clearing up, don't you think? The way you speak of faith in God and acceptance of literal inerrancy (in this case a literal global flood) it's as if you thought the two were interchangeable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nah.
You know as well as I do, that what scientist have said... what scientists believe... what scientists tell us... is not alway correct, and/or accurate, and we have seen many times over, how many millions of years have been cut off of previous estimations. I refered to one earlier - The Moon Is Millions of Years Younger Than We Thought, but there are many.

This is a weird obsession or misunderstanding that you share with others. Science works by making the best model of some system or object or process based on the best available information and data and continuing to check those results and update the model. Modifying the conclusion to include additional or better measured data is not only part of the process.

You know this, so I think you are just "playing the fiddle" here, if you get what I mean.
The universe may be billions of years younger than we thought

New calculations point to an age of 11.4 billion years rather than the generally accepted number of 13.7 billion years.​

Not new calculations or a new age for the universe, but a new method for measuring distance finds a value of the Hubble constant. A value, that within the *presented* error bars, on the edge of consistency with the previously measured value. The paper referenced in the NBC news article does not actually give an age for the Universe. It was the first time out for a new and untested method with unknown issues.

New research suggest the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, according to researchers using observations from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) in Chile.

New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as previously believed

Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called "impossible early galaxy problem."​

That whole study was built upon a model for the evolution of the "standard objects" that was grossly erroneous as I discussed in a different thread many months ago. Short answer, that study is junk built on a pile of garbage.

I'm correct, aren't I?

Nope, you take entirely the wrong lesson from the refinement of understanding from new data in science.

Aside from the fact that I have solid reasons for believing the Bible is true, this adds emphasis to why sticking to the Bible will not lead us wrong, but science claims will.
The assumptions are built on, and the conclusions follow the same path the assumptions do.
When one is wrong, the other is also.

The Bible does not change. However, in time, the new data that is truly valid, does align with what the Bible said thousands of years ago.
The strongest evidence for the flood, is the Bible, and while there is evidence of an external kind out there, we don't need to rely on that evidence.

A conclusion that does not change when confronted with contradictory data is not a good conclusion.