[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If you watch the link above, he explains it better than I could. Of course, evidence of water far inland is evidence of a flood. The problem is that while I see evolution being harped, I don't see them talking about that. If that evidence is correct, then it shows some serious bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont agree that evidence of water far inland is evidence of a flood. It's evidence of water inland. Plenty of other explanations offer themselves (like a lake?).

I dont have time to watch 50 minutes, and I find it particularly difficult to wade through given his operating assumptions (he refers to the bible as being a book of history and science which I just flatly reject). Can you paraphrase the science, avoiding the religious parts? I dont expect a perfect summary, but if it's strong enough for you to reject evolution you can probably sum it up in a paragraph or two?