"I explained the evidence in this comment. This part of my comment was not refuted."
Yeah, I gave up at that point, since it was simply becoming a repetitive cycle of "Assertion, Refutation, Reassertion", with no movement towards a resolution. You explain nothing, pretend that claims are evidence of themselves, and completely throw out reason. But if you want to, we can play again. It won't get us anywhere, since you are either too stubborn, too dense, or too willfully ignorant to move from the position you've decided.
"If the Gospels were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, then why were they called those names and be told in their perspectives. "
If you didn't post the song, why is it attributed to you?
"How did Christianity form if Joshua of Nazareth was not the Christ. Why would people in Judea start converting to a new religion?"
How did Germanic paganism form if Odin is not a god and the Eddas are false? Why did people in the area covert?
"The difference between Christ and Mohammad is that Mohammad was a false prophet..."
Christ was a false messiah. In this case, I use the same exact logic as you. Blind assertions do not work as arguments.
"Christ on the other hand had much more eyewitnesses including the disciples."
None of whom recorded their testimony. If the book says "500 people saw this happen", you still have one single account, not 500. At best, you can claim four examples of eyewitness testimony. However, the gospels were later writings that were based off of other sources, so you actually have no eyewitness testimony.
"The genesis story being told orally sounds much more plausible then your magic monkeys theory."
And a scientifically sound story is much much much more plausible than "magic man did it!", with no evidence to back it up.
"The chronology I was referring to was the Chronology of the Bible, adding up the generations."
The bible's validity is being questioned. You cannot use the bible as evidence of the bible's validity. That would be circular reasoning.
In other words, I ask why you think the bible is true, and you claim the bible is true because the bible says it's true.
"It is the chronology that gives the Earth the date of around 6000 years. I was asking, what events were recorded in 2304 BC that conflict with the Flood narrative. I don’t think there are any."
For one, the uninterrupted survival of many civilizations during that time period, across the entire world.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#history will give a bit of information.
See also: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Things_that_happened_during_the_Great_Flood
"Giants were still around after the flood because either demons continued to mate with humans after the flood creating giants or Noah’s corrupt son Ham snuck a Nephillim wife on board."
Wouldn't god have stopped the sneaking of a giant onboard, since it was against his plan? Also, please provide evidence of demons existing before positing them as an explanation for anything.
"The Paluxy River tracks was some of the evidence I used in the article."
The tracks are dinosaur tracks, unrelated to any human activity. They have been examined and refuted many times over.
"It was well researched, provided good information, and has citations at the bottom."
It's not well-researched if it uses the Paluxy tracks as evidence for anything other than dinosaurs. The failure on this point calls into question the validity of the entirety of the whole.
"Powerful floodwaters can indeed push mud and rocks around."
No kidding. That's not what you were arguing, however. Shifting the goalposts is not valid argumentation.
"This explains the stratification layers https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/experiments-on-stratification-of-heterogeneous-sand-mixtures/"
No. It explains some mechanisms of localized stratification under certain conditions. However, it does not explain the widespread stratification of massive layers of sedimentary rock, the fossils found within, the clear timeline established, and the utterly complete stratification chronology. Let us know when that rabbit turns up in Precambrian strata.
"I was asking how the animals that became fossils got buried under the ground had it not been for a flood. Animals don’t bury their dead! Dead animal corpses usually decay above the ground."
Some animals fall into water when they die. Some are killed and buried by the same cause, such as a mudslide. Dry areas can lead to animal corpses drying out before decay, and subsequently being buried. Note that most animal fossils actually do result from marine environments, though. Yes, most remains do decay. That's why fossils are so damn rare.
"Radiometeic dating is flawed because it assumes that the rocks decayed at the same rate without outside interference. It is known to produce inaccurate measurements. Often scientists discard measurements that conflict with the supposed time period.”"
Please provide evidence of said "outside interference" before trying to use it as an argument. Radiometric dating has been independently verified many times over, and corroborates with the geological and fossil timelines, as well as other independent radiometric methods. Inaccurate measurements do indeed occur. Often, these are the result of applying the wrong test to a sample, or scientist being misled by dishonest creationists as to the conditions. When the conditions are corrected for, accurate dates can be obtained.
There you go. Refuted arguments. Of course, you'll just come back with another round of "Nu-uh! I'm right and you're wrong!" Then you'll post the same arguments in slightly different words, make some more blind assertions, or dig up some more arguments that have been previously refuted a thousand times. Maybe accuse me of working for MI6, too.
