Note:  The spam filter will not let me post a full response with hyperlinks to all the reference material.  As a consequence, I've had to break the comment into pieces and change the links to plain text; I've moved them to footnotes to avoid disrupting the flow.

As I said before, John, W., I don't have a problem with your religious beliefs.  I have problems with you lying.  And you tell quite a few whoppers, like this one:

I ain’t here to pick a fight

So that's why you came in here and said that the scientific data behind this event, and implicitly every geological date ever determined by anyone other than young-earth creationists, is bogus?

It is to laugh.

The same is true about your claim regarding the scientific method.  Since I'm an engineer and not a scientist, I'll just let Lenny Flank [1] (who was posting on the site where you should have moved your part of this discussion) have the floor for this one:

The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID’s claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5.

Lying isn't a very Christian thing to do, is it?  Is there a "for the sake of the faith" exception?

You seem to be practicing the "Gish gallop", posting falsehood after falsehood too voluminous to refute.  But I'll select a few more of your lies for review here.

Flood geologists employ and assume the laws of uniformity in their theory and field work. Yet they do not follow that road blindly to its end, but keep it in check with the assumption that God is real and has on occasions suspended the laws of nature

And of course, you can't reconcile that with making testable predictions, looking for observations to test those predictions (blasphemy!) and modifying your hypothesis until it fits the observations (heterodoxy).

Where is the delta from the Colorado river if it carried away that much rock?

It's in Baja California, just where you'd expect it.  I found some pictures [2] and a satellite view from Google maps [3].

Did someone tell you the Colorado river delta didn't exist?  And you believed them?  Maybe you're not a liar, maybe you're just extremely gullible.

[1] http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/cooper_nelson_s.html#comment-64516
[2] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=4732
[3] http://maps.google.com/maps?q=%22colorado+river+delta%22&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox&z=10&ll=31.889219,-114.976044&spn=0.797555,1.501007&t=k&om=1

(part 2)

Who can disprove this if one has shifted to the realm of the 'super-natural'?

Prove that this realm exists and has observable effects first.  Whoops, that's probably a violation of your special rules of natural theology or whatever you call it.

As for predictive power, yes, you're absolutely right: naturalistic/modern evolutionary theory has predictive power. No doubts about it. So does every other theory.

Is that so?  What predictive power did Plato's "noumena" have?  Could you get through steps 3, 4 and 5 with it?

Creation science also has enormous power to predict.

Does it tell you what you're going to find next, and where?

I'm amazed that you're still claiming the geologic column as a problem for conventional theory. 

Speak of the logical and physical impossibility of the column holding any credence after these finds of hundreds of polystratic fossils. They very strongly infer the strata are laid down rapidly.

The "uniformitarians" have a very simple explanation for these things:  some strata were laid down rapidly.  But not by supernatural events; they were laid down by floods, mudslides, volcanic eruptions and other things we see going on to this very day.  A flood can deposit several feet of material at once, no problem.  But it only happens in the area of a floodplain, and later erosion usually removes the material again.  Only when water levels are rising (or the land is sinking) do further deposits cover the flood sediments and have the potential to fossilize the evidence for posterity.

This is not a cherry-picking fringe argument: this is the bible of evolution: the geological column. When foundations are unearthed, the structures that rest on them are shaken; sometimes they collapse. Sounds like someone here is scared of this.

Keep telling yourself that, you'll have a better future... as a comedian.

if it's merely objective science it should welcome the scrutiny. Isn't that the way science advances?

Not when folks like you make religious claims to your own facts, like "God stepped in here and changed it, and conveniently didn't leave any evidence."

Today it is still only supported by circular reasoning. The rocks layers determine the date of the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks. ???

Wrong.  The sequence determines the rough date (older layers below, newer above... unless you REALLY think God is a liar and shuffled them like a deck of cards!) and the fossils determine which layers are contemporaneous.  And if flood geology is so scientific, why is it that all the radioisotope dating systems (e.g. potassium-argon dating [4]) agree with the standard geological dates and not your flood geology?

Even when rough dates for those strata were determined before radioactivity had even been discovered?

Ironies abound:

In the water all the trees that got blasted clean off the mountain were piled up in the water, they started to saturate, go end down slowly into the mud and rotting bark and other debris which is naturally stratifying via hydrologic sorting....

Hydrologic sorting means the heavier, coarser material always winds up below the lighter, finer material.  If the whole geologic column was hydrologically sorted, one would never... could never... find e.g. a sandstone on top of a shale.  Muds, silts and clays always sort above sand and gravel.  (In the Grand Canyon, the Coconino sandstone lies atop the Hermit shale [5].  And how do flood geologists explain all the different layers of limestone, which should all have sorted together?)  But let's see a criticism of Kent Hovind [6]:

Absolute rubbish. The hydrologic sorting idea was put forward by Young Earth Creationists to explain stratification as well as fossil distribution in a global flood scenario. Even if there were tides they would not disturb anything greater than the immediate surface. Secondly if such an absurd deep disturbance did occur then the sorting would be based upon density, which is not what has occurred.

You can get a jar [of mud] out of your yard here, put some water in it, shake it up and set it down it will settle out into layers for you. Hydrologic sorting.

But notice these layers are based upon density. Is there ever a heavy layer on top of a light layer?

Contradiction It is interesting that Hovind is asking people to perform an experiment then assume that the same properties applied in the past, in other words, he is relying on uniformitarianism but Hovind has above declared this concept to be in error.

Anyone who cares to read through the above link will note that it contains John W.'s entire thesis and also a complete refutation.  There is much more at [7] and [8].

But no, John, I don't hate you.  I'm sure you mean well, but you are far too credulous for anyone's good.  "Hate the sin, love the sinner."  Just go forth, and lie no more.

[4] http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html
[5] http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm
[6] http://www.kent-hovind.com/evolution/evolution.htm
[7] http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fossils_sorted_hydrologically
[8] http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/E.html

I have always conceived of the God of the Bible as an engineer before he is a king. Unlike any other king, he is the maker of his realm, and as a perfect being, he must clearly put perfect thought into perfect design and then into perfect form. I admit that I believe in the creation story, if just not quite the timeline that is literally associated with it by young Earth creationists. For certain reasons, reasons I won't go into, I can conceive of how it is possible.