Summations Only

I've said nothing that doesn't reflect the belief of thie historical traditional Protestant Church. Trying to make it out to be MY particular belief that I'm asking to be taken seriously is pretty devious of you. I'm asking that the historical religion of Jesus Christ be taken seriously. But I gather that perhaps nobody here knows a thing about the history of these things. That's too bad. You don't know the Protestant foundations of England and America.None of this includes my arguments about geology for which I've only asked that you think about them. Those arguments are mine, but they are also the arguments of creationist scientists, but nobody is asking worship of such things, just consideration.Really sad.

They are wildly and obviously differnt, even to the naked eye. Sure is. All rocks are part of the geological column.

Then given what I have just explained to you, if that is what you are saying, you are a goddamned liar.Look up the Coconino Sandstone. Look up the Muav Limestone. Their "general APPEARANCE, their CONDITION" is as different as two sedimentary rocks can be. One is sandstone, the other is limestone. They are different colors. One has footprints in it, the other has no footprints in it. One exhibits cross-bedding, the other does not. One contains no marine fossils, the other contains many.I defy you, I defy you, to name me any two sedimentary rocks that are more dissimilar.And yet what you say to me about the rocks of the Grand Canyon is that "There is no difference in their appearance one from another", and you tell me that real geology can't explain why there is no difference between them (which there is) whereas you tell me that flood geology can explain why there is "no difference in their appearance".THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR APPEARANCE.Now if you didn't mean to say what you said, then take a deep breath, think again, and say what you wish that you had said. But what you actually said is the stupidest thing that anyone has ever said about geology since the last time you posted.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We, and others, have thought about your arguments. They were shown to be false about 200 years ago, and nothing's changed since then.You obviously haven't looked an any photographs of geological formations, or visited any. "Not an iota of differnce!" Why should anyone take your incompetent rehashings of long-refuted arguments seriously?

quote:

---

I've said nothing that doesn't reflect the belief of thie historical traditional Protestant Church

---

Protestantism has a lot of branches, and I'm pretty sure that most of them don't insist that it's a sin to disagree with literalist or even inerrantist views of the Bible.

quote:

---

Trying to make it out to be MY particular belief that I'm asking to be taken seriously is pretty devious of you. I'm asking that the historical religion of Jesus Christ be taken seriously. But I gather that perhaps nobody here knows a thing about the history of these things. That's too bad. You don't know the Protestant foundations of England and America.

---

Funny how your ignorance doesn't invalidate your views on geology. And I would suggest that "taking seriously" doesn't require believing. And I dare say that you know rather less than you think, given your willingness to believe anti-Catholic propaganda.

quote:

---

None of this includes my arguments about geology for which I've only asked that you think about them. Those arguments are mine, but they are also the arguments of creationist scientists, but nobody is asking worship of such things, just consideration.

---

Well that's funny. Are you seriously claiming that the "historical Protestant church" holds that a global Flood 4300 years ago MUST either produce deposits equivalent to the entire geological column or leave no evidence that would be discernible to us? Or is this one of your arguments about geology ?And is it not true that when people disagree with your arguments or come to conclusions that you don't like that you call them stupid or blind ?And is it not true that you insist that all proper geology must be done on the basis that your religious beliefs be assumed to be unquestionably correct ?

The bible was not written in modern english. The bible says the whole "eretz". It means the whole "land". What was the land to noah? It certainly wasn't the concept of the massive square footage we call the surface of the planet earth today. Every part of the "eretz" that noah knew about was indeed covered 15 cubits in water and did wipe out all life in the black sea basin. I have come to learn that english translations of a hebrew bible do not always get the full original meaning across.

Yes, that good so far. Now on to the next step.Do you know what schist looks like?Do you know what it is made from?And exactly which early stage of the flood?

Hi Faith,This is one part of YEC thinking that I have a lot of trouble with: Why do you say this? Why does this flood cause this massive amount of scouring in the early stages? All I see is reference to rain, which causes some erosion, but not whole mountains in one whack.Do you have a specific biblical reference that specifically says that this occurs?Enjoy.

God wrote the rocks, man wrote the Bible.

You really need to check the "facts" you ask us to believe. A quick google search shows that the above claim is off by a factor of 5,000-10,000x. I think some of the sites you are frequenting are outright lying to you and you need to be more cautious about accepting their "facts" without verifying them yourself.

If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths.

http://askville.amazon.com/...ed-Inquisition/AnswerViewer.do

But according to Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome and curator of the 783-page volume released yesterday, only 1% of the 125,000 people tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain were executed.

Historians say Inquisition wasn't that bad | World news | The GuardianI checked a little more and one site estimates the population of Europe, in AD 1500--from Scandinavia to Greece--was about 50 million.http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/handouts/Population.htm

This is true for both sides in this debate. We see what we believe. Some believe in science--logic, reason, and reality. Others believe that it all starts with the Bible and must conform as such.Even within that group there are disagreements...between people who have studied scriptures, no less.Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe in Young Earth Creationism...am I right? And yes, I have studied Ken Ham, but I am not fully convinced of his credibility---he is at odds with mainstream science. It seems that I either have to believe that mainstream science is somehow supernaturally deluded...seeing only what they believe in(Logic, reason, reality, empiricism) or that somehow the religious folks are deluded and/or discredited by trying to tie every premise in to fit with their prior conclusion.Personally, I consider myself an honest believer/truth seeker who sees a God big enough to bridge these gaps...wherever that may take the fact.

I need to get back to studying the history of the Inquisition, but one thing I've been gathering is that you cannot trust any statistics or descriptions of it written since about 1920 because of a well organized effort to alter the truth. Internet sources are not going to be reliable at all. You have to dig for this information. I am trying to get hold of some old books, which I keep hearing quoted, but my finances aren't the greatest. This went on OFFICIALLY for 600 years, and unofficially a lot longer than that. At the number I gave that would be about 110,000 deaths a year, sorry, a century, so about 11,000 a year.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, Phat, if you don't take the Bible as God's own word then anything is possible. If you do take it as His word then He is the one who defines how "big" He is and what the truth is. As scripture says, Let every man be a liar but God be true. If you think science trumps the word of God you can pretty much make up God for yourself. He might have something to say about that that you wouldn't like to hear.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This Flood was huge. It rained torrents for 40 days over the entire earth, the whole globe. A heavy rain now for just a few days in a local area can cause terrible mudslides, so multiply that effect appropriately. There was also another source of water, the "fountains of the deep" and the water covered the entire land mass of the earth and stood there for months. This can't just be "some erosion" or anything on a scale we can compare to our own time.

I'm sorry to hear that. You have no idea how good the King James translators were. Well, Forever, you've made your choice.By the way, maybe you should spend some time at the Biblical Geology site I linked upthread a ways. It really isn't necessary to give in to the unbelievers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.