Summations Only

This is true, but the sad fact is that the theories they came up with to demonstrate the Flood were pathetically unbiblical. It was therefore a straw man that was eventually overthrown by their continuing work. That fossils were rocks designed by God to look like living things was one such ridiculous idea that simply contradicts the character of God as presented in the Bible. All ideas of creation continuing to occur after the Creation Week of Genesis 1 are obvious violations of scripture, which clearly says God rested from His work on the seventh day. But that's biology, so I'll try to stick to the Flood. In fact they didn't "discover" anything, because it's all merely interpretation that can't be proven: they merely imagined the Old Earth into existence. Hutton made up a scenario to explain Siccar Point that would require such long ages, and thanks to Lyell his mere imaginings became enshrined as scientific fact, later supposedly validated by radiometric analysis, but that too is really only imagined into existence since there is absolutely no way to prove it, there being no witnesses from ancient history that confirm it, and at least one worthy witness that denies it. And here is that straw man: expecting that a "single layer" would demonstrate a Flood that covered the entire earth is a huge error, showing that they had no sense at all of the magnitude of such an event. The enormous geographical extent and the tremendous depth of the stacks of layers should have belied any notions of normal geological events. Their predominantly marine contents should likewise have suggested a single watery explanation for the whole shebang, rather than the silly rise-and-fall scenarios they came up with instead. Besides, their idea of "early in human history" is not the Bible's idea of early in human history. Everything in the Bible has to be fudged to bring it into accord with the sciences of the history of the earth. May God forgive them, but the Bible clearly indicates a young earth and contradicts the Old Earth as well as evolution in many ways. It takes convoluted thinking to fit the sciences of the past into the Bible. If there's one thing the Bible teaches it's that we are to trust God and not man, so those who try to give biblical rationalizations for such clearly antibiblical science-based ideas are seriously at fault. The Bible calls it "fear of man," which is a great sin. We are to fear God alone.More later, God willing.

You didn't read very carefully. They "discovered" that their straw man version of the Flood was false. Evidence of the actual Flood stares us in the face all the time; amazing how it's overlooked.

The problem is that "that time period" as determined by human fallible projections onto the past that can't be proved, is a fiction. Speaking only for myself, I haven't distorted anything. The strata are visible to all, the fossils are known to all, I've pointed out facts, I have not invented the evidence I've made use of. I've interpreted it differently and that's all. The Flood screams out from the evidence when you clear away the false interpretations of standard geology. Don't try to tell me the establishment interpretations haven't undergone similar guesses and errors because they certainly have. Errors in interpretation don't prove the main point wrong. I disagree with all those guesses myself, and even disagree with the most standard creationist YEC view since I think ALL the strata have to have been the result of the Flood whereas most of them confine it to the Paleozoic rocks and above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How you get away with your empty stuff is beyond me but over and over all you do is make unsubstantiated accusations. Stop pretending you've told me this or that as if you'd proved something, because when I've challenged you it becomes clear you are inventing stuff, at the very least misrepresenting me or the whole exchange. You should be called on this by the mods. You owe the reader at least a link to the discussion you claim occurred but you NEVER give one unless pushed.Original Flood geology was NOT the same as it is now: wherever it confined itself to one layer it misrepresents it, and the early ideas about fossils, which so clearly prove the Flood, were unbiblical silliness.And according to a biography of Hutton he arrived at his Old Earth conclusions from looking at Siccar Point. It hardly matters whether he "predicted" his false idea or "discovered" it on site: it's wrong.ABE: He was very familiar with the geology of Scotland, remembered seeing Siccar Point before and THEN went looking for it again because it illustrated his theory. Of course he GOT the theory from seeing it before anyway. If you look along the coast above Siccar Point, following drawings made by Lyell, you can see that this angular unconformity continues for some distance and was formed by the buckling of the lower strata beneath the upper horizontal strata. What would cause such even buckling but the resistance of the strata above? If the sections were in fact separated in time, when the upper were deposited why didn't they just fill in the spaces between the buckled segments? Why weren't the upper curves of those segments eroded away there as supposedly they were at Siccar Point? Obviously because the strata were already all there before the buckling occurred. Hutton's scenario is false.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

ABE: Rewrite for clarity:You give TWO different estimates by creationist organizations of the date of the Flood, AIG's 2200 to 2400 BC, which is based on the Bible, and ICR's 5000 to 10,000 years ago, which makes use of extrabiblical science. We "fundamentalists" generally accept the Bible-based date that AIG also accepts.Although there are only two different views given in your post you keep trying to inflate them into something bigger than that. A Bible-based date and a science-based date shouldn't be compared at all.You include a lot of undated extrabiblical information, as well as some incoherent references to the NIV, but none of that changes the numbers given above. 2200 to 2400 BC is pretty standard dating for the Flood among us "fundamentalists" who consider the Bible to be the final authority. There is really no great discrepancy as you keep trying to pretend, there's Bible-based dating and there's extrabiblical dating. The Biblical dating is quite consistent, putting the Flood somewhere around 4300 to 4500 years ago.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Can't find post where I successfully challenged one of your accusations along these lines.Turns out Lyell's drawing doesn't prove what I thought it proved so I withdraw that statement. My memory is really not good these days. Nevertheless I would continue to argue that where the strata bend or buckle there must have been a weight above that provided resistance or they would simply have broken instead.I have to find the book about Hutton to check my memory about how he arrived at Siccar Point for his argument. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The "historical period" as determined by extrabiblical science I gather? I don't worry about finding a "reasonable argument" for "lowering the chronology" with respect to the dating methods of science. Rather, science should be required to justify its deviations from the Bible instead. Either fallible manmade science is your authority or God's word.You seem to be trying to reconcile Biblical dates with extrabiblical methods of dating. That's a lost cause. You have to choose. I choose the Biblical dates.I don't have any reason to read Ginenthal. I'm not sure what your reason is for reading it. Sophistication is certainly no justification.

You missed my point. My point was that if they'd had a biblical frame of reference they might not have run afoul of science. Since they didn't have a biblical frame of reference a false science was able to take hold and NOW it's true that one must choose between science or God's word on the historical issues. Again you are misreading me. They were not doing either science or following the Bible. Their views of the fossils were both unbiblical and unscientific.Again, the "evidence" led them away from their ridiculous straw man versions of the Flood, not from the actual Flood. If they'd seen the fossils for what they are, and the strata as ALL formed by a worldwide depth of water, they could have had a very strong argument for the Flood. Instead they had a ridiculous argument so the "evidence" could lead them by the nose to even more ridiculous conclusions.

Haven't calculated it. Probably a few hundred years after the Flood. Didn't we just discuss this? Not a biblical concept. Moses wrote history so it began before him, sometime between Abraham and Moses then. I don't dictate anything. But God does. And not that it matters but 200 years is not 10% of 4000. Revelation is indeed a very different methodology from scientific calculations. Not all work, just the dating methods.

Then they had no reason to give it up. This constant refrain has turned out not to be true too many times so I pay no attention to it.

I don't doubt that the scientists are honest people, but trusting in fallible science over the Bible is a lost cause.And now you act as if there's something wrong with my not sharing your opinion of dates? And you don't even bother to give your opinion though you agonize excessively about it.Since the Flood occurred about 2200 BC or thereabouts, the dating of Egypt a thousand years earlier is wrong. Period.I can look up the biblical dates but your attitude doesn't inspire me to do so. Off the top of my head Abraham lived around 1900 BC and Moses some 4 to 500 years later. As long as you give no reason to care in the context of this discussion I'll leave it at that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In other words they fell for the nonsensical explanations of slabs of rocks as representing long periods of time.

You prefer extrabiblical information and judge me by it, which is utterly irrelevant since I consider the Bible to be the standard for all historical judgments it can be applied to. And if you want to be specific, I take the KJV as the most authentic, the newer translations all being based on the bogus revision of 1881 based on bogus Greek texts and further compromised by bad English translation. Debate does require some agreement on fundamentals. You and I share few to none.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is every reason to believe that the KJV is based on the oldest and best texts. I've studied the issues involved, and came to a conclusion different from yours. Is that OK with you?abe: Here's a good source.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But if the KJV is translated from texts that were copied from the original NT documents then whatever was in those NT documents got preserved in the KJV, unless there was good reason not to stick to the Septuagint, so what's the problem? In any case how could you have some other source of quotations of New Testament authors than through the texts that were copied from them? The originals are long gone and all that exist are copies. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.