The TRVE history of the Flood...

And it did. No it didn't have to harden. Limestone is easily dissolved and that would have happened soon after its deposition. Karsts and caves would have formed almost immediately. See above. Why should that take a long time? It has been demonstrated that these things form very rapidly. YOUR scenario is ridiculous. The last stages didn't need to happen within the Flood year, why would they? They form a lot faster than you imagine but all they'd need is a few years at most. I doubt you were going spelunking 4200 years ago.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is nothing intuitive about my assessment of the OE interpretaion of the strata. Don't confuse my simple statement of KNOWING IT'S STUPID with relying on intuition, what I mean is that when you think it through it's utterly absurd. Believe me I've thought it through over and over.What's intuitive and unwarranted is your throwing out the whole Flood explanation based on your ridiculous impression of how long it would take to form limestone caves, acquired from spelunking. You come along with that ignorant idea and lay it on me as if it gives you some sort of scientific authority over Flood creationists. Maybe when YOU apply your shallow intuition to studying the details, it collapses for you, but that's a judgment on you, not the theory. I've BEEN studying the details of how the Flood explains the strata for years and years -- not "Flood Geology" as some kind of doctrine set in concrete, but the Flood as the obvious explanation when you think through all the geological facts.I've got the book you recommend. I've also got two other books on the Grand Canyon that are much much better.Think through the strata, there is no way they were ever time periods that lasted millions of years in a sequence that covered hundreds of millions of years. Their physical form denies it, their fossil contents deny it. Pathetic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Walther's Law itself is such an evidence, because it shows that the layers accumulate one on top of another in a relatively short period of time, as sea level rises, really just about simultaneously. Experiments done in sedimentology by Guy Berthault show the accumulation of layers simultaneously in the flume, one accumulating on top of another. As a model of how the strata were laid down it is strong evidence that 1) The strata formed a lot more rapidly than is normally thought; 2) Their fossil contents would also have been deposited rapidly and not in some time-defined order, which pretty much blows the whole ToE scenario.Then I was pondering the fact that trilobites appear in the Geologic Time Scale over a huge range of time periods, from the Cambrian through the Silurian and Devonian and Carboniferous, and even the Permian, relatively unchanged. Varied yes, but all clearly trilobites with basically identical morphology.That led me to coelacanths which also show up in fossil form over quite a long period in the Geo Time Scale, from Devonian through Tertiary, and then surprised everybody by also turning up living in this world, all of them varying only very slightly from one to another, the same kind of situation as the trilobites. There are probably other similar examples, of fossils that appear in a large range of "time periods" showing hardly any morphological/genetic changes. Those called "living fossils" seem to follow the same pattern.This SHOULD raise the question why it is assumed that of two entirely different creatures appearing in the Geo Column one on top of the other that the upper evolved from the lower, no matter how much morphological difference would have to evolve for that to be true, such as mammals from reptiles, of course with nary a transitional to further the case (of course you'd need dozens of transitionals but I digress). And yet there go the trilobites and the coelacanths up the column from time period to time period remaining recognizably themselves without a hint of becoming anything other than a trilobite or a coelacanth.Yes I know this is rationalized, it's just a "slow evolving" animal. Sure, with the ToE you can just define away any obvious problems. The fact that some creatures are thought to have made gigantic evolutionary jumps based only on their brief appearance in the geologic record should reasonably raise the question why others stay the same through time period after time period for hundreds of millions of years, with only the minor changes we see all the time in nature, otherwise known as microevolution.But this question is ignored by believers in the OE/ToE, they can ignore anything they can figure out how to rationalize away. So in this case they are rationalizing away the fact that those fossils that do persist over many time periods show hardly any changes, while those that are limited to shorter periods are assumed to have evolved dramatically into the next completely different kind of creature. Gosh, shouldn't that raise a doubt or two?. Naa, reality simply doesn't exist if it contradicts the OE/ToE.The fact that reptiles don't climb the evolutionary ladder as high as trilobites and coelacanths do should raise the possibility that if they did, if reptiles showed up in six or seven time periods up the time scale in other words, they would probably look very much alike with minor variations, just as the trilobites and coelacanths do.But anything like this that actively questions the OE/ToE is a question they don't have to face because golly gosh, things seem to have gotten themselves so nicely sorted to fit the OE/ToE. (Ignoring here that Walther's Law suggests there is no such nice order, it's all an illustion) So we can just assume reptiles evolved into mammals just because mammals are above them in the column and the theory says that's what happened.Thus the ToE is one huge deception full of ad hoc rationalizations like this but believers simply will not even consider such obvious problems with their beloved theory.How nice it would be if just one committed evo saw the truth for a change. I won't hold my breath.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Could not care less about such incidentals. You have said absolutely nothing, not one thing, zip, about any of my actual arguments. In case you haven't noticed, I don't normally talk "flood geology." That is something you are imposing on me. I argue from my own observations about how the Flood would have caused certain effects. As long as you are talking in generalities, arguing from authority, and ignoring all the arguments I've made, I consider your remarks on this subject to be irrelevant and insulting.

That is RCC false history. May I recommend the books History of Romanism by John Dowling, and History of Protestantism by J A Wylie, to bring you up to speed on the true history. I think both of them are readable online.The RCC is a deviation from the true Church, starting with the declaration of the Bishop of Rome as Universal Bishop (Pope/Antichrist) in 606 AD. There is enough true Christianity mixed in with the pagan superstitious nonsense and totalitarian worldly ambitions to confuse people, and of course the Reformers had true Christian instincts despite being originally Romanists, but the institution itself is not Christian and I don't trace my theology through it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Emperor Phocas declared the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop in 606 AD. The idea of a Universal Bishop is completely contrary to the spirit of Christianity by introducing an autocratic authority. It was the Reformers reviewing that history of the papacy who came to the conclusion that he (each Pope who accepts that title from then on) is the Antichrist, through evidence gathered down the centuries of his antichristian edicts among other things. Edited by Faith, : correct quote codeEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And here I was SO careful not to say anything that would imply I think they "stayed the same." Sigh. I said they varied. Now maybe you think I should have said they varied a LOT? They look to me like they varied about as much as any creature does through microevolution. Perhaps somewhat more, which I would explain as their being antediluvian, when there was more genetic diversity in all creatures.The main point I'm trying to make is that they span hundreds of millions of years with a normal degree of microevolution or variation and show NO signs of evolving beyond their Kind. NONE. Whereas reptiles show up in the geologic record for a lot less time and although they are far more complex creatures than a trilobite they are assumed to have evolved in gigantic leaps utterly transforming all their organs and their basic structure into those of mammals. WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE of such a transformation, nothing to prove that a reptile is anything but a reptile and a mammal a mammal without any genetic relation between them. Just an assumption.AGAIN I KNOW THIS CAN BE RATIONALIZED AWAY, but NOT reasonably. It's the creatures in the fossil record that persist the longest that also evolve the least. That is a highly significant fact that gets ignored. By contrast we have huge leaps in evolution ASSUMED between reptile and mammal, though the reptile shows up only a fraction of the time trilobites do. Not a hint of trilobite transformation beyond its essential trilobite-ness, which is clearly EVIDENT in the fossil record itself, but a HUGE leap in transformation from reptile to mammal? Not evidenced but assumed. COME ON! You are just getting lost in the irrelevant details. Eh? Huh? Wot? I made my point above. They are SHOWN in a whole series of time periods with changes consistent with ordinary variation through all that time, and those that do NOT persist through any great length of time, that also have no evidence whatever for any transformation at all, are assumed to be the ancestors of an antirely different kind of animal. COME ON! I grant that is a lot of variation, but I would put all of it into the built-in trilobite genome assuming the much greater genetic diversity in ancient creatures that has been severely decreased since the Flood. All those variations do not appear to be gradations over generations, but complete systems in themselves. I would also point out that the BASIC STRUCTURE of the trilobite remains unchanged and that is what defines the Kind, not its various faculties and organs.The reptile, however, has to change its essential structure to become a mammal. It's nice to find out you know so much about trilobites. I grant the enormous variation, but it doesn't change my point. None of that variation even given ten times the time to evolve that the reptile supposedly had (I'm guessing because I don't want to go look it up right now) REMAINED CLEARLY A TRILOBITE, all of them, all those great variations are still trilobites.But the fossil record is supposed to show us actual evolution from one species to another, which cannot be shown any other way. Living animals don't have time to evolve that much though many of them do show a lot of variation. You would think that given that enormous amount of time we'd see something that is becoming something other than a trilobite since we're told that the mammal which is SO different from the reptile is the result of far less evolutionary time.I'm sure you get my point. I do have reasoning behind it.

Go back and read what I wrote. I did not say Phocas declared him Antichrist. I put in parentheses the IMPLICATIONS of his being declared Universal Bishop. You vicious liar. Peter was never a Pope and that is one of the biggest lies of the RCC. There IS no "apostolic succession." that's another big fat lie. It is not claimed for any purpose than instruction, unless you're a tyrant like the Pope who given the opportunity kills people who disagree with him. Which was intended to counter the usurped authority of the Pope over kings, Neither is defensible but King James didn't murder 50 million Bible believers either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You called me a liar for a stupid mistake YOU made. I could have been clearer but what I meant is clear enough -- they are synonyms, they are in parentheses BECAUSE Phocas didn't use those words, and your calling me a liar is way out of bounds.

That is your own wrong opinion. There is a true Christianity and I'll keep saying it in the teeth of your utterly stupid ignorant lying objections as long as I want whether you agree or not, and you have no right whatever to tell me to stop it. You autocratic dictatorial self-inflated liar. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well we are having trouble communicating. I really don't understand this point. I am just making the same distinction again I think, that trilobites persist for a huge span of time according to the Geo Time Scale, although they remain trilobites, while the reptile is assumed to be able to evolve into a mammal in much less time. Well, I have a much more precisely defined structure in mind then. More on the level of how the structure of a cat differs from that of a dog. On that level they are clearly entirely different creatures. So are a reptile and a mammal. We can tell them apart by their basic structure and basic behavior even though yes of course all four-footed creatures also share a basic structure in a much broader sense. I am trying to point to a structural difference that is much more specific. It seems quite obvious to me but apparently I need a better way to make the difference clearer. The reptile does not look like the mammal at this level, but the trilobites all look like trilobites. The cat does not look like the dog at this level. Spiders all look like spiders despite their great variations. I think I can recognize a beetle no matter how outlandish its variations (maybe I'm wrong). A gnat looks like a fly but not like a bee. I don't know how to define this more precisely unfortunately. I'm tempted to say that whatever you tend to call it is the level I'm defining. You wouldn't mistake a cat for a dog or a horse for a mouse or a mouse for a salamander. Not to say there wouldn't be some difficult calls but I'm trying to define a general category by which structure defines the creature.So when I say the trilobite remains a trilobite I mean it always has three lobes and other characteristics that link it to other trilobites and to no other creature despite their great variation in other respects. I'm happy to bear with you because you are sincerely thinking about all this and you remain polite. I may have my limits, however, just because evolutionist thinking can drive me crazy, so we'll see. But I think this last paragraph of yours is answered by my paragraph above it, my attempted definition of the classifications I have in mind. I would suppose you think in different classifications because you habitually think as an evolutionist. I'd be happy just to get the category I have in mind well defined. abe: I suppose it's the Kind itself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All your dates are off by a few hundred years; they refute nothing.

My evidence is the Biblical dates then. Yours are the product of the fallen mind. End of subject.

Dating is not "real-world evidence."

It's all dating nonsense, not evidence.The Bible is great evidence, being a written account [abe: based on oral reports handed down /abe] from people near the time of the event.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Correction added to second sentence