The TRVE history of the Flood...

But that's like arguing aerodynamics with a pilot. When you don't know what you're talking about, your opinion doesn't need to be counted.

And we could give sensible answers. For example, all radiometric dates being less than 6000 years old. Or modern species of animals being found in the oldest strata. (Along with the city built by Cain.) An absence of erosional features that would have taken a long time to erode. Plenty of (non-cosmogenic) isotopes with a half-life in the order of thousands of years. Not being able to see stars more than 6000 light years away. I could go on, but that'll do for now.

So, stick to the Flood. But without assuming as a premise that the Bible is right about it and "the only reliable source of truth on this planet". Try deriving as a conclusion that there was a single universal flood 4000 years ago, from which only a pair (or seven if kosher) of each air-breathing animal was saved as the nucleus of a new population. We'll watch and take notes.

Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, William TyndaleThere really aren't any Protestant theologians during that period so basically I skip it in my list of exegetes; but there were inspiring true Christian leaders and preachers, most of them concerned to spread the gospel in the people's languages since Rome had forbidden it, and they had to do it under the threat of RCC murderous attacks on "heresies."Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, William Tyndale are a few of the "heretics." Hus was burned at the stake, so was Tyndale, Wycliffe managed to escape but he'd made the RCC so furious that after his death they dug up his bones and burned them and threw them in the river. I don't know how Waldo died. He was mainly a preacher associated with the Waqldensians who were a Christian group that hid in the valleys of the Alps from the RCC. He is wrongly considered to have founded that sect, he was simply a prominent member of it. The name Waldensian comes from a word for valley IIRC not from Waldo. They'd lived in the Alps for a long time before Waldo showed up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You so cleverly miss the point. The Bible is assumed as the premise of a creationist argument for the Flood; that is why I say we shouldn't have to keep asserting our premises.

Then there is no debate you see. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So it isn't strictly honest to say you have two millennia of the best Bible exegetes behind you. You have a thousand-year gap.

You said "They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument."I wanted to see if you could in fact derive your beliefs as the conclusion of an argument. Shall I take that as a no?So what you're left with, apparently, is "the Bible is right because the Bible is right". And now you wish to be excused from asserting your premise ...Well since your premise is also your conclusion, that would leave you with nothing to say at all.

That's right, there is no debate as far as science is concerned. Your silly notions were disproved more than a century ago. The reason this site exists is to prevent you from forcing your silly notions on innocent schoolchildren.

In that case we need to invoke Rule 10 against you.

quote:

---

Science dating methods are not reliable beyond a few thousand years, and assume "all things continued without catastrophic interfence..... therefore creation is definitely logical and rational, given its exacting dating methods which have been confirmed via numerous methods as evidenced HERE.

---

Scientific dating methods do not rely on assuming the absence of a catastrophe. And even if it did that would hardly make Creationism than the dogma of a cult.Creationist dating methods are based on assuming that the Masoretic text is absolutely correct even though we know it is not. And your method of ignoring the imprecisions in the Biblical text is even worse. Even when you get the addition right. Neither logical, nor rational nor exacting.

Faith and all, please stick to the TOPIC.... this topic is not about religion, keep your evolution religion and religious religion out of this thread....The TOPIC is the GREAT FLOOD..........The waters of the deep opened up, and pushed their level above the level of all mountain tops worldwide,After the waters of the deep or portals oclosed, they opened up and the waters receeded quickly, not in eons but in a year or two, creating the flood plains, and trenches and canyons like the Grand Canyon as evidenced in geology.Noah came out and the human population spread out again. Peleg came along...but we cant talk about that time of division of the tetronic plates because that was a separate event rather than the wordlwide flood.So lets stick to the flood..... or stick to Noahs demension in the Ark, its location etc....Sheels only get on mountain tops through a worldwide flood, not from mountaineers dropping them.

Amusing. But it turns out those few thousand years are all that is needed to figure out when the Pyramids and Stonehenge were erected, and to date some cave paintings in France.

quote:

---

Let me see if I can make the point clearer. It's become a broken record that doesn't further the debate in the slightest. We've been exchanging the same opinions over and over but this can never go anywhere because they are basic premises that aren't going to be changed. They are just being asserted rather than used in the argument to any real purpose

---

That is certainly true of your assertion that the Bible is reliable. And yet you saw fit to do it in the same post where you objected to Coyote calling the Flood story a myth.

quote:

---

It's just a huge waste of time to keep getting this same old same old stuff about the Bible being a myth and dating methods being the last word on the discussion

---

I don't think that you can fairly ask us to stop using strong evidence just because you point blank refuse to accept it.

quote:

---

Or my statements about the absurdity of the OE/ToE assumptions or that the Bible's dates trump the dating methods. They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument.

---

The difference is that we have good arguments. If you ever came up with a good reason why dates derived from radiocarbon, tree rings, varve counts ice cores and all the other methods should agree while you can't find a single valid dating method that supports your view things would be different. Instead all you do is assert that your dogma is correct and science must therefore be wrong. Or many, many other bad arguments.

Curse you for making me read the rules.