I dispute your so called evidence. Get a clue. It is not proved it's just the usual conjecture and assumption that can't be proved. I've argued this, I don't care what you think of my argument.
Cut the word mangling. If the Bible is the truth then what it says about things in the real world can be used as evidence for those things and against contradictory statements about those things.
Faith writes: Well, I'm now taking the position that the Bible is evidence. It's God's word, it's the truth, it trumps all the contradictory dating claims. I see no point in repeating this basic conflict ad nauseam.
But Faith, you are conflating the text with the YEC interpretation of the text. Even if the text is divinely inspired and inerrant, human interpretations are not. Gen 1-11 is especially difficult to interpret, because the accounts are very condensed and include a significant amount of imagery (starting with chapter 12, the accounts slow down and become much more detailed).
There is only one reason you find those eleven chapters difficult to interpret and that's because they conflict with current scientific dogma.; They are not all that hard to interpret otherwise.
One fundamental question: when the author says that the Flood covered "the whole earth" or "all the earth", what did he mean? Is this "all" from God's perspective, or from the narrator's perspective? If the latter, the author was likely referring to "all" of the known earth, not the entire globe (just as when Paul said that the gospel had spread to all the earth; he meant all of the known earth, I.e. all of the Roman Empire).
There would have been no need for the ark if it hadn't been the whole absolutely whole entire earth. It took a hundred years to build it; In that time God could have herded all the animals to areas that wouldn't be flooded, just as he selected and herded them onto the ark. Noah and family could hike there. It's SO silly to try to make "all" mean "not all." God inspired the Biblical account to be read by p0eople of the time, but also by people thousands of years later.
ALL the globe. ALL. Also ALL things on the land died. ALL of them. There is no doubt about this meaning kb, you are fooling yourself.
The strata and the fossils are worldwide enormous evidence IMO.
I suspect Paul wasn't that stupid either but I'd have to look up that passage to get the context.
Even Everest has marine fossils in the top strata. It is probable that the Himalaya were much lower in the past rather than the Flood was deep enough cover their current height.
My view is that the high mountains were pushed up after the Flood by the tectonic force that started Continental Drift.
Creationists Take the Bible as our source for basic information about the Flood. We don't have to prove that because it's foundational to all biblical creationist arguments. And I think even Percy said so.
We've shown that the Bible is God's word many times already, but of course we don't succeed at persuading anyone here. Seems to me if we have the job of proving it to YOU, then you ought to have the job of proving your dating methods to US. How about that for fair?
I've seen RAZD's correlations. I've also commented on them IIRC. I've acknowledged that they are good arguments that are hard to answer although there are many possible ways they may be refuted. It's a matter of the preponderance of evidence in the end since we have no witness in the distant past to such things as the speed of varve formation or tree ring growth, and are stuck with making extrapolations from current conditions.
But in this little side discussion I'm emphasizing that the Bible is regarded by biblical creationists as God's word which means everything else is judged by it. Meanwhile there is a lot of evidence FOR the Flood and against the ToE/OE that creationists focus on in most discussions.
Again, nothing would ever convince you, there's just something about the grip the ToE/OE fantasy has on people's minds in these untestable unprovable historical sciences, that prevents the truth from getting through. Yes I do believe this. So the debate is always about creationists trying to find the most convincing evidence, and the other side always coming up with outlandish objections to it. I will give you personally credit for sticking to the argument itself pretty well though.
I've put up a ton of good arguments in spite of occasional errors and all the rest of it. You'll never acknowledge that, I have to content myself with knowing it's true without your acknowledgment. In my opinion the Flood has been proved many times over by now, so all that's left is this endless exchange of your negative opinion versus the creationist opinion.
But "proving" those methods to creationists is impossible because creationists will not accept any evidence that disagrees with their religious beliefs.
Which was exactly my point about believers in the ToE/OE. All the good arguments creationists come up with won't be accepted just because of bias.
Your request is a sham
Don't exactly recall making a "request," but what I said was more tongue in cheek than you seem to appreciate.
And vice versa: If the Bible disagrees with what we observe in the real world, then the Bible isn't true.
Of course, that's why this is just an endless repetitive argument. That's why I was suggesting putting aside these assumptions on both sides because it's a big waste of time to keep going back and forth like this. But I have given up on that noble cause.
Walther's Law shows simultaneous deposition & disproves principle of superposition
Back to the Flood.
I brought up Walther's Law back there somewhere -- Message 309 -- along with trilobites and coelacanths. Caffeine is to get back to me on trilobites, I hope.
So onward to Walther's Law.
I recently saw a video on Guy Berthault's flume experiments in sedimentology, inspired by Walther's observations, which show that moving water deposits layers simultaneously one on top of another, the number of layers depending on the velocity of the water. He concluded that this shows rapid deposition of the strata disproving the assumption theory of millions of years, and also shows that the rule of superposition is not always true since the upper layer was laid down at the same time as the lower (which would be the case in the Flood as the water rose).
There are four parts to the video. The first few minutes of Part 2 shows the principle in operation in a river.
™ Version 4.2
(1)