Summations Only

I do know what traditional historical Christian theology is, yes, and the traditional historical method of reading the Bible, yes, so if I know what a particular person's theology is, then I know if it is the traditional historical theology or not, yes. If a person is arguing with the traditional historical reading of the Bible it is very possible that person is simply not a Christian. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I actually read hardly any "YEC screed" and my judgment of the relation between the rocks and the eras is my very own. In fact I don't think I've ever heard another creationist say anything about that at all. It's something I've spent a lot of time thinking about. That's possible, but it probably wouldn't change my view to know that process. It's the everpresent connection shown on many charts of the eras as attached to the rocks that I'm judging from, and in many discussions about this others have pretty consistently accepted that connection, only disagreeing with what it means. I don't consider myself to be "doing geology" at all. I'm trying to tackle the theory, the paradigm, the interpretive system, which I don't see as having much to do with the actual work of geology, just something you carry around with you and fit the facts into, which fit much better in another paradigm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me the theory is correct enough, but it is encountering unknowns in the past that lead to error.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know they are wrong because of all the other evidence of a young earth.

You keep saying there is evidence for the very old Earth but the only actual evidence I know of is the radiometric dating system.While I've been collecting evidence for the young earth inthe fact that there is no disturbance to the strata until after it's all laid down, showing that it was rapidly deposited and not over millions upon millions of yearsthe greaqt geographic extent of most of the strata which shows thatnothing could have lived during that "time period"and all the rest of it I'm too tired to collect right now

Just describe one please.

You are attributing a quote to me that isn't mine.

Tangle seemed to be saying there were ordinary ways the earth is shown to be old, in the various different fields of science like paleontology etc. Your list is rather exotic.

Christianity does not evolve. We have it all down in writing and it has never changed. What a king does can't affect the unchangeable written tenets of the religion. If people start to live by the king's rules instead of the Bible's it's not Christianity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are attributing a statement to me that is not mine and I could not possibly have ever made. I assume it is from jar.

This is the third post I've run across so far with a quote attributed to me that is not mine. This must be Tangle's.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No Coyote, I've spent a lot of time here showing evidence from geology and population genetics that the standard timing of the Old Earth and the ToE is wrong. Nothing to do with religion.

I wanted evidence from the sciences you listed, and specifically NOT radiometric dating..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Bald assertion. I've given actual evidence against all this many times from various presentation of the geologic column. Not one tectonic or volcanic or erosive event in the whole stack of strata that supposedly represent hundreds of millions of years. The Grand Staircase cross section is enough by itself to show that. All vastly exaggerated and not demonstrated.

What I "advocate" is just your way of obscuring the fact that I've given actual physical evidence that has nothing to do with my beliefs.