Faith writes:
You just helped me establish this evidence you claim is nonexistent, dear Jar. Thank you.
The coal example seems an excellent vehicle for pursuing the thread's topic. This thread is about interpretation, and I think Jar is indicating an interest in exploring the reasons for your difference in interpretation.
I can already see one possible reason. Jar believes your flood scenario requires a single global layer of coal. I think you've interpreted this to mean one or more layers of coal, but that's not what he meant. He said in
Message 59 that "there should be an identifiable layer all over the world with a band of coal that was all laid down at the same time." You haven't identified any such band that I'm aware of, so your comments like "Your scenario proves the Flood. Nice going!" are puzzling.
You may want to explore with Jar whether he's right to conclude that your flood scenario implies a world-wide coal layer of the same age, because if he's correct then it would present a significant problem for your viewpoint, since no such layer has ever been found.
Interpretations of fact and the implications of theory are what I thought this thread would be about, so I think exploring this is very appropriate for this thread.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
