Summations Only

You can never go back to the distant past to check if any of your dating methods are valid. The whole dating enterprise is false for that reason. And all the other kinds of evidence validate the Flood.

You have no idea what constitutes a since I've certainly provided more than enough evidence to prove the Flood.how water lays down sedimentary strata
how sedimentary strata make no sense in the timescale paradigm
how the huge numbers of fossils are consistent with the Flood and not the timescale piecemeal deposition model
how the timescale interpretation of the "fossil order" has no objective basis, it's all pure imagination
how all the strata were laid down flat and straight before any kind of tectonic or volcanic disturbance affected them
how their initial flatness and straightness is consistent with the Flood and not with the timescale paradigm
how dating methods can't be provedEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I noticed that too and don't know how to account for it. I didn't stop feeling lousy, though, I've felt bad for some time now, tired, sleep too much, but for some reason I felt I had to respond on this thread anyway. SorryEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understand that. I just think it's a sad chapter in the history of science that they didn't recognize that the entire geologic column is evidence of the Flood. I can't figure out how that would dissuade them from the Flood.

That is very interesting and it raises a lot of questons in my mind that would probably take over this thread to no good purpose since I'm not up on volcanism.One thought: Getting agreement on numbers seems impressive but it may only reflect that the method is consistent though the actual dates it gives may not be trustworthy.Anything IN the fossil record would reflect events DURING the Flood, or possibly sills formed between layers afterward. Of course I'm guessing but the point is that the evidence I have in mind shows that volcanism didn't occur during the Flood but at the end of it, after the whole geologic column was already in place. Evidence of it shouldn't be in the fossil record at all.

With human productions, yes, absolutely, but not with God's word.And the problem with this change from preconceived ideas to supposed reality and genuine science is that the change wasn't to reality at all, it was just the acceptance of an illusion. When that change took place there was no proof of it at all, either, just a plausibility recognized only by imagination. That's what I keep trying to say. This is not science they changed to.Why conclude that length of exposure explains the difference in amount of erosion between the wall and the hills? How about the hardness of the rock, the shape of the rock in the wall as resisting erosion compared to that in the hills? And you give no quantities anyway. And in the millions of years "science" now allots to erosion time the hills would have long since disappeared completely anyway.ABE: It's kinda funny that I keep supposing a more rapid rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon than others here want to accept, and they all insist it was a lot slower. But Christian geologists thought the hills were eroding so rapidly they had to have been there a lot longer than the biblical time frame. Just depends on what people want to think doesn't it?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I am that much up on volcanism that I know how they are formed by plate movement.On the four alternatives you offer I say "None of the above." I think the dating methods show consistency in relative dating but I have to suspect that the absolute dates are wrong.I do want to thank you for being pleasant about this. Creationsts do eventually drive everybody crazy so it's nice to talk to someone who hasn't yet been driven to homicidal insanity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah I know, but there's so much other evidence in support of the Flood timing that I have to assume all those ideas of what-would-have-happened-if are missing something. There had to be major heating of the planet but that brought on the ice age which would have toned it down in turn. Only one ice age in my scenario, for which there is clear evidence.The idea of many comings and goings of continents doesn't fit either, but one does: originally there was only one continent and then it broke up. There is clear evidence for that one only. And its breaking up came right at the end of the building of the geologic column and caused all the deformation to the originally straight flat strata, also the mountain building and so on and so forth. The supposed series of continental collisions and separations over hundreds of millions of years that you are talking about was supposedly going on during the laying down of the strata, which would have demolished the strata to smithereens with all that crashing around, but the actual evidence I see only allows for one continental split at the end of the building of the whole column. All that I can show on photos and diagrams, and I don't see the evidence for all the rest of it you're talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What are you trying to prove? I have no problem with the alternating polarities. They just have to fit into the time since the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The "fossil order" in the sense of the timescale interpretation of the observed physical sequence of fossils, is an illusion because it is nothing but subjective imagination that defines it. How the different creatures "look" is all there is. The lower "look" more primitive or less complex or whatever the criteria are these days, the higher "look" more evolved or more advanced etc.The "evidence" is that the lower you go in the column the less like "modern" creatures the fossils look. That's "evidence" that they are more primitive or more "ancient" or "earlier," but all it most likely really means is that for some reason the lower you go the fewer of those creatures survived so that we would recognizes their descendants today.You've all bought an illusion. It is all very 19th century. There is no empirical evidence for it. It's like Phrenology in that way, and lots of 19th century "theories." The ToE itself. All mental conjuring. You imagine a genetic relatedness you can't prove, between fossils at different levels but you treat it as fact anyway and aggressively prounounce it scientific though it is anything but.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have to ask how on earth you could identify the time something happened by reference to a mere slab of rock? Which is what the "Permian" is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't find the posts but IIRC my calculations had the speed of continental drift starting at ten miles a day (maybe it was twenty, ten on each side of the Atlantic Ridge) and slowing down over the 4500 years to its present fraction of an inch per year. When it started there would have been so much general upheaval from many sources at the same time the great speed would have been just part of the effect.ABE: Found one: Message 677. I see I was discussing it with you then too. /abeI traced out the gradual reduction of the speed over the centuries too and the size of the bodies of water at various stages, because the distances would of course have been smaller than at present which is a very interesting thing to contemplate. Columbus would have had a shorter trip in 1492 than he would have today. The Vikings would have had an even shorter trip in their day. Even the Mediterranean Sea would have been narrower at some interesting times in history. I hope I can find all that some time.Coral reefs like everythibg else no doubt grew much faster in the pre-Flood world.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I looked up Alexander du Toit and found that he's identified as an early supporter of Wegener's theory based on comparisons between the continents that split, stratigraphic comparisons for instance, but an ice age isn't mentioned.Ice cores are no doubt just as misinterpreted as the strata are, so if they are the evidence of many ice ages they need some rethinking.ABE: Another consideration: The one ice age would have been the result of the great heating of the planet during the Flood and certainly when the continents split and started moving and general volcanism was going on and the magma started rising up at the Atlantic Ridge and so on. I didn't know the ice age extended into Africa and South America. That would be a measure of the great heat generated by the Flood and related events. Anyway, if the cause of the ice sheets was the events mentioned then they probably wouldn't have extended that far south until after the continental split, or possibly at about the same time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There would have been massive earthquakes associated with the splitting of the sontinents, that whole tectonic upheaval that inaugurated mountain building, twisted strata in many places, was associated with the receding of the Flood waters and the cutting of the Grand Canyon and washing away of huge amounts of sediment in that area and so on and so forth. But only Noah and family were alive at that time and they were parked in the Middle East which might have been the least affected area on the planet. They no doubt felt the shakings too however. But all that upheaval would have settled down over the next century or so, and by the time the population had grown enough to start spreading out across the world no doubt much quieter.

True I can only assume the errors because everything else I know contradicts the methods.