The channeled scablands are a perfect picture of what must have occurred after the Flood: the temporary containment of a huge standing lake, actually a number of them, which then broke through its bank due to tectonic movement and flooded the lower areas, in the case of the scablands forming those peculiar dramatic formations in the basalt. Obviously your timing is wrong.
I suggest that there is no way a person could ever know the age of a geological formation by being there or studying it, no matter what methods you use. The only way you could ever know its age is if you had a witness there at the time of the formation you are studying. You are fooling yourself if you think your studies showed you its age.
On the other hand we have the testimony of the best and most trustworthy witnesses that put the Flood about 4300 years ago and all the facts hang together very nicely. Including the whole appearance of the scablands and the understanding of how they resulted from a local flood. Therefore all estimates for the age of scablands that are not younger than the Flood are wrong and need to be rethought. You try to dismiss it as "belief" as if that means something, but that's an empty idea.
If the evidence really supported the Flood, early scientists like Cuvier and the later Agassiz - both in the ICRs list of Creationist scientists (or were the last time I looked) - would have seen it. In reality, Cuvier realised that a single flood could not explain what he saw, and Agassiz provided the final nail in the coffin of the Flood by understanding that the deposits attributed to the Flood were in fact deposited by glaciers.
It's an odd thing but the earlier scientists were hindered by their false expectations of what the evidence should look like, such as "deposits attributed to the Flood" that turned out to be caused by glaciers. It just didn't occur to them to consider the entire geologic column as evidence for the Flood. Some thought maybe one of the layers was the evidence. They were thinking way too small for a worldwide Flood and came to ridiculously inadequate ideas of what it would have done.
Woodward is very interesting and I'm glad to know about it, because all I've ever heard is the inadequate ideas, a layer here, a deposit there. But there is no evidence against the idea and you don't quote any from him.
But the evidence does not exist. The only evidence there is that is really evidence is the dating methods, and they are obviously in error because every thing fits the Flood beautifully otherwise. Except for a small glitch here and there, very minor, that's all, to be ironed out eventually. There is no evidence against it really, just another whole interpretive system that happens to be preferred.
ABE: ALL the old Floodist ideas were dumb, inadequate, some very silly, EXCEPT the one that takes the whole geologic column into account.
ABE: You know the bottom line here is that what the Creator God says is the standard to which science must conform and if it doesn't conform it's in error, Period. There isn't any way to get around that.
Look, the Bible, meaning God's own word, says there was a worldwide Flood. Worldwide, not local. The most likely timing given there is about 4300 years ago but leave that aside for the moment. There has to be evidence on the planet for such an enormous event. If you don't think it's the strata and the fossils then what is it? If the older Floodists had come up with another explanation for the Flood that would be fine, as long as it sufficed to explain what the Bible reveals. But instead of that they just drop the Flood altogether, just dismiss it as all of you do. This will not do. There was a worldwide Flood and the strata and the fossils are TERRIFIC evidence for such an event. Once God has spoken that's it. I've done all the arguing of particulars I want to do, and I think I did a pretty good job, but that's the end of that.
Bottom line is there was a worldwide Flood and the strata and the fossils are the evidence for it.
Just felt like emphasizing this post in red as a sort of final statement.
Fossils are far older than 4300 years ago. Think millions of years and older.
Nope, since that contradicts the Creator God's revelation it is wrong and needs to be rethought.
And, no, there is no such global flood evidence around 4350 years ago.
False. It's in your face every time you encounter strata or fossils.
You are letting belief overshadow all the evidence that shows you are wrong.
Yes, that was the point of my post in red. I'm no longer trying to argue the science issues, been there done that, and I still think rather well, the point is that God said there was a worldwide Flood, and the numbers of years calculable from His word show it occurred about 4300 years ago. This is the testimony of the most trustworthy of witnesses and I believe Him and since your observations are at odds with His you need to rethink them.
When reality tells you something, and the Bible tells you something else, your position is literally that you must have heard reality wrong, because the Bible supersedes all observation
Absolutely correct, you got it. What God says trumps EVERYTHING else.
Yes, I'm no longer arguing this, you take it or leave it. Arguing it gets nowhere with hidebound evolutionists, and neither does the appeal to authority, but the bottom line is: God said it, that's it, done deal.
Most of the reasons you give for arguing with me are my own for why I stick it out here. Arguing at EvC is absolutely the most frustrating experience I've ever had, and talk about not ever changing, nobody here has ever changed a single thing in response to anything I've said, why would you expect me to change in response to your arguments? It isn't going to happen. You are as committed to your Source of Truth as I am to mine.
But it is true that once I've said I'm not going to argue science I might as well not be here any more. Maybe that will finally allow me to leave and spare me this endless futility.
Your post is interesting but I have to make one complaint. You misrepresent the position of a Bible-believer here:
You believe that your interpretation of a specific re-translation of a specific collection of specific ancient and often-re-translated and altered texts is the ultimate arbiter of fact.
This is simply false and tendentious.
1) "My interpretation" has been honed by thousands of books and sermons so that it is not "mine" but that of the orthodox line of thought on the Bible. I might sometimes take a stab at my own understanding of a text but if the commentaries show a better understanding I will certainly go with that.
2) I don't know what you mean by "a specific re-translation." The Bible I most trust is the King James which is 95% the same translation into English that Tyndale did, and which they also compared with the many copies they had of the Greek and Hebrew texts and with all the other translations in English and all the translations into other languages they had available. You try to make it sound like they had one text and they "re" translated it. No. You have a very wrong idea of the history of Bible transmission.
3) The Greek text was many times copied down the centuries, not "re-translated." Copying does allow for errors to creep in. But they have five thousand Greek manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts of the Bible now for the sake of comparison and those who study those things know how to trace even the errors back to an original source and reconstruct the original text quite reliably.
I regard the Bible we have now as the same Bible that was produced in the first century.
After studying the situation I concluded that the KJV is the most trustworthy, although it needs some updating into modern English, because there is another line of Greek manuscripts that were introduced in the 19th century that are corrupt, possibly even forgeries, that all the modern translations are based on. This is a huge controversy and I've concluded from much reading on the subject that the KJV is based on the most trustworthy line of texts. Nevertheless people do manage to get the same basic truths out of the other versions, there are just some areas where they are untrustworthy. And that's all I want to say about that big flap.
I appreciate your remarks in general though if you hadn't said what you did about the Bible I might have spent some time pondering them to have an answer to some of it, but please don't misrepresent the Bible. That's a form of poisoning the well and trying to discredit my argument before we've even had an argument.