Yes, I am a biblical literalist. The genealogies are accurate; they just were never meant to measure time.
Nonetheless, they do give us measures of time, whether they were intended to or not.
They have been trimmed multiple times to keep them from being unwieldy. The son is still the ancestor of the father in each line. The hebrew language does not neccesitate a 1 generation descent per line. Hundred of generations could be held within one descent line.
What backing can you provide for that exactly? To me it sounds like an assumption which is not justified by the texts.
Just because you can't find human fossils, doesn't mean they weren't living. Can you find fossils for every species that ever lived? I didn't think so. You can make no definitive statements about what lived and what didn't live based on fossils.
It's not just that there are no human fossils, it's that there are no animal fossils of any kind! There aren't even any eukaryotes known from the Archean. Are you really suggesting that humans and modern plants and animals lived back then without leaving the slightest trace? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
I am at the very top of both of my geology classes and was the top of the one I took last semester. I am not suicidal. Why should I risk such a good record?
I dunno, honesty? I mean, do you really want to understand geology or do you just want to waste your time learning to recite a bunch of meaningless falsehoods?
If your ideas about Bible-friendly geology are worthwhile, then your geology professors are exactly the people you need to be talking to. They will have the expertise needed to talk through your theories with you and iron out any faults. If your ideas are really that important, you might change their minds. Even if not, at least you would be doing something meaningful rather than parroting stuff you don't believe.
On the other hand, if your take on geology is wrong - as I believe it is - then your professors will be the ideal people to help you see that. They will put your ideas to the acid test. If those ideas are mistaken, they will be able to help you see it.
That's a good thing. We should never be afraid to put our ideas to the test, even if it occasionally means being forced to abandon some cherished notion.
Erosion cannot date a single thing. It isn't consistent enough across all situations to be reliable.
I wasn't talking about dating by erosion, I meant that your deposition based method doesn't seem to take it into account.
Yes, my model takes plate tectonics into account. My accelerated decay model provides a means for rapid plate movement and subduction.
Well don't be shy; do tell.
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2