Summations Only

Some of these issues science can readily test.As just one example, the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago was tested initially by creationist geologists seeking to document that flood. They could not do so, and had to admit that the flood did not occur as described. This capitulation occurred in the early 1800s, long before Darwin.Since then the evidence that there was no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has become overwheming. It is so easy to disprove this that any archaeologist can do it.I've done it in my own research. What one needs to do is find an archaeological site that cross-cuts the 4,350 year time period. A site that does so by thousands of years is best. Then you examine what occurred before and after that time period, and you look to see if there is any evidence of a major discontinuity at that time.What I have found in the many sites that I have tested is that there is no discontinuity about 4,350 years ago. Instead there is continuity. I've seen continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, sedimentary deposition, and mtDNA patterns. This last one is the most telling: the mtDNA patterns were the same both before and after the 4,350 year date.This shows that there was no discontinuity, as would be caused by a global flood which wiped out all but a select group in the Near East. If there was such a flood, all human mtDNA would be eliminated at about 4,350 years ago and would have been replaced by one type from the Near East (Noah's female kin). This can be shown not to have happened. The same type of evidence can be shown for all fauna and flora: there was no extinction-repopulation event in recent times.This is the kind of evidence that scientists look at.

These are ideas that can be tested against evidence.Accelerated radioactive decay was one of the things the RATE group tested, using over a million dollars in creationist money.They essentially found that science was right, but refused to believe the evidence they themselves generated.Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy IsaacAssessing the RATE ProjectDo the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?http://184.173.80.159/...RATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScienceThe initial part of the conclusion from this last link:Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old. This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old.As for the marine transgressions and regressions in the geologic column: we can directly date some of the layers in that column using radiometric methods. Creationists' attempts to discredit radiometric dating have not been successful, as was pointed out in the reviews of the RATE group's project.Our own poster RAZD has several lengthy threads here on the subject of radiometric dating and all of the various ways in which independent methods of dating produce similar results. I think you should review those threads before you attempt to claim anything to the contrary.

But I thought you were a biblical literalist? If so, then this appears to be an attempt to have your literalist cake and eat it. Either the genealogies are accurate, in which case they can clearly be used to date biblical events, or they are not accurate, in which case the Bible is errant. I don't see how your middle ground position would work.

Even using comparative dating, the Hadean was a long time before humans appeared on the scene. In fact, there were no modern animals or plants back then. There were no humans during that period, therefore neither the Hadean nor the Archean can possibly be the Flood era.

How do you explain this contradiction?

Be sure to mention that to your geology professors.

But that's not the only geological process going on is it? For a start there is erosion. There are also subduction zones where whole tectonic plates gradually disappear into the mantle. Does your model take this into account?

What happened was this. They found that the rocks showed evidence of hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay. So then they postulated an unevidenced, unobserved mechanism ("accelerated decay") contrary to the known laws of nature, that would make it look like the Earth was old when it was young. But then they noticed that this mechanism would have melted the Earth, boiled the seas, and killed Noah and his floating zoo.

So, when the Bible says "son", we shouldn't take that literally, because interpreting the Bible literally would be a stupid way to interpret the Bible.

So far from Genesis being the Word of God, this chap sees it as the written version of a muddled and inaccurate oral history.

their main purpose was to define the identity of the individual in relation to his forbears.