Summations Only

I didn't say there is a conspiracy and I don't doubt that most of this is done honestly. Nevertheless you all share a basic mindset. It was NOT necessary for Hutton to contradict the Bible, he could have tried to find an explanation for Siccar POint that supports the Bible, and such explanations exist, but he didn't. At every turn the choices made in the sciences that are about the prehistoric past were against the Bible when they didn't need to be. So now you've got so much stuff going in that direction you can't change back.But there are nevertheless YECs who are also scientists. The Biblical Geology site I just found is by a geologist, and so far what I've found on his site is what I've been arguing myself. There are plenty of others. Ham who was quoted up thread somewhere named quite a few. Actual scientists, not amateurs like me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How is this rock part of the geological column if it's formed 45 kilometers deep in the earth?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good grief, all i've asked is that hyou think about my arguments.

I've said nothing that doesn't reflect the belief of thie historical traditional Protestant Church. Trying to make it out to be MY particular belief that I'm asking to be taken seriously is pretty devious of you. I'm asking that the historical religion of Jesus Christ be taken seriously. But I gather that perhaps nobody here knows a thing about the history of these things. That's too bad. You don't know the Protestant foundations of England and America.None of this includes my arguments about geology for which I've only asked that you think about them. Those arguments are mine, but they are also the arguments of creationist scientists, but nobody is asking worship of such things, just consideration.Really sad.

I need to get back to studying the history of the Inquisition, but one thing I've been gathering is that you cannot trust any statistics or descriptions of it written since about 1920 because of a well organized effort to alter the truth. Internet sources are not going to be reliable at all. You have to dig for this information. I am trying to get hold of some old books, which I keep hearing quoted, but my finances aren't the greatest. This went on OFFICIALLY for 600 years, and unofficially a lot longer than that. At the number I gave that would be about 110,000 deaths a year, sorry, a century, so about 11,000 a year.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, Phat, if you don't take the Bible as God's own word then anything is possible. If you do take it as His word then He is the one who defines how "big" He is and what the truth is. As scripture says, Let every man be a liar but God be true. If you think science trumps the word of God you can pretty much make up God for yourself. He might have something to say about that that you wouldn't like to hear.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This Flood was huge. It rained torrents for 40 days over the entire earth, the whole globe. A heavy rain now for just a few days in a local area can cause terrible mudslides, so multiply that effect appropriately. There was also another source of water, the "fountains of the deep" and the water covered the entire land mass of the earth and stood there for months. This can't just be "some erosion" or anything on a scale we can compare to our own time.

I'm sorry to hear that. You have no idea how good the King James translators were. Well, Forever, you've made your choice.By the way, maybe you should spend some time at the Biblical Geology site I linked upthread a ways. It really isn't necessary to give in to the unbelievers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Common sense.

One and the same. I used to brush off conspiracy theories, but the evidence for some recently is awfully good.

I'd already heard everything you said, Coyote, it isn't new to me, it's you who need to find out more about these things. And I haven't claimed I don't make errors, I've only given generalizations that I'm sure are true in the main and I know you are wrong. I'm sorry I can't just produce the evidence for you, I do have some but the rest isn't all that available, and it's an overwhelming task to try to come up with all the proof that would be needed not just on this subject but the dozen others this thread has already covered. I'm not writing papers for a journal, here.

It's possible to nitpick about words to prove just about anything you want. I do doubt that it is true Christians who get engaged in that sort of thing.The skills of the English Bible translators, of the KJV and the versions that preceded it, were excellent. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible and others. Why do you think you can do better?If the Flood was merely local God would not have had Noah spend a hundred years building the ark, He would have had him and his family move to a place where they'd be out of the way of the Flood.The idea contradicts other things about the Flood: Looks like God had in mind destroying ALL men, ALL flesh. Would that have happened in a limited flood? Don't fool around with alternative translations of words for the sake of believing what unbelievers tell you or arguments you think you understand through your own fallible mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes the early geologists were "Christian" creationists, but their notions in those days were absurdly unbiblical so how Christian were they really? I've written about this at my blog. I think God allowed Hutton and Darwin to overthrow the idiotic unbiblical creationist ideas as judgment on the Church. Too bad, creationists today come up with just as unbiblical stuff.Sorry, the Bible is the foundation. The facts do have to conform to it, and ultimately we'll see that to be the case. Meanwhile anything that contradicts the Bible has to go.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Christ wrote the Book. To follow it is to follow Him.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ.