Summations Only

Given our fallen nature, why would we be able to read written testimony better than we read nature?

If I understand Faith (and I wouldn't be surprised if I don't) she believes that she is fallen too but Jesus has helped her back up.

I don't think there's much difference in brain evolution between the early Hebrews and us. It's what we have observed in nature (despite Faith's clams) that has enabled us to conclude that much of what the Hebrews wrote was wrong. Huh?

We'd see Him in nature if He was there. And yet it's those who claim to have a revelation from God who don't see reality as it is. You have the dichotomy correct but you're looking at the back of the mirror instead of the front.

So you're defining "science" as something that doesn't need science books or even scientists.I suppose aircraft don't "need" service manuals or pilots either but they're not very useful without them.

But the science books and the scientists say they do need the Old Earth concept. Effectively, you are throwing out the science books and the scientists with the bathwater.

As I mentioned earlier, your definition of "real science" leaves out most of what scientists do and most of what shows up in science books.Edited by ringo, : Spellings.

I think I've asked you this question twice before and you've never answered it: When you see a pile of leaves, do you take that as evidence that they all came from the same tree?

So answer the question: When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume that they all came from one tree?If not, why would you assume that all of the layers came from one flood?

When you see a pile of leaves, do you "conclude" that they all came from one tree because any other explanation makes no sense?What you've shown is evidence that floods happen. We already knew that. I've seen four myself.What you haven't shown is evidence of one giant tree or one giant flood. That is what makes no sense. And you know it makes no sense because you don't use the same logic to conclude that all leaves come from one giant tree.

Worldwide leaves are evidence of a worldwide tree? Come on.Worldwide strata are evidence of floods - floods in different areas, overlapping floods, floods above and below deserts. They are not evidence of a worldwide flood any more than a worldwide tree.

On the contrary, the leaves are far more uniform than most flood layers.Only your logic is nonsensical.

Why "would" it have been? What "would" have caused that greater diversity? What evidence do you have for your claim?

Then how can you say what "would" have happened? Logic is only as good as its premises, which is why you need evidence before you can predict what "would" happen. Since you admittedly have no evidence that it did happen, your claim is empty. So, presumably the greatest genetic diversity was immediately after the Creation (because you can't extrapolate any further than that) and it declined steadily until the Flood?