Let me see if I can make the point clearer. It's become a broken record that doesn't further the debate in the slightest. We've been exchanging the same opinions over and over but this can never go anywhere because they are basic premises that aren't going to be changed. The debate is, or should be, BASED on them, not ABOUT them. It's just a huge waste of time to keep getting this same old same old stuff about the Bible being a myth and dating methods being the last word on the discussion. Or jar's endless carrying on about his ridiculous interpretations of the Bible. Or my statements about the absurdity of the OE/ToE assumptions or that the Bible's dates trump the dating methods. They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument.
What would really help is if you could describe geologic features that your model could NOT produce.
But that could be asked of your model too. The real issue isn't that either model can't account for this or that but that we dispute the validity of the theories on both sides that account for this or that. And that's the whole debate.
If you can't describe potential falsifications for your theory, then it isn't a valid theory.
Well, I'm now taking the position that the Bible is evidence. It's God's word, it's the truth, it trumps all the contradictory dating claims. I see no point in repeating this basic conflict ad nauseam.
The bible being God's word and the truth is the claim, not the evidence. Do you understand the difference between a claim and evidence?
In this thread you can't argue that something is true because the Bible is true. You have to supply corroborating real world evidence. Archeological and historical evidence has consistently confirmed the Bible is true. That is corroborating real world evidence
Then perhaps you should present the corroborating evidence for a recent global flood. Each claim in the Bible must be independently verified. Simply finding one claim that is supported by evidence does not make all of the other claims true by default. For example:
1. The Cubs baseball team plays their home games in Chicago. 2. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of light in the infrared spectrum. 3. Leprechauns make rainbows.
If I can confirm claims 1 and 2, does that mean 3 is also true?
The strata that make up what is traditionally called the Geological Column, that also is the basis of the Geological Time Scale, covers HUGE amounts of territory, huge, some of them whole continents -- such as the layer called St. Peter Sandstone -- climbing two miles in some cases.
But that's not true. The St. Peter Sandstone does not cover the entire NA continent. Why lie about it?
There are no worldwide flood layers. There aren't even flood layers that cover a single landmass.
Re: Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
Fossils have turned up in the gwrongh place many times and this continues today.
Every time I have seen a creationist try to back this claim with evidence it just falls apart.
Creationists can't explain why there is a correlation between the type of fossils and the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks that surround them. That's because creationists are wrong.
There are several mechanisms that separately and together could provide a Creationist explanation for the sequence in the fossil record. œ Ecological zonation œ Differential escape œ Hydrodynamic sorting œ Biogeographic provincialism
I have yet to see a single creationist explain how these mechanisms would produce the fossil record that we see. I don't understand how they can even write such things and feel they are being honest.
Do you have any interest in actually showing how these mechanisms would produce the fossil record? Probably not, right? Your only intent is to throw something out into the world to make it look like you have an answer when you know you don't. It is as dishonest as it gets.
What, it didn't cover some part of the continent so I can't say "all?"
That's correct. You are claiming that a worldwide flood is evidence by worldwide sedimentary layers. If a sedimentary layer only covers part of the world, THEN YOU CONCLUSION IS FALSIFIED. It's that simple.
It stretches across the entire continent and is also found in the UK.
By that measure, the Mississippi river covers the entire North American continent.
Where did I say there were?
"The strata that make up what is traditionally called the Geological Column, that also is the basis of the Geological Time Scale, covers HUGE amounts of territory, huge, some of them whole continents"
There is not a single sedimentary layer that covers an entire continent.
The Flood wouldn't have had to cover every square inch of land with a sediment layer. Surely there would have been gaps in the load carried in the water, suirely there would have been areas eroded away after deposition.
Then The Flood is completely unfalsifiable. No matter what the pattern of sedimentation is, you will claim that it is consistent with a global flood.
Worldwide sedimentary layer? The flood.
Patchy quiltwork of different sedimentary layers? The flood.
A complete mixing of all types of fossils? The flood.
A worldwide correlation of specifically sorted fossils? The flood.