Did the Flood really happen?

There is disagreement when looking at thousands of years.

quote:

---

HOW TO CALCULATE BIBLICAL TIME

​

... Biblical chronology has been investigated for centuries by many different people, and these so called experts do not agree with each other. ...

---

Note the implication that the author is the only real 'expert' ... instead of just one more of many so called experts. How does one know which so called expert to believe?

quote:

---

How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?

​

Incomplete genealogies

​

Although Archbishop Ussher assumed the Genesis genealogies were complete, it is clear from the rest of the Bible that those genealogies were telescoped (some names were left out for the sake of brevity), which is common in biblical genealogies but rare in modern genealogies. ...

---

Even assuming that Ussher's genealogies were complete you have assumptions on the lengths of lives lived and how they overlapped, giving a wide range of results.Assumptions and opinions at odds with different "so called experts" ... still not what I call "a very reliable time frame."Enjoy

As I recall, and I'm trying to do something else right now so it's hard to stay focused on this, but didn't he say after how there are so many disagreements that some of them actually reinterpret the Bible on the basis of what science has to say? That is totally bogus. It's all got to come FROM the Bible. If I'm misremembering I'll have to deal with it later.

I thought you said this: Seems that your reasoning is a little compromised.

Science can only uncover the physical reality of the actual creation ... if the bible is true.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Both are true, edge. My whole agenda, including the timing, comes from the Bible, and I thlnk I've said before that science does not judge the Bible, the Bible judges science.It's also true that I put the Bible aside when I thlnk about the physical and biological facts, such as the geological column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Both are true, edge. My whole agenda, including the timing, comes from the Bible, and I thlnk I've said before that science does not judge the Bible, the Bible judges science.

---

Which in practice means that you put your interpretation of the Bible ahead of science.

quote:

---

It's also true that I put the Bible aside when I thlnk about the physical and biological facts, such as the geological column

---

That doesn’t seem to be the case. It looks far more like you take a cursory look at the facts in the hope of finding something to prop up your beliefs.Certainly you don’t look at the evidence in anything like enough depth to produce decent arguments, let alone a coherent view that actually fits the evidence. That’s why you have no real case for the Flood, just biased opinions that you call “obvious”.

Absolutely. Of course.And I ALSO thlnk about the geological and biological facts without reference to it. \Not true. I didn't see the oddness in the interpretation of the geo column at all at first, I stared at it blankly and saw only what science tells us is there. I really had to do some heavy thlnking about it to come to that conclusion, inadequate though of course it is as any kind of scientific thoght. And it had to be thoght through much more than once even to know what I meant by it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And if you came up with a thought that was contradictory to (your interpretation of) the Bible, that wouldn't influence you at all.Suuure. So, more thinking and more thoughts. Might I suggest that you are a beginner?

Yet you still cannot explain how either of the Biblical Floods could create millions of alternating layers of finer material covered by courser material, transport whole islands of coral intact and deposit them right side up, create and preserve wind blown sand dunes, leave tracks of critters or intact nests, sort biological samples by critter or plant or pollen type or in fact any of the hundreds if not thousands of examples that exist in reality.

If I came up with views that oppose the Bible I wouldn't go the way of whatshisname Morton something? Not at first for sure. I'd know it was wrong and i'd keep thlnking because I know the Flood does explain it, I just have to thlnk until I recognize how. if science thlnks all that I know it's very seductive so there's no reason why I couldn't be caught up in it too, and if I had lots and lots of such antiBible thoghts then I suppose I'd throw it out and become an atheist again. Of course. But I wait it out and for the most part what I do come up with is pro Bible and pro Flood so I keep going.Sure I'm a beginner. But my main arguments have been thoght through.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Absolutely. Of course.

​

And I ALSO thlnk about the geological and biological facts without reference to it.

---

Your thoughts seem to be all about fitting the evidence - at least the little you are prepared to look at - to your ideas. Which are ultimately rooted in a Young Earth and a global Flood.It does not seem at all likely that you would assume either unless you interpreted the Bible as saying that these events were historical fact.

quote:

---

Not true. I didn't see the oddness in the interpretation of the geo column at all at first, I stared at it blankly and saw only what science tells us is there

---

Yes, you only started imagining the “oddness” when you adopted anti-scientific beliefs.

quote:

---

I really had to do some heavy thlnking about it to come to that conclusion, inadequate though of course it is as any kind of scientific thoght.

---

Of course your “heavy thought” comes down to things like your assertion that it is “obvious” that there are too many fossils - when it is really obvious that you don’t know how many there should be at all. Indeed, you don’t even seem to realise that you need to come up with at least a rough- but justifiable - estimate. That’s just letting your prejudice run away with you. It is inadequate to rational discussion.Another example is your attempts to claim that mutation cannot halt your assumed decline in diversity. You first argued against the idea that a single mutation would be sufficient - which is pointless because there is a constant stream of mutations (despite your insistence that in “reality” there isn’t). You then assumed an incredibly high mutation rate. Never did you consider using mutation rates consistent with observation.It isn’t heavy thought it’s heavy rationalisation, uninformed by the evidence.

This is why having you in this community is so productive in these debates.Your “thought through” actually isn't and is the very reason science exists . needs to exist.Your arguments are the most striking example of the intellectual straight jacket religion puts on the human mind.We joke about how CRP (crazy religious people) form their conclusions first then look for reasons to hold them. You actually, unashamedly, purposely follow that paradigm. You put the C with the RP.You are a most wonderful example of how not to think in a modern world. It's almost like god put you here to show the newbies and the lurk-o-sphere how not to be. You are a most wonderful example of why religion needs to fade away from all human culture.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

No, it does not. Your whole agenda comes from your own fallible human interpretation of the Bible. This completely circumvents your other fallible human interpretation that the Bible must be infallible. You are not speaking from the Bible itself, but rather from your own fallible human interpretation of the Bible.Or are you yourself infallible? You have never claimed to be, yet that is still how you consistently appear to roll. This is also very much a part of the basic "creation science" deception.With Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), the "monkey laws" were struck down and the anti-evolution movement could no longer use religious reasons for barring the teaching of evolution in public schools. Half of the 70's consisted of creationists learning the new rules the hard way, while the other half of that decade consisted of creationists coming up with Plan B. Plan B was "creation science", a deliberately crafted legalistic deception intended to circumvent the post Epperson v. Arkansas courts with the lie that their objections to evolution were all based on science instead of religion.What came out of all that was a de facto requirement for all creationists to avoid resorting to supernatural miracles at all costs and instead to constantly appeal to naturalistic causes, even when no such support even remotely existed.That is the corner that you have painted yourself into. The only way for your imaginations to ever possibly be true would be for your god to have arbitrarily made it so. Every other possible scenario will consistently decide against your position.Despite your claims of having "put the Bible aside", your own fallible human interpretations are still always in force.

So here's the part I skipped over: Completely different sediments, straight and flat and all neatly stacked up for miles. For starters. I'd just think to have a better word for it.Well, these ARE facts and I would absurd2 that somebody might have noticed that there's something very odd about them in the context of the standard explanation. Replace? I'm nowhere near such an ambition with these crazy5. I'd be thrilled if anybody like6 that the way the sediments are stacked is a bit on the like105 side in relation to the time periods system. Totally lost me. All I want is another term for "layers" and a comment on whether anybody layers4 the geological column stack of sediments is an unlikely fit with the time periods interpretation. Right, well I didn't start there you know, or maybe you don't. I put together a whole presentation based on the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase cross section to demonstrate how it all demonstrates a young earth and defies the usual Old Earth interpretations. The tilting of the Supergroup was a necessary way of extending that observation into the basement rocks as formed after the strata were all laid down. So I'll defend it still if I get back to it.Meanwhile this is a different discussion. I was using the term "uniform" to refer to the regularity of the form of the strata as straight flat slabs of separate sedimentary content. Nothing to do with rock as such or its composition or texture etc. Yes I do reject it. Not getting your point. Steno's law refers to original horizontality and that's apparent everywhere there are strata in whatever condition they happen to be.So that seems to come to the end of your post finally.

My agenda comes from the Bible as it is taught by most Protestant evangelicals.I have zip knowledge about or interest in the legal situation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.