Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

You make a lot of points there - not all of which are on-topic. (Some of them belong in the PRATT's topic like the magnetic field decay argument and the ludicrous population growth argument).Perhaps it would be best to pick out one or two for more detailed discussion in this thread and go to other threads for some of the rest that don't belong. What do you say ?

Well it isn't true that you were invited to discuss any age of the Earth argument here. In fact you were invited here to address the evidence presented in the earlier posts. And the reason for that was beacuse the topic you were in was getting too fragmented already. And now you are insisting on fragmenting this one Sorry, I'm not going to be part of any attempt to bury the evidence.

It's not my memory you are disagreeing with. It's RAZD's Message 33 above which I carefully read to check before posting.

To sum up your post, you are claiming that the correct way to investigate the past is to take a superficial view of the evidence and jump to the conclusions you wish to reach.Looking at the evidence in more detail and finding out that the evidence does not support you at all is absurd, guesswork, building castles in the airTo rational people the methodology employed by scientists is obviously far superior to yours.

quote:

---

The evidence for the Flood is scientific fact, you know, actual sedimentary deposits, actual fossils in the bazillions, not any of your wacko stuff.

---

The existence of the strata and the fossils is scientific fact. That doesn’t mean that they are evidence for the Flood.

quote:

---

Best I can do is say I've argued the case for the absurdity of the OE interpretation of the strata many times and am not up to it again.

---

Because admitting the failures of your arguments would be too much to expect from you.

quote:

---

Best I can do is say I've argued the case for the absurdity of the OE interpretation of the strata many times and am not up to it again.

---

Things you’ve made up don’t count as observations, you know.

quote:

---

The rest of your post demonstrates that what you have and all you have, and I've conceded it at least until further notice, is dating calculations.

---

We also have the order of the fossil record, erosion between layers - sometimes massive, huge amounts of ancient lava extruded onto dry land, a long history of tectonic disturbances... the evidence goes on and on. Too bad you can’t admit to any of it.

quote:

---

Timing is of course important, but if the basic absurdity of the standard interpretation and the obvious sense of the Floodist interpretation can be shown then the timing is just going to have to be rethought

---

And how on earth are you going to manage that ? Claiming that the strata and fossils support the Flood because a ridiculously superficial interpretation of the evidence lets you jump to that conclusion - and attacking anyone who dares look deeper and see the falsehood of your claims hardly does that.