A Bronze Standard

It's the height of foolishness to prefer mere humanly devised dating methods to a revelation given us by God Himself that tells us clearly what happened when.Denying this revelation or its Authorship leaves you with the flawed human methods, but surely it ought to be logical that IF the Bible IS the Creator God's revelation to His human creatures then contradicting it is sheer foolishness.Also any attempt by its supposed believers to reinterpret time indicators in that revelation, especially in order to reconcile it with worldly methods and ideas, is even more foolish.

Jar says what he calls "dogma" doesn't belong on this thread so I'm not going to answer any posts about the Biblical context here. What I said is complete in itself, perfectly logical and that's the end of it.

This is false. What "creationists" are you referring to? Most creationists I trust accept a date around 4300 to 4500 years ago, and the only reason I don't have a fixed date is that I keep forgetting how all the numbers add up, but it is certainly possible to pin it down from the Biblical information based on the genealogies given in the Bible. Other dates would have no biblical support. Nonsense. Who does this? A reference please. Oh nonsense. I've stuck to the date range above all along as is common among YECs. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are you really unable to figure out the answer to this, meaning you're so stubbornly glued to the OE system you can't think outside the box, or are you simply insisting on it even knowing the answer? The answer of course is that I don't believe they are older, I reject the dating systems you use. I don't accept anything that contradicts the Bible. What? If I don't agree that those rocks are that old then I'm not switching my position in the slightest, and it's you who are simply imposing your false dates on me. The "no evidence" in the soils YOU date to the time WE believe the Flood occurred, is based on YOUR preconception that I reject. You miss the real evidence for the Flood because you are glued to your own paradigm. You really should at least acknowledge the position of your opponents even if you don't agree with it, instead of dogmatically pronouncing yours correct. Well, there it is, your belief being treated as reality to disqualify mine. This is some kind of fallacy in a debate but I don't know what to call it. A form of begging the question perhaps. You pronounce those strata to be millions of years old without the slightest recognition that creationists have good reason to reject your dates. I AM sticking to the date range I gave because I do NOT recognize YOUR system of dating. What YOU think is millions of years old is simply NOT, it's only a few thousand years old. It doesn't matter if you personally believe this, in order to argue fairly you have to acknowledge it as a different view from yours. This is a case of ossified paradigm. There is nothing tortured about my view of these things, I simply, very simply, absolutely reject your dating system. I experience no cognitive strain whatever, perform no mental gymnastics, and I do not in any way change my view of when the Flood occurred. I have no reason to. Your billions of years are a fiction, it costs me nothing to laugh and ignore them. This is the worst case of paradigm cramp I've ever seen.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am capable of recognizing the point of view of the opposition that I am disagreeing with; Coyote on the other hand can't seem to process the fact that creationists have a different view of the evidence than he does. To him the strata just ARE ABSOLUTELY hundreds of millions of years old, and he can't seem to recognize even the possibility that I really do see them as only thousands of years old.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are missing the point. He doesn't even recognize in the middle of the argument that I HAVE an objection to conventional dating, THAT"s what Im talking about. It also doesn't matter if you think I get the opponents' view wrong, just being aware that there IS a point of view opposed to me is more than Coyote seems to be aware of. Getting my point of view WRONG would be an improvement.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, you've changed the subject. I made a completely different point and I'm leaving it there for now.