The TRVE history of the Flood...

The point is that by looking through the telescope, we can directly witness the fact that radioactive decay is at the same rate as today, that stars operate using the same processes that we do today.By contrast there is zero evidence that decay rates were different in the past.

He becomes a direct witness of what he sees when he looks at the eyepiece of the telescope (just as the geologist is a direct witness of what he sees when he looks at the readout of the dating machine).But to say that that somehow makes the astronomer an eyewitness of the stars would, even at best, be assuming the very thing you're being challenged to prove --- that looking at the lens of the telescope half an inch in front of your eye gives you an accurate picture of (for example) the Andromeda Galaxy, 14,700,000,000,000,000,000 miles away, when you have never been there to verify that the telescope really does accurately represent things that far away. To believe that it does must necessarily "rely on assumptions, interpretations, extrapolations", or to put it another way it's a perfectly normal application of the scientific method.

OK, I shall devote the rest of my posts on this thread to my numerological proof that David Jay Jordan is the Antichrist.

Science is off topic, but non scientific extrapolations only loosely tied to what is actual described in the Bible are on topic and cannot be rebutted by facts? How odd.

I guess the thing to do is to request Biblical support for those extrapolations. A "cite chapter and verse" thing?Hey, I'm not claiming that anything to do with "The Flood" really makes worldly sense.Adminnemooseus

As the originator of this thread, I recommend summary mode.My basic summary: The original challenge was for Davidjay to provide his numerology showing the "exact" date for the flood that never happened, and it evolved from there into creationists trying (unsuccessfully) to provide evidence for a global flood while denying or ignoring evidence to the contrary. Looks like the only "evidence" for a global flood during historic times is in the bible, and that has been soundly refuted by real-world evidence. As bible-believers can never be convinced by real-world evidence, we are at an impasse--right back where we started.

We don't have to assume that the witness is 100% accurate or that adjustments won't have to be made as observations accumulate. But the telescope gives us a direct witness in a way that dating methods don't. You act as if those don't have all kinds of error problems for one thing. The results always have to be interpreted, in fact often corrected by other observations. Direct witness isn't perfect but it doesn't have those problems.It ought to be unarguable that a written document describing events in the past, that has lots of agreement from account to account, gives clues to how to date the events, mentions historical real-world kings and leaders that can be tracked extrabiblically, and so on, is a lot better witness than an error-prone atomic decay system.Being able to look at the stars should give a lot more reliable information than a theory about what the stars look like and how far away they are based on blind measurements.Many people can look through the telescope and agree about the observed facts too. .All you have for the past on earth is speculation, or theory, and anybody who isn't up on the theory and contemplates the same information is very likely not to agree with all the others in the same situation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again this assumes the thing to be proved. No it should not. I could write such a document myself. I could put in lots of real kings and battles and dates, and also a bit about how the world was vomited up 10000 years ago by a mutant space goat. And the true bits wouldn't verify the made-up bit.Or I could simply compile together everything that some nation other than the Jews (let's say the ancient Greeks) wrote about their history and the history of the world. I could bind all that stuff together into one book and call it the Biblos. And none of the verifiable bits that turned out to be good history would add one shred of confirmation to the myth of Prometheus.

Not according to Message 1

I think they are cause and effect. The flood carved the Grand Canyon which then provided the route of least resistance for the river that formed later.You don't think the river at the bottom of it is a clue? Nah, course you don't.

So, how much of the course of the Colorado River do you think was carved out by the Flood? Just the Grand Canyon? It's a huge clue. Here we have something that looks like it was carved out by a river, and oh look, there's a river at the bottom of it.

Your fake might get a few nuts to follow it, but anybody who follows the Bible would know it was a fake. The Bible is authentic history and that's why it is a good witness.

But it does not look like it was carved out by a river. the narrow parts maybe but not the wide parts.

This one was funny.

Excuse me, this is MY THREAD...Not yours. I suggested it but because I am proposing too many new topics, therefore I suggested you propose it and I would take up the challenge, and HAVE.I have absolutely proven my dates as biblical and reinforced in two other ways, and am heading to it further through the Speed of LIGHT DESIGN.If we are to summarize this thread, Creation wins, evolution as per usual loses.Idiotic evolutionists extrapolate, have missing links, missing eons, missing transition species, missing transition organs, have no evidence except artists imagainations, and have NO exact dating as does the logical rational mathematical exact Creation via a Creator rather than their absolutely ludicrous BIG BANG or slow gradual inflation, or whatever dream like state they imagaine.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.