quote:
when you look at it from what had been conventional evolutionary tinted glasses, everything only fits without God's flood. Assuming a flood, we simply have to expand our minds to realize the scale of violence that must have occured. Stop looking at the geoillogical column as some order of self creation, and it may be a start.
We can realize the violence. The fact that we don't see the result of such violence in the geologic record brings us to the conclusion that the violence never occured. What would be the result of such violence, according to you? Finely separated sediments and hundreds of feet of limestone don't seem to support this.
And also, your whole position that pre-flood rates were different rings very hollow. Do you have any evidence that the rates were different. Do you have proof that the rates were not SLOWER than they are now? The rates could have been slower, which would mean the earth is much older than we think. So if rates could have been slower in the past, can I make the argument that the earth MUST be 50 billion years old? I have just as much evidence for 50 billion years as you have for 6,000. Simply stating that rates were different is not enough, you must have evidence.