quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I don't think the representation should be obvious at all, it doesn't carry the same mechanical operations of deposition as mainstream explanation does. Uniformitarian depositional scales allot for this type of simplicity. As for the catastrophist, more than one or two specific areas of inquiry regarding the geologic characteristics may be required in this determination. Our explanation also requires for theories to be compiled from the data rather than simply observing the processes of its current mechanisms of deposition. We must much more fully reach into the past vestige & remnant geo characteristics we find in the earth today.
Sounds like mental gymnastics to me T.C.
"Uniformitarian" geology is complex in that it sees many floods layered one upon another. Flood geology should be very simple by comparison. One flood / One body of evidence / and World-wide distribution of same.
Consider the facts:
- Genesis defines Earth as - dry land, and contrasts it with "Seas" which are "the waters under the heaven [firmament]". The two are mutually exclusive.
- The Bible never describes Earth as if it were a planet.
- The Hebrew word HAR is translated - hill, hills, mountain and mountains. Cities, forts, regions and people are also referred to as "mountains" (HAR). So the bit about water covering the highest
HAR is not really very definitive.
Regrettably, understanding the true nature of the Genesis narrative could convert this debate to one of theology instead of science. But then that's how many creationist feel about already, right?
db
™ Version 4.2
