Summations Only

Well, I know you have to believe that. But since we see real processes depositing great flat sheets of calcareous ooze, there's no particular need to imagine some alternate magical process in the past --- except for your religiously motivated need to ascribe geology to magical processes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But was Mars flooded? Well, they're flat and stacked on top of one another, which as you've explained to us is the sure sign of an invisible psychopath committing magical aquatic genocide.

And yet the "eyewitnesses" who wrote about the Flood didn't mention them at all - no meteorite impacts, no volcanic eruptions, no zooming tectonic plates, just an ordinary flood on a larger-than-life scale. Your "explanation" of the Flood effects is a totally made-up fantasy that has nothing to do with either science or the Bible.

What is this absurd idea you have that every single detail of every event has to actually BE in the Bible to be authentic? There are lots of reasonable possibilities for what happened in the Flood that aren't mentioned in the Bible, but are perfectly consistent with what IS in the Bible.

I don't know if Mars was flooded, but if it was, the flood wasn't much like the Flood of Noah, judging by the very different terrain it left.

It would be nice if anything you claim would be consistent with the Bible. The Bible simply does not support your "explanation" of the Flood. You are not a Bible literalist; you're more like a novelist.

I thought it was a sin to add to the Bible...

Interpreting the Bible is not adding to the Bible

Okay, so I was wrong.How do you know what interpretation of the Bible is correct?And please, don't just say 'it's obvious'.

In the case of interpreting what the Flood would have done I don't think we can KNOW any of it is correct, we can only suggest what seems plausible, and of course we have to include what science says about it even if to you it seems we don't. Physical facts anyway, not the interpretive baggage of dating and mentally constructed ancient landscapes. There are things about the physical world that you guys DO know that have to be taken into account, but your unprovable interpretations we do not have to take as gospel.{I realize that this kind of interpretation should be distinguished from interpreting the meaning of passages in the Bible though, and for that I rely on the consensus of a whole bunch of theologians and Bible teachers both ancient and modern, and even then I have to trust my own judgment about who are the best. But if you are a believer, and you are scared to death of imposing your own prejudices on the Bible, you trust that God will guide you.)Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

So, then, it is possible that you are wrong. I mean, you admit that you don't really KNOW about the flood. Or the baggage of biblical interpretation without independent support, yes?As compared to actual observable facts, of course.Which can be discounted at will. So, you can cherry-pick what you want and ignore the rest, right?For instance, you can reference the existence of Pangaea, but ignore all of the facts surrounding it.Am I right?

That's not QUITE what I said. I can't know with certainty anything that depends on my own thinking about HOW it happened, anything the Bible doesn't reveal about it that is, but I certainly DO know that there was a worldwide Flood, yes I have no doubt about that despite those who interpret the Bible to mean it wasn't worldwide; and I am 99% sure it occurred about 4500 years ago.The rest of your post is too hard to sort out. I say I reject your unprovable interpretations of the past but you seem to be extending that to include things I didn't say. I'm not even going to try to sort all that out.

Nope, you don't. You believe it. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Just as I did over in the Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined thread (see Message 314, 2nd paragraph), I'll be moving to a more assertive approach in this thread. Again, you are responsible for managing your own discussion. You and Edge have been engaged in a back-and-forth, and you're expected to be able to follow the thread of your own discussions. You just earlier broke off a discussion with NoNukes pleading inability to follow your own discussion, and now you're doing it with Edge. You will not be permitted to keep breaking off discussions for this reason. Either find a way to follow your own discussions with people or stop discussing. Address the evidence presented by Edge or drop discussion of this subtopic. It is fair to ask Edge to repeat his evidence and argument, or to provide a link to the message containing it. To Edge I would ask that he make sure his arguments eschew brevity that might hinder understanding.

So, we are to posit a process dissimilar to Noah's Flood which still produces stacks of flat strata?