The TRVE history of the Flood...

No you are wrong. It is observations of the real world that suggest a young earth that require calling the dating methods into question. You often make that false assertion about its being religion, but you just aren't thinking about the actual arguments that creationists make, that's just a blind bias of your own. (I'm not commenting on DavidJay's arguments since I don't know yet what they are) I agree that the methods haven't been shown to be false, which is why I don't try to make that argument. I'm saying that the strata themselves don't fit the Old Earth model at all, in many ways I've mentioned, and that fact alone has to call the dating methods into question. You have to respond to these observations instead of just sticking to your dating methods.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So you're saying one can't make any true observations about say conditions on Mars unless one has been there? Or a geologist who has studied one feature of his science in great depth can't arrive at any true observations about some other facet of the science he hasn't actually experienced? Or nobody can talk about the molecular formula for water without having seen the oxygen and hydrogen atoms actually doing their thing? Did I have to be there when the apple fell on Newton's head to follow his analysis of the event? Is it possible to know anything about anything in the past when all that's available is written documents and maybe some photographs?Also, I suspect that a person could spend a lifetime in the Grand Canyon and not understand how it formed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence is given, it is to be judged on its own merits, I'm not claiming anything from the Bible, The fact that it was my original inspiration is irrelevant. Deal with the observations given. If I'm not being objective prove it from the evidence given. Your belief in the ToE makesw you just as likely to be unable to be objective as anybody else with any bias of any kind. All you are doing is stating your own bias, not a valid argument. Deal with the evidence given. I'm describing real world facts. You have to address those facts not your prejudices about religion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your straw man is more pathetic than most. End of conversation.

This is a huge waste of time. Just deal with the evidence I've given. I've described the strata, answer the descdription. The description suggests a young earth. I have not referred to the Bible. Yes the bible is infallible, but it doesn't dictate the eviddnece. Deal with the evidence. Thanik you.

Only PaulK has addressed the evidence I've given at all, everybody else has engaged in one form of evasion or another. There is no point discussing all the extra-evidential comments and I'm sorry I've done that.By which I mean Coyote's refusal to address the evidence I've given because his dating methods are enough for him'
Tangle's refusal to address the evidence because I get my inspiration from the Bible;
CatsEye's refusal to address the evidence because I've never taken a pickaxe to a rock;
and jar's refusal to address the evidence because he prefers to make unfounded accusations based on his prejudices about my beliefs.But for anyone who might like to think about the evidence itself, here are four posts of mine about the evidence: Message 10
Message 18
Message 20
Message 36There are other briefer remarks on the evidence besides these.

I agree with you in general, Dredge, and wish you would stick around but can understand if you don't. Well, the thing about antibiotics is you have to know enough evolutionary science to know what they mean. They aren't being dishonest, they just call things like antibiotic resistance evolution that don't support the theory in the slightest. This goes on all the time here but you have to get enough of the science to notice it. In the sense they use the term, which in relation to bacteria is basically "any change in the organism that has observable consequences" it's true enough: antibiotics do cause such a change. They kill off most of the bacteria but some continue to survive and multiply and that's what they call evolution.But the question is whether the change is rightly called evolution. In this case usually what happens is that some function in some of the bacteria that was receptive to the antibiotic isn't present in the small group of survivors and the absence of that function gets passed on as the population grows -- it can't absorb the poison so it survives and proliferates. It's an absence of something, not a positive change. It's like the wingless beetles on windy islands. The reason they survive in the windy conditions is that they lack the genetic material that makes wings. In a sense it's a disease they have. It's certainly not anything like what the theory of evolution predicts, which is something new in the DNA that causes the beneficial change. New "information." So the bacteria lose some function that made them susceptible to an antibiotic, that's hardly what is meant by Evolution but it's called evolution.But aside from that, changes that occur within a few generations of any organism, when they ARE positive changes in the genetic makeup, are "microevoolution." All creatures, sexually reproducing creatures anyway for sure, have this built-in ability to vary. that's how Darwin bred all his varieties of pigeons. He extrapolated from the fact that some pretty dramatic changes are possible in domestic breeding, to the theory of evolution: All he did was assume that the processes of change are open-ended, that change can just continue and continue until one kind of creature becomes another. In reality the changes only go so far and that's that. I've spent a lot of time here trying to argue from simple genetics why that is so: the loss of "information" or genetic variability that occurs because of the processes of change eventually brings the processes of evolution to an end.But anyway, they aren't being dishonest, they just hold on to their theory with an iron grip.Antibiotic resistance is real. It does occur because of changes in the bacteria that get selected because they survive the antibiotic. These changes are called evolution but they aren't. You seem to know this but it would help if you knew more about the science that makes it true.But you're right, this is off topic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That would be true for me of course. And that is because the Bible is God's Word, the revelation of the God who made it all so that we know it is all true.You don't believe this of course but your disbelief doesn't change the fact that it is true.Have you ever considered the possibility that it's true or do you just hang on to your unbelief without a moment's hesitation? because, if you could just consider that it might be true long enough to get an idea why people who belief it is true think as we do, it would probably improve communication around here quite a bit. Because the way you talk there is no point in having a debate. EvC might as well not even exist.Consider it true, all of it, as believers do. Just suspend your disbelief long enough for this thought experiment.Genesis is presented as historical fact. What then? I'll say it again: this is false. Creationists are not anti-science. Creationists object to evolutionary and Old Earth claims and that's all. And because the Bible IS God's truth we have come to see that those are false science. Since the Bible gives only rough outlines of history we are left having to fill in the scientific information from what is true in conventional science plus our own observations.It's the reasonable thing to do given the facts as I've spelled them out above.You really should make a little bit of an effort to put yourself in our place.

All that changes in what I said is that it gives the cause of the loss of function as a mutation. Loss of function is the opposite of new information. It is exactly what we would expect of mutations though, of course, destructive rather than productive. This is not what we are led to expect of evolution, however. All change is not evolution.Besides that you have the usual definitional problem that plagues evolutionism. The built-in changes called "microevolution" in fact account for ALL observed changes. The ToE is pure conjecture, never demonstrated, and can't be demonstrated. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was trying to get you to come out of your box long enough to consider that IF the Bible IS true then what choice does a person have but to start with what it says in constructing a scientific account of anything it addresses? Instead of sticking to your formula about "religion" which keeps you in your box, what would happen if you tried just a teensy bit to see things as we see them? If the Bible is true, as we believe it is, then you have to start there. You will immediately see that it calls certain things you believe into question. If it's TRUE. See?

You are simply missing the whole point. We KNOW that God's word is true, so that is where we MUST start. You don't put aside something you know is the truth, it's exactly where you have to start. There isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind that it's the truth as revealed by the God who made the universe; I'd be an idiot to put it aside to start with the observations of my own fallen mind.What this debate is about for Bible-inerrancy creationists is trying to prove it from the observations. Uh huh, well we've come to a very strange situation where the standard historical Protestant view of the Bible is treated as just one of many acceptable views, but that's entirely irrelevant to the point anyway. My views certainly represent the majority of creationists and Creationist ministries who affirm Bible inerrancy, and what I've said above is true for how we have to go about science with the premises we happen to have.

Unfortunately what's silly is how these things are dated. They came after the (one/singular worldwide) Flood. In fact the rocks and caves where they are painted are certainly the product of the Flood. The Grand Canyon certainly is and there are paintings there too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, very true, but try to get that acknowledged by anyone but a creationist. To hear most people here talk, whatever they can dream up about the past is solid fact. And of course anything their dating methods come up with is on a par with eyewitness testimony.There are many threads at EvC on the Grand Canyon here. I've spent a lot of time thinking through what must have happened. Sometimes I'll take off from what a creationist ministry has to say, but visualizing the situation for myself is more fun. I'm no geologist but there are some pretty simple observations that can be made about the canyon, and the whole area to the north of it as well, that fit the Flood scenario very well.I'm glad to see I came to the same conclusion the creationist ministry you quote came to, -- that is partly what makes this fun, finding out that different people come to the same conclusions from simple observations -- that the canyon was carved by the receding waters of the Flood. And of course the strata the canyon cuts into were built by the Flood itself.It's nice to hsve a couple of serious creationists here for a change, meaning you and Dredge. I gather you've studied these things quite a bit. I've noticed that you accept mutations where I wouldn't, but nevertheless we seem to be mostly on the same page about all this, which is really quite unusual in my experience. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I will claim that the dates are wrong, but I've offered lots of evidence for the Flood here, and good evidence too, based not on the Bible but on observations -- observations that first of all show the absurdity of the Old Earth interpretations, but also evidence for rapid deposition of the strata and that sort of thing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It does make me happy when my own observations turn out to fit what the Big Guy creationists are also saying. Those who study the rocks come to them with a head full of bias just as a creationist does. They can only see what their theory tells them to see.