The TRVE history of the Flood...

Sure it is!It is very fine evidence. Its too bad you won't allow yourself to accept it, as it is our key to understanding the past.Without dating we are stuck with old folk myths about the past.

Evolutionists study biology. Not continental drift. Geologists study plate tectonics, not biology. Different subjects.You got to accept reality, Davidjay. You seem to be, well, lets put it this way; waaaaay out of your league. You don't even know the basics.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

But as mentioned Continental Drift ir a very different and unique and special event of plate tectonics, and is not about the Worldwide Flood. Two different events as mentioned, divided by some 130 years.Plate tectronics is definitely about Continental Drift and it is different than the Worldwide Flood. Mixing the two topics together can surely get me to violate the laws HERE of 'Staying on Topic' Nothing is more important than discussing plate tectronics of the past. Thats geology. Thats the topics on this sub-board.Two different leagues, one advanced from the other in time....and results.Do consider a new THREAD, even if just for readers rather than for evolutionists who should be only in the biological sub boards.

I have a better source of knowledge about the past, but the point about your dating methods is that they are confined to the present and their application to the past is all pure conjecture. Granted it "makes sense" but there is really no way to verify it and as I said I have a better method that says it's wrong. I think it is way beyond the time that you should be allowed to refer to the Bible as a myth the way you do. That is not your call, and there's no point as a debate tactic either. You can't win the debate by declaring your opponent's premise a myth. It is also unproductive to keep repeating your main, or one and only, argument from dating methods.For a Biblical Creationist the Bible is a trustworthy witness to the past and anything that contradicts it is necessarily false. What's "too bad" is that you so doggedly reject the only reliable source of truth on this planet. There are many of us who started out with your notions and came to recognize the Bible as a supernatural revelation of The Truth. For your sake it would be great if you also came to the same conclusion but nobody is requiring it of you. What SHOULD be required here is the basic respect for a belief system you don't share, as per Rule 10.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A question. How is declaring the Flood story a myth different from your assertion that it is a reliable historical account ? And how is it worse than your rejection of the evidence confirming the reliability of scientific dating methods ?

Science dating methods are not reliable beyond a few thousand years, and assume "all things continued without catastrophic interfence..... therefore creation is definitely logical and rational, given its exacting dating methods which have been confirmed via numerous methods as evidenced HERE.The myth of evolution has not been established yet except in the minds of evolutionists who need it for their religion. For as good religionists they refuse to answer questions regarding its abilities or magical properties.... besides evolutionists vy their own definitions insist they do not cross the bounds to any other field of science.Again creationism wins as it does answer questions, and has no missing links, whereas evolution just believes in FAITH of throwing the dice over and over and over again until supposedly a good outcome or combination of explosions, provides new viability to a dying species.The Flood happened as seen by Darwin and Viekosky, and other true obersers of the true geological record.

quote:

---

Darwin became strongly influenced by the "slow occurring" geology as proposed by Lyell. He observed at his first stop of the Beagle on the Cape Verde Islands (January 16, 1832 to February 8,) sediments enclosed by lava flows and raised above the sea level, but with fossils similar to the shells in the sea nearby (implying no substantial change of the environment over time). He applied the principles formulated by Lyell and became convinced that the surface of earth changes over time only slowly and gradually, not as believed by many naturalists at the time by sudden catastrophic events, like the "biblical flood".

​

In a letter to his sisters Darwin confessed that he "literally could not sleep for thinking over my [geology]".

---

Let me see if I can make the point clearer. It's become a broken record that doesn't further the debate in the slightest. We've been exchanging the same opinions over and over but this can never go anywhere because they are basic premises that aren't going to be changed. They are just being asserted rather than used in the argument to any real purpose. It's just a huge waste of time to keep getting this same old same old stuff about the Bible being a myth and dating methods being the last word on the discussion. Or jar's endless carrying on about his ridiculous interpretations of the Bible. Or my statements about the absurdity of the OE/ToE assumptions or that the Bible's dates trump the dating methods. They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What would really help is if you could describe geologic features that your model could NOT produce.

So name the "best exegetes" of Protestant theology between AD 500 and 1500.

Do you mean Velikovsky?From the Wiki page:

Velikovsky's ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia (often vociferously so) and his work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions. Moreover, scholars view his unorthodox methodology (for example, using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics) as an unacceptable way to arrive at conclusions. Stephen Jay Gould offered a synopsis of the mainstream response to Velikovsky, writing, "Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatanalthough, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong ... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends."

You could at least spell his name correctly.

OK, then let's break this vicious cycle by having you derive the infallibility of the Bible as a conclusion instead of a premise.If that's too hard, just show that it does not in fact fail with respect to certain specific claims contained in it such as, y'know, the Flood, the age of the Earth, fiat creation of species, that sort of thing. But without taking this as a premise in place of an argument. Go on, show us how it's done.

But then he'd have to be right about something.

But that could be asked of your model too. The real issue isn't that either model can't account for this or that but that we dispute the validity of the theories on both sides that account for this or that. And that's the whole debate.

The topic is the Flood, not the validity of the Bible.