The TRVE history of the Flood...

And this has been disproved for over 200 years, and all evidence so far still disproves it.

It's just repetitive assertions, and yes I answser with my own repetitive assertions. What's the use of that?But I give up this line of reasoning anyway. It doesn't matter.

quote:

---

It's just repetitive assertions, and yes I answser with my own repetitive assertions. What's the use of that?

---

We have had long presentations of evidence for dating methods to which you have offered no adequate response. In contrast claims for the accuracy of the dates in Genesis don't seem to have ever risen above assertion.So I don't see any real equality here. We have the evidence, you have opinion.

Well, I'm now taking the position that the Bible is evidence. It's God's word, it's the truth, it trumps all the contradictory dating claims. I see no point in repeating this basic conflict ad nauseam.

For the assertions in the Bible.

quote:

---

Well, I'm now taking the position that the Bible is evidence. It's God's word, it's the truth, it trumps all the contradictory dating claims

---

That's your opinion. It's not demonstrable - while the scientific dating methods have huge amounts of confirming evidence. And remember that a considerable amount of that evidence has been discussed here.

quote:

---

I see no point in repeating this basic conflict ad nauseam.

---

Then stop. If you can't offer any sensible rebuttals to the dating evidence then don't waste time claiming that the dates are wrong because they contradict your beliefs - which pretty much begs the question anyway, when those beliefs are the point under discussion.This whole side discussion seems to be nothing more than an attempt,put by you to suppress evidence you have no good answer to.

What do you get out of your silly disruptive little word games?No, I meant evidence for the argument t for the Flood of course. You had to make me say that? Why? What are you accomplishing with your little games?

I dispute your so called evidence. Get a clue. It is not proved it's just the usual conjecture and assumption that can't be proved. I've argued this, I don't care what you think of my argument.

quote:

---

I dispute your so called evidence.

---

Pointless arguing by assertion. We know perfectly well that you have no effective rebuttal because the subject has been discussed.

quote:

---

Get a clue. It is not proved it's just the usual conjecture and assumption that can't be proved.

---

By any reasonable standard it is proved. Ignoring the evidence won't change that.Go back to RAZD's threads on correlations. Address the actual evidence. Don't waste time with anti-scientific arguments that ignore the evidence or irrationally reject any possibility of evidence.

But Faith, you are conflating the text with the YEC interpretation of the text. Even if the text is divinely inspired and inerrant, human interpretations are not. Gen 1-11 is especially difficult to interpret, because the accounts are very condensed and include a significant amount of imagery (starting with chapter 12, the accounts slow down and become much more detailed).One fundamental question: when the author says that the Flood covered "the whole earth" or "all the earth", what did he mean? Is this "all" from God's perspective, or from the narrator's perspective? If the latter, the author was likely referring to "all" of the known earth, not the entire globe (just as when Paul said that the gospel had spread to all the earth; he meant all of the known earth, I.e. all of the Roman Empire).

OK, "for the assertions in the Bible about the Flood". If you want to be picky about it.

If you can't describe potential falsifications for your theory, then it isn't a valid theory.

The bible being God's word and the truth is the claim, not the evidence. Do you understand the difference between a claim and evidence?

Cut the word mangling. If the Bible is the truth then what it says about things in the real world can be used as evidence for those things and against contradictory statements about those things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The same thing can be treated as both a claim and as evidence, however. For example, we normally take radiocarbon dates as evidence of actual age. But the radiocarbon date could also be viewed as a claim that is dependent on the sample not being contaminated, the laboratory measurements being done correctly, etc. Once we are convinced that the dating was done correctly, we treat it as evidence on which to rest more claims.