Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on October 24, 1999 at 20:11:41 {f8eW6hUOe2MRXA6xmpscslyACFuF8c}:
In Reply to: *************FOR AL: CHRONOLOGY CONT'D posted by Al; on October 24, 1999 at 15:11:24:
>>.... unless natural processes were expected to be suspended and a "force field" kept all
moisture and energy exerted by the water from affecting the contents.
This is ENTIRELY my point! The global flood was a miraculous event and we don't know enough about specifically how it occurred to make any claims. We don't know if the rains started slowly until a certain stage of flooding occurred and then a vast downpour after things were submerged, etc. It may have been God's intent to stir things up or just to flood the earth with water like a sink backs up. Remember the Bible says that part of the flooding was from underground springs that were opened. So it could have been very non-traumatic to preserve the topsoil.
Therefore what "evidence" could there be? Additionally, we don't know what other miraculous forces came into play that might have been supernatural. As I've mentioned the Bible hints that the waters were abaded by "winds" which I interpret to include water spouts that had to displace what I would consider the majority of the water back into outer space. My confirmation of that is ice around meteors in the solar system proving there is moisture in the solar system. The oceans may have been rather shallow before the flood and there was some reorganization. We don't know that. The highest mountain range in the world is the Hawaiian Island chain which begin deep on the floor of the ocean. There are tall mountains under the ocean. So we just don't know.
But I know you don't have any proof if the flood actually happened.
The same thing goes with scientists claiming that there were civilizations greater than 6000 years ago. How can they tell? With radiocarbon toy clocks? That's all they have. But of course, since I know (believe) that the Bible is true and that mankind is less than 6000 years old, I know their clocks are either wrong or being misread, which isn't a big deal, scientists make mistakes all the time.
And that's another thing. Science can only probe things in a limited way. Science can gather facts which are then "interpreted" by scientists. So few things are an exact since when it comes to these things. Even archaeology is not considered a "science" but an "art." And that's one thing that science cannot probe and that is "art."
A lot of what tells us there is intelligent designin the universe and that testifies that there is a god is the ARTISTIC NATURE of the universe and creation. This is something that the laboraty cannot perceive.
Evolution, for instance can explain how a tree develops or a child might develop. So that is theoretical fact upon observation. But what it cannot perceive is the artistry in nature with respect to color coordination and variety. It's not probative by science. But our understanding of those things tell us there must have been a Creator.
In other words, scientific analysis can tell you a cabin is made out of woods and stones. But can it tell you about the preferences of the person who built it? No! Is that probative? Yes. If you use the other half of your brain, you can see that somebody built a log cabin and you won't assume that it evolved from the surround flora and fauna and built itself.
And that goes double for the supernatural intervention. "Miracles" as they say, that go against the fundamental laws. Science cannot probe the spirit world. So it is a limited tool and scientists are known to make revisions. Even in the computer field, what is hot today is totally outdated in just a few months.
So can we trust scientists about dating when their dating is so totally erroneous? NO! They don't know what they are doing. So you can't PROVE anything but how to be misguided.
You want to take me on?
Right now they can't even use radiocarbon to accurate date recent events accurately. I can show you quotes where archaeologists wave away radiocarbon dating when they have other evidence that the dating is off.
Right now I'm claiming that Xerxes and Artaxerxes are the same king. Do you believe it? Do you think I can prove it? Can those who think they were different kings prove they weren't?
Want to accept the challenge?
Right now per current chronology the experts are tolerating an 82-year expansion during the Persian Period whereas the Bible does not. This has been examined and the details of the revisions are now known.
One of the errors that survived, however, was an event that was linked to a fixed date, that is an astronomical event, whereas the rest of the chronology was moved around. That was the birth of Cyrus' mother, dated after the Lydian-Median peace agreement. The result is that her birth stayed fixed after a 585BCE eclipse but the addition of 58 years of fake chronology moved all the rest of history back by 58 years, including the birthdate of Cyrus which now occurs 15 years before that of his own mother.
Why don't you ask an archaeologist about that and see what he has to say. Or, what do you have to say about it?
All I know is that sons are not born before their mothers and this is an obvious indication of historical revisionism. It would take 45-55 years to fix it, too. No problem.
So why hasn't "science" fixed this? Why can't they tell there is 82 years of fake Persian chronology?
It is completely confirmed now since the revisionists also left records of the original chronology they were revising, but in the meantime, why wasn't this discovered before?
So I'm sorry, but I'm very down on "claims" of scientists, who don't seem to be able to do much more than fool themselves into what they want to believe including the fabulously unscientific theory of evolution.
Want to take me on?
I don't believe in evolution, but I gave the evolutionists the benefit of the doubt to defend their theory and so I simply ask them about a problem I'm having with ABIOGENSIS. A cursory observation of inorganic chemistry will tell you that the natural order of things breaks things down into their most fundamental stable molecular state. That is, if something dies, it disentigrates chemically into basic salts and other elements after the gases and moisture is released. So the "natural" direction of things is in the complete opposite direction that evolution needs to generate things. So how did it all start?
When I ask the local evolutionists about this, all I get is a "DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH...ummm We don't know? We don't know how it start, BUT..." Yeah right. If you can't start it, I don't want to hear about it.
So it's a stupid theory. It's not critically scientific. They haven't duplicated anything evolutionary in any controlled laboratories. How did the world evolve on its own? I couldn't! I didn't. That's why it is STUPHIDITY with a capital PHiD! And you want me to trust "objective' science. Oh, please.
Explain ABIOGENSIS and we'll talk.
Want to take me on? You can't.
You have no objective evidence. No can't prove anything. I like the Bible. I'm done.
Cheers,
Bibleman