World Wide Flood Of Noah

[jo1952]

jo1952:

From Fairwiki; The Church has no official position on evolution, and each member is entitled to his or her own personal views on the subject. In the evolution debate, difficulties have arisen when readers assume that statements by certain leaders represent an official position beyond that expressed by the First Presidency as a body. As expressed by David H. Bailey, a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and author of numerous articles on the relationship between Mormonism and science,

The LDS Church has a great scientific tradition, including notable, respected researchers in virtually event field of modern science. Indeed, our motto is “The glory of God is intelligence.” Why not just acknowledge that science and religion address two very different sets of questions, and that the methodology in one arena cannot settle controversies in the other

You said:

Why not just acknowledge that science and religion address two very different sets of questions, and that the methodology in one arena cannot settle controversies in the other.

I repeated several times now that it is not the methodology that concerns me; it is the interpretations of the knowledge gathered that does. For instance, where Church Leaders have come right out and said we do not know the age of the earth, then why does man insist on giving it an age??

We have also been taught by Church leaders that science is not going to go against any of our beliefs. Yet, you to ask me to:

acknowledge that science and religion address two very different sets of questions, and that the methodology in one arena cannot settle controversies in the other

which is in direct conflict with this teaching. This is the attitude about science which this thread is fighting! A comment like you just made affirms the danger wherein man is making science their god, and then trying to reverse engineer the scriptures in order to force them to agree with the interpretations of science. This is backwards! Those who use science to confirm the teachings we have received and confirm and manifest the awesomeness of what is involved with the design of everything in the Creation are the ones whom I believe have the right idea about why we seek as much knowledge as we can acquire. They are keeping God FIRST, and are not worshiping the Creation by bowing down to man's findings about it, instead of continuing to worship the Creator. As beautiful and worthy the Creation is of our praise and admiration, it is easy to wind up on the wrong side of the fence by giving credence to knowledge itself, rather then worshiping God. When we interpret that knowledge incorrectly, then we guilty of what James Talmadge warned against:

We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply them through faulty interpretation. . . .

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

jo1952:

There will always be those that have such a fragile testamony that ANYTHING will have them reject the Gospel. To use science as an excuse is just than an excuse.

Within the limits of science the earth is 4.55 Billions of years old. What it is not is 7-10,000 years old.

I guess you just keep missing my point about Moroni's passage. This is discussing the NON-BELIEVER. If a non-believer is persuaded to NOT believe in Christ due to interpretations of the findings of Science which throw out events in the Bible as not being accurate, then the prescription given by Moroni is to conclude that those interpretations are not of God.

A non-believer can't lose a testamony that he never had!!!!!

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

And my point is missed again. I think I will stop trying.

It looks like my points keep getting missed as well.

Regards,

jo

[Senator]

This is discussing the NON-BELIEVER. If a non-believer is persuaded to NOT believe in Christ due to interpretations of the findings of Science which throw out events in the Bible as not being accurate, then the prescription given by Moroni is to conclude that those interpretations are not of God.

OR..that the literalist interpretations of the events of the Bible are inaccurate and not of God.

I wonder how many more minds would be added to the NON-BELIEVER list if we were all forced to hold to strict literal renderings of Biblical stories.

The pill eventually gets to big to swallow.

[cinepro]

jo1952:

From Fairwiki; The Church has no official position on evolution, and each member is entitled to his or her own personal views on the subject. In the evolution debate, difficulties have arisen when readers assume that statements by certain leaders represent an official position beyond that expressed by the First Presidency as a body. As expressed by David H. Bailey, a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and author of numerous articles on the relationship between Mormonism and science,

The LDS Church has a great scientific tradition, including notable, respected researchers in virtually event field of modern science. Indeed, our motto is “The glory of God is intelligence.” Why not just acknowledge that science and religion address two very different sets of questions, and that the methodology in one arena cannot settle controversies in the other

The Fairwiki might say that the Church "has no official position on evolution", but the Church itself has said this:

In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters.

Also:

Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 [Gen. 1–3] on p. 26.

So while some may disagree about what that "doctrinal position" or "official teaching" is, it's not correct to say the Church doesn't have one.

[shalamabobbi]

We can never know what may damage a person's faith.

People who worship ignorance within the church are damaging to mine. When I react to their arguments on internet discussion boards I feel virtue leave me.

physical evidence which changes all of the time.

Only in Frank's world where one is allowed to rewrite the laws of physics at will..

I would suppose that inasmuch as WE DON'T KNOW HOW OLD THE EARTH IS, BYU presents secular "knowledge" connected with the age of the earth in accordance with ONLY what man has been able to provide. I do not know if BYU teaches both sides of the various interpretations concluded from those findings.

That would be because there aren't two sides. If you are not capable of reviewing the evidence for yourself and seeing this, but must rely upon an authority to decide for you then you are not qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.

For instance, where Church Leaders have come right out and said we do not know the age of the earth, then why does man insist on giving it an age??

Not BY REVELATION we don't! And the point of the comment might just be that because science offers a preeeetty good estimate of it's age, we do not need to be concerned that this contradicts the Bible since, it hasn't been revealed, and hence is NOT in conflict with the church's teachings.

But this goes over your head like all the other quotes that calmoriah has posted and you show as much skill in wresting those comments away from their true meaning as you do passages of scripture.

by giving credence to knowledge itself, rather then worshiping God

whew!

When I was ordained a high priest to be put into the group leadership in my ward the Lord seemed pleased with my intellectual attainments and understanding. I'll stick with the path I'm on. I think I'm heading in the right direction..

http://www.dula.tv/watch.php?file=creationism-with-ricky-gervais.flv

red pill or blue pill..

[jo1952]

So you believe the First Presidency and the 12 who are on the Board of Trustees of BYU are allowing the Geology and other departments to teach something that is out of sync with "Church Official doctrine" because my experience was that science was taught in science classes and mainstream science at that...and alternate theories were not mentioned, at least not the kind you are talking about and I haven't heard anyone with a different experience, hopefully any here will speak up if they have.

According to what has been presented as spoken by our Church Leaders, and then comparing it with what you have presented is being taught or not taught by BYU, what other conclusion can be reached? Unless more is presented to show otherwise, then something is amiss between what is being taught by BYU vs what is being taught by Church Leaders. I would hope that not everything has been presented.

To me, this makes no sense. If I were in the position of thinking something was official Church doctrine and yet I saw something else taught at BYU and other places (such as Institute and other manuals), I would seriously consider that I was wrong about what was official Church doctrine instead of the First Presidency and the 12 (seeing as how there must be enough oversight to notice what is being taught in science and anthropology and such classes at least in general, I'm not talking about nitpicking stuff, but worldview, paradigm level).

I would, in general, agree. However, I would not be surprised, and also would not be disappointed since I know that man is fallible, if inconsistencies do exist. Each person does not have the exact same knowledge that the next person has. It would not be difficult to understand how some inconsistencies might exist. I would like to doubt that anyone within any Church organization would intentionally not include all knowledge that is available due to personal agendas.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

jo1952:

The Church takes no position. To give you a further example the Church takes no position on the Pathagorean Therum. Do that mean it isn't true, or that we can have any opinion on its validity we want? Of course not. It just means that within the context of the Church it is not a matter of our theology. IOW My standing in the Church is not affected in the slightest by that therum.

Futher the Saints don't believe in inerrancy for anything man has any part in, including Scripture. Your prooftexting of Scripture to argue against science, and those in the Church who use the scientific method in their work is neither appreciated nor warranted.

Where have I ever stated that your position on any interpretation affects your standing in the Church?

Why do you feel the need to twist my words to say something I haven't? I have no problem with the scientific method. Your misreprestation of my words is neither appreciated nor warranted.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 30, 2011 by jo1952

[Minos]

Is this thread going anywhere or is it time to close it?

[Senator]

Is this thread going anywhere or is it time to close it?

Is it bothering someone?

[Hughes]

That would be because there aren't two sides. If you are not capable of reviewing the evidence for yourself and seeing this, but must rely upon an authority to decide for you then you are not qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.

There are always two sides. And the Young Earth is supported by a model with real scientists. Thanks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world

[jo1952]

'jo1952' writes,

Yes, we do. I have a problem with belief in anthropomorphic evil, but accept readily an element of chaotic evil that exists in time and space. Whether of not there is a single entity who reigns over evil is something that I have trouble accepting. The phenomenon of evil being known as Satan is a fairly modern concept born on the conflation of many different religious traditions and cultures.

This is a good article which not only discusses that Satan is real, it also gives some good references to scripture which speaks of Satan:

http://lds.org/ensign/2005/02/satan-the-great-deceiver?lang=eng&query=satan

Or it could be said that one's spirit will help identify satanic influences of the world to which we should avoid.

Since you:

accept readily an element of chaotic evil that exists in time and space. ,

I would pretty much agree. I would offer, though, that your spirit is being assisted by the Holy Ghost, although He does not guide us in all things. If He did, we would stop learning between good and evil.

I am not so sure if we are serving satan or building character. We do not grow unless we make mistakes. We learn more from our weaknesses than from our strengths.

This is an excellent point. We learn much more completely, both in concept and in application, from our experiences! For instance, how can a person learn "balance" (such as is required to ride a bicycle) just from reading and studying about it? A person isn't going to truly understand what balance is until they ride that bicycle. Thus, from personally experiencing "balance", they "get it".

Certainly making wrong choices (such as choosing to sin), we learn so much. We can even learn what to do with what we have learned. We can allow our experiences to make us a better person, or we can choose to allow our experiences to further corrupt us; thus your choice of using the words "building character" are in tune with the Gospel message. Yes! We learn from our weaknesses as well as from our strengths!!

Secular knowledge can be spiritual as well. Remember James Talmadge was a noted geologist who understood the formation of the world, Elder Oaks is a noted attorney, while other GA's are noted physicians, scholars, and academics. One can read and gain tremendous spiritual knowledge from reading secular material, but with all things we need to guided by the spirit. Otherwise, we can believe all kinds of superfluous nonsense.

I believe that by studying our world, reading secular material, and learning from scholars, that this opens our minds to things we could have never thought of on our own. The expressed experiences of others, learning about the knowledge that they have gained, gives us access to information we just could never have the time or perhaps not even the inclination to learn on our own. When we view these things with our spiritual eyes, or hear them with our spiritual ears, then that is when we bridge secular understanding with spiritual understanding. If we see or hear only with our physical senses, we will be blind to their spiritual significance. For the most part, I do believe we are in agreement again.

My only additional comment at this point is that we cannot always know, even though our desire may be to be doing God's will, if everything we ARE doing IS in accordance with His will. Of course, we have the Holy Ghost to help us. But we are not directed in all things and in all decisions. I hate to keep using Peter as an example; but he is always such a great example to use. When Jesus rebuked Peter and said "Get thee behind me Satan", it was when Peter rebuked Jesus because he didn't want Jesus to have to be killed. Peter loved Jesus. It was his love for Jesus which prompted him to express his desire that Jesus NOT have to suffer or die. However, if Jesus had not been crucified, this would have frustrated the Plan of Salvation. So we can see how easy it is to wind up doing the wrong thing and be serving satan even though we thought we were doing the right thing and serving God. Satan used Peter's very love for Jesus as a tool to thwart God's efforts. Just ponder that and all that it implies!! Even our virtues can be twisted by Satan and cause us to stop serving God!

Paul is another excellent example. He loved God! When he was persecuting the Christians, he thought he was serving the God of Abraham! He just didn't understand yet that Jesus WAS that same God. Paul had failed to recognize who Jesus was.

Out of these lessons has been born my concern with what man does with the knowledge he is obtaining wherein the interpretations he is making conflict with scripture. I am especially concerned because I also see that some men have arrived at different interpretations using that same knowledge which do NOT conflict with scripture. When interpretations of science conflict with scripture, I am fearful that with the best of intentions, man is unintentionally serving satan. The irony of all this is that the very issues over which conflict is being created, are issues about which we have not yet had the truth revealed to us by God. Thus in our pursuit of knowledge, and in our desire to do what God wants us to do, we are creating conflict about things which God hasn't even revealed to us.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

OR..that the literalist interpretations of the events of the Bible are inaccurate and not of God.

I wonder how many more minds would be added to the NON-BELIEVER list if we were all forced to hold to strict literal renderings of Biblical stories.

The pill eventually gets to big to swallow.

It appears as though you haven't been reading all of the posts. I have been discussing my real life experiences with people who have decided that the entire Bible must be one huge fairy tale. Why? Because they see Christians throwing out events in the Bible due to those Christian's choices to believe in interpretations of the findings of science which conflict with those events. In their eyes, if a believer doesn't think the Bible is speaking the truth, then why should they believe in a God or in Jesus? This persuades them to not believe in Christ.

Perhaps I wouldn't be so inclined to see that this fits so perfectly with Moroni's teachings IF we had received revelation about these issues. When those revelations are received, and IF they support those particular interpretations, then I would not have further cause to be concerned. However, right now these choices cause believers to decide it is fine to accept their interpretations of the findings of science which conflicts with the Word of God. They represent their interpretations as truth - even though God has NOT revealed them as such. Right now I have every reason to believe that satan is behind the conflict.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Is this thread going anywhere or is it time to close it?

I can ask Frank when he gets home from work since it is his thread. He may have other information to present.

Thank you!

jo

[altersteve]

The Fairwiki might say that the Church "has no official position on evolution", but the Church itself has said this:

Also:

So while some may disagree about what that "doctrinal position" or "official teaching" is, it's not correct to say the Church doesn't have one.

The Church takes an official position on the origin of man, but that is not to say that evolution has not taken place since then. There is no statement by the Church saying how God created Adam's body, either.

I am not endorsing evolution. I don't know, nor do I care, whether it happened or not (although I do believe that it happened and continues to happen with animals and plants). But all I'm saying is that the Church, while establishing the doctrine of the origin of man and the Creation of the world, takes no official position whether or not biological evolution has occurred, which has been confirmed in a 1957 letter by President David O. McKay. Church leaders tend to disagree amongst each other about things like this, too, and when that happens you can be sure that there is no official position for the Church as a whole.

Edited August 30, 2011 by altersteve

[shalamabobbi]

There are always two sides. And the Young Earth is supported by a model with real scientists. Thanks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world

Wow, another off-topic gish-gallop post..

You have the principal of falsification working for you in reverse here.

This:

All it takes to prove an otherwise honest man a liar is to catch him in one lie.

Is different from this:

All it takes to prove an otherwise dishonest man an honest man, is one instance where he tells the truth.

Because some evidence may incorrectly be interpreted to support a young creation does not prove the creation to be young, even if the explanation of that evidence were presently unknown. However, a piece of evidence that can ONLY be explained in terms of an old creation is all that is necessary to disprove a young creation.

Interesting to note that God, who went out of His way to create the world in a manner to look old when it is not, let these slip by..

For all:

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/09/humphreys-fourteen-evidences-for-young.html

more:

point 1:

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/creationist-claim-spiral-galaxies-wind-up-too-fast-for-an-old-universe/

point 2:

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie018.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html

point 3:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110125162154AAM8CA0

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_Young-Earth_Creationist_scientific_proofs_and_are_they_tenable

point 4:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_Young-Earth_Creationist_scientific_proofs_and_are_they_tenable

point 5:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

point 6:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

point 7:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soft-sediment_deformation

point 8:

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/09/humphreys-fourteen-evidences-for-young.html

point 9:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.html

Actually this one is in an area of my profession. Uranium halos to exist at all have to be deposited at the same energy. A change in decay rate can't happen without a change in the decay energy. So the fact that the halo exists is proof the decay rate hasn't varied..

point 10:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

point 11:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

point 12:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC381.html

point 13:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG041.html

point 14:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG040.html

more debunked junk science:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

I invite all to come unto Christ. I don't invite the Sunday School class into my science, or vis a versa. I believe that Jesus walked on water. What I can not do is find any physical evidence that he did. IOW I just can't make natural claims about a supernatural occurrance. If a scientist makes a claim about the natural world. I can test that claim using the same science that the scientist did. How do I test a supernatural claim using the natural scientific method?

Go to the highest mountain you want. Look out upon the earth as far you can. You will not see the entire surface of the earth, any more than you can see the entire surfacer of any ball at one time.

The Scriptures were never intended to be a science text book. Science can only test for what is in the natural world/universe. Religion covers another subject.

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

I invite all to come unto Christ. I don't invite the Sunday School class into my science, or vis a versa. I believe that Jesus walked on water. What I can not do is find any physical evidence that he did. IOW I just can't make natural claims about a supernatural occurrance. If a scientist makes a claim about the natural world. I can test that claim using the same science that the scientist did. How do I test a supernatural claim using the natural scientific method?

Go to the highest mountain you want. Look out upon the earth as far you can. You will not see the entire surface of the earth, any more than you can see the entire surfacer of any ball at one time.

The Scriptures were never intended to be a science text book. Science can only test for what is in the natural world/universe. Religion covers another subject.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

If you read carefully those good Breathren are talking about Atheistic evolution. A proposition which I do not support.

[Hughes]

Wow, another off-topic gish-gallop post..

Didn't intend to derail the thread, Rather I'm simply responding to the continued bashing of the Young earth view, which you brought up by stating there was only one side to the story that no science nor models exist for the young earth. I posted but one real young earth scientist which disproves your point. That's all. No more discussion is necessary.

[Franktalk]

In Job we find the following:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

I often wonder how many of us watched the universe being created and then witnessed the garden and the fall. Did we also see the wickedness of the world and then see the flood of the earth to destroy all but eight? When we die and our own memories come to us we will be our own witness to the truth. If indeed scripture is an accurate portrayal of the events of the past then we will be our own witness to the accuracy of scripture. The prophet JS did review scripture and changed little. There were some additional scriptures given and those were translated. So from the foundations of the earth till today we have had many including Jesus who had the insight to correct scripture. Yet we don't see corrections by the prophets. We don't see one prophet say the written record of the garden is in error. If it really took millions of years and the earths natural processes were used. If indeed as some have said that the old scripture was translated wrong or was filtered through some ancient tradition or story that never took place then why did the men of God not speak up and say something. Why would they use Noah or Adam in their own inspired writing if indeed the scripture of old was wrong?

The name Adam is used several places. Did Job err when he talked about Adam? How about Luke who traced back the linage of Jesus back to Adam. If Adam was fictitious why would Luke be inspired to write down a fake person. Also Paul who by his inspired writing gave us so much insight and fine detail of how God wishes us well. And what of Noah?

Isa 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

If the waters of Noah were local did Isaiah err in his inspired prophecy. It clearly states that the waters would no more go over the earth. Yet we have local floods. If indeed the story of the flood was old and full of errors or an allegory then why would Isaiah speaking for God use the flood as a reference to a promise of God?

And Jesus said:

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,

Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

If indeed the flood is a local event then why would God waste the time of Noah building an ark for a hundred years when he could have just walked away from the flood area? And if the flood is a local event then is Jesus saying that His return will be a local event?

And this message:

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Here we read that Noah condemned the world not a land or an area. I am sure that as any man of God he called upon the men of the earth to repent and put aside evil. I am sure that Noah shared his knowledge of the future. I am sure the world mocked him as all prophets are mocked.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Franktalk

[Franktalk]

Only in Frank's world where one is allowed to rewrite the laws of physics at will..

God rewrites the laws of physics at will. I just state that I think He has and will continue to do so. I accept that supernatural events are outside or overpower the laws of physics. I believe God when He states that nothing is beyond His power. And if that means bending some rules so be it. They are after all His rules. Somewhat like owning almost anything, the owner sets the rules.

So when scripture says an event happened I believe it did as it is described. If man uncovers evidence that is contrary then the picture is incomplete, interpreted wrong, or its interpretation is limited by incorrect assumptions. The other possibility is that a supernatural event happened and we have no reference to examine the evidence correctly. These are my options. I don't have an option of going back to scripture and changing what it says. There are some who love science who change scripture as their first option.

[Franktalk]

I wonder how many more minds would be added to the NON-BELIEVER list if we were all forced to hold to strict literal renderings of Biblical stories.

The pill eventually gets to big to swallow.

When my spirit loves God the rest of me should follow. But the world is a tough place and the flesh is weak. My spirit is guided by spiritual discernment. My mind is subject to all kinds of bad information. It is tough for the mind to toss the world. It is easy for the spirit to toss the world because it is not of the world. So your statement about minds is telling. If we are led by the mind then we suffer the weakness of the mind and we drift towards the world. But if we develop the spirit then the mind will struggle but will in time come along to the path that God has chosen for us. For God has chosen a path for our spirit and not the mind. So any system that is designed to save minds is not important. It is the saving of spirits that we should focus on.

[Ron Beron]

Is this thread going anywhere or is it time to close it?

Agree, I think we were discussing the Great Flood (ad nauseum)

[shalamabobbi]

God rewrites the laws of physics at will. I just state that I think He has and will continue to do so. I accept that supernatural events are outside or overpower the laws of physics. I believe God when He states that nothing is beyond His power. And if that means bending some rules so be it. They are after all His rules. Somewhat like owning almost anything, the owner sets the rules.

So when scripture says an event happened I believe it did as it is described. If man uncovers evidence that is contrary then the picture is incomplete, interpreted wrong, or its interpretation is limited by incorrect assumptions. The other possibility is that a supernatural event happened and we have no reference to examine the evidence correctly. These are my options. I don't have an option of going back to scripture and changing what it says. There are some who love science who change scripture as their first option.

Frank,

I do not doubt that God could change the evidence to hide the flood though I do not believe that is what He did. He could have gone out of His way to alter DNA to make us believe that evolution occurred as well, placing ERV signatures in just the right way to correspond to an evolutionary paradigm that pre-existed their discovery. He could have done the same with human chromosome II, transposons and pseudogenes, etc. Again I don't believe He did. But if one decides God created all this false evidence, presumably to be able to treat those who lack faith with greater mercy, fine.

But if that is what you believe - then own it. It is not any more subject to ridicule and mockery than your current position is and since you seem to glory in being mocked what's the problem? At least you will be self consistent in your position.

Your suggestion that the salt deposits may be the result of super salty water passing through the earth is an example of how off your science is. There is a limit to the amount of salt that can be dissolved in water Frank.

By what mechanism does the salt drop out of solution underground? You don't even see how the arguments you've proposed don't hold up.

There are no ways to interpret varves other than as annual layers. No flood layer or disturbance shows up in these layers. You can change the decay rate all you like in any ad-hoc manner you like and the problem doesn't go away because the C14 curve for lake varves matches the C14 curve for tree rings within a fraction of a percent. So if the evidence isn't what it seems to be with respect to the real history of the earth, then it HAD to be fabricated that way. You have offered nothing to refute this claim by way of evidence or even of any ideas (with the exception of a possible conspiracy). You've simply quoted scripture and insisted that yours can be the ONLY possible correct interpretation.