temporalillusion

Your answer may or may not be valid, who knows because you haven't provided any support for your assertion.

Could you link to the scientific paper that shows the layers are actually varves, and not non-annual fine grained layers that can be easily identified separately from varves?

And even at that double rate, the largest formations of varves having over 20 million varves would still put the earth at over 10 million years old. Even a varve every day would put the earth 10 times older than a young earth creationist would claim.

Free Indeed

We will just have to assume that they were layed down quickly until we have further evidences. The fish fossils in them seem to point to that because evidence is they were killed and buried before they were eaten of rotted and some even in the act of eating other fish.

show_no_mercy

There's no reason for this assumption other than to support the erroneous idea that the Bible is a scientific document.

Maybe the speed of light was different in the past, therefore supernovae that we see millions of lightyears away really only happened a couple minutes ago.

Maybe plate tectonics was faster in the past than it is now so therefore Mt. Everest was formed in a couple of days.

There are no reasons for these assumptions other than to discredit the validity of objective measurements.

temporalillusion

You have to assume?

Do you see how hollow your position is?

Wooster

We have further evidence!

The only problem is that you and your fellow literalists refuse to accept it and without giving any sound reasoning or by the use of accepted science.

Every branch of science dealing with a topic touched by your claims, disagree with you, EVERY ONE OF THEM. But you refuse to accept this, you continue to tell us that we are all wrong and you are right no matter what we can demonstrate and what evidence we have. That is not very christian of you, is it?

Free Indeed

No, I don't see a problem. I start with the assumption that the Bible is true and authoritative in all matters then go from there. That is how I interpret evidences and observations. We all have to start somewhere.

Tom Sawyer

Yes, but the start isn't supposed to be the end and have you not pay attention to anything inbetween.

Free Indeed

If you told me that Jesus did not raise from the dead should I be a good Christian and believe you?

temporalillusion

Science starts with the observations and evidence and works from there to find the answer.

Because you already know the answer, there's no point in you asking any questions.

The flaw in your position is that there's no reason to believe the Bible is true and authoritative in all matters, and many reasons not to believe it.

The Bible is inaccurate historically, self contradictory and has changed a great deal over its history (as evidenced by the thousands of early fragments).

Your position basically boils down to "I believe this because I want to believe this".

Free Indeed

Oh, I'm paying attention and see that a lot of your posts seem valid to the naked eye. And I can see how people believe what is said on here. And I will even admit that I don't have a rebuttle at this time for a lot of it. But that's mainly because of my failures and weaknesses, which I will try to improve. This isn't an 8th grade forum but I'm looking through arose colored glasses as in "He arose" and can see the falicies of the atheist position but have a hard time dealing with all the scientific distractions.