Geology law dating Sex skypevideo chat
With two paradigms in conflict, geologic data can be investigated for consistency according to either one or both.Each side in the debate has in fact tried to show how various data cannot be harmonized with the other's paradigm.In response, conventionally-persuaded geologists, some Christian and others not, have variously criticized (and in some cases ridiculed) the Flood geology position.has stated that while geological data per se are accepted as fact on both sides, data interpretation varies according to the presuppositions employed.There are other ways beside geological ones for exploring the Flood geology question.
A successful test must avoid dependence on either an old-earth or a young-earth geological paradigm, so as to avoid begging one question at hand, because as noted earlier Flood geology depends critically on the premise of a young earth.
While he allows that the old-earth/evolutionary paradigm can be found to fit the data, he maintains that the young-earth/creationist paradigm fits better.
Conventional geologists declare that the young-earth/Flood geology position rests directly on unquestioning acceptance of the Bible (in a particular literal interpretation) rather than being generated by scientific data, and hence is not science.
However, many Bible commentators employ the literal approach differently than Flood geologists, and claim that a simple narrative interpretation must at points be sacrificed to some other hermeneutic, in order to avoid inconsistencies or outlandish conclusions.
For them, the rich complexity of the Bible as literature, and its historical, cultural, geographical, and archaeological context, make the simple narrative hermeneutic grossly simplistic, failing to account for many other concerns of high relevance.Recognition of these facts have required young earth creationists to choose between the young earth paradigm and the clear teachings of Genesis 2.