They are now. I’d rather educate than pander to ignorance.
So you think the Tasmanian aborigines and Tierra del Fuegans (for example) knew the location of their “place of beginnings” to be somewhere in Assyria, even though neither of them knew anyhing at all of Middle Eastern geography?
Ask again, in one sentence if possible.
I said nothing about the term being ambiguous.
Will you ever address my Haymond formation question (which was a response to your claims about sedimentary layers and the Noahic Flood)?
In Genesis, Eden is the name of a region. The garden God planted was a place within that region.
Then apparently these were not laid down during the Flood.
How can you tell? More generally, how can you tell which sediments are pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood?
Even pre Flood sediments could could possibly contain young-life fossils. I am not able to definitively answer your question.
I do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. Lots of living and dying may have occurred outside the garden by the time they exited.
So you’re unable to tell Flood sediments from non-Flood sediments. Doesn’t that mean you have no evidence for a Flood?
Laughing. Historical narrative is my proof enough.
I think it’s quite amusing that you deny Young Earth … but accept something like The Flood. Despite the fact that it violently took over the Earth in the matter of days, it was so gentle and benign, we can’t find ANY of the hundreds of thousands of humans that it drowned!!!
The best evidence against the global flood not being global is that the Egyptian dynasties, which existed before the flood and after the flood, never once mention any flood interrupting their Nile valley culture. Nothing even comes close. If the Global Flood was what God intended, there wouldn’t have been any Egyptians to continue the following dynasties! There wouldn’t have even been anyone around to know what the heiroglyphics said!
The second best evidence against the global flood being global is the internal inconsistencies within the Old Testament. The Kenites and the Canaanites were both believed to be successors of Cain and his offspring… which is literally impossible.
But I have good news!
I have historical narrative of Paul Bunyan… some people say he never existed… but LOOK… here’s the book all about Paul Bunyan!
Wouldn’t you need evidence for the claims made in historical narratives? Or does something become true simply because someone writes it down or passes it along orally?
Those someones were eyewitnesses. I would do the same for you if you brought forward an account of an event you had witnessed.
Why? Because they say so? Where is the evidence backing their claim?
Ok. I witnessed the last 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history and there was no global flood.
Now what do you do?
I take that as a concession that you in fact have no evidence for a flood besides the claim that it happened. But the claim is the very thing being questioned here, for which we want scientific evidence. We don’t care that you personally find the “historical narrative” to be “proof enough”, we don’t.
Me, I like actual physical measurements, and predictive models. But you’ve conceded you don’t have that, so I guess we’re done. You believe the claim on the mere fact that it is made. It is difficult to conceive of what could not be believed on that method.
There are four sensible landing points here:
- Historical narrative correct, but no physical evidence for or against it.
- Historical narrative correct, and there is physical confirmatory evidence.
- Historical narrative incorrect, but there is no physical evidence for or against it.
- Historical narrative incorrect, and there is physical evidence against it.
Of course, there are intermediate categories here (different parts of the story correct and incorrect; evidence unclear and ambiguous). It strikes me that we should have no problem if @r_speir is asserting #1. However the problem is that there is an immense amount of evidence against his version of the flood. So, he is really landing on:
- Historical narrative correct, but there is physical evidence against it.
That is the problem. There is an immense amount of evidence against him, not that there is no evidence for him.
To put it another way, would anyone believe this kid if he said he wasn’t the one who ate the ice cream?
Then you must also agree that monkeys built a causeway from India to Ceylon, the Japanese are descended from the sun god Amaterasu, and Rome was founded by twins who were raised by a wolf. Right?
That would be a fine analogy if you in fact had the equivalent of an icecream smeared face. The point is you don’t.
It would actually be more accurate to say you’re the kid, making the claim that life is young, and we have all this physical evidence on your face showing otherwise. And your response is to say your claim is all the proof you need. Obviously we aren’t convinced.