Datings love site in ru and de dating argentine man
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.
For Flood geologists, to be shown the relevance of other concerns is not sufficient grounds for rejecting their type of literalism.
Such demonstration indicates for them only how to embellish their interpretation, not proving to undercut it or to require its alteration.
Recognition of these facts have required young earth creationists to choose between the young earth paradigm and the clear teachings of Genesis 2.
Creation science consists more of Flood study than of anything else.
The issue of convenience is the geography of the garden of Eden.
Literal Bible interpreters including creation scientists and many others hold to an actual garden no earlier than 10,000 years ago.
However, for the test per se a coarse temporal order of events implied by the Biblical record will be adopted.
To be comprehensive, the study will include a brief look at the significance, for the Flood-geology debate and the test here, of interpretations of the Bible based on conventional archaeology and source-critical methods.
Also, progress in resolving the debate depends on emphasizing observation and avoiding speculation and theory.