686
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: + +
→Dating
::Actually, archaeological dates that purport to show that any civilization ''spanned'' the year of the [[Great Flood]] ought not be used, because they presume that there was no Flood. Yes, at least one civilization existed before the Flood. But the Flood destroyed it. An artifact--called an [[out-of-place artifact]]--might persist from that [[antediluvian civilization]]. But it would not be part of any ''post''-diluvian civilization.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, archaeological dates that purport to show that any civilization ''spanned'' the year of the [[Great Flood]] ought not be used, because they presume that there was no Flood. Yes, at least one civilization existed before the Flood. But the Flood destroyed it. An artifact--called an [[out-of-place artifact]]--might persist from that [[antediluvian civilization]]. But it would not be part of any ''post''-diluvian civilization.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually, when you think about who needs to provide the burden of proof on this matter those who believe that there was a flood need to provide the proof. Those who do not believe that there was a flood only has to be shown proof that there was a flood. To discredit evidence on the basis that there was a flood and therefore the evidence is not valid due to the impossibility of existence because of the flood leads to forming the research around the idea instead of forming the idea around the observations. This is contrary to impartial research.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)