It doesn't I'm afraid; they do a similar line to the Borg saying the verb used when it refers to making the sun and moon and stars means their forms became apparent through the canopy and the verb used in the making of light was just light reaching the surface for the first time.
Funny, they can argue grammar but can't count tree rings, or even if they do, will refuse to accept a number unless it agrees with their previously determined arguement. And they don't like the phrase 'intellectual honesty'.
To those who say that the creation account is accurate and that the sequence of events in Genesis chapter one is correct, just ask them if trees and plants can live without sunlight...well why was the vegetation created and then the sun and moon created later?
Its a bit simplistic but gets the point over.
Reading the Bible gives the answer. Genesis 1:3 shows that God created a source of light before the trees and plants. Later the sun was created as the sustaining source.
hooberus, if no one said that there were trees alive now that had stood during the Flood, why did you bother asserting that this was not the case? You might not regard it as a straw man/red herring, but in terms of argumentative techniques, that is the function it served, no matter whether you think it did or not.
Read my original post on this, and try to see where I was coming from on the living trees issue. Also the same post went on to discuss the issue of living and dead trees being matched so there is obviously no attempt to dodge issues using faulty argumentation techniques.
You say you have not abandoned the Bible as a reliable guide for dating events but refuse to narrow the date range you supply. Please give your calculations of this date range. How do other people determine Flood dates with such accuracy soley by using the Bible? Where do you find fault in their method? I base my accusation you have abandoned the Bible as a dating guide as those who do give specific dates for the Flood normally claim they get these from the Bible, and either you or they are wrong regarding whether this is possible.
The date of 4500 years ago comes from a "strict" chronology such as Ushers. The longer date of 7500 years ago comes from information primarily in a section from Morris's book The Genesis Flood in which he gives several reasons as to why the chronology in Genesis 11 may not be a strict Chronology. He states various reasons why this is so and then concludes that the flood could have taken place several millenium before Abraham (who was born approx. 2100 BC.)
2100BC + several millenium (3) = 5100BC
5100BC = 7,100 years ago
Thus my general range of 4500 (strict) to 7500 (approx from Morris).
Actually, Morris allowed up to 5 millenia before Abraham for the flood. However he gave this as an outer limit, so I went with 3 to be conservative for the longer range.
Please also provide specific Biblical proof that Adam was "say 20 years old when he was created", or is this speculation on your part? How about the appearance of age in geology or cosmology? Do you think they are that old or just look that old?
It seems from the account that adam was created with a degree of maturity. The 20 age date is simply a reasoned guess. The appearance of age arguments in geology come from a faulty uniformitarian interpretation of catastrophic events. Even known recent catastrophic events such as Mt. St. Hellens, by these same uniformitarian interpretative techniques show an "appearance of age."
The rest of your questions I 'll try to deal with time and patience allowing.
