Okay.

And it's an assumption about history.

And I always sort of think it's funny that the argument comes back to us discussing and arguing about something that neither of us has seen in the past.

And so, but we start with a record of the Bible, and there's lots of good reasons why, you know, we think that's reliable.

It connects with history, particularly in areas related to archaeology and other things like that.

And it's got names of people who were living at the time, what they did, where they lived, and all the events there, and it goes right back to the creation.

And that's, we weren't there.

If we have this technique and it's used by so many scientists around the world with consistent dates, doesn't that disprove a young Earth?

Tess? How were they formed, and how do they point to the Bible?

So basically you use the Bible as a way of understanding the world rather than the other way around, rather than trying to prove it.

So we use it as a way of understanding the world.

And so Noah's flood is a key to understanding that, and you've got the waters of Noah's flood.

The waters go up.

They went up for about five months, and the Bible describes that and explains what happens in Genesis 6 and 7 and 8.

And then the water started to go down.

If you were going to build me a little tour guide to go and visit some of Sydney's iconic geological landmarks, where would you point me to?