The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

The original questions are internationally coprighted by the creationist Wells, while the answers from the scientists are free.

I am in the writing business and this is a new one on me, I never knew you could copy-write questions:eek:

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

I am in the writing business and this is a new one on me, I never knew you could copy-write questions:eek:

Really? Where do you want to go today?

Of course, copyright only protects the specific form of the questions - you can paraphrase them (particularly for satire).

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Wolfsbane, I hope you'll allow me to ask my question specifically of you? If I were able to present you with evidence (that you had to accept) that contradicted the Bible, and that simply could not be explained away, would you abandon God?

Yes.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes.

What would constitute such evidence?

wolfsbane

pH said:

Not to mention the entire civilization of Ancient Egypt seems to continued pretty much unperturbed by this 'flood'. Have the floodists spent any time looking for a high-water mark on the Great Pyramid of Giza(2560BC)?

You and Wicknight work on the assumption that Egypt etc. had their great civilizations before the Flood (not saying you accept the Flood). That dating is part of the error. The great civilizations were post-Flood.

As to how quickly an initial 3 breeding couples could have populated the earth, see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

What would constitute such evidence?

That is indeed the question. Just how it could fulfil Scofflaw's criteria, evidence (that you had to accept) that contradicted the Bible, and that simply could not be explained away, I'm not sure.

Obviously most evidence is open to dispute, to interpretation, as our legal system (not to speak of this thread!) demonstrate. Maybe Scofflaw has some ideas?

One would need to show that an assertion of the Bible was false. An historical incident did not happen. Some hard fact, not some relative phenomenon ( the sun going down) or some approximation ( Pi).

The most impressive scenario I have seen developed on Scofflaw's question was in the novel, A Skeleton In God's Closet. Here's a bit from a review of it:
A Skeleton In God's Closet, written by Paul L. Maier in 1994 and published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, is a fiction novel in which one archaeological find challenges the widely-accepted Christian doctrine and jeopardizes the faith of millions of believers around the globe. Though the story is fictitious, the premise is frightening. The pillar on which the Christian faith stands is Jesus Christ. Christians believe that he was born of a virgin, died, and rose from the dead. Without any one of these elements, his saving grace would be nonexistent, as righteousness would not have been fulfilled, his sacrifice null and void. Without the virgin birth of the Messiah, Jesus would have had, per human nature, "original sin;" Original sin would have rendered Jesus not perfect, not the "blameless Lamb of God". For it is written, "God himself will provide the lamb..." (Genesis 22:8). Without the death and resurrection Jesus would not have 'conquered the grave;" in this way we would have no way to escape eternal death and damnation. It is the latter aspect of Jesus' divinity with Skeleton deals.

Professor Jonathan "Jon" Weber's year-long sabbatical from the Institute of Christian Origins (ICO) is a welcome and long-awaited breath of fresh air. Escaping lectures, books, and grading term papers to an archaeological dig in Rama, Israel, Jon meets many learned and interesting people. His longtime friend, Austin Balfour Jennings, known solely as "Jennings," has invited him to join Jennings' daughter Shannon and his digging crew. The night before Jon departs for The Holy Land he receives a phone call from his friend Ken Sullivan, imploring him to come to Rome, "The Eternal City," while Jon is en route to Israel. The matter at hand is of grave importance, and Jon accepts. When he reaches Rome, he is taken to the Vatican, where a shocking revelation regarding an important religious document is brought to his attention. The Codex Vaticanus has been submitted to ultraviolet ray testing and mysterious words appear under the light, after the conclusion of Mark, Chapter 8 of the Biblical canon, but have been erased, seemingly by magic. "Ho...De...To...Soma...Iesou...Anelaymphthay," in Greek meaning, "But the body of Jesus...was taken," or "taken back, retrieved," (Maier 14).

Leaving a baffled, concerned, and bewildered Sullivan with a suggestion to scan the entire Vaticanus, in addition to the Codex Siniticus in London for further discrepancies, Jon leaves for Rama. When he arrives, Jennings' beautiful daughter Shannon, who is inconveniently betrothed to Gideon Ben-Yaakov smites Jon, throwing a monkey wrench in Jon's attraction. One day when Jon and Shannon are digging together, they come upon a sarcophagus, on which is inscribed the following: "Here...lies...Joseph of Arimathea...son of Asher...Councilor...His memory be blessed...Peace..." Inside rests a corpse. The crew is ecstatic; the finding of this man is the first finding of a Biblical personality, almost proving the Bible's legitimacy. But inside the casket, within a jar, yet more astonishing finds await the archaeologists. The titulus, the paper nailed to the cross with Christ; and a letter are interred with the skeleton. The letter is addressed to Nicodemus, another famous Bible character, but the tidings are horrifying. "Joseph, son of Asher, to Nicodemus, son of Shimeon, peace!...I seek only the peace of God before I stand in His presence. To find that peace, I write you. A painful stone is lodged in the sandal of my soul, and I must remove it. Do you remember the rabbi Yeshua whom we buried in my tomb a score and seven years ago during the governance of Pontius Pilate? I could not sleep after the Passover that night. I feared that the noble rabbi, a man of much suffering, would not have the rest that should come to him after his pain. My servants heard rumors in the city that the priests had a plot regarding his body. I feared that they might harm or mutilate it. Later I learned that they only wished to seal the tomb...Not many hours before cock crow, my servant Eleazar and I went to the sepulcher. We removed the body of Jesus and returned the stone to its place..." (Maier 91-92). The rest of the letter detailed how Joseph had placed Jesus in his own sarcophagus and how after clearing his conscience he could rest in peace in his old age and in death. The latter part of the letter was from Nicodemus, giving the matter over to God. The truth and validity of such a document would prove fatal to the Christian faith. The documents are radiocarbon-dated and appear real. As the novel progresses the fate of Christianity and the professional integrity of all involved are laid on the line. It is not until the near conclusion of the book that the truth is brought to light as a result of persistence and meticulous scrutiny. Is the note the real deal?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Er, wolfsbane, I hate to mention it, but what exactly do you mean by "debate"? There are scientists arguing with Creationists all across the Internet, and in public lectures, in the media, etc...what exactly are you looking for if that isn't debate?

Debate in the scientific media. Publication and challenge, just like with other conflicting scientific theories.

pH

wolfsbane wrote:

You and Wicknight work on the assumption that Egypt etc. had their great civilizations before the Flood (not saying you accept the Flood). That dating is part of the error. The great civilizations were post-Flood.

So we'll just add egyptology to the list of all the things that must be wrong because you say so?

Or does AiG have a handy section for questions to ask you history teacher when they 'teach' that the Egyptian pharoahs rules from 3000BC to about 30BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

That is indeed the question. Just how it could fulfil Scofflaw's criteria, evidence (that you had to accept) that contradicted the Bible, and that simply could not be explained away, I'm not sure.

Are you familiar with the concept of Falsifiability?

wolfsbane

Diogenes said:

Which report?

You know the one: very ancient; believed by countless millions over the millenia: the Genesis account of man's history.

That there was a global Flood is a hypothesis, and it's timing has been very effectively ridiculed on this thread.

We beg to differ.

How would this stripping of our atmospheric protection to cosmic radiation have occured? Shouldn't we see evidence of the mass deaths and wastage to flora and fauna in the fossil record?

For possible answers to these and other Flood questions see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

For an interesting article on the longevity change, I just found this today: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/lifespans.asp

I've followed the debate throughly. Read the entire thread. Most of the articles and scientists you quote and drop in to support your claims rarly bother with peer review or any of the other rigours of real scientists. Oh I'm sure you'll hold up one or two examples that defy the curve of what you are posting, but whats that saying about Swallows and Summer?

If you'd read the whole thread, you should has noted the debate about peer-review. You making it a premise just proves your ignorance, wilful or otherwise.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

pH said:

You and Wicknight work on the assumption that Egypt etc. had their great civilizations before the Flood (not saying you accept the Flood). That dating is part of the error. The great civilizations were post-Flood.

No they weren't.

Using Egyptian records you can trace back the Dynasties of Egypt. They don't start at 2300 BCE. Djoser was the second king of the 3rd dynasty and he ruled approx 2660BCE. This is confirmed by a number of different historical sources. We know a lot about most of the kings of egypt.

Put simply, there are too many kings of Eygpt for the entire civilisation to have started about 2000 BCE. The dynasties go back too far.

This of course ignores that fact that it is ridiculous to claim that an entire civilisation can grow out of 6 people in a few years.

AiG likes throwing out wild unrealistic growth rates to explain modern civilisations, but any idea that the growth rate of Noah's decendents would have had to have been to populate the entire African continent in a hundred years? Pretty large!

wolfsbane wrote:

As to how quickly an initial 3 breeding couples could have populated the earth, see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp

[/quote]
More nonsense.

A growth rate of 0.38% is very very high for a primitive people.

Secondly, population would have had to spread through Asia first. To populate Asia would have taken thousands of years. Only then can you get "20 people" onto Austrialia, so the 2300BCE starting date is nosense.

Thirdly, native Austrialian people have significant genetic markers that distinguse them from other ethnic populations. The idea that these markers evolved in a thousand years with a population of 20 is nonsense. If 1000 years ago 20 Arabian looking people settled in Austrialia you would have a small population of Arabian looking settlers, just like the European settlers haven't all started to change into black men

Theories like that are why proper science considers Young Earth Creationism a joke. 30 second consideration reveals 3 obvious and damning flaws. AiG isn't interested in truth, it is interested in confusion and nonsense

J C

Wicknight
I found out the date for the Biblical flood is not 6000 years ago, but 4000. 2300BCE!
…………I'm not a historian or a scientist but it was easy to show that there wasn't a Biblical Flood in 2300 BCE in two posts.

Well done Wicknight – for discovering the date of Noah’s Flood.

However, you certainly haven’t shown that there wasn’t a Biblical Flood in 2300 BC in two posts.

Firstly let’s see what the conventional sources say about the Egyptians and the Chinese Dynasties:-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt says that:-

Ancient Egypt had THREE basic phases –
The Old Kingdom which existed from c.3,500 BC to 2,458 BC.
The First Period of Chaos from 2,458 BC to 2,125 BC.
The Middle and New Kingdoms from 2,125 BC to 30 BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_dynasty confirms that the Shang Dynasty, which began in 1,600 BC was the earliest Chinese Dynasty.


Firstly, could I draw your attention to how VERY RECENT all of these dates actually are.
They ALL fit in very comfortably within a Biblical timeframe as they are all much more recent that the date attributed to the Creation of the world (4,500 BC +/- 500 Ye).

On the other hand, such very recent dates for the achievement of civilisation are quite amazing in an Evolutionary timeframe of at least 150,000 years since the supposed emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Why would it take Humans 150,000 years to make any significant progress and then suddenly be able put a man on the Moon within a period of less than 5,500 years?

As usual, the Biblcal timeframe makes a lot more sense than the Evolutionary one!!

So where does Noah’s Flood ‘fit ‘ into all of this?

Creation Science postulates that Noah’s Flood occurred in 2,500 BC +/- 500 Ye.
It also postulates that the Ante-Diluvian peoples were very sophisticated.
Despite the widespread destruction caused by Noah’s Flood, large stone structures DID survive from the pre-Flood era – and because of these surviving stone artefacts, the Ante-Diluvian Era is commonly called the Stone Age.

Although Noah's Flood was worldwide it's local intensity varied considerably. The destruction caused by Noah’s Flood therefore ranged from huge tectonic movements and burial under hundreds of metres of sediment in some areas of the Earth to mere flooding in other areas and everything in-between.

The sudden death of all peoples in Noah’s Flood is the probable cause of the many unfinished large stone monuments around the World, from Easter Island to Stonehenge to the large abandoned carved stones in Central America. Equally, the great stone monuments of Peru and Central America pre-date the Aztecs and Incas who subsequently adapted them to their own uses.
The Great Pyramids in Egypt came through Noah’s Flood relatively unscathed due to their enormous size and the relatively benign local flood conditions in their vicinity.

So the THREE basic phases of Ancient Egypt were –
The 'Old Kingdom' which existed for about 1,000 years from c.3,500 BC to 2,458 BC – which was probably an Ante-diluvian period.
The First Intermediate ‘Period of Chaos’ which existed for over 330 years from 2,458 BC to 2,125 BC and encompassed Noah’s Flood and the period of resettlement after Noah’s Flood.
The Middle and New Kingdoms from 2,125 BC to 30 BC which was the period when the Egyptian Pharonic system was established following the Babel Dispersal.


Scofflaw
Have the floodists spent any time looking for a high-water mark on the Great Pyramid of Giza(2560BC)?

Have a look at THIS PHOTO – which clearly shows a ‘high water mark’ on the Great Pyramid of Giza!!!!:cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt


Wicknight
We know from accurate Chinese historical documents that the Shang dynasty formed in about 1600 BCE, that in 15th Century BCE China had a vast population and system of government and organistation.

Correct – but this was c.800 years AFTER Noah’s Flood and the Babel Dispersal – and assuming just 3.5 surviving children per couple and an average generation length of 33 years the World population could have increased from 6 people to over 1 billion people over these 800 years. The figure of 3.5 surviving children per couple is quite reasonable in the immediate post-Flood era as vast virgin lands over the entire Earth became available for re-settlement.

Wicknight
The estimated human population in 1 CE was approx 300 million.
Someone want to work out the growth rate needed to get from 6 people to 300 million

If we assume that Noah’s Flood occurred in 2,300 BC then you would get from 6 people 300 million in just 1551 years (assuming only 3 surviving children per couple and an average generation length of 33 years) – so the answer to your question is less than 3 children per couple.
Even in 2006, dare I say it, 3 children is not an ‘Earth Shattering’ reproductive performance – and many couples manage to achieve it (even while making extensive use of contraceptives).

Obviously, Human reproductive performance greatly exceeded 3 children per couple when new lands were settled and new technological innovations were made. At other times populations were static or declined due to famine, wars and disease – but what the figures are telling us is that Humans were capable of amazing population and technology explosions in the immediate post-flood era.

pH

J C wrote:

Firstly let’s see what the conventional sources say about the Egyptians and the Chinese Dynasties:-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt says that:-

Ancient Egypt had THREE basic phases –
The Old Kingdom which existed from c.3,500 BC to 2,458 BC.
The First Period of Chaos from 2,458 BC to 2,125 BC.
The Middle and New Kingdoms from 2,125 BC to 30 BC

Except it doesn't mention the words 'First Period of Chaos' at all. And 2458 is the start of the reign of Sahure

Are you really saying that :
In the middle of the egyptian civilization every member was killed by a catastrophic flood.
Some(300?) years later a new group of people (descended from those on the ark but obviously unrelated to any of the 4th dynasty egyptians) came along and took over exactly from where the last ended, with the same language, society, traditions, stories, Gods and technology?

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/phar/hd_phar.htm

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes.

OK. Thanks! Two more questions (one is clarification), if that's alright?

1. So your belief in God is entirely contingent on the correctness of the Bible?

2. How important is your belief in God to you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

They ALL fit in very comfortably within a Biblical timeframe as they are all much more recent that the date attributed to the Creation of the world (4,500 BC +/- 500 Ye).

That isn't the Biblical time frame, the Biblical time frame is 2300 BCE.

J C wrote:

Why would it take Humans 150,000 years to make any significant progress and then suddenly be able put a man on the Moon within a period of less than 5,500 years?

It is known as a "tipping point" The tipping point was farming and the invention of complex tools, approx 15,000 years ago.

J C wrote:

As usual, the Biblcal timeframe makes a lot more sense than the Evolutionary one!!

Not if God wiped out all human life on Earth in 2300 BCE with a massive world wide flood. Then it makes absolutely no sense at all.

J C wrote:

Despite the destruction caused by Noah’s Flood large stone structures the did survive from the pre-Flood era – and because of these surviving stone artefacts the Ante-Diluvian Era is conventionally called the Stone Age.

Not according to your fellow Young Earth Creationist Wolfbane. His belief is that these civilisations grew up after the Biblical flood.

So maybe you YEC need to get together and figure out what made up theory you guys want to actually stick to.

J C wrote:

Although Noah's Flood was worldwide it's local intensity varied considerably. The destruction caused by Noah’s Flood therefore ranged from total burial under hundreds of metres of sediment in some areas of the Earth to mere flooding in other areas and everything in-between.

Which areas specifically recieved only light flooding. Please list them.

Also please explain how the geological features you attribute to a massive global flood and up heavial of land masses can be still found in these relatively untouched areas.

J C wrote:

The sudden death of all people in Noah’s Flood is the probable cause of the many unfinished large stone monuments around the World, from Easter Island to Stonehenge.

That doesn't make much sense JC if the geological structures such as Easter Island were not caused by millions of years of tectonic activity, but were infact cause by the Biblical Flood. It is hard to imagine that stone monuments on Easter Island would survive the creation of the island itself :rolleyes:

So either your original theory, that the geological structures that are attributed to hundreds of thousands of years of tectonic activity and weather errosion were actually made by the flood, is wrong, or this theory of yours is wrong.

And they wonder why people don't take YEC seriously.

J C wrote:

So the THREE basic phases of Ancient Egypt were –
The 'Old Kingdom' which existed for aboout 1,000 years from c.3,500 BC to 2,458 BC – which was an Ante-diluvian period.
The First Intermediate ‘Period of Chaos’ which existed for over 330 years from 2,458 BC to 2,125 BC and encompassed Noah’s Flood and the period of resettlement after Noah’s Flood.

What is the growth rate needed to repopulate Africa, Asia, Europe and America in 300 years from 6 people? Because don't forget, while Eygpt and Africa were being repopulated, so was Asia seemingly, and Austrialia, and Europe.

Also please explain how the new settlers in Eygpt managed to lose their original culture, language and writing and pick up the Eygption one right where it left off, when none of them would have known how to read Eygptian writing, or have been aware of Eygptian history. On, and do this in a few decades.

And before you say "God after the tower of babel", remember you have just admitted that these languages and cultures existed before the flood.

Also please explain the records of Eyptian kings that are known to have lived and ruled in this "period of chaos" (and there are quite a number of them)

What nonsense .. :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

The Middle and New Kingdoms from 2,125 BC to 30 BC which was the period when the Egyptian Pharonic system was re-established following the Babel Dispersal.

So there was no one in Eygpt between 2,400 and 2,100 BCE? History would beg to differ.

J C wrote:

Correct – but this was c.800 years AFTER Noah’s Flood and the Babel Dispersal

What is the growth rate need to populate China in 800 years.

How did these settlers managed to spred to all parts of the globe in 800 while also settling to farm and produce food for the 3.5 children every single couple was producing.

Birth rates in nomadic cultures is much lower than settled cultures as they have far less resources. And when they are having children then tend not to move around as much.

You can't farm and spread around world in 800 years. Especially when attempting to support that largest population growth in human history.

Also when did they get to China. Obviously not soon after 2300 BCE, they had to populate everything between Babylon and Mongolia. Based on your 33 age limit, and the need to have at least 3.5 children, it would be nearly impossible for each generation to move more than a few miles from the original settlement, while still having children. It would take thousands of years for settlers to spread to Asia (which in fact it did)

J C wrote:

– and assuming just 3.5 surviving children per couple and an average generation length of 33 years the World population could have increased from 6 people to over 1 billion people over these 800 years.

That is a ridiculously high growth rate JC. THat is higher than it is now ffs :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

The figure of 3.5 surviving children per couple is quite reasonable in the immediate post-Flood era as vast virgin lands over the entire Earth became available for re-settlement.

Vast as in everything was dead

Have you ever seen flood damage JC?

If you work on the idea that the grain needed to populate the Earth was stored on the Ark, that isn't enought food to sustain your 3.5 children growth rate with in a local population, let alone one that is constantly travelling in an attempt to repopulate the Earth

Also explain how food such as east asian rice could have survived being under water for 40 days (along with the entire contient being rising up 5000 meters)

J C wrote:

so the answer to your question is less than 3 children per couple.

Which would make that the highest growth rate in human history. Everyone would have to produce 3.5 children. Who would feed these 3.5 children?

J C wrote:

Obviously, Human reproductive performance greatly exceeded 3 children per couple when new lands were settled and new technological innovations were made.

Where did the food come from? Did God provide it?

Now known techology from back then could sustain a population growth like that with food and settlement.

And here is the really kicker. How did they farm when they were moving, very quickly, to repopulate the rest of the world.

More nonsense. You are just making figures up, ridiculous figures, while ignoring the fact that those figures could not be supported by what we know about history.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Debate in the scientific media. Publication and challenge, just like with other conflicting scientific theories.

I see. In other words, although science actually contests the scientific nature of Creationism, you wish it nevertheless to be debated as accepted science?

Certainly I can see why you would want that, but I fear I cannot see how it is possible. Can you see another route to your goal?

Let Creation Science publish an original piece of research (no, you don't have to get it into the peer-reviewed journals) that, from the principles written down in Genesis, establishes something that materialistic science cannot.

Fairly straighforward, surely? Not quite, of course, because of the problem of interpretation. The Creationist explanation of the Grand Canyon, for example, does not fit the bill, because it has not established anything that materialist science cannot.

I can work on the definition here, but essentially, if that is done, then I for one will happily fight to have that work published in a peer-reviewed journal, and debated in the appropriate academic media.

Seem reasonable?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

JC wrote:

The sudden death of all people in Noah’s Flood is the probable cause of the many unfinished large stone monuments around the World, from Easter Island to Stonehenge.

That doesn't make much sense JC if the geological structures such as Easter Island were not caused by millions of years of tectonic activity, but were infact cause by the Biblical Flood. It is hard to imagine that stone monuments on Easter Island would survive the creation of the island itself :rolleyes:

Indeed. Plus of course when Europeans contacted Easter Island, there were still people who remembered the last statues going up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Have the floodists spent any time looking for a high-water mark on the Great Pyramid of Giza(2560BC)?

Have a look at THIS PHOTO – which clearly shows a ‘high water mark’ on the Great Pyramid of Giza!!!!:cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt

JC, you have taken all the biscuits! Also the cake, and the sponge fingers...I salute your ability to say something even more idiotic than before - almost every day (some days you don't post)! More than anyone, you keep the dream of ROFL alive.

You should go and see the Pyramids, though.

as so often,
laughing until it hurts,
Scofflaw

5uspect

JC do you have an exact inventory of what was carried on Noah's Ark? Or even an estimate? Now using this inventory what size would you imagine this ark would be? Or maybe noah used frozen embryos to save some space?

5uspect

Oh and also the poor people repopulating the globe while farming, migrating, having 3.5 kids, learning all those new languages and cultures, changing the colour of their skin etc would also have to return many of the animals to their homes cos I don't know how a kangaroo could swim to australia...

And then there's the matter of feeding them on the way as well as feeding your 3.5 kids. And what kind of growth rate do you expect to find in these migrating animal populations? Have creationists found fossils that show this migration pattern? Surely if such a pattern could be found then we could literally follow their footsteps back to the final resting place of the Ark.

Maybe creationists should go digging in the desert for a few years and see what ye can find. A scientific expedition if you may. Let us know when you find polar bear fossils in Iran or buffalo ribs left over from a hasty lunch from migrating farmers who didn't have a chance to harvest any crops cos they were in a hurry.

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

I don't know how a kangaroo could swim to australia...

Excellent point, hadn't even considered that.

Its all very well to say 20 people could have made it to Austrialia in 2000 BCE and started multiplying, but did 20 people also managed to carry with them the tens of thousands of individual animal species native to Austrialia.

Also, as they were going through India and South East Asia to get to Austrialia, were they killing all the animals that are native to Austrialia? They could possibly be using a tiny fraction for food, but its kinda hard to hurd 10,000 individual animal speices over desert, plains and jungle while killing all but a handful. As 5uspect says you don't find many kangaroos running around India.

Also, how did the animals that we know existed in Austrila (and only Austrialia) before the flood managed to make it up to the middle east to be saved by the Ark in the first place?

Nonsense, nonsense nonsense, the lot of it.

There was not a Biblical flood that covered the Earth for 40 days in 2300 BCE.

There just wasn't.

Sapien

Wicknight wrote:

Excellent point, hadn't even considered that.

Yes, there's certainly something to this down-and-dirty method of the relentless pursuit of a theory's implications. I feel it should be called The Harrowing, or something similarly frightening.

Diogenes

wolfsbane wrote:

Diogenes said:

You know the one: very ancient; believed by countless millions over the millenia: the Genesis account of man's history.

So not a report so, a set of beliefs you cannot verify. Like your claim modern scientific evidence re cosmic radiation and lifespan, and finally when challenged you admit that theres no scientific evidence, you're dressing up what is a belief system with scientific jargon to make it seem plausible.

We beg to differ.

No, you're essentially ignoring the fact that you're wrong, and doing your famous vase impression (y'know the one sticking your fingers in your ear and going "la la la la")

For possible answers to these and other Flood questions see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

For an interesting article on the longevity change, I just found this today: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/lifespans.asp

I'm sorry the most common verbs in those articles are "If" and "Suppose" "likely". In fact the only thing it doesn't hypothesis is about the bible. Which is presented as irrefutilable fact. The science is forced to bend around it, torturously.

I'll say again; theres not a shred of evidence there that mankind used to live to age 700 and this was cut short by cosmic radiation.

If you'd read the whole thread, you should has noted the debate about peer-review. You making it a premise just proves your ignorance, wilful or otherwise.

:rolleyes:

I'm aware at the painful debate that took place, the tedious rebuttals on your and others part. I was not swayed or was I convinced.

Diogenes

Incidently JC, old school boy fact the pyramids are approximately 394 ft above sea level so if they have a watermark than obviously thats as high as the water rose. Which means, that plenty of earth wasn't covered in the flood.

5uspect

Sapien wrote:

Yes, there's certainly something to this down-and-dirty method of the relentless pursuit of a theory's implications. I feel it should be called The Harrowing, or something similarly frightening.

Eh no, its called science...

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

Maybe creationists should go digging in the desert for a few years and see what ye can find. A scientific expedition if you may. Let us know when you find polar bear fossils in Iran or buffalo ribs left over from a hasty lunch from migrating farmers who didn't have a chance to harvest any crops cos they were in a hurry.

Or indeed, kangaroo fossils, or platypus fossils, anywhere but Australia.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

Or indeed, kangaroo fossils, or platypus fossils, anywhere but Australia.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Also wouldn't you expect to see references to such animals and migrations in the art and writings of post flood peoples? I'm sure we could post things here all day that creationists could research. The problem is that they don't. They choose to believe the bible and ignore reality. They make sweeping statements and don't bother to do any actual original research. Historians and geologists know the age of the the world and its civilisations precisely because they have gone out and looked for the answers to the ideas put forward. They look for their kangaroo fossils to prove their hypothesis - creationists don't.

RiverDeep

Scofflaw wrote:

Or indeed, kangaroo fossils, or platypus fossils, anywhere but Australia.

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/introducing/about_marsupials_3.htm

As this article explains, evidence of now-fossilized antediluvian marsupials and monotremes are found on all continents, which is consistent with the predictions of a creation/global flood model.

With reciprocal esteem,

RiverDeep

5uspect

RiverDeep wrote:

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/introducing/about_marsupials_3.htm

As this article explains, evidence of now-fossilized antediluvian marsupials and monotremes are found on all continents, which is consistent with the predictions of a creation/global flood model.

With reciprocal esteem,

RiverDeep

eh, how? creation/global flood model = young earth approx 10,000 to 6,000 years old where a big flood killed everything and then Noah and his animals repoplated the planet to its present glory.
this says:

The oldest known Australian marsupial fossils are from a 55 million year old, Early Eocene site at Murgon in southern Queensland.

is its not consistent its saying the opposite.

All it is saying is that the arrival of placental species often results in a decline in marsupials, which has nothing to do with the creation/global flood model. Its talking about ten of millions of years ago not a few millenia ago, you know when the continents were in a different position than where they are now so you would expect to find related fossils from this time scatterd in a manner consistent with plate tectonics.

What we're taking about evidence of a recent event that is consistent with the biblical account. Don't try and hijack this work - this is evidence for evolution not creationism. :mad:

Zombrex

RiverDeep wrote:

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/introducing/about_marsupials_3.htm

As this article explains, evidence of now-fossilized antediluvian marsupials and monotremes are found on all continents, which is consistent with the predictions of a creation/global flood model.

Groan...

Did you actually read the article you linked to :rolleyes:

Not only does this article support old earth theories, it also supports evolution.

It is very consistent with the evolutionary, long period migration (millions of years).

These are species from 55 million or more years ago. These species don't exist anymore, the evolved into other modern day species.

About 125 million years ago, marsupials from China started to spread and migrate to the rest of the world. It would be ridiculous to suggest this happened 4000 years ago. Even if you assume all modern dating systems are wrong, the simple logistics rule it out. How would land creatures get to Austrialia?? Did they fly? How would you explain the fact that the fossils aren't anything like modern day marsupial species? Did God alter them?

No modern day Austrialian animals, such as kangaroos have been found anywhere but Austrialia, which means the animals evolved on Austrialia soil over probably millions of years.