The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

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.

In your opinion. You may not be surprised that the creationists here find that laughable.

If you lose your Biblical Flood you lose the YEC justification for pretty much everything we see on Earth, from oil deposits to the Grand Canon.

We fully agree with you on that.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Why don't creationists have the courage of their convictions and live without the products of the science that they reject -- things like computers, transport, modern medicine, food, etc, etc, etc? Is it that they are simply too selfish? And too dumb to make a contribution to science anwyay?

Probably becauswe they are the ones holding to that sort of science. Why do evolutionists not have the courage of their convictions and live without the products of the science that they reject -- things like computers, transport, modern medicine, food, etc, etc, etc? These things were intelligently designed, they did not evolve.

wolfsbane

pH said:

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

You should have read the linked article more carefully before you made such confident assertions about Egyptian chronology, e.g. Note that the dates given must be regarded in most instances as approximate. Dating systems for Egyptian studies are quite various, depending on how they are constructed and what assumptions are used. Presented below is one such interpretation, but it is assuredly not the only one.

Look a bit further in the article and follow the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology

From creationist sources: Fall of the Sothic theory: Egyptian chronology revisited by Damien F. Mackey http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/sothic_theory.asp
The pyramids of ancient Egypt by David Down http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/pyramids.asp#author
The Egyptian Problem by James B. Jordan http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/ch/ch6_01.htm

robindch

Wolfie!

Look, will you go easy comparing a bunch of lads in labcoats and glasses to the Nazis? You know as well as I do that the comparison is stupid and it really does make you look paranoid!

> Probably becauswe they are the ones holding to that sort of science.

A very even-handed answer, but one that doesn't actually say anything. Try again? Tell me why you feel comfortable and happy to use what people whom you insult as "Nazi"-like make for you? Aren't you perhaps biting the biotechnological hand that feeds you?

Anyhow, on a separate topic, and in the spirit of free and open enquiry that we evolutionists are known for one our siude, but not on yours, I took the liberty of looking up that quote that you have in your .sig, the one about the sacred cows and hamburger (and not "hamburgers"!). Turns out that it's almost invariably attributed to Mark Twain (see here and here). I did try to find any attributions to Dresden James, but yours was the only one. Interestingly, DJ did have one worthwhile thing to say:

Dresden James wrote:

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.

Seems to me he could have been talking about creationism. Or christianity

ps: Unlike Jonathan Wells (of the ten copyrighted creationist questions-fame) you are free to use the fruits of my research as you want!

pH

wolfsbane wrote:

You should have read the linked article more carefully before you made such confident assertions about Egyptian chronology, e.g. Note that the dates given must be regarded in most instances as approximate. Dating systems for Egyptian studies are quite various, depending on how they are constructed and what assumptions are used. Presented below is one such interpretation, but it is assuredly not the only one.

I'm glad you posted that because it encapsulates one of the dishonesties of the creationism argument very well. You pick on the fact that some experts in a field disagree on the details and use that to attempt to discredit the entire area because of these 'debates'.

Let me be very clear, while there is some debate about the exact dates of various Pharoahs, possibly even the order and perhaps even the attribution of events or structures to a particular ruler - there is absolutely no doubt that the ancient Egyptian civilization ran continuously from 3000BC to 30BC.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

You even say time has a beginning. But you say matter always was. Sounds rather a faith statement to me.

It would sound like a faith statement to you even if I built you a house out the arxiv papers containing the cosmological evidence.
In essence this arguement boils down to the fact that I am not a fundamentalist Christian and your mind does not advance beyond this point.
I appreciate that the lesbians have probably already gotten to me with their femi-nazi evolutionist propaganda, but you must at least try to see things from an scientific stand point, from which most Creationist arguements don't even make any sense.

I have already explained that matter always was because matter occupies every spacetime point, however spacetime can be bounded below temporally.
In very crude language "time has a beginning, but matter always was".
Time must have had a very different atemporal kind of beggining.

They have their presuppositions.

That's a useless arguement. How could all of us: atheists, hindus, buddhists,........ come to the same conclusion. We have totally different presuppositions, so how do you explain a convergence of thought unless it is based on evidence.
Even non-materialists don't come to a 6,000 -10,000 year old conclusion.
You have to be a fundamentalist Chrisitan.

From an objective point of view, this makes a stronger case for you giving into your presuppositions.

It was not that suppression of creation science is equivalent to the extermination of the Jews; it was that toleration of suppression of others (even if we do not share their outlook) exposes one to the same fate, when the suppressors move down their list of undesirables.

Then I didn't miss the point. I knew this was what you were saying.
The comparison with the holocaust puts a stupid post-apocalyptic flavour to this argument. You simple use it as an emotive trick because it is a melodramatic statement.

5uspect

RiverDeep wrote:

In fairness, 5uspect, you will agree that if one starts from the premise that the Bible is true, it is not unreasonable to find such fossils as evidence for a global flood.

If one starts from the premise that the Flying Spaghetti Monster Gospel is true it is not unreasonable to find a world inhabited by midgets and a rise in global temperatures with a reduction in pirate numbers. This a ridicously massive assumption which you have not justified.

RiverDeep wrote:

Perhaps these creatures weren't ordinarily resident in these locations but their dead bodies were carried to their last resting place by the catastrophic flood waters prophesied by Noah.

How far to you imagine an animal corpse travelling in forty days? Halfway around the world? Utter rubbish - really how can you justify this?

RiverDeep wrote:

The point is we probably can't know with absolute certainty what the exact explanation is but we can try to examine the evidence with open minds. I put this forward in an earlier thread... creationists have the capacity to understand the evolutionary mindframe in a way that it appears from these exchanges is not reciprocated by evolutionists who only see the material aspects and by their own wilful denial cannot allow God to be the causative agent of the processes that have led to the present.

You can't know anything with absolute uncertainity - true. Science requires that something is known to a very high level of certainity to be accepted. Your absolute faith in God and the Bible in in complete contradiction to this. You've closed your mind to the possibility that god is a fictional charactor in a fictional story. Scientists don't just deny god they "deny" anything until it has been observed.

Can you also give me evidence of this nonmaterialistic worls you YECs are so fond of? Or did you just make it up?

RiverDeep wrote:

As an aside, does anyone else see the irony in the choice of scientific name to describe the human species, homo sapiens sapiens, in the light of Paul's admonition to the Romans:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.......

I find it ironic that you are sitting in front of a computer typing this anti scientific trash.

5uspect

J C wrote:

No, I don’t have an exact inventory.
However, Gen 6:15 confirms the size of the Ark to be 300x50x30 Cubits – which was 137x23x13.7 metres or 43,160 cubic metres.
To put it into perspective, The Ark was equivalent to the volume of 522 standard railway stock wagons, each of which can hold 250 sheep i.e. over 130,000 ‘sheep spaces’ so to speak. The Ark was a truly massive vessel, unmatched in size by modern shipping until the building of The Great Eastern Liner by Isambard Kingdom Brunel in 1858.

Big boat for Noah to build then. And if he only brought six people I'd think the hundreds of people needed to build the ark would be a bit peeved.
So the decendents of the six survivors forgot this great ship building ability

J C wrote:

Taking young semi-mature animals on board would greatly reduce the space and feed requirements as well as minimising any mortality risk.

yeah because that milk stuff can kill. How could infant animals survive with out mothers milk, regurgated food, the safety of a marsupial pouch?

J C wrote:

They may also have gone into a type of hibernation during the flood, which would have saved on feed as well as making management even easier.

Ah yes, when logic fails make something up :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Examples of every KIND were commanded by God to be taken on board. Creationists DO accept that speciation occurs (using EXISTING genetic diversity) and it is thought that as little as 16,000 KINDS would have been sufficient to generate the diversity of terrestrial and avian species seen in the World today.

You said that you don't have an exact inventory. If your not even sure what animals were even on the ark how can this statement be valid.

J C wrote:

The vast majority of Kinds would be small animals such as young lizards and mice that would literally fit into a match box. Other animals such as lambs, calves and baby elephants would require somewhat more space. However, if we assume 32,000 animals (including birds) on the Ark each with a generous average space requirement of 50x50x50 cm (0.125 cubic metres), then all 32,000 animals could be accommodated in about 10% of the space in the Ark – leaving plenty of room for feed, straw bedding and access.

See above re fragile baby animals.

In addition, we should bear in mind that the animals themselves didn’t have any fear of Man before the Flood (see Gen 9:2) and they therefore would have been very placid and easy to manage on the Ark, unlike what “wild” animals would be like nowadays. [/QUOTE]

Didn't Wolfsbane say earlier that all disease, carniverous animals, poisonous plants etc came after the fall of adam and eve? Wouldn't that imply wild and dangerous, not to mention hungry and pissed off? Once again are you making this up or do you have evidence?

J C wrote:

Most of them actually had more like 10 children – and thrived on it!!

They didn’t need to learn any other language or culture – the reason that the Babel Dispersal occurred was because they couldn’t understand each other!!!

The people groups with the darker skin pigmentation gravitated towards the Tropics while the paler skin types gravitated northwards – so they DIDN’T need to change their skin colour!!!

This is so stupid I cannot even begin to seriously debate it. But here goes. Right so they built themselves a big tower in Babel to go see god. For which god punished them. So why isn't NASA etc punished? Maybe it is because the people who wrote this story belived in a flat earth with heaven above it. When god punished them he showed it was indeed true. The world is flat and god lives above it. If you believe the bible is literal then you have to believe in a flat earth too. Your logic not mine.

5uspect

RiverDeep wrote:

You may well mock my honest response to your question, but not long after I placed my faith in Jesus as God and Saviour, I felt personally challenged when I read the words ascribed to Jesus at the end of the 5th chapter of the book authored by his close disciple, John.

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

Any also by your logic the world is flat.

Son Goku

JC wrote:

Most of them actually had more like 10 children – and thrived on it!!

They didn’t need to learn any other language or culture – the reason that the Babel Dispersal occurred was because they couldn’t understand each other!!!

The people groups with the darker skin pigmentation gravitated towards the Tropics while the paler skin types gravitated northwards – so they DIDN’T need to change their skin colour!!!

Why did the paler skins travel northward? And the darker skins travel southward?

Also that sounds more like a "just so" (in the sense of Rudyard Kipling) story than a scientific statement.

Can I also ask for some closure on your qualifications?
Of the many and varied areas you were trained in, could you just name three for me.
(For example genetics or whatever. Don't say Biology, Physics, Chemistry.)

robindch

> B]5uspect[/B so they built themselves a big tower in Babel to go see god. For which god punished them.

Crumbs, I'd forgotten this part of the story -- thanks for reminding me!

RiverDeep

5uspect wrote:

Any also by your logic the world is flat.

Where did I propose a flat earth? As you well know, Biblical creationists do not hold to this position, despite the propaganda. See:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp#flatearth

Why do you feel the need to resort to baseless insults?

J C

Wicknight
How, if the Earth was completely flat, and all the water was underground as you previously claimed

But the Ante-Diluvian Earth WASN’T completely smooth with all of the water underground – just somewhat SMOOTHER than at present and with LARGER QUANTITIES of water underground :cool:


Originally Posted by J C
Equally, all tectonic movement WASN’T confined to the period of Noah’s Flood.
Wicknight
Despite the fact that you previously claimed it was.

Of course I didn’t previously claim that all tectonic movement was confined to Noah’s Flood – tsunamis and current active volcanoes are obvious examples of RECENT tectonic activity!!!


Wicknight
Also I have no idea where you got the idea that 10 surviving children was a typical growth rate. And it seems a little bizare considering the growth rate was 3.5 only a few posts ago.

These two posts were in answer to two separate questions posed by your good self, Wicknight!!

A rate of 10 Children per couple is required to achieve a world population of 500 million in about 400 years starting with 6 people.

Just 3.5 surviving children per couple would increase a population from 6 people to over 1 billion people in only 800 years.

Both of my posts are EXAMPLES of what different (possible) reproduction rates COULD achieve in relatively short timeframes.

They PROVE that the historic population levels of Humans COULD be achieved within hundreds of years – and so they DIDN’T require hundreds of thousands of years as claimed by Evolutionists!!


Wicknight
You would know that the different languages of Eygpt closely relate to each other. The language adopted in 2000 BCE wasn't a "new" language. All egyptian languages up to late eyptian used very similar hieroglyphics, and correct me if I'm wrong but they were nothing at all like the languages used by the people living in the middle eastern regions around babylon.

The written languages of the Middle and New Kingdoms were from a similar Babel ‘root’ – and they are written all over the large stone monuments of Egypt.

However, claiming that the hieroglyphic ‘graffiti writers’ constructed these stone monuments is an entirely different matter!!! :eek:


Wicknight
They would have been moving into unpopulated lands. No towns, no villages, to supply shelter, food, clothing.

BTW villages DON’T produce food – farmers do so.

In any event, villages (and cities) were constructed as the population spread outwards from Babel.


Wicknight
What did they eat while they were travelling their 100 miles (approx 6 years travelling).

Some lived off food that they had saved before the journey – and others lived off the natural abundance of the land through which they travelled.

BTW a mile was originally defined as the distance that a heavily laden army would travel on foot and horse over virgin territory in one hour.
Using the same measure, it would take only 100 hours or about 10 DAYS to travel 100 miles!!!

The food requirements therefore weren’t particularly onerous.


Wicknight
Ok, say that each person moved 100 miles and then settled down and raised kids, when then moved 100 miles. It woudl take 1,310 years to reach East Asia, another 200 years to get to Japan, and another 1000 years to get to America. Another 2000 years to get to South America

I actually said that “The average person may have journeyed for 100 miles – and then settled and farmed.”

Some people didn’t travel at all – while other more adventurous types probably travelled THOUSANDS of miles!!

Remember, 1,000 miles = 1,000 hours (or about 3 MONTHS travelling time).


Wicknight
It is, but the one thing it does need is sun light. Sun light is lost after 300 meters of water level. Considering your flood would have to have been well over a few kilometers high to cover all land mass, the land under it would have been in total blackness. In 40 days, completely starved of all light, oxygen and CO2 all plant life on the Earth would have died All of it

You forgot about the resilience of SEEDS – and the fact that most plants have densities LESS than water – and they would therefore survive by FLOATING on the surface of the water or being carried on the flotsam and jetsam!!!

Equally, the ENTIRE Earth WASN’T covered to a depth of several kilometres in water – as I’ve already said, the Earth had an undulating surface from the beginning!!


Robin
you must have started off your trek with all your languages intact, and then remember on your trip to drop the languages and people off in such a way as to make it look to subsequent linguistic and ethnic historians, that quite a few of the peoples are related, genetically and linguistically

Not only do NEIGHBOURING Native American and African peoples have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT languages but in Europe, the Basque language has no relationship to it’s neighbouring languages of French and Spanish. In fact, the Basque language IS related to some Central American Indian dialects and the first Basques to arrive in America with the Spanish Conquistadors were amazed to be able to engage in basic conversation with some of the Native Americans.

All of these observations support the idea of the Babel Dispersal after the instantaneous imposition of very different languages on different language groups.
If some gradualist (evolutionary) process of language formation occurred you would expect blending between all neighbouring languages and linguistic difference to be directly related to the geographical distances between the peoples concerned – and this is obviously not the case.


Robin
JC, (stated) that English was "created" during the destruction of the Tower of Babel, was spoken for around two thousand years somewhere by an indeterminate group of people who didn't leave so much as a grocery note behind, while slowly making its way from Babylon, through what's now Germany to pick up some Saxon influence, eventually to arrive in somewhere like Dover in the 1400's from where it became the English Lingua Franca apparently overnight.

Not quite – what I did say was as follows:-

“You are correct that English has it’s ROOTS in Anglo-Saxon i.e. it is DERIVED ORIGINALLY from the people who settled in the Saxony region of Germany after the Babel Dispersal.
Because English was the predominant language of world trade and commerce over the past 1,000 years, IT HAS BORROWED HEAVILY from many other languages including the ones listed by you above.

Because English is a cosmopolitan language IT HAS CHANGED GREATLY since the Babel Dispersal – unlike many other isolated languages, which have retained their unique Babel Dialects largely unchanged right through to the present time.”

5uspect

RiverDeep wrote:

Where did I propose a flat earth? As you well know, Biblical creationists do not hold to this position, despite the propaganda. See:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp#flatearth

Why do you feel the need to resort to baseless insults?

Creationists take the bible as literal truth of the creation of the universe.
Please think about these questions:
Do you accept that god created the world in seven (or six) days?
Do you accept that he created Adam and Eve as the first people whom we are all decended in?
Do you accept that Noah built an Ark, filled it with one of every kind of animal inorder to survive a 40 day worldwide flood whci killed everything else?
Do you accept that the decendents of Noah built a huge tower in Babel in order to get closer to him for which god punished them for resulting in the dispersal?


If the answer to each of these questions is yes then you must accept that according to the literal truth of genesis Heaven is located above earth. Nowhere does it say in genesis (as far as I can see) that Heaven surrounds the earth. That would put earth inside heaven. The only logical interpretation is that the earth is flat.

If you answered no to any of these questions then why do you accept only certain portions of the bible and not others? Why do you pick and choose what sounds good to you.

This is not a baseless insult, I'm trying to point out to you how your fundalmentalist christian views are deeply flawed at a fundamental level. Granted my often hostile attitude doesn't always help. I'm an assh0le, get over it.

5uspect

J C wrote:

Wicknight
How, if the Earth was completely flat, and all the water was underground as you previously claimed

But the Ante-Diluvian Earth WASN’T completely smooth with all of the water underground – just somewhat SMOOTHER than at present and with LARGER QUANTITIES of water underground :cool:

But there is no evidence to support this. The hypothesises on creationist websites are completely groundless.

J C wrote:

Both of my posts are EXAMPLES of what different (possible) reproduction rates COULD achieve in relatively short timeframes.

They PROVE that the historic population levels of Humans COULD be achieved within hundreds of years – and so they DIDN’T require hundreds of thousands of years as claimed by Evolutionists!!

Finally you're acknowledging your assumptions. They don't however prove anything without, you guessed it, evidence.

J C wrote:

However, claiming that the hieroglyphic ‘graffiti writers’ constructed these stone monuments is an entirely different matter!!! :eek:

If they were just copying hieroglyphs then you would imagine they would be just gibberish and wouldn't mean anything.

J C wrote:

BTW villages DON’T produce food – farmers do so.

No but they operate as a hub where food etc is traded.
I wouldn't like to march to the nearest farm for 100 days or whatever way you've changed the definition of a mile to suit yourself (strange how you didn't see fit to elaborate on that important point until now)

J C wrote:

The food requirements therefore weren’t particularly onerous.

Plus there was all that lovely rotten meat lying around. Imagine, you are on your way to australia to return some koala bears before they run out of eucalyptus leaves (you see they don't actually drink water directly) but you're really hungry, The little guys are starting to look tasty... but you come to the top a hill and there in front of you in the valley is a dead blue whale caught out by the recceding waters. Surely this would have happened a lot at this time. Wouldn't we expect to find whale fossils in awkward spots today?

J C wrote:

I actually said that “The average person may have journeyed for 100 miles – and then settled and farmed.”

Some people didn’t travel at all – while other more adventurous types probably travelled THOUSANDS of miles!!

Remember, 1,000 miles = 1,000 hours (or about 3 MONTHS travelling time).

This compicates things a bit. So now with our three groups:
non travellers
medium travellers
extreme travellers
how does this effect your calculations?
I think you'll need a few more envelopes for this one.

J C wrote:

Not only do NEIGHBOURING Native American and African peoples have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT languages but in Europe, the Basque language has no relationship to it’s neighbouring languages of French and Spanish. In fact, the Basque language IS related to some Central American Indian dialects and the first Basques to arrive in America with the Spanish Conquistadors were amazed to be able to engage in basic conversation with some of the Native Americans.

/moan, evidence?

J C wrote:

If some gradualist (evolutionary) process of language formation occurred you would expect blending between all neighbouring languages and linguistic difference to be directly related to the geographical distances between the peoples concerned – and this is obviously not the case.

Italian, Spanish, Portugese, French all share certain degree of "blending" due to their common ansestor latin. There is strong evidence that language evolved. As with many intermediate species intermediate languages have died out for various reasons such as migration, geographical isolation, cultural isolation and other cultural pressures such as national identity, racism and war. The better half has studies linguistics, I'll ask her if she can recommend any good research material.

J C

5uspect
Big boat for Noah to build then. And if he only brought six people I'd think the hundreds of people needed to build the ark would be a bit peeved.

It was a BIG structure – and it took over 100 years to build!!

The ‘others’ laughed and scoffed at Noah as he was building the Ark.

I don’t think that they were in the least peeved – until the Flood started – and then it was too late!!


5uspect
So the decendents of the six survivors forgot this great ship building ability
They lost the inclination, but retained the ability – as Isambard Kingdom Brunel subsequently proved!!!


Originally Posted by J C
Taking young semi-mature animals on board would greatly reduce the space and feed requirements as well as minimising any mortality risk.
5uspect
yeah because that milk stuff can kill. How could infant animals survive with out mothers milk, regurgated food, the safety of a marsupial pouch?

I did say “young semi-mature animals” – and NOT infant animals as these would be the most vulnerable and difficult to manage age cohort – and so baby animals probably WEREN’T taken on board!!


5uspect
In addition, we should bear in mind that the animals themselves didn’t have any fear of Man before the Flood (see Gen 9:2) and they therefore would have been very placid and easy to manage on the Ark, unlike what “wild” animals would be like nowadays. [/quote]

Didn't Wolfsbane say earlier that all disease, carniverous animals, poisonous plants etc came after the fall of adam and eve? Wouldn't that imply wild and dangerous, not to mention hungry and pissed off? Once again are you making this up or do you have evidence?

The fear of Man came upon animals after the Flood according to Gen 9:2 – and by lifting their adrenalin levels, this compounded their already fallen tendency to fight.
So my statement that the animals on the Ark were less aggressive than their present-day equivalents is valid – as they produced less adrenaline in the presence of Noah!!!
Think of a frightened wild cat versus your pet Tabby and you will ‘get my drift’!!!


5uspect
so they built themselves a big tower in Babel to go see god. For which god punished them. So why isn't NASA etc punished?

God DIDN’T punish them – He DISPERSED them.
Getting a new language ISN’T punishment!!!!

BTW Nimrod and his ‘buddies’ weren’t trying to SEE God – they were trying to DEFY God!!!


Son Goku
Why did the paler skins travel northward? And the darker skins travel southward?

Speaking as somebody who burns after about 5 minutes in the sun – I can confirm that I am happy to move 'northwards' after a fortnight on a Mediterranean Holiday.
I have no doubt that I would make my way back to Ireland one way or another, if the plane never turned up to take me home.

However, if I was lucky enough to be dark skinned, I would probably move to Spain permanently!!!!

RiverDeep

Thanks for the clarification, 5uspect, I think! :rolleyes: Your insult, however, was baseless, because as I pointed out creationists are not flat-earthers. Before fundamentalism became a dirty word, it would have been considered that my views on origins are entirely consistent with a "fundamentally" straight-forward reading of those passages of the Bible that are intended by the author to convey accurate history to the reader. In this sense, at least, they are in no way flawed.

In reply to your questions, as a Biblical creationist I try not to "pick and choose". To correct you, I believe...
-that God created the heavens and the earth, and all created life contained therein, in six ordinary solar days, and that he rested on the 7th day thus laying out the foundations of the 7-day week, the pattern of which we still follow today.
-Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman. While all people are ultimately descended from these two, the population bottleneck caused by the global flood cites Noah and his family as our more immediate ancestors.
-that Noah built an Ark, filled it with two of every kind of animal in order to survive a worldwide flood which lasted one full (Jewish) year and ten days, and which killed everyone else.
-the descendants of Noah who built a large tower at Babel as a monument to their misplaced pride and in disobedience to God's directive that they should spread out and fill the earth were dispersed over the face of the globe as a result of the linguistic confusion sent upon them in judgement.

Nothing in Genesis infers a flat earth, despite your misunderstanding of the text. If you read any of the articles in the link that I posted, you might have seen that creationists adopt a proper hermeneutical approach, one that compares various Biblical texts that speak on the subject of the form of the earth to one another in order to achieve a correct exegesis and do not simply try to read their own conceptions into scripture.

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

The fear of Man came upon animals after the Flood according to Gen 9:2 – and by lifting their adrenalin levels, this compounded their already fallen tendency to fight.

It's nice to see JC actually saying something that the Bible supports, although he's managed to drag some pseudo-science in even so.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
How, if the Earth was completely flat, and all the water was underground as you previously claimed

But the Ante-Diluvian Earth WASN’T completely smooth with all of the water underground – just somewhat SMOOTHER than at present and with LARGER QUANTITIES of water underground

Hmm. So when Creationists argue that the Flood was very deep because it covered the highest mountains, they're actually just talking about little hillocks really - what, the size of drumlins maybe? Presumably the chronicler of the Flood was totally unsurprised by the new, much higher mountains that existed after the Flood, given he just says "mountains of Ararat" as if they'd been there all along.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

5uspect
If they were just copying hieroglyphs then you would imagine they would be just gibberish and wouldn't mean anything.

The Middle and New Kingdom were writing the CORRECT Middle and New Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphs of their language at the time.

The potential mistake that I am highlighting is the equivalent of somebody assuming that a person called 'Kilroy' built Stonehenge if they observed graffiti painted on one of the stones that said “Kilroy woz ere”.

It would be an equally obvious mistake to conclude that the people who built Stonehenge spoke English – on the basis of this graffiti!!!

Ditto for Great Pyramid of Giza!!!


5uspect
or whatever way you've changed the definition of a mile to suit yourself (strange how you didn't see fit to elaborate on that important point until now)

I didn’t have to MAKE this point until now!! :eek:


5uspect
you come to the top a hill and there in front of you in the valley is a dead blue whale caught out by the recceding waters. Surely this would have happened a lot at this time. Wouldn't we expect to find whale fossils in awkward spots today?

Yes and No!!

Yes, dead whales probably were caught out by the receding waters.

No, they WEREN’T fossilised – but instead they were recycled by the Carbon Cycle!!


5uspect
This compicates things a bit. So now with our three groups:
non travellers
medium travellers
extreme travellers
how does this effect your calculations?

As they weren’t registered for ‘Air Miles’ – no calculations are required!!!!


Scofflaw
Presumably the chronicler of the Flood was totally unsurprised by the new, much higher mountains that existed after the Flood, given he just says "mountains of Ararat" as if they'd been there all along.

I can confirm that the ‘chronicler of the Flood’ in Genesis 6-9 was Moses – and he would be very familiar with what the ‘mountains of Ararat’ would have looked like!!

5uspect

J C wrote:

5uspect
It was a BIG structure – and it took over 100 years to build!!

And it didn't rot or degrade?

J C wrote:

They lost the inclination, but retained the ability – as Isambard Kingdom Brunel subsequently proved!!!

So why were all the other boats proir to Brunel's getting progressively bigger?
Were you born with ship building know how? Its something you learn, It took many years for people to learn many of the skills needed for building bigger and bigger ships and boats, just look at the aviation industry. Its a century old industry but it has taken many generations of different aircraft types, two world wars and the Cold war to develop the aircraft technology we have today. You're not seriously suggesting that Noah got it right first time with no prior experience?

Brunel was an engineer, his designs stem from years of learning from the trial and error of others on smaller projects from which he could draw knowledge and experience. After that is was just a matter of scale and economics.

J C wrote:

I did say “young semi-mature animals” – and NOT infant animals as these would be the most vulnerable and difficult to manage age cohort – and so they probably WEREN’T taken on board!!

You did also say that the average space per animal was 50cm^3. How can you fit so many semi-mature amimals into this space for so long with just six people to feed, clean and exercise? You're just plucking numbers out of the air to fit without any justification.

J C wrote:

The fear of Man came upon animals after the Flood according to Gen 9:2 – and by lifting their adrenalin levels, this compounded their already fallen tendency to fight.
So my statement that the animals on the Ark were less aggressive than their present-day equivalents is valid – as they produced less adrenaline in the presence of Noah!!!
Think of a frightened wild cat versus your pet Tabby and you will ‘get my drift’!!!

Adrenalin levels? In the bible? Waiting for some ramdom vague biblical passage...

J C wrote:

God DIDN’T punish them – He DISPERSED them.
Getting a new language ISN’T punishment!!!!

BTW Nimrod and his ‘buddies’ weren’t trying to SEE God – they were trying to DEFY God!!!

If you suddenly cannot communicate with your friends it is!
From bible.com:

Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.

2It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land (A)of Shinar and settled there.

3They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly." And they used brick for stone, and they used (B)tar for mortar.

4They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top (C)will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves (D)a name, otherwise we (E)will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

5(F)The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.

6The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have (G)the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.

7"Come, (H)let Us go down and there (I)confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech."

8So the LORD (J)scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.

9Therefore its name was called [a](K)Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth.

So god thought man was getting too big for his boots by trying to build a tower that would reach into heaven. He then forced them against their will to disperse and robbed them of their achievements. Strangly if someone behaves like that today we call it genocide not playing god. This is punishment for exercising free will pure and simple.

5uspect

RiverDeep wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, 5uspect, I think! :rolleyes: Your insult, however, was baseless, because as I pointed out creationists are not flat-earthers.

I didn't say you are. I'm wondering why you're not! Have you been up in space (you can get up to the edge of space in a MiG 25 quite cheaply apparently). Have you seen the curvature of the earth. Because if you haven't how do you know the earth is round. This is the same kind of logic some people here have being trowing at evolution

RiverDeep wrote:

Before fundamentalism became a dirty word, it would have been considered that my views on origins are entirely consistent with a "fundamentally" straight-forward reading of those passages of the Bible that are intended by the author to convey accurate history to the reader. In this sense, at least, they are in no way flawed.

Before fundamentalism became a dirty word we didn't have computers or the internet. We didn't have the vast amount of evidence for an old earth that conflicts with your beliefs. We didn't even have Darwin and Wallace to enlighten us. Whats your point? Should we revert to the 18th century so creationists can feel batter about themselves?

RiverDeep wrote:

In reply to your questions, as a Biblical creationist I try not to "pick and choose". To correct you, I believe...
-that God created the heavens and the earth, and all created life contained therein, in six ordinary solar days, and that he rested on the 7th day thus laying out the foundations of the 7-day week, the pattern of which we still follow today.
-Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman. While all people are ultimately descended from these two, the population bottleneck caused by the global flood cites Noah and his family as our more immediate ancestors.
-that Noah built an Ark, filled it with two of every kind of animal in order to survive a worldwide flood which lasted one full (Jewish) year and ten days, and which killed everyone else.
-the descendants of Noah who built a large tower at Babel as a monument to their misplaced pride and in disobedience to God's directive that they should spread out and fill the earth were dispersed over the face of the globe as a result of the linguistic confusion sent upon them in judgement.

Nothing in Genesis infers a flat earth, despite your misunderstanding of the text. If you read any of the articles in the link that I posted, you might have seen that creationists adopt a proper hermeneutical approach, one that compares various Biblical texts that speak on the subject of the form of the earth to one another in order to achieve a correct exegesis and do not simply try to read their own conceptions into scripture.

But how does any of this verify that the bible is correct? You can converge on an interpretation that you all like. But what is this based on? Creationisn looks for proof of the existence of god simply because they need to reinforce this very shakey foundation.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

But the Ante-Diluvian Earth WASN’T completely smooth with all of the water underground – just somewhat SMOOTHER than at present and with LARGER QUANTITIES of water underground :cool:

Please list the areas that were SMOOTHER than they are now. In detail please.

J C wrote:

They PROVE that the historic population levels of Humans COULD be achieved within hundreds of years

How do they PROVE anything. You are just making numbers up.

If every generation produced 10 times as many children you would need ten times as much food. That would be completely impossible using farming methods of the time.

J C wrote:

The written languages of the Middle and New Kingdoms were from a similar Babel ‘root’ – and they are written all over the large stone monuments of Egypt.

They why are the nothing like babylonian writing?

What was the root babel language. And if Old Kingdom and New Kingdom (too similar languages) were close to the "root" babel language, why is egyptian nothing like languages found in Europe or China?

J C wrote:

and others lived off the natural abundance of the land through which they travelled.

There was no natural abundance, everything was dead!

J C wrote:

You forgot about the resilience of SEEDS

And you forget that according to the Bible the flood started in winter. The plants would not have contained any seeds :rolleyes:

Simple fact JC, plant life could not have survived under that much water, and no seeds were present. THERE WAS NO FOOD!

J C wrote:

Equally, the ENTIRE Earth WASN’T covered to a depth of several kilometres in water – as I’ve already said, the Earth had an undulating surface from the beginning!!

You have absolutely nothing to base this on, and it contradicts the Bible itself

"and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered"

There is nothing in the Bible about increase in land level, or the massive tectonic thrusts you claim happen.

You are just making that bit up.

5uspect

J C wrote:

5uspect
If they were just copying hieroglyphs then you would imagine they would be just gibberish and wouldn't mean anything.

The Middle and New Kingdom were writing the CORRECT Middle and New Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphs of their language at the time.

The potential mistake that I am highlighting is the equivalent of somebody assuming that a person called 'Kilroy' built Stonehenge if they observed graffiti painted on one of the stones that said “Kilroy woz ere”.

It would be an equally obvious mistake to conclude that the people who built Stonehenge spoke English – on the basis of this graffiti!!!

Ditto for Great Pyramid of Giza!!!

So do you have evidence of these hoody wearing, glue sniffing, graffiti artists? woz ere, however crude is english. Kilroy in your context as one of the Stonehenge builders is not an english word. Is there evidence of this behaviour in egyptian writings?

J C wrote:

5uspect
or whatever way you've changed the definition of a mile to suit yourself (strange how you didn't see fit to elaborate on that important point until now)

I didn’t have to MAKE this point until now!! :eek:

We've been discussing migration and back of the envelope calculations involving miles, cupits etc for a few pages now. Then when it suits you you decide to drop this definition when everyone else will obviously be using the modern definition of the word in an attempt to show that your calculations aren't as ridiculous as they actually are.

J C wrote:

5uspect
you come to the top a hill and there in front of you in the valley is a dead blue whale caught out by the recceding waters. Surely this would have happened a lot at this time. Wouldn't we expect to find whale fossils in awkward spots today?

Yes and No!!

Yes, dead whales probably were caught out by the receding waters.

No, they WEREN’T fossilised – but instead they were recycled by the Carbon Cycle!!

So not a single animal that died in the flood was fossilised? Convenient don't you think?

J C wrote:

5uspect
This compicates things a bit. So now with our three groups:
non travellers
medium travellers
extreme travellers
how does this effect your calculations?

As they weren’t registered for ‘Air Miles’ – no calculations are required!!!!

But this migrational viscosity will surely significantly slow your predicted population growth rates. Lets see what number or definition can you modify this time to back up your arguement...
Maybe they had lots of multiple births?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Presumably the chronicler of the Flood was totally unsurprised by the new, much higher mountains that existed after the Flood, given he just says "mountains of Ararat" as if they'd been there all along.

I can confirm that the ‘chronicler of the Flood’ in Genesis 6-9 was Moses – and he would be very familiar with what the ‘mountains of Ararat’ would have looked like!!

Thank you for your latest confirmation. I think you're telling me there that Moses may have left stuff out of the account...

JC wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
But the Ante-Diluvian Earth WASN’T completely smooth with all of the water underground – just somewhat SMOOTHER than at present and with LARGER QUANTITIES of water underground
Originally Posted by Wicknight
Please list the areas that were SMOOTHER than they are now. In detail please.

Please list your confirmatory statements from Genesis - chapter and verse. Confirm that the pre-Flood world was flatter than the post-Flood world, using no other references than the Bible. Your answer will be discussed.

And let's face it, JC - if you can't, then your claims are unsupported by either science or the Bible.

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

JC, my friend, you've made your mind up about English and I almost missed it! Because you said in this post on the 18th:

> > B]robindch[/B or "What intelligent designer created English?"
> b]JC[/b God at Babel

...and three days later, on the 21st, you say in this post:

> B]JC[/B English has it’s roots in Anglo-Saxon i.e. it derived originally from the people who settled in the Saxony (Schleswig) region of Germany

This is really great! Because in 72 hours, you realised with some guiding questions from me -- I hope you don't mind me taking a small bow here! -- you've gone from being a linguistic creationist to a linguistic evolutionist! Let me unreservedly retract my comment about the insincerity of your conversion to evolution and also welcome you back into our ranks!

Well done.

J C

5uspect
Imagine, you are on your way to australia to return some koala bears before they run out of eucalyptus leaves (you see they don't actually drink water directly) but you're really hungry, The little guys are starting to look tasty...

Ah, yes the ‘Australian question’!!!

1. The ‘Marsupial Issue’.
Although Marsupials are predominantly found on the islands of Australasia and New Guinea, the Caenolestidae of Chile and various Opossum with a wide distribution in North, Central and South America are ALSO Marsupials – and fossil marsupials have been found on every continent – so the Evolutionist idea that Marsupials evolved through the isolation of Placentals in Australia can be rejected for a start.

The Marsupials appear to have SURVIVED in Australasia and the Americas – while they became EXTINCT in other areas.

The Creation Science model of dispersal from Ararat to the Americas and Australasia therefore has the greater 'Explanatory Power'.

2. The Koala Bear.
The specialised dietary requirements of the Koala Bear TODAY, may not have existed all along. Their inability to drink water directly seems to be the result of the LOSS of the ability to process foods other than Eucalyptus – and as such is evidence of Devolution rather than Evolution!!!

The Koala’s ancestors probably happily munched their way to Australia from Ararat feeding on a diet of Grass and common tree leaves as well as sipping water from crystal clear streams that they encountered on the way!!!!

The Sloth, which TODAY is a very slow-moving creature, may seem to require a long time to make the journey from Ararat to it’s present habitat in South America – but the recent LOSS of rapid movement abilities may account for this apparent paradox.

Getting to Australia presents the same explanatory difficulties for both ‘short age’ Creationists and ‘long age’ Evolutionists - except a Creationist timescale allows for the active participation of Mankind in the transport of Marsupials to Australia - as food animals (many Marsupials are easier quarry than Placentals).
Possible explanations common to both perspectives include land bridges and travel on huge rafts of matted vegetation torn off in storms. According to Tattersall J., 1993 Madagascar’s Lemurs, Scientific American 268 (1) 90-97 this was how Lemurs arrived in Madagascar.
Equally Iguanas have been recently documented travelling hundreds of kilometres between islands in the Caribbean in this manner.

pH

J C wrote:

2. the Koala Bear.
The specialised dietary requirements of the Koala Bear TODAY, may not have existed all along. Their inability to drink water directly seems to be the result of the LOSS of the ability to process foods other than Eucalyptus – and as such is evidence of Devolution rather than Evolution!!!

I take it you're a glass half-full type of chap when it comes to looking at the evidence.

The Koala lives almost entirely on eucalyptus leaves. This is likely to be an evolutionary adaptation that takes advantage of an otherwise unfilled ecological niche, since eucalyptus leaves are low in protein, high in indigestible substances, and contain phenolic and terpene compounds that are toxic to most species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koala

Clearly this is not devolution, they evolved the ability to digest eucalyptus. Unless you're claiming that all creatures were (when created) given the ability to digest eucalyptus and the ones that didn't need it simply 'devolved' that ability?

How far are you willing to take your 'theory of devolution'? Would you accept that penguins are birds that devolved their ability to fly? or are you not willing to go that far?

The Koala’s ancestors probably happily munched their way to Australia from Ararat feeding on a diet of Grass and common tree leaves!!!!

Perhaps you could draw the route?
Also why did koalas and kangaroos go this way - why did other animals (say tigers, lions and giraffes) not follow these green fields of grass to Australia?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Ah, yes the ‘Australian question’!!!

Neither 1 or 2 answers the "Australian question" :rollleyes:

Do just hope to waffle for a bit and hope no one notices you didn't answer the question?

J C wrote:

so the Evolutionist idea that Marsupials evolved through the isolation of Placentals in Australia can be rejected for a start.

That wasn't the evolutionist idea, the evolutionist idea was that marsupials evolved around 155 million years ago in China.

An idea you have just accidently proved!! :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

2. the Koala Bear.
The specialised dietary requirements of the Koala Bear TODAY, may not have existed all along.

You aren't saying it EVOLVED are you!

J C wrote:

Their inability to drink water directly seems to be the result of the LOSS of the ability to process foods other than Eucalyptus – and as such is evidence of Devolution rather than Evolution!!!

Loss of ability to do on thing is evolution JC, you know this because it has been explained to you over and over.

J C wrote:

The Koala’s ancestors probably happily munched their way to Australia from Ararat feeding on a diet of Grass and common tree leaves!!!!

They did, millions of years ago, until they got to Australia and adapted to the unique enviornment. Again, you are proving evolution!

J C wrote:

The Sloth, which TODAY is a very slow-moving creature, may seem to require a long time to make the journey from Ararat to it’s present habitat in south America – but the recent LOSS of rapid movement abilities may account for this apparent paradox.

Recent as in the last few million years. Correct again JC! You are on an evolution proving roll here. Don't stop, robinch would be so proud

J C wrote:

Getting to Australia presents the same explanatory difficulties for both ‘short age’ Creationists and ‘long age’ Evolutionists

Nope, only short age creationists actually. Long age evolutionists know that Australia and New Zeland were once much closer to Asia and connected by a land bridge, so animals migrating there a few million years ago would have been trivial.

The only explination that is plausable is the evolutionary one. Unless you think plants can swim now

J C wrote:

- except a Creationist timescale allows the active participation of Mankind in the transport of Marsupials to Australia - as food animals.

All 10,000 species of animal. Incuding tiny insects.

How exactly? How many humans would be required to transfer 20,000 male and female animals to austrialia. And how exactly did they feed these 20,000 animals considering that after the flood all plant life in Austrialia would have been long dead?

J C wrote:

Possible explanations common to both perspectives include land bridges

Last time I checked Google Earth there wasn't a land bridge between Autrialia and New Zeland, a distance of 1,000 miles. Did this just happen to sink into the ground a few hundred years ago JC :rolleyes:

Lucky for the evolutionary theory there was a few million years ago. There wasn't 2000 years ago. Bit troubling for YEC no?

5uspect

J C wrote:

Ah, yes the ‘Australian question’!!!

1. The ‘Marsupial Issue’.
Although Marsupials are predominantly found on the islands of Australasia and New Guinea, the Caenolestidae of Chile and various Opossum with a wide distribution in North, Central and South America are ALSO Marsupials – and fossil marsupials have been found on every continent – so the Evolutionist idea that Marsupials evolved through the isolation of Placentals in Australia can be rejected for a start.

The Marsupials appear to have SURVIVED in Australasia and the Americas – while they became EXTINCT in other areas.

The Creation Science model of dispersal from Ararat to the Americas and Australasia therefore has the greater 'Explanatory Power'.

Evolutionists would expect marsupial species in many areas adjacent to australia before the landmasses broke up to form the continents we see today as shown by plate tectonics. Fossils would also be expected to be quite widespread. Isolation in Australia allowed them to evolve independently to their american cousins. This is also verified by molecular clock analysis.
A quick search on google scholar threw up this paper (PDF):
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/137/1/243
Can you explain to me why exactly they are wrong and you are right?
Your version of events makes no sense, if your are right you would expect to see a linear progression of fossils that show the evolution of marsupials as the migrate from Iran to Australia. But creationists don't go digging in the ground looking of evidence do they? They just make it up.

J C wrote:

2. The Koala Bear.
The specialised dietary requirements of the Koala Bear TODAY, may not have existed all along. Their inability to drink water directly seems to be the result of the LOSS of the ability to process foods other than Eucalyptus – and as such is evidence of Devolution rather than Evolution!!!

You could argue that this evolutionary change gives the koala an advantage in that it is safer from predators by remaining in its tree without the need to come down to drink. It is only an evolutionary disadvantage when you believe the bible and believe that evolution is wrong which makes, yet again, no sense.

J C wrote:

The Koala’s ancestors probably happily munched their way to Australia from Ararat feeding on a diet of Grass and common tree leaves!!!!

The Sloth, which TODAY is a very slow-moving creature, may seem to require a long time to make the journey from Ararat to it’s present habitat in South America – but the recent LOSS of rapid movement abilities may account for this apparent paradox.

Bold = assumption. Evidence please.

J C wrote:

Getting to Australia presents the same explanatory difficulties for both ‘short age’ Creationists and ‘long age’ Evolutionists - except a Creationist timescale allows for the active participation of Mankind in the transport of Marsupials to Australia - as food animals (many Marsupials are easier quarry than Placentals).

What?! :eek: The evolutionary timescale fits with the geological timescale which includes plate tectonics. Animals had millions of years to spread across Gondwanaland before it broke up. It took Moses and the israelites 40 years (please define your version of a year) to travel 200 miles. Thats 200 hours of marching which by your reasoning would take about a month. I don't think your biblical charactors would be able to repopulate the earth animals in tow in a few hundred years. But I'm sure you'll come up with a creative definition for a year.

J C

5uspect
So god thought man was getting too big for his boots by trying to build a tower that would reach into heaven. He then forced them against their will to disperse and robbed them of their achievements. Strangly if someone behaves like that today we call it genocide not playing god.

NOBODY was killed – so it wasn’t Genocide!!

In any event God has decided to allow us all to die – and we don’t call it murder – merely God ‘giving and taking away’ – as is His right as the Sovereign Creator God of the Universe.
God has also given us the solution to overcoming death – by being saved in Jesus Christ!!!


Wicknight
If every generation produced 10 times as many children you would need ten times as much food. That would be completely impossible using farming methods of the time.

You are forgetting that the farmed area would ALSO be expanding 10-fold in such a scenario!!!


Wicknight
What was the root babel language. And if Old Kingdom and New Kingdom (too similar languages) were close to the "root" babel language, why is egyptian nothing like languages found in Europe or China?

To clarify, I was referring to the ‘root’ Babel language of the people who DISPERSED to Egypt.

The reason why Egyptian has no resemblance to the languages found ’next door’ in Israel and indeed in Europe – cannot be explained by gradualist Evolutionary ideas – but IT IS consistent with the sudden imposition of mutually incomprehensible languages at Babel as recorded in Gen 11:7.


Wicknight
There was no natural abundance, everything was dead!

ONLY land-dwelling air-breathing creatures suffered 100% mortality.

In the immediate aftermath of the Flood a scene of devastation would have been evident – but within one year the regeneration of plant growth would be well underway – and within 10 years a state of ‘natural abundance’ could be said to exist once more.


Originally Posted by J C
Equally, the ENTIRE Earth WASN’T covered to a depth of several kilometres in water – as I’ve already said, the Earth had an undulating surface from the beginning!!
Wicknight
You have absolutely nothing to base this on, and it contradicts the Bible itself
"and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered"

Gen 7: 20 actually says “Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered” (NIV).

Fifteen cubits is only 10 METRES and NOT several kilometres – so my statement that, “the ENTIRE Earth WASN’T covered to a depth of several kilometres in water” is both true and Biblically-based.


Wicknight
There is nothing in the Bible about increase in land level, or the massive tectonic thrusts you claim happen.

How about Gen 9:11a “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up” (KJV). Sounds like massive rupturing of the Earths Crust (AKA massive tectonic thrusts) to me!!!

The increases in land levels (and a relative decrease in ocean floor levels) following the Flood are confirmed in Gen 8:3 & 8:5.


5uspect
So do you have evidence of these hoody wearing, glue sniffing, graffiti artists? woz ere, however crude is english. Kilroy in your context as one of the Stonehenge builders is not an english word. Is there evidence of this behaviour in egyptian writings?

You’re going ‘all serious’ on me now, 5uspect – I did put in a ‘Smiley’ to indicate that I was providing some ‘light relief’ in the particular post!!!


Wicknight
What did they eat while they were travelling their 100 miles (approx 6 years travelling).

5uspect
when it suits you you decide to drop this definition when everyone else will obviously be using the modern definition of the word in an attempt to show that your calculations aren't as ridiculous as they actually are.

……. and Wicknight’s claim that it would take six years to travel 100 miles isn’t ridiculous???

Do you not realise that taking six years to travel 100 miles is an average velocity of only 6 METRES per hour!!!
A snail could travel this distance in this time!!


5uspect
So not a single animal that died in the flood was fossilised? Convenient don't you think?

I NEVER said that.

Of course many animals were fossilised in the Flood through rapid burial under silt-saturated water.

However, the ‘beached whale’ scenario described by you wouldn’t lend itself to fossilisation!!


5uspect
But this migrational viscosity will surely significantly slow your predicted population growth rates.

Not in the least!!

What the figures show is that people were easily capable of dispersing rapidly enough to support an exponential rate of population growth.


5uspect
Maybe they had lots of multiple births?

Maybe some did – but it wasn’t necessary – producing 10 singletons each would be a relatively easy achievement for the long-lived healthy couples of the immediate post-Flood era with effectively unlimited food supplies available !!!