The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

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'.

...because...? What exactly does it explain better than modern theories - the Australian-origin theory being, as so many YEC straw men are, a 19th/early 20th century theory? Is it needed to explain the thousands of kangaroo and platypus skeletons all along the route of their "Long March"?

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!!!

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.

Well, paradoxes are always "explicable" by the use of unsupported hand-waving, as long as no evidence is required. Where are the sloth/jaguar/llama skeletons in Alaska?

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).
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.

We're talking about an entire fauna and flora, JC, not a couple of sunbathing lizards. There isn't a difficulty with the scientific model - because 40 million years ago Antarctica and Australia were joined as Gondwanaland, and before that Antarctica and South America were joined. When God made time, He made plenty of it, at least from an evolutionary perspective...

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

J C wrote:

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

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the term as: Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

No its genocide

J C wrote:

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!!!

And you've dodged the question.

J C wrote:

……. 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!!

I think he meant it in terms of urban growth not deliberate migration to some point.

J C wrote:

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!!

So where are these fossils then?

J C wrote:

5uspect
Maybe they had lots of multiple births?

Maybe some did – but it wasn’t necessary – producing 10 singletons each would be an easy achievement for the long-lived healthy post-Flood women!!!

Any women want to comment on this one?

J C

5uspect
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.
Scofflaw
Where are the sloth/jaguar/llama skeletons in Alaska?

The prime ‘Fossilisation Event’ was Noah’s Flood.

I WOULDN’T therefore expect to see a ‘migration trail of fossils’ from the Middle East to Australia or the Americas because Post-Flood fossilisation is extremely rare – requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the Flood) to prevent decomposition..
Lions lived in Israel until recently. However, we don’t find lion fossils in Israel, yet this doesn’t prevent us believing the many historical reports of their presence. Equally, the millions of Bison that once roamed North America have left virtually no fossils either.


5uspect
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.

I would accept that NS could maintain the loss of the genetic ability to directly drink water under the circumstances described by you above – but it is still a LOSS of genetic information and therefore contrary to the massive increases in genetic information required IF macro-Evolution is true.


5uspect
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

Indeed it SHOULD have only taken about a month – but God punished Moses by preventing him from entering the Promised Land – and so the Israelites went around in circles in the Sinai Desert for 40 years!!!

P.S. I would define a year as approximately 365¼ solar days.


Scofflaw
There isn't a difficulty with the scientific model - because 40 million years ago Antarctica and Australia were joined as Gondwanaland, and before that Antarctica and South America were joined.

Most Creationists accept that there was only one Ice Age immediately after, and as a consequence of the Flood. The lowered sea level at this time made it possible for animals to migrate over land bridges for centuries.

Interestingly, some Creation Scientists also believe that a single ‘Gondwanaland Type’ landmass may have existed before the Flood – but it was broken up into different tectonic plates during the Flood.

5uspect
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the term as: Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

No its genocide

So, are you saying that this Convention applies to God?

Equally, which particular aspect of the Babel Dispersal was in contravention of the Convention ?

Please remember that God was creating hundreds of new cultures (that the Convention now protects) - and He DIDN'T destroy any culture.

Originally Posted by J C
……. 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
I think he meant it in terms of urban growth not deliberate migration to some point.

So do you now accept that people could have migrated to the far side of the World within 100 years of the Babel Dispersal.


5uspect
So where are these fossils then?

In vast Sedimentary Rock layers throughout the World!!!

5uspect

J C wrote:

The prime ‘Fossilisation Event’ was Noah’s Flood.

So Noah brought dinosaurs with him on the Ark and the fossils we see are the ones left behind. The number of animals that Noah had to bring on the Ark is seriously growing if the flood was the prime fosssilisation event. Really J C you're taking the p!ss.

This is just like the childish rubbish that AiG expects people to believe:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

Why don't we find any bronze age artefacts when we find dinosaur fossils? No dinosaurs in bronze age art? I could go on but this is just too stupid.

J C wrote:

I WOULDN’T therefore expect to see a ‘migration trail of fossils’ from the Middle East to Australia or the Americas because Post-Flood fossilisation is extremely rare – requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the Flood) to prevent decomposition..
Lions lived in Israel until recently. However, we don’t find lion fossils in Israel, yet this doesn’t prevent us believing the many historical reports of their presence. Equally, the millions of Bison that once roamed North America have left virtually no fossils either.

But have you looked? Have any creationists looked? Done any research? Put down their bibles and dug a hole?

J C wrote:

I would accept that NS could maintain the loss of the genetic ability to directly drink water under the circumstances described by you above – but it is still a LOSS of genetic information and therefore contrary to the massive increases in genetic information required IF macro-Evolution is true.

And loossing the ability to die from poisonous leaves is also a loss of genetic information?

J C wrote:

Indeed it SHOULD have only taken about a month – but God punished Moses by preventing him from entering the Promised Land – and so the Israelites went around in circles in the Sinai Desert for 40 years!!!

P.S. I would define a year as approximately 365¼ solar days.

God sure is fond of his punishments. So who come he's not popping in lately. He doesn't call, he doesn't write...

J C wrote:

Most Creationists accept that there was only one Ice Age immediately after, and as a consequence of the Flood. The lowered sea level at this time made it possible for animals to migrate over land bridges for centuries.

Interestingly, some Creation Scientists also believe that a single ‘Gondwanaland Type’ landmass may have existed before the Flood – but it was broken up into different tectonic plates during the Flood.

So did ice age occur during the great dispersal? Would make travel difficult not to mention farming.

5uspect

J C wrote:

5uspect
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the term as: Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

No its genocide

So, are you saying that this Convention applies to God?

Equally, which particular aspect of the Babel Dispersal was in contravention of the Convention ?

I'm saying that I cannot see the point in respecting such a scumbag of a selfish diety if he exists or not. Human beings have developed moral standards such an the UN conention on Human Rights and nutcases like you would rather follow the moral teachings of some bronze age goat herders who's idea of a god was someone who acted in the following ways against a group:

(a) Killed members of the group
(b) Caused serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
(c) Deliberately inflicted on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. This is the Babel bit
(d) Imposed measures intended to prevent births within the group
(e) Forcibly transfered children of the group to another group

J C wrote:

Please remember that God was creating hundreds of new cultures (that the Convention now protects) - and He DIDN'T destroy any culture.

eh, the flood?

J C wrote:

So do you now accept that people could have migrated to the far side of the World within 100 years of the Babel Dispersal.

No this is not evidence of the massive growth rates and mass migrations you have predicted. It is unsustainable.

J C wrote:

5uspect
So where are these fossils then?

In vast Sedimentary Rock layers throughout the World!!!

Get your shovel so, we're waiting

robindch

> Just somewhat smoother than at present and with larger quantities of water underground

Ladies and Gentlemen, loosen your ties, grab some popcorn, pull up a chair and sit down: we're going to do some Creation Science(tm)!

We know from Genesis 7:12 and Genesis 7:18-20, that it rained for "forty days and forty nights" and when it was finished sufficient to cover "all the high mountains under the entire heavens" "to a depth of more than twenty feet" (I'm going to ignore Mars' Olympus Mons here, even though it should really be included, as it's a "mountain" under the "entire heavens", but I'll leave it pass).

Everest is 29,035 feet (8.8km) high, so we had six weeks to cover this, requiring rain coming down at thirty feet per hour to get ourselves to the top of this. That's 360 inches per hour, or the same in one hour as Cherrapundi, India (the wettest recorded place in the world) gets in one month; see here. That's one hell of a rainshower, a bit more like standing under a open tap, really.

Now, all this water had to come from somewhere and it had to go somewhere. Kent Hovind (currently helping police with their enquiries) suggested that it came from a passing comet, so let's go with that, as it couldn't have come from anywhere else. The volume of water required (volume of earth minus volume of earth with extra 8.8km), gives us a 4.5 billion cubic km of water, or a comet of over two thousand km in diameter, around the distance from Dublin to Helsinki. Space is cold, so this must have arrived as ice and probably at some speed, but we must infer from the story that this two-thousand-km diameter icecube landed somewhere so peacefully that it didn't leave a dent that we can see today, then persuaded itself to melt in six weeks. Having achieved these remarkable feats, the water hung around for around one year, then, since it couldn't have evaporated into space within that time, it must have been pushed underground how or other, making the rocky surface float upwards as the water went downwards.

With this in mind, please allow me to unveil my (copyrighted) diagram of the Creationist Earth(tm):



which shows where our 8.8km of water went to.

Um, but isn't that rock floating on water? Yes, but remember that no explanation is too daft for Creation Science(tm)!

ps: 5uspect - a creationist fossil dig could spring a leak in the crust and we'd all sink! Best not to encourage them.

5uspect

yeah but we could get them to build us an ark first!

Son Goku

robindch wrote:

Um, but isn't that rock floating on water? Yes, but remember that no explanation is too daft for Creation Science(tm)!

I cannot let this straw man of creation science be presented to the public.
You fail to realise that before the flood there was more sin than in the current day. Even the water was laden with sin, increasing its density. So much so that it allowed rocks to float on it.

You will probably argue that there is no evidence to support this, however you again fail to realise that the flood formed structures which were created old and so look to modern science as dating in the millions of years.

This is due to your inbuilt assumption that science should be done by accepting what the evidence says. You should instead realise the irreducible complexity of post-flood geographical features. As we zoom in on these structures we see more and more emergent detail. This detail points to an infinitely powerful designer, as this is the only way such detail could arise.

For a rebuttel of any argument you care to dream up I refer you to this article:
Standard Model of Creationist Geology.

You will see there is no evidence to support your claim.

pH

Um, but isn't that rock floating on water? Yes, but remember that no explanation is too daft for Creation Science(tm)!

May I introduce my learned friend to Pumice.

Pumice is a highly vesicular pyroclastic igneous rock of intermediate to siliceous magmas ... ; many samples float in water.

It's associated with volcanoes (good) Mt everest was orginally made of pumice (so it floated) but the increase in cosmic rays may have caused a chemical transistion over time

See here for a very complicated bit of physics about cosmic rays hitting rock.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

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

By whom JC, the children!? :rolleyes:

If a generation produces 10 times the population it once had, it suddenly has x10 mouths to feed. But they don't increase their labour pool for a number of years.

It would be impossible for the farmers to increase their production fast enough to keep up with the children increase.

This is why humanity doesn't increase x10 each generation JC!!

J C wrote:

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

It can, easily. The Egyptian lanugage is so different than others in areas of babylon because the two cultures had very little to do with each other for thousands of years. They had different culture, language, gods, history, government.

In your system they all came from the same spot a little over 200 years previous. Ignoring the different language excuse (God did it :rolleyes:) the idea that in that time they would completely abandon their previous culture, governental systems, history etc and some how managed to pick up exactly where the Old Kingdom Eyptians lefts off, even making up a 200 year linear record of dynaisty is COMPLETE NONSENSE

J C wrote:

– but IT IS consistent with the sudden imposition of mutually incomprehensible languages at Babel as recorded in Gen 11:7.

Gen 11:7 mentions nothing about completely different cultures, or for that matter suddently adopting the culture of a pre-flood civilisation.

As with most of this, you are simply making it up. Or if you have evidence for this "theory" I would love to see it.

J C wrote:

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

The entire surface of the earth was covered in kilometers of water for approx 190 days JC. No known plant life could survive lack of oxygen for 190 days, let alone lack of sunlight.

Everything would have been dead, EVERYTHING

J C wrote:

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.

You have absolutely nothing to base that on. Not only does all biology tell us that wouldn't have been what would happen, but this is confirmed by the Biblical descriptions of the length of the flood.

Nothing would have survived 190 days underwater except for the fish and marine animals. Everything, plant or animal, on the surface of the earth would have died rather quickly.

J C wrote:

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.

Read it again JC (do you seriously think anyone would be troubled by a flood 10 meters above sea level :rolleyes:)

19They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

The water covered the highest mountains under the heavens (which would be Everest at approx 8 kilometers). The water covered the mountain tops by more than 20 feet, which means the water was approx 8 kilometers and 20 feet high.

Notice, nothing about a flater earth. Nothing about the water own rising 20 feet (20 feet wouldn't cover my house JC :rolleye:)

At sea level, following the Bible's own description, the land would have been covered by 8 kilometers of water. The pressure would crush any plant or animal, and it would be pitch black. Light doesn't penitrate more than a few hundred meters (300 meters actually).

Everything would be dead.

J C wrote:

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!!!

I assume you mean Gen 7:11 (9:11 is something about a coven)

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
(New International Edition)

No, it sounds like water rushing out of under ground caves. There is nothing there about land level rising, only water.

Your theory that the land rose sigificantly during the flood, or that it was much flatter pre-flood than it is no, has absolutely no support from the Bible JC. You just made it up.

J C wrote:

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

Gen 8:3 doesn't mention new land levels, and neither does 8:5

The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,

The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

Please point out the part of either of those that says the land level had changed....

Zombrex

J C wrote:

So do you now accept that people could have migrated to the far side of the World within 100 years of the Babel Dispersal.

Not with NO FOOD :rolleyes:

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

Your theory that the land rose sigificantly during the flood, or that it was much flatter pre-flood than it is no, has absolutely no support from the Bible JC. You just made it up.

Yes but this is in line with creationism's teachings. Making it up is as vaild a scientific tool as performing an experiment. That is why they do not perform experiments.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

5uspect
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.
Scofflaw
Where are the sloth/jaguar/llama skeletons in Alaska?

The prime ‘Fossilisation Event’ was Noah’s Flood.

I WOULDN’T therefore expect to see a ‘migration trail of fossils’ from the Middle East to Australia or the Americas because Post-Flood fossilisation is extremely rare – requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the Flood) to prevent decomposition..
Lions lived in Israel until recently. However, we don’t find lion fossils in Israel, yet this doesn’t prevent us believing the many historical reports of their presence. Equally, the millions of Bison that once roamed North America have left virtually no fossils either.

No, JC, we don't find "fossils", because fossils take a long time to form. We do find bones, or as some people call them, "ske-le-tons" - you'll see I mentioned them in my question? You may not be aware of this (and everything you say leads me to suspect that this is so), but ske-le-tons become fos-sils after a long time, in which tissues and bones are progressively replaced by mineral.

Are there bison bone deposits in North America? Why, yes, there are! Associated with Clovis spear-points, no less, so we know they would have to be post-Flood.

As to the later ones, perhaps this answers the question:

Buffalo hunters, having taken the parts of the bison that were saleable, left the remains behind to rot. Eventually tons of useless bleached bones littered the prairie. In a commercial world, nothing is worthless for very long. Bones, hooves, and horns, shipped to eastern refineries, became bone ash fertilizer or an ingredient in refining sugar. Homesteaders augmented their living by collecting bones that sold for between $4 and $12 a ton. When Plains Indians could no longer deliver buffalo hides, some of them turned to the bone market, as well. It took one hundred buffalo skeletons to make a ton of bones.

Surely even you are not going to suggest that this happened to the post-Flood skeletons? After all, they'd be pretty numerous.

By the way, how does your single post-Flood glaciation affect the routes that animals (and plants, however they got about) took to their new (old?) homes? I know you're thinking, conveniently, in terms of land bridges - but I'm thinking inconveniently, in terms of glaciers and climate...

Also, let's take African elephants - just reading an article there on BBC Science/Nature, about how they avoid climbing hills because it takes them too much energy - yet they would have had to travel either through the Sahara or the Ethiopian highlands to get from Ararat to Africa. En route, they'd have an awful lot of difficulty eating - they normally forage for 16-18 hours per day, eating about 90lb of food per day.

Why doesn't Creation Science work out the possible elephant-friendly routes form Ararat to Africa, and search for the massive bones?

Seriously, JC - if all the worlds' animals had to migrate to their present homes from Ararat, there really are only a few viable migration routes. All you need to do is find the anomalous quantities of anomalous skeletons marking these routes, and your case suddenly solidifies. They must be there, after all, mustn't they?

J C wrote:

5uspect
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.

I would accept that NS could maintain the loss of the genetic ability to directly drink water under the circumstances described by you above – but it is still a LOSS of genetic information and therefore contrary to the massive increases in genetic information required IF macro-Evolution is true.

Er, no, since the koala does need water, and can (and does) drink water directly. No "loss of information" there.

No, no, my boy - what you need to claim is that originally all animals had the ability to digest eucalyptus, but the koala didn't lose it. After all, the pre-Flood animals contained all the necessary genetic diversity within themselves, didn't they?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There isn't a difficulty with the scientific model - because 40 million years ago Antarctica and Australia were joined as Gondwanaland, and before that Antarctica and South America were joined.

Most Creationists accept that there was only one Ice Age immediately after, and as a consequence of the Flood. The lowered sea level at this time made it possible for animals to migrate over land bridges for centuries.

Interestingly, some Creation Scientists also believe that a single ‘Gondwanaland Type’ landmass may have existed before the Flood – but it was broken up into different tectonic plates during the Flood.

See above.

looking forward to your responses,
but not perhaps for the right reasons,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

Yes but this is in line with creationism's teachings. Making it up is as vaild a scientific tool as performing an experiment. That is why they do not perform experiments.

Ah, now. I'm sure they can't just make stuff up and expect it to stick...presumably it has to match either experiments or the Bible, otherwise it's not Creation Science, just religion...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Let's have a little think about this assertion that pre-Flood animals/plants contained all the genetic diversity necessary to allow for the subsequent speciation.

How much genetic diversity are we talking about? Well, let's say each pre-Flood organism contained enough genetic diversity to create a hundred species. Why 10? Why not? The concept of "kind" is almost infinitely elastic - pick any number you like...the higher it is, the less space problems Noah had on the Ark.

Now, where did these organisms store this genetic information? Did they use something other than DNA? Did they use DNA in a different way? Or did they just have larger genomes (10 times the size of their modern descendants)?

Well, presumably they didn't use something other than DNA, since DNA is all we ever find as genetic material in any animal or plant remains we have studied.

Perhaps they used DNA in a different, more efficient way? How? It's 4 bases, that's all. They would have to have done something either very basic and structural to the DNA to make it, say, twist into a hexuple helix, or something like that.

So presumably they just had larger genomes - they had much more gentic material than modern species do.

And now we come to the nasty bit - Neanderthal DNA.

Neanderthals didn't make it onto the Ark - so their remains must be pre-Flood. They are, then, pre-Flood organisms, of necessity. But we do have Neanderthal DNA - it's been sequenced.

And, hey ho, it's the same old boring stuff we find in modern species! And the same for mammoths, and any other extinct species we've studied.

Oh dear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

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.

See my post on dating to pH.

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.

Depends on what 'a few' means; 3 years - then I agree. 23 - likewise. 230 - now we're in big numbers.

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!

Populate with what numbers? 100,000? 1,000,000? And why 100 years? Why not 200 or 300 years. If the Flood was c.2300BC, by 2000BC an enormous population could have been available to populate the continents.

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

Who says so? Does population growth not depend on food availability and lack of disease and war, rather than being 'primitive'?

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.

Why would it take so long to populate Asia? Are you not making presuppositions about growth rates?

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

Has anyone said the Aborigines only came into existence 1000 years ago? Their black skin had its origins much further back, likely in the first few hundred years after the dispersal of humanity at Babel. Their particular markers would have developed later, as they became increasingly isolated from most of the genetic pool. All people groups have their own peculiar genetic markers. But see also http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp where I got this: Since the cutting off of populations via physical barriers (for example, mountain ranges) can easily be seen to isolate subsets of genes, with the so-called founder effect, subsequent loss of some genes through drift, etc., understanding how such physical barriers could give rise to rapid speciation has always been fairly straightforward (allopatric speciation). Nevertheless, the amount of post-Flood speciation must have been staggering, particularly among the insects, and it is hard to see how there could have been that many physical barriers, cut-off founder or relict populations and the like in this time. Therefore, it is both encouraging and fascinating for creationist biology to note that there is now an increasing acceptance that sympatric speciation is actually quite common. That means that a population may split into two species even while living in the same area, with no separation or physical barriers.

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

Or evolutionist science supports itself with masses of presuppositions, not real science.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

See my post on dating to pH.

You will notice that all dating methods are in a straight line, they all decend well before 2300 BCE, they all are largly unbroken.

There was no 300 year "gap" in the history of Eygpt, it doesn't matter which dating system you use.

wolfsbane wrote:

Depends on what 'a few' means; 3 years - then I agree. 23 - likewise. 230 - now we're in big numbers.

In 100 years the population of Ireland, a very under populated country since the famine, with plenty of space, and with a Catholic following that shunned birth control, the population has risen by only a million, a large proportion of that is due to immigration.

Do you expect us to believe that a post-flood poplulation grew from 6 people to tens upon tens of millions in 230 years?

Also, as has been pointed out the JC a few times (which he ignores, probably because it is very damning to the YEC view) THERE WAS NO FOOD

What did these incredibly large growing population bases eat? Because farms don't grow by x10 every few years, not with farming methods from 2000 BCE. It would be hard to do that now, let alone back then.

Instead of 230, try 23,000. That is a proper "big number"

wolfsbane wrote:

Populate with what numbers? 100,000? 1,000,000?

In Africa alone? Try 20 million.

wolfsbane wrote:

And why 100 years?

Because we have strong evidence of large civilisations around the time of the Biblical flood. Actually we have strong evidence of large civilisations before the flood, that don't break for the flood at all. According to Epytian records, nothing happened in 2300 BCE to wipe them out, they carried on quite happy. I'm giving JC the benefit of the doubt that these civilisations were completely destroyed, and that the settling babylonians some how managed to start up again exactly where the old ones left off, but they would have had to have done this incredibly quickly, since there is no grap in African or Chinese culture.

wolfsbane wrote:

If the Flood was c.2300BC, by 2000BC an enormous population could have been available to populate the continents.

How exactly?

How many children would each couple have to survive for the population of Earth to grow from 6 to 120 million in a few hundred years?

And more importantly, what would they eat?

wolfsbane wrote:

Who says so?

History.

wolfsbane wrote:

Does population growth not depend on food availability and lack of disease and war, rather than being 'primitive'?

It depends on a populations ability to over come challanges such as food availability and disease.

The only way yours and JCs population model would work is if each couple had between 30 and 60 children, leaving them with approx 10 surviving after diease had taken its natural toll. 60 children in a 40 year time (a 15 year fertilitiy window) is a little unrealistic, especially if you have to feed all of them, until some of them die off naturally :rolleyes:

Or the post flood populations had some how managed to defeat most common dieases, as we have today. It would seem strange though that,despite spreading across the entire globe this amazing information was some how lost completely, and had to be rediscovered in the 19th century.

wolfsbane wrote:

Why would it take so long to populate Asia? Are you not making presuppositions about growth rates?

The growth rates are based on historical growth rates.

JC is making up the growth rate he needs (each couple has 10 surviving children, meaning they must have had approx 40 children altogether) to get the population to spread as quickly as he needs. It is nonsense.

wolfsbane wrote:

Has anyone said the Aborigines only came into existence 1000 years ago?

Proper scientists? No, because that would be nonsense.

wolfsbane wrote:

Their black skin had its origins much further back, likely in the first few hundred years after the dispersal of humanity at Babel.

They why are people in the middle east or asia not black skinned? Did they all move to Austrialia?

If the eviromental adaptation caused them to turn black some where between Babylon and their trek to Africa or Austrialia, why do we not see African or native Austrialia looking people wondering around Iraq? or Korea?

wolfsbane wrote:

Their particular markers would have developed later, as they became increasingly isolated from most of the genetic pool.

What?

You think 1 BCE all the native austrialias looked like Middle Eastern people, but over the course of 600 years, because they were isolated from the genetic pool (what does that even mean?? the genetic pool is based on 6 people) there bone and skeleton structures changed significanly, there skin colour changed and they lost all their native culture?

What you are describing is evolution, yet instead of the normal proper theory that this took thousands of years, you think it took 600??

How can you call evolution nonsense when you need evolution to explain your own theory, yet to believe it works at approx 50 times the speed proper scientists believe evolution works.

Nonsenes :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

Nevertheless, the amount of post-Flood speciation must have been staggering, particularly among the insects, and it is hard to see how there could have been that many physical barriers, cut-off founder or relict populations and the like in this time.

"Staggering" in this context seems to me to be the same as "it probably didn't happen like this" :rolleyes:

What the Creation Scientists have actually stumbled across here is EVOLUTION.

Yet it isn't staggering at all, it takes thousands of years to these changes to occur, not hundreds.

wolfsbane wrote:

Or evolutionist science supports itself with masses of presuppositions, not real science.

Presuppositions like the post flood growth rate being 10 surviving children for each couple and that post flood humans could significantly alter their physical appearenence in a few generations?? Yeah, evolutionists are the ones making up presuppositions :rolleyes:

Wolfsbane you have just claimed that the skin colour and skull structure of a human can "specialise" in a matter of a hundred years back in 1000 BCE.

Yet his some how magically stopped happening a few years later?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Neanderthals didn't make it onto the Ark - so their remains must be pre-Flood. They are, then, pre-Flood organisms, of necessity. But we do have Neanderthal DNA - it's been sequenced.

And, hey ho, it's the same old boring stuff we find in modern species! And the same for mammoths, and any other extinct species we've studied.

Just a quickie, as I found this when looking at another subject. There is no suggestion from creationism, as far as I know, that Neanderthals, mammoths, etc. were not on the Ark. For the former, the suggestion is they were merely a specialized group of Noah's descendants.

See Lagar Velho 1 child skeleton: a Neandertal/modern human hybrid
Marvin L. Lubenow
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Neandertal.pdf

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

There is no suggestion from creationism, as far as I know, that Neanderthals, mammoths, etc. were not on the Ark. For the former, the suggestion is they were merely a specialized group of Noah's descendants.

The obvious question becomes then "Where are they?"

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

Depends on what 'a few' means; 3 years - then I agree. 23 - likewise. 230 - now we're in big numbers.

I thought creationists were allergic to big numbers?

wolfsbane wrote:

Why would it take so long to populate Asia? Are you not making presuppositions about growth rates?

Assumptions based on intelligent rational agruements are made to estimate an unknown conclusion, What you are doing is fiddling the numbers to fit your predefined conclusion.

wolfsbane wrote:

All people groups have their own peculiar genetic markers.

So as Scofflaw has pointed out since adam and eve had to contain all genetic diversity in the begining shouldn't we expect these isolated peoples to have completely different sized genomes which are all smaller than earlier humans and Neanderthals because you and J C say that genetic information is only lost? Wouldn't it possible for one isolated group to loose many more of its genes than aonther group?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Marvin L. Lubenow

Funny you mentioned Lubenow, as he is (rather unfortunately for himself, a strong YEC follower) probably the clearest evidence of what a joke Creationist peer-review is.

Lubenow reported in 2000, as strong new evidence for creationism, a 1997 April Fools joke in the Discovery magazine claiming that cave paintings were evidence of Nethanderals playing in marching bands with complex instruments like a xylophone.

Kinda shows what an idiot Lubenow is, but to make matters worse, even after the ICR retracted the radio report by Lubenow, and AnswersInGenesis silently removed their page with the same report, this nonsense is still being thrown around the Creationists "peer-reviewed" "research" as a fact, and it still appears on AnswersInGenesis webpages as late as 2004. Harrub has an article that originally cited Lubenows "evidence", but the citation has been since removed. Astondingly the conclusion Harrub drew from this "evidence" hasn't been, which again shows how much a joke AnswersInGenesis is as scientific magazine.

So who exactly is peer-reviewing Creationists work if they continue to put forward april fools jokes as evidence for creationism.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Marvin_Lubenow

robindch

> Lubenow reported in 2000, as strong new evidence for creationism, a 1997
> April Fools joke in the Discovery magazine claiming that cave paintings
> were evidence of Nethanderals playing in marching bands with complex
> instruments like a xylophone.

...which they called a "xylobone", together with Neanderthal bagpipes, a tuba and a triangle. As ever, the good folks over in TO have a page on this, together with an inspirational Gary Larson cartoon:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/aprilfool.html

Speaking of which, this daft episode wasn't the first time that the humorless, and I dare say, witless, creationist brigade failed to notice some real scientists waving a sheep's bladder on a stick at them. In this case, creationists were fooled by a fake of a human inside the stomach of a dinosaur:

http://www.nmsr.org/april_fool.html

...and I can't wait to see this one appearing up on AiG sooner or later:

http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=126

Following a lengthy period of creationist "peer review"

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Just a quickie, as I found this when looking at another subject. There is no suggestion from creationism, as far as I know, that Neanderthals, mammoths, etc. were not on the Ark. For the former, the suggestion is they were merely a specialized group of Noah's descendants.

See Lagar Velho 1 child skeleton: a Neandertal/modern human hybrid
Marvin L. Lubenow
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Neandertal.pdf

Eh? Let me just check this:

1. Fact - child's skeleton, dated 25,000BP, shows mixture of human and Neanderthal characteristics.

2. Creationist suggestion - Neanderthals were descendants of Noah.

How does (1) support (2), as opposed to almost anything else? What does "specialized" mean? Why did they die out? If Noah's DNA contained Neanderthal DNA (as it must have done, per your suggestion), why do no pre-Flood human skeletons (and remember, according to Creationists, the Flood was the main fossilisation episode) contain it? Indeed, why do pre-Flood humans not contain all this extra DNA? Which human remains are pre-Flood, or are they all, magically, post-Flood? Which of the mammoths are pre-Flood, and which ones post-Flood?

By the way, wolfsbane, I appreciate you're busy, but you seem not to have answered quite a few direct questions at this stage....at some point I'll put them together in a list for convenience.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

There are so many ‘straw men’ in the last dozen posts by Evolutionists that you could thatch a small town with them!!!!


STRAW MAN NUMBER ONE!!
5uspect
Why don't we find any bronze age artefacts when we find dinosaur fossils?

We wouldn’t expect to find Humans in close proximity to dying hungry Dinosaurs in the Middle of Noah’s Flood!!!!

A comprehensive answer to your question is here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp#r9


STRAW MAN NUMBER TWO!!
No dinosaurs in bronze age art?

Dinosaur Drawings are indeed found on rock paintings – there is ONE in White River Canyon, Utah.
read about it here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp
and more info here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stone.asp


Originally Posted by J C
I WOULDN’T therefore expect to see a ‘migration trail of fossils’ from the Middle East to Australia or the Americas because Post-Flood fossilisation is extremely rare – requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the Flood) to prevent decomposition
STRAW MAN NUMBER THREE!!
5uspect
But have you looked? Have any creationists looked? Done any research? Put down their bibles and dug a hole?

1. YES, Creation Scientists do research – that is the mission of all Science, after all – and Creation Science is no exception.

2. NO, Creation Science DOESN’T expect to find ‘migration trail fossils’ for the reasons already outlined on this thread – so they are not about to dig up Alaska to look for fossils that they don’t believe to exist!!


STRAW MAN NUMBER FOUR!!
5uspect
And loossing the ability to die from poisonous leaves is also a loss of genetic information?

The Koala Bear obviously DIDN’T lose the genetic information to process Eucalyptus leaves – it had it from the time it was Created!!!

STRAW MAN NUMBER FIVE!!
5uspect
So did ice age occur during the great dispersal? Would make travel difficult not to mention farming.

BOTH Evolutionists and Creationists believe that the Ice Age DELAYED Mankind’s settlement of Northern Eurasia and the Americas!!!


STRAW MAN NUMBER SIX!!
5uspect
I'm saying that I cannot see the point in respecting such a scumbag of a selfish diety if he exists or not……………
and nutcases like you would rather follow the moral teachings of some bronze age goat herders

The expression of such views are in contravention of this Thread’s Charter.

You have also managed to gratuitously insult all Jews and all Christians with this stuff.

J C

STRAW MAN NUMBER SEVEN!!
Wicknight
If a generation produces 10 times the population it once had, it suddenly has x10 mouths to feed. But they don't increase their labour pool for a number of years.

A generation wouldn't do so SUDDENLY - it would take about 33 years.

Equally, the number of people in ALL age cohorts would ultimately increase 10x in such a scenario – so not only would you have 10x more children than the previous generation, but ALSO 10x more adult workers than in their parents generation.

Please also bear in mind that the food requirements of a child are only a fraction of an adult’s intake - and so food demand rates would 'lag' the population growth rates.

And BTW a rate of 10 children per COUPLE is only a 5x growth rate.


STRAW MAN NUMBER EIGHT!!
Wicknight
It would be impossible for the farmers to increase their production fast enough to keep up with the children increase.

Over the first few hundred years and with the entire World available to them and starting from a base of only 6 mouths to feed, farmers COULD provide enough food!!


STRAW MAN NUMBER NINE!!
Wicknight
This is why humanity doesn't increase x10 each generation JC!!

I NEVER suggested that a 5x increase would be sustained indefinitely in each generation – after about 400 years, resource limitations would begin to bite at about the 500 million mark – and the rate of growth would begin to ease back to about 3 children per couple.


STRAW MAN NUMBER TEN!!
Wicknight
The Egyptian lanugage is so different than others in areas of babylon because the two cultures had very little to do with each other for thousands of years. They had different culture, language, gods, history, government.

But IF language evolved one would EXPECT that geographically close peoples would have considerable similarities between their languages.

If the Babel Dispersal had occurred then mutually incomprehensible languages should be the norm – and this is in fact the case.


STRAW MAN NUMBER ELEVEN!!
Wicknight
Gen 11:7 mentions nothing about completely different cultures,

Different Language = Different Culture.


STRAW MAN NUMBER TWELVE!!
Wicknight
No known plant life could survive lack of oxygen for 190 days, let alone lack of sunlight.
Everything would have been dead, EVERYTHING

Many plants DID NOT survive the Flood. Whole groups such as the Calamites, Cordaitales, Cyccadofilicales, Bennettitales and the Caytoniales have vanished—to mention just a few.

Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water. Others could have survived in floating masses.

Ironically, Charles Darwin himself performed experiments floating snails on, and submerging seeds in, salt water, which convinced him that they could have survived long sea voyages on driftwood and the like.

Many other plants could have survived as accidental stowaways or as planned food / seed stores on the ark. Gen 6:21 confirms that Noah took a comprehensive range of food on the Ark – and these foodstuffs would include high energy SEEDS.

Further discussion on this topic here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0916.asp

STRAW MAN NUMBER THIRTEEN!!
Wicknight
let's take African elephants - just reading an article there on BBC Science/Nature, about how they avoid climbing hills because it takes them too much energy - yet they would have had to travel either through the Sahara or the Ethiopian highlands to get from Ararat to Africa. En route, they'd have an awful lot of difficulty eating - they normally forage for 16-18 hours per day, eating about 90lb of food per day.

Hannibal’s Elephants crossed the Alps!!!

Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that the Sahara was once full of lush vegetation.


STRAW MAN NUMBER FOURTEEN!!
Wicknight
what you need to claim is that originally all animals had the ability to digest eucalyptus, but the koala didn't lose it.

The Koala Bear had (and has) the ability to digest Eucalyptus, Humans have the ability to sniff it - and most other creatures couldn’t be bothered with the stuff!!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

STRAW MAN NUMBER TWO!!
No dinosaurs in bronze age art?

Dinosaur Drawings are indeed found on rock paintings – there is ONE in White River Canyon, Utah.
read about it here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp
and more info here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stone.asp

Only the first link has a picture - I do particularly like the little smile. Oh dear, I can't find anyone who describes this incredible rock art except a couple of Creationist sites and a one-line Wikipedia entry. Perhaps the local tourism agencies...no, apparently not.

I like the caption, though, over the grainy close-up of a smiling dinosaur: "Ancient Indian rock drawings, like this one of a sauropod dinosaur from White River Canyon, Utah, show that dinosaurs coexisted with man." Gotta love the subtle way it suggests that this is just one example of something so commonplace as be barely worth mentioning! Class!

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I WOULDN’T therefore expect to see a ‘migration trail of fossils’ from the Middle East to Australia or the Americas because Post-Flood fossilisation is extremely rare – requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the Flood) to prevent decomposition
STRAW MAN NUMBER THREE!!
5uspect
But have you looked? Have any creationists looked? Done any research? Put down their bibles and dug a hole?

1. YES, Creation Scientists do research – that is the mission of all Science, after all – and Creation Science is no exception.

2. NO, Creation Science DOESN’T expect to find ‘migration trail fossils’ for the reasons already outlined on this thread – so they are not about to dig up Alaska to look for fossils that they don’t believe to exist!!

Which reason? Sorry, can't keep the details quite straight...there are no expected skeletons because fossilisation only really happened during the Flood? That would mean that all those mammoths and Neanderthals are pre-Flood, right? Oh dear - but that would mean that their DNA is an example of pre-Flood DNA, wouldn't it? But that can't be right, because it's just like modern DNA, which it can't be, can it? Besides, wolfsbane said the Neanderthals were descended from Noah, just a couple of posts back! That can't be the case, because we have Neanderthal fossils!


Dum dum dum de dum....

Scofflaw wrote:

To JC: No, no, my boy - what you need to claim is that originally all animals had the ability to digest eucalyptus, but the koala didn't lose it. After all, the pre-Flood animals contained all the necessary genetic diversity within themselves, didn't they?

and

J C wrote:

STRAW MAN NUMBER FOUR!!
5uspect
And loossing the ability to die from poisonous leaves is also a loss of genetic information?

The Koala Bear obviously DIDN’T lose the genetic information to process Eucalyptus leaves – it had it from the time it was Created!!!

...tada! You can get a Creationist to listen!

I am very happy,
JC is making me laugh again,
Scofflaw

pH

while you're here J C any chance of answers to 2638

5uspect

J C wrote:

STRAW MAN NUMBER ONE!!

We wouldn’t expect to find Humans in close proximity to dying hungry Dinosaurs in the Middle of Noah’s Flood!!!!

Why not? I thought they were all drowning? Wouldn't the bodies be washed away only to accumulate as the waters receeded? Have you at least looked?

J C wrote:

STRAW MAN NUMBER TWO!!

Dinosaur Drawings are indeed found on rock paintings – there is ONE in White River Canyon, Utah.

One? Thats been independently verified? How would you go about dating it since all dating processes are wrong?

J C wrote:

I WOULDN’T therefore expect to see a ‘migration trail of fossils’ from the Middle East to Australia or the Americas because Post-Flood fossilisation is extremely rare – requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the Flood) to prevent decomposition [/I]

No swamps or bogs anything else then for dying animals to sink into? Fossilisation in general is extremely rare. However scientists do find them and I don't think many of the sites show extensive flooding at the time.

J C wrote:

STRAW MAN NUMBER THREE!!

1. YES, Creation Scientists do research – that is the mission of all Science, after all – and Creation Science is no exception.

2. NO, Creation Science DOESN’T expect to find ‘migration trail fossils’ for the reasons already outlined on this thread – so they are not about to dig up Alaska to look for fossils that they don’t believe to exist!!

We've asked you for evidence of primary research any you've failed to provide it.

J C wrote:

STRAW MAN NUMBER FOUR!!
5uspect
And loossing the ability to die from poisonous leaves is also a loss of genetic information?

The Koala Bear obviously DIDN’T lose the genetic information to process Eucalyptus leaves – it had it from the time it was Created!!!

Hang on, it was created with the ability do endure toxins? I thought when God created the world in six days he gave all animals (and Man) the all plants to eat. As Wolfsbane has pointed out poisonous plants occurred as a result of the fall. So if god created Koala's when he created all the animals with the ability to eat posionous leaves (not to mention all the other animals who can endure toxins) doesn't that mean god expected adam and eve to fail? They had no choice in the matter and we're all being punished because of his lousy sense of humour? Maybe the serpent was god in disguise?

J C wrote:

STRAW MAN NUMBER FIVE!!
BOTH Evolutionists and Creationists believe that the Ice Age DELAYED Mankind’s settlement of Northern Eurasia and the Americas!!!

Why are you certain? What research have you carried out?
The scientific research into the ice ages surely must conflict with your biblical stories?

J C wrote:

STRAW MAN NUMBER SIX!!

The expression of such views are in contravention of this Thread’s Charter.

You have also managed to gratuitously insult all Jews and all Christians with this stuff.

I'll accept that this comment was overly hostile,
however it is historically accurate to refer to the OT as a Bronze age text.
Also it is accepted that the god in the OT is an aggressive one.

Doesn't this whole thread breach the charter?


also isn't it kinda funny that creationists have different classes for their evidence.
Imagine, defining different levels of truth. This very very poor system shows that creationists have something to hide. Science however has nothing to hide as the evidence speaks for itself.

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

One? Thats been independently verified? How would you go about dating it since all dating processes are wrong?

It's not independently verified - even in the sense of "someone else mentioning it". Did you see the photo?

5uspect wrote:

Doesn't this whole thread breach the charter?

Nah - this is specifically about Biblical inerrancy & Creationism, not religion at all. We're not allowed any real God-bashing.

5uspect wrote:

also isn't it kinda funny that creationists have different classes for their evidence.
Imagine, defining different levels of truth. This very very poor system shows that creationists have something to hide. Science however has nothing to hide as the evidence speaks for itself.

From the second one - some particularly painful examples:

11. The origin of healing is a mystery, and is contrary to the way the laws of thermodynamics works. It is evidence for direct divine intervention.

Ow.

12. There are many examples of sedimentary strata found with the "older" evolutionary age on top of the "younger" age.

OW!

23. The quick *frozen mammoths found in the arctic suggests sudden catastrophe, which could be an effect of the flood.

24. The theory of evolution does not adequately explain the problems associated with massive die* outs of dinosaurs and woolly mammoths.

Blblblbl...bibble bibble. What next - evolution fails to explain fridges? Or was that one already used?

27. There are many examples of animals having characteristics that cannot be explained adequately by evolution. The problems involve transitions from one environment to another, and the numbers of changes in characteristics the animal would have had to make to survive in its new environment. The examples listed in this book were:

a. dolphins and whales

b. the duckbill platypus

c. the koala

Hee hee hee.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Before I forget - while we're concentrating on the Flood, that global disaster, we mustn't forget other worldwide disasters spoken of in the Bible:

"And the famine was over all the face of the earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt." (Genesis 41:56-57)

Nor forget how everyone first heard about Israel:

"This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee." (Deuteronomy 2:25)

Although perhaps they were comforted by Solomon:

"All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom." (2 Chronicles 9:23)

...and sought refuge in Jerusalem:

"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." (Acts 2:5)

This, of course, answers a couple of other threads on the fate of those who hadn't heard of the Bible before the European expansion in the 15-1600's:

"Their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. The mystery is now manifested and has been made known to all the nations. The gospel, which has come to you, just as in all the world which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister." (Romans 10:18, 16:25-26; Colossians 1:5-6, 23)"

Some might choose to argue, from the examples above, that the Bible has rather a circumscribed view of what constitutes "the whole earth". I am sure this will not baffle our multi-talented friend, of course, so I wait with barely restrained eagerness for his response.

waiting with barely restrained eagerness,
Scofflaw