Evolutionary debate

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That's because they weren't.

They didn't even exist as yet.

QV: The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah

This is such total nonsense that it is hardly worth reponding to but I can't resist. To claim that all the diverse Africa peoples descended in a few thousand years from one grandson of of a small inbred family is beyond ridiculous. Which Grandson was Chinese again? How about the Koreans and Japanse? How about the peoples of South East Asia? Which grandson gave rise to the Australian aborigines? Which one gave rise to the Olmecs? How about the Polynesians? The Finns and Hungarians are a completely different language group from most of Europe. Which Grandson did they come from?

Of course the fact is all these places had people living in them long before the date of your supposed flood or even creation of the world is also a small problem that you must ignore to preserve your myth. Was the evidence of those cultures embedded everywhere around the world when it was created 6014 years ago?

 

[AV1611VET]

To claim that all the diverse Africa peoples descended in a few thousand years from one grandson of of a small inbred family is beyond ridiculous.

Of course it's beyond ridiculous -- but not with God:

Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

You're assuming gestation periods were the same length as today, an error known as uniformitarianism.

And even if they were the same length, one family could give birth to more than one civilization at a time, as Genesis 10 demonstrates.

Gen 10:
15 ¶ And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.

Which Grandson was Chinese again?

Highlighted in red above.

Of course the fact is all these places had people living in them long before the date of your supposed flood or even creation of the world is also a small problem that you must ignore to preserve your myth.

It's not a problem for me, Frumious -- you maybe -- but not me.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Of course it's beyond ridiculous -- but not with God:

Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

You're assuming gestation periods were the same length as today, an error known as uniformitarianism.

And even if they were the same length, one family could give birth to more than one civilization at a time, as Genesis 10 demonstrates.

One inbred family giving birth to more than one civilation in different parts of the globe and with different languages and cultures and peoples who look different? Are you saying the same family gave rise to the Chinese and the Australian Aborigines? This whole "analysis" is beyond ridiculous. And if you are trying to say the Sinites were Chinese I don't think so. More likely people in Sinai. Sinite may sound remotely like the modern name for China but I doubt it matches what they were called then if the people who wrote the Bible even knew about the existence of China.

In any case there were peoples living all over the world in 2,500 BC who totally missed the supposed global flood just as they had failed to notice the supposed creation of the world in 4004 BC.

And Genesis 10 only demonstrates that the people who wrote the Bible were trying to explain the ancestories on the various peoples they came in contact with.

 

[AV1611VET]

All you're doing, Frumious, is repeating yourself.

One inbred family giving birth to more than one civilation in different parts of the globe and with different languages and cultures and peoples who look different?

See below -- ↓

Are you saying the same family gave rise to the Chinese and the Australian Aborigines?

Not one family doing it all -- did you read the link?

It's called The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah.

This whole "analysis" is beyond ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous -- it should be to those who stick to the error doctrine known as uniformitarianism.

Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

And if you are trying to say the Sinites were Chinese I don't think so. More likely people in Sinai. Sinite may sound remotely like the modern name for China but I doubt it matches what they were called then if the people who wrote the Bible even knew about the existence of China.

Suit yourself -- you're just making it harder on yourself to understand.

You're literally repeating yourself out of understanding.

In any case there were peoples living all over the world in 2,500 BC who totally missed the supposed global flood just as they had failed to notice the supposed creation of the world in 4004 BC.

I disagree -- qv please: The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah.

And Genesis 10 only demonstrates that the people who wrote the Bible were trying to explain the ancestories on the various peoples they came in contact with.

You believe what you want -- you'll only confuse yourself further if you stick to sans God explanations.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It's called The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah.

Of course it's ridiculous -- it should be to those who stick to the error doctrine known as uniformitarianism.

I am glad you realize it is ridiculous. What does uniformitarianism, an outmoded model of geology, have to do with anything.

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

One inbred family giving birth to more than one civilation in different parts of the globe and with different languages and cultures and peoples who look different?
​

I disagree -- qv please: The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah.

You believe what you want -- you'll only confuse yourself further if you stick to sans God explanations.

So you don't consider first cousins part of the same family, especially when the wives of those grandsons could only have been other first cousins or their sisters? This will be a highly inbred family and yet you claim it rather quickly gave rise to dozens of civilization of people who look very different all over the globe.

To believe that Pigmies, Danes, Masai, Han Chinese, Celts, Arabs and Australian Aborgines all the other diverse people on earth are descended from a handful of first cousins who married each other a few thousand years ago is just plain silly. And these people have looked the way they do for a long time so you have really a couple of thousand years or less for this great diversity to appear among the cousins. Even without the genetic diversity data that show this to be absurd anyone capable of logical thought should easily see that it is abusrd. And please don't give the usual creationist nonsense about diversity coming from the wives of Noah's sons. After all they are all supposed to be decended from just two people about 1600 years earlier.

Now tell me which grandson gave rise to the Autralian Aborigines.

 

[SkyWriting]

The Grand Canyon is an equilibrium drainage basin, side canyons that have not been blocked by landslides or lava flow enter at the level of the canyon floor showing that it was formed slowly over a long period of time and is not the result of a great flood or its aftermath.

Not even close to current theory.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Not even close to current theory.

Here is link to what I said about lava dams.

History Of Quaternary Volcanism And Lava Dams In Western Grand Canyon

These researchers think the Grand Canyon is somewhat older than previously thought
How Old Is the Grand Canyon?

The Grand Canyon began to open at least 17 million years ago — older than previously believed — report researchers writing in the journal Science.

Using uranium-lead isotope dating to determine the age of carbonate deposits that form in the canyon's caves, Victor Polyak and colleagues found that the "canyon is oldest on its western end and opened up steadily to the east through headward erosion". They estimate that the canyon was completely cut through 5 to 6 million years ago — the age previously cited for when the canyon began to form.

The Grand Canyon: National Icon And Elusive Mystery

The current "standard model" has the canyon forming about 5 million years ago

New analytical techniques of changes in the atomic structure of sand near the source of the Colorado River resulting from exposure to sunlight at various times in the evolution of the Colorado River as well as the Grand Canyon shows that the Colorado River cut through the Colorado Plateau be means of a retreating waterfall about 1 foot per century or a little over one inch per year.

But the Grand Canyon is unquestionably a dendtritic, equilibrium drainage basin that took a long time to form as I said in my previous posts and there is no controversy about the hundreds of millions of years it took to form the strata of the Colorado plateau.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Not even close to current theory.

So are you trying to tell us that this gentle flood you describe, that barely disturbed the ark, lifting it up with no waves, was violent enough to carve a mile deep canyon?

 

[Mela Monkey]

Do we really have to look back millions of years to see evolution? Look at the seasonal Flu. It changes every year, would that not be considered evolution?

 

[Hespera]

One inbred family giving birth to more than one civilation in different parts of the globe and with different languages and cultures and peoples who look different? Are you saying the same family gave rise to the Chinese and the Australian Aborigines? This whole "analysis" is beyond ridiculous. And if you are trying to say the Sinites were Chinese I don't think so. More likely people in Sinai. Sinite may sound remotely like the modern name for China but I doubt it matches what they were called then if the people who wrote the Bible even knew about the existence of China.

In any case there were peoples living all over the world in 2,500 BC who totally missed the supposed global flood just as they had failed to notice the supposed creation of the world in 4004 BC.

And Genesis 10 only demonstrates that the people who wrote the Bible were trying to explain the ancestories on the various peoples they came in contact with.

Sorry Charlie, the middle eastern sky god people dont get to take credit for the Chinese race or civilization.

 

[Hespera]

So are you trying to tell us that this gentle flood you describe, that barely disturbed the ark, lifting it up with no waves, was violent enough to carve a mile deep canyon?

Its a competition for what is most outlandish about the flood story, but included would be the grand canyon. Where was the water supposed to be flowing down to, exactly? First the five miles of water over the oceans went down, and then the water over the land followed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Its a competition for what is most outlandish about the flood story, but included would be the grand canyon. Where was the water supposed to be flowing down to, exactly? First the five miles of water over the oceans went down, and then the water over the land followed?

What makes you think the Grand Canyon was a result of the Flood?

It could have been made when God pulled the landmass apart, then later, water could have found its way through the canyon; and of course, uniformitarianists would [mistakenly] assume the water carved it.

Which came first? the Canyon or the Colorado River?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What makes you think the Grand Canyon was a result of the Flood?

It could have been made when God pulled the landmass apart, then later, water could have found its way through the canyon; and of course, uniformitarianists would [mistakenly] assume the water carved it.

Uniformatarian geology is a favorite creationist strawman. Modern geologists understand that catastrophic events, such as the multiple Lake Missoula floods that formed the channeled scablands do occur and can tell the difference between features that were formed by catastastrophic events and those that were not.

Which came first? the Canyon or the Colorado River?

What came first was the deposition of strata of the Colorado Plateau starting with the Vishnu Schists and Zoroastor Granites about 2 billion years ago. This was followed by the deposition of 20 additional complex layers of rock some before and some after the great unconformity that represented an erosional period about 800 million years ago.

Grand Canyon Rock Layers

The rocky mountains began to form about 70 -90 million years ago in the Laramide Orogony
Laramide orogeny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this is when the Colorado river was born.

After that it is not completely clear. The current model is that
About 35 million years ago the Kaibab plateau uplifted diverting the ancestral colorado river. At some point between 12 and 17 million years ago the path of the colorado was blocked and lake Bidahoci formed. Headwater erosion began cutting the canyon about this time.

here is a link to one secnario that is now the most accepted
The Formation of the Grand Canyon


More details are found here
The Grand Canyon: National Icon And Elusive Mystery

7) The great altitude of the Colorado Plateau at the time, as a result of the Laramide orogeny, explains how the water flowing over the Colorado Plateau over the escarpment at the western edge of the plateau could easily have cut out the deep gash in the plateau within a little over 5 million years by means of a great waterfall that cut its way back to the present-day source of the Colorado River.

8) New analytical techniques of changes in the atomic structure of sand near the source of the Colorado River resulting from exposure to sunlight at various times in the evolution of the Colorado River as well as the Grand Canyon shows that the Colorado River cut through the Colorado Plateau be means of a retreating waterfall about 1 foot per century or a little over one inch per year.

But as I said on my last post some recent data suggest the canyon started forming about 17 million years ago and was pretty much formed by about 5 million years ago.

In any case it is quite clear that the Colorado river cut the Grand Canyon.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Sorry Charlie, the middle eastern sky god people dont get to take credit for the Chinese race or civilization.

That is AV's claim not mine. I don't kmow if they even knew of the exisence of the Chinese at the time they wrote Genesis but they were trying to explain the origin of all the various peoples they did know about.

 

[AV1611VET]

In any case it is quite clear that the Colorado river cut the Grand Canyon.

You were there and watched it happen, were you?

 

[Hespera]

That is AV's claim not mine. I don't kmow if they even knew of the exisence of the Chinese at the time they wrote Genesis but they were trying to explain the origin of all the various peoples they did know about.

I know its not your claim, but as I dont see or respond to some people's posts, I put this where I did.

Considering how astonished the Europeans were when they found out about China much much later, Id say the sky-god people's map of the entire world didnt stretch past the desert of afghanistan. No way they knew about China.

 

[AV1611VET]

No way they knew about China.

Um ... did Shem know about the Jews?

The Chinese didn't exist when Canaan sired his children, who later became the Chinese.

You're putting the rickshaw before the runner.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You were there and watched it happen, were you?

You asked a question. I answered it and gave some of the evidence supporting my answer.

 

[Hespera]

You asked a question. I answered it and gave some of the evidence supporting my answer.

the quip / question is so much easier than the thoughtful response

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You were there and watched it happen, were you?

Hey, Ken Ham, direct observation is over rated.

Jump to 33:00 and watch until 35:45

FORA.tv - Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Science and Skepticism

Trial lawyers will tell you that humans make unreliable witnesses. Which is why they want forensics over eyewitness testimony. The only thing eyewitnesses are good for is to emotionally sway a congregati... er, jury.