Marsupial in arctic supports that man was on Pangaea.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you want to claim the future and past in the bible has a nature the same as ours, go ahead and make a case. Good luck with that.

I see hundreds of science articles all the time. They all confirm God's word and my ideas. Here is a fresh one from today.

"
Do volcanoes or an asteroid deserve blame for dinosaur extinction?
Asteroid/comet likely reignited Indian volcanoes 66 million years ago, but their role in extinction unclear"
Do volcanoes or an asteroid deserve blame for dinosaur extinction? Asteroid/comet likely reignited Indian volcanoes 66 million years ago, but their role in extinction unclear

Bottom line is science does not know what really caused the extinction around the time of the KT layer. Their belief based guesses have become comical. Since I place the flood around that time, I have no sleepless nights wondering what caused a great extinction!

I'm just going to repeat my comment:
So why should I accept your reasoning over the reasoning of scientists? What makes your claims the more believable ones? What actual evidence do you have?
And don't say they aren't the Bible's claims, because they sure as heck are not the Bible's claims. They're just your claims.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Context. Just because something was related in the story of Jesus does not mean we toss out all records of lineage all over the bible. ... Or there are other reasons someone was or was not included.

Just answer some questions:

• Was Luke wrong when he wrote that Kainan was the son of Arpachshad and the father of Shelah?
• If not: How does this Kainan fit into the genealogy of Gen 10?
• If there is one Kainan missing in Gen 10, what about other people that are missing there?

No one had the same name? I know some Greek friends who have similar names, that doesn't mean they were born the same time.

• Do you really want to tell me the names in Gen 10 are not the names of the ancestors of Jesus according to Luke 3?

There are to many problems when I try to harmonize your account with Scripture, this is enough reason for me to reject it. Your evasion at one of the most clear points shows clearly that you are more interested in defending your favorite hypotheses than to get in line with the Bible. Fullstop. If you want to hear more from me, show that you address the biblical problems I pointed out.

As to science, others have said enough about your deficits, I don't need to add more to it (though many issues could be added in there).

 

[Helmut-WK]

Your opinion is noted. However there are far stronger opinions in my opinion.

You say it: Your opinion is based on opinions.
My opinion (that the 30-day month we arrive by calculation time accounts in Daniel and elsewhere is a rounding not to be taken literally) is based on Scripture: In Daniel 8:14 a time span, that (as we know from the fulfillment of the prophecy) was about 1132 days in reality, is calculated as 1150 days (2300 mornings and eves), because a month was taken invariably as 30 days, while in reality some months were 29, some 30 days long.

We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. - From the Chicago declaration on Biblical Inerrancy, Art XIII. (Emphasis added)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The way it was dated is same state past belief based dating. Correct?
Hahaha

Doesn't matter. You already accepted that dates which are older than Babel are, indeed, older than Babel even if we cannot be sure how much older. So you accept that dating Egypt as being older than Babel is correct, you just don't accept how much older it is. It is, therefore, dishonest for you to now state that Egypt is younger than Babel.

let me say that again - is dishonest. Dishonest. Do you understand what that means?

 

[dad]

I'm just going to repeat my comment:
So why should I accept your reasoning over the reasoning of scientists? What makes your claims the more believable ones? What actual evidence do you have?
And don't say they aren't the Bible's claims, because they sure as heck are not the Bible's claims. They're just your claims.

Believe what you like. Ask yourself this though, what belief best fits a real flood and real Babel, and the Genesis idea that man was here from the start of the planet?

 

[dad]

Just answer some questions:

• Was Luke wrong when he wrote that Kainan was the son of Arpachshad and the father of Shelah?
• If not: How does this Kainan fit into the genealogy of Gen 10?
• If there is one Kainan missing in Gen 10, what about other people that are missing there?

Doesn't really matter if we understand it. Whether it was a step son, or adopted son, whatever, we'll find out one day. That is no excuse to toss out the bible ir Genesis.

There are to many problems when I try to harmonize your account with Scripture, this is enough reason for me to reject it. Your evasion at one of the most clear points shows clearly that you are more interested in defending your favorite hypotheses than to get in line with the Bible. Fullstop. If you want to hear more from me, show that you address the biblical problems I pointed out.

As for the issue of Gen 10 talking about Babel divided languages, that is no problem.

"After the descendants of each of the sons of Noah are mentioned, the text says that they were dispersed “according to their families, according to their languages” (Genesis 10:5, 20, 31). So, if Noah and his sons all spoke the same language, where did all of these other languages come from? Genesis 11 gives us the answer.

These groups of people did not willingly and obediently separate to fill the earth. Rather, we learn in Genesis 11:1–9 why these families separated from each other and how it came to be that there were so many languages in the world.

There is no contradiction here; Moses merely put the effect before the cause. Genesis 10 gives an overview, and then Genesis 11 fills in the details. You often find the same technique in other history books. One chapter might contain an overview of World War I—along with a list of major events. But the very next chapter might detail what the world was like in the years before the war and what events led up to it."
Contradictions: The Order of Nations

As to science, others have said enough about your deficits, I don't need to add more to it (though many issues could be added in there).

Don't be pretentious, you have nothing.

 

[dad]

You say it: Your opinion is based on opinions.
My opinion (that the 30-day month we arrive by calculation time accounts in Daniel and elsewhere is a rounding not to be taken literally) is based on Scripture: In Daniel 8:14 a time span, that (as we know from the fulfillment of the prophecy) was about 1132 days in reality, is calculated as 1150 days (2300 mornings and eves), because a month was taken invariably as 30 days, while in reality some months were 29, some 30 days long.

We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. - From the Chicago declaration on Biblical Inerrancy, Art XIII. (Emphasis added)

God uses it so why would I care what religious nonsense might be floating around that tries to minimize, ignore, or mitigate the fact?

 

[dad]

Doesn't matter. You already accepted that dates which are older than Babel are, indeed, older than Babel even if we cannot be sure how much older. So you accept that dating Egypt as being older than Babel is correct, you just don't accept how much older it is. It is, therefore, dishonest for you to now state that Egypt is younger than Babel.

let me say that again - is dishonest. Dishonest. Do you understand what that means?

No I do not accept dates of so called science anywhere near that time. Get over it.

If I recall the conversation you allude to and somehow got muddled up, it was about the possibility that the Indus Valley folks may have lived there before Babel. Naturally, since Babel was likely aout 106 years after the flod, I would not claim no peoples could have lived before Babel! As to dates though, forget about it. Here is you maximum window of time to work with in allowing any people to live anywhere on Pangaea after the flood. 106 years!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No I do not accept dates of so called science anywhere near that time. Get over it.

If I recall the conversation you allude to and somehow got muddled up, it was about the possibility that the Indus Valley folks may have lived there before Babel. Naturally, since Babel was likely aout 106 years after the flod, I would not claim no peoples could have lived before Babel! As to dates though, forget about it. Here is you maximum window of time to work with in allowing any people to live anywhere on Pangaea after the flood. 106 years!

Sorry, dad, but I provided links to posts where you accepted exactly what I said you accepted. If you now want to change your story then you need to admit that you were dishonest last time. Either that, or you're being dishonest now. Whichever you choose you've been dishonest - it's there in black and white for all to see.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As I pointed out, only the same nature in the past belief based radioactive decay 'dates' date that for you. Surely you would not dare try to use the king lists? Ha.

Oh dad, you lovable scamp! You now appear to be claiming that natural laws were different during recorded human history. When did we finally enter the current state nature?

Anyway, I have no need to rely on king lists. As helmut pointed out, the Egyptians used wood in their constructions so we can use dendrochronology and there are some efforts on Egyptian cedars that stretch back to nearly 3000 BCE. Of course, your first response this this idea was:

"False. If trees grew in weeks the rings did not represent years!!"

Surely the Egyptians would have mentioned the amazing time when trees grew in weeks instead of years.

But more importantly... dad, what do you think causes tree rings?

"Rings happen because of the change in growth speed through winter, spring, summer and fall"

Was the year only weeks long in Ancient Egyptian times? I don't think so, and neither do you.

 

[Sparagmos]

Yes since the Babel incident was something like a century and several years after the flood, the animals had plenty of time to spread out and adapt before the days of Peleg. Not only that, but before the flood, on that same or similar super continent, animals also had more than a thousand and six hundred and fifty years to do the same.

But it seems likely to me that God called just the original created kinds onto the ark. (yes He called them there) So if dinos, for example were evolved and adapted from birds, or reptiles or whatever, then they would not be invited.

You’re just making this up as you go. Massive evolutionary changes over only a century? Over only 1600 years?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Was the year only weeks long in Ancient Egyptian times? I don't think so, and neither do you.

That would explain how people lived a thousand years, wouldn't it?

 

[dad]

Sorry, dad, but I provided links to posts where you accepted exactly what I said you accepted. If you now want to change your story then you need to admit that you were dishonest last time. Either that, or you're being dishonest now. Whichever you choose you've been dishonest - it's there in black and white for all to see.

I told you what I accept, dates before Babel, yes, of course. YOUR dates for anything around or before that time? Absolutely no way.
So, now that you have shown yourself unable to defend them, not sure what you are doing here.

 

[dad]

You’re just making this up as you go. Massive evolutionary changes over only a century? Over only 1600 years?

Absolutely. But not as massive as your Granny Bacteria (supposed first life form from which it all evolved) fairy stories would have us believe. The adapting all started with fully formed and created animals.

The key to the past is the future. (not the present) and in the bible we see that in the future suddenly (in a lot less time than you just cited) all carnivores will be eating grasses. Only in the present natural world do changes take a long time.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I told you what I accept, dates before Babel, yes, of course. YOUR dates for anything around or before that time? Absolutely no way.
So, now that you have shown yourself unable to defend them, not sure what you are doing here.

1. You accept dates before Babel
2. Egypt is dated before Babel
3. You do not accept Egypt is older than Babel

That sort of dishonesty says a lot about you. If you don't see the dishonesty there that says something else about you.

 

[dad]

1. You accept dates before Babel

Lots in the bible hapened before Babel, of course there are dates before that. However NOT YOUR DATES derived from same state past beliefs in radioactive dating methods.

2. Egypt is dated before Babel
3. You do not accept Egypt is older than Babel

I do not accept your dates and you apparently cannot explain or defend them. So you spam and accuse falsely.

Your confusion really has no excuse I explained many times.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Lots in the bible hapened before Babel, of course there are dates before that. However NOT YOUR DATES derived from same state past beliefs in radioactive dating methods.
I do not accept your dates and you apparently cannot explain or defend them. So you spam and accuse falsely.

Your confusion really has no excuse I explained many times.

It's all there in black and white. You can lie as much as you like, but your own words demonstrate your on-going and persistent dishonesty. You should probably stop now.

 

[dad]

It's all there in black and white. You can lie as much as you like, but your own words demonstrate your on-going and persistent dishonesty. You should probably stop now.

No idea what you are talking about. Apparently it is some surprise to you anything can be older than Babel? Get serious. If you want to offer actual dates for Egypt show the basis for the dating. I can see why you are loathe to try!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Believe what you like. Ask yourself this though, what belief best fits a real flood and real Babel, and the Genesis idea that man was here from the start of the planet?

I'm just going to repeat my comment:
So why should I accept your reasoning over the reasoning of scientists? What makes your claims the more believable ones? What actual evidence do you have?
And don't say they aren't the Bible's claims, because they sure as heck are not the Bible's claims. They're just your claims.

 

[dad]

I'm just going to repeat my comment:
So why should I accept your reasoning over the reasoning of scientists? What makes your claims the more believable ones? What actual evidence do you have?
And don't say they aren't the Bible's claims, because they sure as heck are not the Bible's claims. They're just your claims.

Feel free to repeat and spam nonsense I guess. If you want your dating system accepted defend it. En guarde!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Feel free to repeat and spam nonsense I guess. If you want your dating system accepted defend it. En guarde!

No, I'm wanting you to provide actual evidence for your claims. That's it.