Science vs. Evolution

[Split Rock]

What does the occurrence of a global flood have to do with young earth creation?

I'd hardly call the flood idea creationism - that's up there with calling abiogenesis evolution.

It's also not unreasonable to highlight the differences between these myths as a point against their description of the same event. I mean, you're hardly going to claim that every single historical culture's pantheon of gods referred to in their flood legends exist too, now are you?

I have to disagree with you here. The Global Flood is a central theme to YECs, regardless of it does not explain the origins of the earth. In fact, the assertion that a global flood is responsible for most of the earth's current geology was written into numerous bills designed to force public schools in various states to teach creationism.

 

[Cabal]

I have to disagree with you here. The Global Flood is a central theme to YECs, regardless of it does not explain the origins of the earth. In fact, the assertion that a global flood is responsible for most of the earth's current geology was written into numerous bills designed to force public schools in various states to teach creationism.

Ok, I agree it gets lumped in there ideologically - but even so, in this particular argument showing the flood happened wouldn't show that the earth was created in 6 days.

I guess some creationists aren't too concerned about the use and misuse of their terminology (unlike how those on the evo side take care to make clear what evolution is and isn't). Then again, hoping to fudge definitions is one of the few tactics these guys have....

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This article is in a recent issue of Science

Science 18 June 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1554 - 1557

Reports

Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt

Christopher Bronk Ramsey,1,* Michael W. Dee,1 Joanne M. Rowland,1 Thomas F. G. Higham,1 Stephen A. Harris,2 Fiona Brock,1 Anita Quiles,3 Eva M. Wild,4 Ezra S. Marcus,5 Andrew J. Shortland6
The historical chronologies for dynastic Egypt are based on reign lengths inferred from written and archaeological evidence. These floating chronologies are linked to the absolute calendar by a few ancient astronomical observations, which remain a source of debate. We used 211 radiocarbon measurements made on samples from short-lived plants, together with a Bayesian model incorporating historical information on reign lengths, to produce a chronology for dynastic Egypt. A small offset (19 radiocarbon years older) in radiocarbon levels in the Nile Valley is probably a growing-season effect. Our radiocarbon data indicate that the New Kingdom started between 1570 and 1544 B.C.E., and the reign of Djoser in the Old Kingdom started between 2691 and 2625 B.C.E.; both cases are earlier than some previous historical estimates.

**************************************************************************

Their date for Dojoser of the 3rd Dynasty agree quite well with Shaw's date of 2676.
I. Shaw, Ed., The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).

but is a little earlier than Hornung's date of 2592

E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D. A. Warburton, Eds., Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Brill, Leiden, Netherlands, 2006).

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Archeology therefore supports the idea of a recent history of man,

When you consider that 100,000 years is a pretty small fraction of 4.5 billion I suppose you could say man has a relatively recent history.

that's why a lot of archeologists are Young Earth Creationists.

I am wondering where you got this idea. I really don't think it is accurate. Do you have any actual statistics? I wouldn't think that very many of the archeologists who study paleolithic
Paleolithic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and neolithic
Neolithic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cultures are Young Earth Creationists.

 

[Hespera]

You miss the point. Those objects can only have speculative dates given to them, they are not the same as the historical record for example the Battle of Hastings which was documentated in 1066.

Everyone knows that some things cannot be given exact dates.

Your point wasnt in what you said, so that is why I missed it.

no one can possibly know what happened before there were people to observe and record what happened.



As for dating other things its not necessarily speculative at all. There are good ways to determine the date within a close range of error.

Everyone knows that too.

you missed a bigger point, btw. There was no flood.

 

[Hespera]

When you consider that 100,000 years is a pretty small fraction of 4.5 billion I suppose you could say man has a relatively recent history.

I am wondering where you got this idea. I really don't think it is accurate. Do you have any actual statistics? I wouldn't think that very many of the archeologists who study paleolithic
Paleolithic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and neolithic
Neolithic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cultures are Young Earth Creationists.

the only people who are young earth scientists of any sort are people who take that belief from the bible, not because they have any actual scientific data. they believe despite science, not because of it.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ok, I agree it gets lumped in there ideologically - but even so, in this particular argument showing the flood happened wouldn't show that the earth was created in 6 days.

I guess some creationists aren't too concerned about the use and misuse of their terminology (unlike how those on the evo side take care to make clear what evolution is and isn't). Then again, hoping to fudge definitions is one of the few tactics these guys have....

I have run into one or two old earth creationists who try to support a global flood. However, Split is right. If you read YEC literature you will see that since the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris YECs have relied on their various fantasy models of their imaginary global flood in hilarious failed attempts to explain the earth's geology and paleontology. Hydrodynamic sorting is still one of my favorites but flowering plants outrunning velociraptors up the hills to escape the flood may be even funnier.

 

[Cabal]

I have run into one or two old earth creationists who try to support a global flood. However, Split is right. If you read YEC literature you will see that since the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris YECs have relied on their various fantasy models of their imaginary global flood in hilarious failed attempts to explain the earth's geology and paleontology. Hydrodynamic sorting is still one of my favorites but flowering plants outrunning velociraptors up the hills to escape the flood may be even funnier.

Ah yes, I forgot about things like the canopy idea etc. I just figured that wasn't necessarily what was being discussed here, then again, that's Gish Gallops for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, the assertion that a global flood is responsible for most of the earth's current geology was written into numerous bills designed to force public schools in various states to teach creationism.

Did you mean go back to teaching creationism?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

''...real history is available for only the past few thousand years. The beginning of [known] written records... dates from about 2200BC and 3500BC. To keep things in perspective, one should remember that no one can possibly know what happened before there were people to observe and record what happened.'' - Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris, 1985, p.131

The bit in bold is bad science for several reasons. First, it assumes that the written record is the only authority worthy for consideration. What about other kinds of records that pre-date the written word? Like the fossil record, rock strata and the genomics/proteomics data? Are you saying that we can't infer anything about the world unless it was written in the narrow time span during which human beings could write? Second, we have to remember that 'written history' is always written according to the interpretations of the author. Are you suggesting that we rely on the honesty of biased human beings whose interpretations about the world are bound up in their own views of it?

Anyone saying history predates this period of documentated history can not know for definate, since they could not observe it. There is no time machine. So if we stick with just the facts, then what we know is that man is only a few thousand years old, supporting Young Earth Creationism.

Using your logic then, we cannot know that Noah's flood was 'world-wide' as Noah claimed. For Noah to know that he would have to have observed the whole world as having been flooded. Just because some biased human being 'documented' a huge flood that, to him, seemed global, does not necessarily mean that this actually happened exactly as he said it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes precisely, civilization only appeared a few thousand years back. One of the videos covered this. Archeology therefore supports the idea of a recent history of man, that's why a lot of archeologists are Young Earth Creationists.

The question to evolutionists is, why did civilization only appear a few thousand years back when they believe man is hundreds of thousands or millions of years old?

Increased brain size, greater need for social cohesion, the beginning of technology and agriculture which generated the need for better social organisation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

None have been refuted.

No. They've all been refuted, time and time again. The only one's with the courage (or foolishness, depending on how you look at it) to persist peddling those arguments are Creationists.

 

[Cassiterides]

Palmer wrote in the 1830's and Wilkinson in the 1860's and both were attempting to reconcile Egyptian chronology with the Bible. The current consenses is that the protodynastic period
Protodynastic Period of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ended about 3050 B.C.

We have earlier chroniclers and historians who gave the same figure as Wilkinson and Palmer. Flavius Josephus recorded that ''all the kings of Egypt from Menes...until Solomon, where the interval was more than one thousand three hundred years, were called Pharaohs'' (Ant, VIII. 6. 2).

That means 971 - 931 BC + 1300 years = 2270BC-2240BC for Menes.

There is also the 12th century Byzantine Chronicle by Constantinus Manasses which states that the Egyptian state lasted for 1,663 years before Cambyses II conquered Egypt for Persia. This took place in 526 BC. A backward extrapolation yields 2188 BC for the first year of Egypt.

We therefore have from a variety of sources the same figure around 2,200BC for the founding of Egypt. Menes can easily be identified as Mizraim (Genesis 10: 6), son of Ham.

Right, here is one my favorite. from
Flood Stories from Around the World

Nisqually (Washington):The people became so numerous that they ate all the fish and game and started to eat each other. They were so wicked that Dokibatl, the Changer, flooded the earth. All living things were destroyed except one woman and one dog, which survived atop Tacobud (Mt. Ranier).

Noah was a dog.

You miss the point about mythology, no one claims everything in it is factual, however there are embedded elements of historic truth, look up euhemerism. Since a world-wide flood appears in hundred's of them, there is evidence such an event happened.

The young earth and global flood were falsified by primarily Christian Geologists about 150 years ago as you can read on this web page written by an evangelical Christian, Davis Young.
History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

We don't need geology to prove/question the flood as the event is confirmed in the Bible, other historical writings, and world-myths.

Most cultures around the world have legends of people who either volutarily or involuntarily get turned into animals, such as werewolves. I hope you stay off the moors when the moon is full.
Many cultures have myths of vampires and walking dead so keep your garlic supply handy.

There will be elements of truth behind these pieces of folklore. No one takes them literally true. Vampires from what i read a while back have a link Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, no one denies his historic existance. Bram Stoker was apparently influenced by Vlad, which he based his Dracula on.

You are dispelling all myths and legends as pure fiction, when they contain some part truth.

I am not an atheist and the reason I argue against YEC is that it is absolutely totally absurd. There are many people who agree with me who are not atheists. Have you been paying any attention here?
Creation Science
Affiliation of Christian Geologists Homepage
Glenn Morton's story

No, what's absurd is mixing the Bible with silly nonsense such as the theory of evolution or vast ages of time (which never actually existed) such as billions of years. The latter is in actual fact a Hindu teaching, later adopted by atheist uniformatarians. I have no idea why people are mixing foreign concepts to the scripture.

 

[Cabal]

We don't need geology to prove/question the flood as the event is confirmed in the Bible, other historical writings, and world-myths.

Uh, yes, you do - and it doesn't look good for that account on that basis.

You are dispelling all myths and legends as pure fiction, when they contain some part truth.

You do realise this is also an argument for theistic evolutionism?

No, what's absurd is mixing the Bible with silly nonsense such as the theory of evolution or vast ages of time (which never actually existed) such as billions of years. The latter is in actual fact a Hindu teaching, later adopted by atheist uniformatarians. I have no idea why people are mixing foreign concepts to the scripture.

Hey, stick around, you'll see extraBiblical thinking like embedded age, different-state past, cleaning up floodwater to other planets in the solar system and Neptune keeping demons away.

 

[Cassiterides]

When you consider that 100,000 years is a pretty small fraction of 4.5 billion I suppose you could say man has a relatively recent history.

I am wondering where you got this idea. I really don't think it is accurate. Do you have any actual statistics? I wouldn't think that very many of the archeologists who study paleolithic
Paleolithic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and neolithic
Neolithic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cultures are Young Earth Creationists.

I could give you a long list of YEC's with degrees in archeology, but then you would resort to what you guys normally do (your luaghable claims of ''pseudo-scholarship'' in attempt to discredit...), so it will be a waste of my time.

 

[Cassiterides]

Hey, stick around, you'll see extraBiblical thinking like embedded age, different-state past, cleaning up floodwater to other planets in the solar system and Neptune keeping demons away.

You guys have even bigger crackpots, within the theory of evolution:

The Beginning Was the End - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cabal]

You guys have even bigger crackpots, within the theory of evolution:

The Beginning Was the End - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh please, that isn't even considered part of the theory, or scientific. The ideas I listed however are ideas held by creationist members of this board.

It's not about crackpottery, it's about the fact that creationists resort to the same extraBiblicality that you (and others) just decried others for. Pot, kettle, black.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I could give you a long list of YEC's with degrees in archeology, but then you would resort to what you guys normally do (your luaghable claims of ''pseudo-scholarship'' in attempt to discredit...), so it will be a waste of my time.

Any degree, even a PhD, does not mean that they understand ToE, nor does having a degree make them right. Remember when you said appeal to authority was a fallacy, why do you repeatedly use this fallacy then?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

We have earlier chroniclers and historians who gave the same figure as Wilkinson and Palmer. Flavius Josephus recorded that ''all the kings of Egypt from Menes...until Solomon, where the interval was more than one thousand three hundred years, were called Pharaohs'' (Ant, VIII. 6. 2).

That means 971 - 931 BC + 1300 years = 2270BC-2240BC for Menes.

There is also the 12th century Byzantine Chronicle by Constantinus Manasses which states that the Egyptian state lasted for 1,663 years before Cambyses II conquered Egypt for Persia. This took place in 526 BC. A backward extrapolation yields 2188 BC for the first year of Egypt.

We therefore have from a variety of sources the same figure around 2,200BC for the founding of Egypt. Menes can easily be identified as Mizraim (Genesis 10: 6), son of Ham.

These are based on scripture and nothing else. So tell me did Mizraim build the primative structures at Wadi Halfa? Or did he found the Aterian culture that used stone tools?
Aterian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or maybe the he was one of the Khormusan people

or was it the Halfan culture the he started?
Halfan culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or maybe the Qadan or Sebilian culture?

or was it the Mushabian or maybe the Harifian cultures

or was it one of the lower Egypt cultures like Fiayum A or Merimde
Merimde culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or maybe it was the Tasian
Tasian culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or maybe he didn't come along until the Badarian culture?
Badari culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then of course there were Naqada I,II&III all before the first dynasty. If your Mizriam didn't come along until the first dynasty he was quite a latecomer.

You miss the point about mythology, no one claims everything in it is factual, however there are embedded elements of historic truth, look up euhemerism. Since a world-wide flood appears in hundred's of them, there is evidence such an event happened.

No you miss the point. The great variances in these story show that they are local myths derived from local floods and not from a single event that happened only 4400 years ago and reduced the population of the earth to one inbred family.

We don't need geology to prove/question the flood as the event is confirmed in the Bible, other historical writings, and world-myths.

Historical writings from people who read the Bible and myths.

There will be elements of truth behind these pieces of folklore. No one takes them literally true. Vampires from what i read a while back have a link Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, no one denies his historic existance. Bram Stoker was apparently influenced by Vlad, which he based his Dracula on.

Right and no doubt large local floods or events like the Tsunami of 2004 are the elements of truth behind all the flood myths around.

You are dispelling all myths and legends as pure fiction, when they contain some part truth.

Some part of truth such as a global flood legend based on a large local flood.

No, what's absurd is mixing the Bible with silly nonsense such as the theory of evolution or vast ages of time (which never actually existed) such as billions of years. The latter is in actual fact a Hindu teaching, later adopted by atheist uniformatarians. I have no idea why people are mixing foreign concepts to the scripture.

Maybe because they live in the real world and not the fantasy world of YEC.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I could give you a long list of YEC's with degrees in archeology, but then you would resort to what you guys normally do (your luaghable claims of ''pseudo-scholarship'' in attempt to discredit...), so it will be a waste of my time.

I would like to call your bluff here. Let's see the long list. I would also request that they received their degrees in the last hundred years or so and actually be active in archeological research.