night2day said:
The matter you do not know but can merely guess shows it's not based on fact...but on belief.
Actually, it is a question of other factors also contributing such as the massive volcanoes that were occurring in India at the time, creating the Deccan highlands. Both factors would have impacted the climate for some time.
Science is studying using the method of observation. There was no observation you cited before impact.
You are being silly. How do you study an impact crater without studying what it impacted--IOW what was there before? A crater has to be a crater in something after all. And the impact fractures have to be made in existing rock formations.
No time given when theactual measurements were made. Or by who. Only measurements stated from no certain source. In other words, another theory of what possibly occured. But nothing definate. As well as a statement how this may have affected the dinosaurs. Which adds another theory.
The information is easily found with a google on "iridium". The spike in iridium was found in 1980 by Luis and Walter Alvarez.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do80di.html
http://www.ceemast.csupomona.edu/nova/alvarez2.html
I cannot produce any evidence not because it doesn't exist, but:
1.) One person cannot change another's mind or belief.
Producing evidence may not change a person's mind (you are evidence of that) but it can still be produced. So if it exists you can produce it. You are not responsible for the effect it has, but for producing evidence which you claim exists.
2.) You have already demonstrated you will not accept any interpretation of evidence unless it coincides and supports with your own worldviews. Any others; you claim they are not in existance.
I haven't even seen any other interpretation of the evidence I have presented. So, how can I have demonstrated I will not accept a different interpretation.
Again, what I may think of your evidence does not prevent you from producing it.
3.) Tangible evidence doesn't automatically mean faith.
Irrelevant. If the evidence exists, it can be shown.
No amount of tangible evidence means didly squat if one only wishes to reject it.
As you are demonstrating. But as you see, I can still present the evidence you choose to reject. So you have no excuse. If evidence of a global flood exists, you can produce it.
And he used the ages of those listed within the geneologies to do so. However, many of those ages not only overlapped, they also stated how long a person lived...not Born: (name year); Died: (name year). There were also other events covered were the length of time is given regarding how long the event is. But not how many years transpire between certain events.
They state the age of the person at the birth of his son and the total length of his life. Can you provide an example of an overlap?
An example would be, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. However, it does not state Adam and Eve immediately sinned and rebelled against God after creation.
Irrelevant. The biblical genealogy gives the total length of Adam's life as 930 years. And that he was 130 when Seth was born, an event that had to take place 15 years after leaving Eden, at a minimum. That allows for more than a century in Eden. Though we cannot be certain it was that long.
Point being? Since I already addressed the one issue, I'll note another. I never said there wasn't a pre-flood civilization.
And civilizations leave evidence of their existence. So below the flood sediments we should find evidence of pre-flood civilizations.
I simply stated the major civilizations you were pointing out, such as the Egyptions as you mentioned, more than likely were not in existance yet.
Not according to Ussher's date. If the flood occurred, as he estimated, in 2347 BCE, the Egyptian civilization was already nearly 700 years old, and that is only counting from the beginning of the 1st dynasty of a united Egypt. There were people living in the Nile Valley long before that.
http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/index.html
Now if you want to be very radical and suggest that Ussher was quite wrong in his dating, you might place creation and the flood somewhat earlier. But you still run into the same problem of civilizations all over the world already existing and going on about their business, with no sign of being interrupted by a flood.
For exmple: here is a description of many civilizations which existed 6,000 years ago.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10923986#post10923986
How do you know they existed at the time of the flood?
See the links above. There is plenty of evidence they existed at the supposed time of the flood, even at one supposed time of creation.
And this is the case with other dates too. For example, the first city on the site of Jericho was built around 10,000 years ago. The city has been destroyed and rebuilt a number of times. But there is no evidence in those 10,000 years that it was ever destroyed by a flood.
By contrast, the city of Ur was destroyed at one point by a flood. Excavators had to dig through many feet of mud and silt before discovering the pre-flood city. However, this was not a global flood by a local one, not extending much past the city itself.
In short, there is no evidence that a global flood destroyed the human race at any time in recorded history, no matter how far back you go.
Even more, there is no evidence that a global flood occurred in human pre-history either, or even before humans existed. Not a single geological stratum can be identified as due to a global flood. Check out posts 26-28 "Why was the flood so dry?" on this page:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1155768-the-quiet-thread.html&page=3
Yep. Especially when scientists are not able to use the one main thrust they have in their field: observation. All they have left is guesswork. And as noted within the scientific community, theories are always changing.
How about all the
observations in the links above?
There have been numerous times in the past were evolutionists have sited to have found a transitional "species to species" fossil only for it to be a hoax. Does the name "Lucy" ring a bell? Originally the so-called first "missing link" was found. Then finding out a human skeleton was mixed with that of an an actual ape, as testified by scientists who did the examinations, turned out to be a rather big embarrasment.
There is so much misinformation in this paragraph one hardly knows where to begin.
Let's start with "hoax". A hoax is not a mistake. A hoax is a deliberately planned fraud, like Piltdown man, or more recently, Archeoraptor. And like Moab man and Ica stones. One of the differences between scientists and creationists is that scientists don't keep on using proven hoaxes to support their case.
An honest mistake is not a hoax. It is a mis-identification. Nebraska man was an error not a hoax.
Lucy is neither an error nor a hoax nor an embarrassment. And her skeleton is only one of several of her species.
Lucy was not the first fossil to be identified as a "missing link". That was Java man (first named
Pithecanthropus aka "ape-man"). This was a natural error since it was the first and only primitive human fossil available for study. Today, it is recognized as belonging to the species
Homo erectus and much different from non-human apes.
night2day said:
gluadys said:
Citation from
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.
Microevolution is accepted by quite a few scientists. The change within a given species over time. However, the species remains the same species. A cate remains a cat and a dog remains a dog.
You have just described the transition from reptiles to mammals as microevolution.
For one thing, if the waters had to actually break anything from coming uo fron underground, what else would it be?
Scripture doesn't say they came from underground. It refers to the "fountains of the deep" IOW the source of ocean waters.
Already asked and answered.
Not answered. Where in the flood story does the scripture speak of earthquakes or plates shifting or land masses breaking apart?
Immaterial. If you wish to push aside Genesis 10...that's you're option. Not mine.
Immaterial. You're assuming Egypt as an empire existed, there were pyramids, there were survivors.
It is not immaterial and I am not making assumptions. You have been given the evidence that there was a flourishing Egyptian nation at the usual estimated date of the flood. If it were destroyed by the flood, and if we take Genesis 10 as accurate in attributing the father of the post-flood Egypt to one of the sons of Ham, the Nile Valley must have been devoid of all human life for at least a generation and re-creating a civilization would take at least several centuries. There would have to be a significant break in Egyptian history. And there is not.
Furthermore, Egypt is only one locality which should show this break in its history. But none do.
If the flood were actually global, why is it so invisible?
Look up the word literary within the dictionary sometime...
I teach literature. I know what literary means. I know how to identify different types of literature. I know a myth when I read it, and the flood story in the bible is a myth.
Do you mean that anyone who does not agree with your reading of Genesis is not accepting Genesis?
...instead of becoming offended there are those of us take the Scriptures as God's innerant, infallibe word which explains itself fully, each Testament fully supporting the other, with Jesus Christ in the middle.
I am not offended--yet. Your statement does not answer the question as asked. It does raise another question. Are you saying that only those who do read scripture as you do take scripture to be God's inerrant, infallible word? Please stop side-stepping this issue.
Look up the phrase "Scripture interprets Scripture" sometime.
Scripture interprets nothing. Students of scripture sometimes find one part of scripture sheds light on another. But there are also very many other things which help as well. Archeology has revealed a lot about the way of life in ancient times that explain much about what is referred to in scripture. No serious student of scripture would avoid any knowledge, from any source, that elucidates the meaning of scripture.
God did -- as un-PC as that is for today's world.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
(Galations 1:8-9)
That verse contradicts your statement as it speaks of preaching the gospel, not of reading the scriptures. The writer to the Hebrews would disagree with you to, for he says that long ago, God spoke in
many and various ways and has now spoken
by his Son.
And Paul tells the Romans that even those who have not the law have not excuse for their sins, since
creation itself testifies of God's power and nature.
Jesus also told the disciples that they would be guided to truth by the
Holy Spirit.
So just when and where did God decree that scripture and only scripture would be the single channel of divine communication?
However, if one dismisses the Scriptures from being taken as they are read...in the way they were written within their orginal context, they remove themselves from the source of know how God loves us, wants us to love Him, and our neighbor.
And just what do you mean by this again? How do you know you are reading the scriptures in the way they were written within their original context? Is this not something you are assuming? Or rather are you not assuming that people who disagree with your reading are dismissing God's revelation, when all they are really doing is disagreeing with you.
What does this whole idea of "taking the scriptures as read" come down to other than "agreeing with my way of reading scripture"?
If it's denial a of this world's reality which even it becomes engulfed and within instead relies on God and His promises, gladly.
You will have to rephrase this if you expect me to understand it.
This world is not slated to last you realize?
But while it's here, it is real.
Oh, I forgot. That is my assumption, not yours.