Jump to content


Photo

Hello


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
68 replies to this topic

#21 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 18 June 2010 - 03:55 PM

Only if you accept the Bible.  For the rest of us, the dates of Egypt can just be based on the sources without having to shoehorn them.


And what are these dates?

The very earliest Egyptian date would be the one assigned to the beginning of its first dynasty. Menes was the first king.

The date assigned to that earliest Egyptian event, as estimated by several scholars, has gradually lowered with the passing of time:

Champollian: 5867 B.C. / Lesueur: 5770 B.C. / Unger: 5613 B.C. / Mariette: 5004 B.C. / Brugsch: 4455 B.C. / Lauth: 4157 B.C. / Chabas: 4000 B.C. / Lapsius: 3890 B.C. / Bunsen: 3623 B.C. / Breasted: 3400 B.C. / George Steindorff : 3200 B.C. / Eduard Meyer: 3180 B.C. / Wilkinson: 2320 B.C. / Palmer: 2224 B.C.

Note the two last figures closely fit with the Biblical chronology.

http://en.wikipedia....yptian_pyramids

The miost interesting thing isn't the fact that this was built before your date of the flood, it was built during the third dynasty!


What chronology are you following?

Also, a question this leads to, is even if the chronology of egypt is proven to have been longer then Ussher's chronology, it only get's extended by a few hundred years. We know civilization on earth, and the historical record only started a few thousand years back (Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, Greece etc).

Evolutionists believe man or ''hominids'' has been on earth millions of years, but why is it civilizations only goes back a few thousand? So man for millions of years just didn't use his brain, but then one day began to build and write? There is no logic to the evolutionists view on history.

#22 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 18 June 2010 - 08:02 PM

Augustine was a Young Earth Creationist. Clearly you didn't read my post.


It was implicit in what I posted that I was commenting upon what Augustine would think of YEC notions if Augustine was alive today. The rest of what you write is irrelevant to that premise.

But you have admitted that Augustine did not hold to the "literal" interpretation of the Bible that appears to be the norm with most YEC posting here. Do you believe in a creation in six 24 hour days?

What I said:

Then we have Augustine writing about science and using the intelligence we are granted by God to perceive when a literal interpretation of Genesis is an incorrect approach. In my understanding the YEC approach to science is based upon an adherence to a literal reading of Genesis, even when this clearly is shown to be in opposition to very solid scientific evidence. I think Augustine might apply what he wrote below to some of the notions of YEC today. Science has advanced quote a ways since his time.


Yet all that you quote in which to make a reply:

I think Augustine might apply what he wrote below to some of the notions of YEC today. Science has advanced quote a ways since his time.


I think science has in fact advanced quite a t since his time. He obviously had an inquisitive mind and I think he would not agree with some of what you have posted already in terms of a YEC point of view.

#23 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 10:05 PM

The very earliest Egyptian date would be the one assigned to the beginning of its first dynasty. Menes was the first king.

The date assigned to that earliest Egyptian event, as estimated by several scholars, has gradually lowered with the passing of time:

Champollian: 5867 B.C. / Lesueur: 5770 B.C. / Unger: 5613 B.C. / Mariette: 5004 B.C. / Brugsch: 4455 B.C. / Lauth: 4157 B.C. / Chabas: 4000 B.C. / Lapsius: 3890 B.C. / Bunsen: 3623 B.C. / Breasted: 3400 B.C. / George Steindorff : 3200 B.C. / Eduard Meyer: 3180 B.C. / Wilkinson: 2320 B.C. / Palmer: 2224 B.C.

Note the two last figures closely fit with the Biblical chronology


So will you pick those last two dates because they fit yours? The list here is of several scholars, what is the majority view currently of the age of Menes?

Also, a question this leads to, is even if the chronology of egypt is proven to have been longer then Ussher's chronology, it only get's extended by a few hundred years. We know civilization on earth, and the historical record only started a few thousand years back (Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, Greece etc).

Evolutionists believe man or ''hominids'' has been on earth millions of years, but why is it civilizations only goes back a few thousand? So man for millions of years just didn't use his brain, but then one day began to build and write? There is no logic to the evolutionists view on history.


The evolutionist argument is irrelevant in this thread about your area of expertise and it is very revealing that you bring it up. There are particular reasons for the building of the first cities 8,000 years ago and that is, within the evolutionary paradigm, (I don't want to argue the points here, I'm only showing that they do have theor reasions whether you accept them or not) just a couple of thousand years after the end of the last ice age.

You have not mentioned the details which I spoke of -the pyramid of Djoser. When was that built?

It was built of limestone, which is rock full of fossils that must have come from the flood.

Can you detail when the first pyramid was built within your timeline and tell me what the generally accepted date is?

#24 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 June 2010 - 04:23 AM

So will you pick those last two dates because they fit yours?


The higher dates no one now believes in. Menes has been reduced to 3100BC-2900BC, YEC's however reduce this to 2200BC.

"In the course of a single century’s research, the earliest date in Egyptian history—that of Egypt’s unification under King Menes—has plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C., and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt.'' - Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204

John Gardner Wilkinson was a founder of egyptology, and he placed the first dynasty at 2320BC (not following a Biblical chronology but using ancient egyptian fragments).

The list here is of several scholars, what is the majority view currently of the age of Menes?


3100-2900BC. Originally it was at 5867 BC. The dates are always being lowered supporting Usser's chronology.

You have not mentioned the details which I spoke of -the pyramid of Djoser.  When was that built?


Manetho (and Herodotus) recorded that some of the pyramids were constructed from 2184 – 2181BC during the reign of Nitocris, perfectly fitting Ussher's chronology. The YEC view is that the pyramids were all built at the same date around this period after the flood.

Can you detail when the first pyramid was built within your timeline and tell me what the generally accepted date is?


Mainstream historians are all in agreement some of the pyramids were constructed 2184BC-2181BC (the YEC view is that all were). This date however is extended to 2625BC for Djoser, and 2560BC for the Great Pyramid. Note however these dates are based mostly on modern ''dating methods'', which of course are not the historical record and have errors.

#25 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 19 June 2010 - 09:30 AM

Can you tell me the dates for the Badarian Culture?

#26 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 June 2010 - 09:47 AM

Can you tell me the dates for the Badarian Culture?

View Post


Creationists believe such cultures were contemporary with civilization around 2000BC.

There are different cultures on earth, some appear primitive. Only evolutionists believe everyone originally was primitive but progressed. The creationist viewpoint is that less advanced cultures simply co-existed with those that were superior.

#27 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 19 June 2010 - 10:01 AM

"Creationists believe such cultures were contemporary with civilization around 2000BC."

Your evidence for this?

This civilisation was around before the first king you mention and after the Tasian culture, of course, it was also before the Gerzean (Naqada II) Culture.

All of these cultures existed between the flood and the first king. Your date for the first king is about 2,900 BCE (the latest estimate). Your date for the flood is 2348 BCE.

1) Provide evidence for your belief that all those cultures were contemporary.
2) Place the dates for all these into your framework.

It would help me understand your viewpoint better if I saw a chronology of this.

#28 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 June 2010 - 10:45 AM

"Creationists believe such cultures were contemporary with civilization around 2000BC."

Your evidence for this?


Since documentation via the historical record (i.e ancient writings) only began around this date, or slightly earlier. We can only prove something, via eyewitness testimony. Here's a powerful factual quote on this subject:

''It should be remembered...that 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. Science means ''knowledge'' and the essence of scientific method is...observation.''

- Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris, 1985, p.131.

Particularly look at the bold part.

This civilisation was around before the first king you mention and after the Tasian culture, of course, it was also before the Gerzean (Naqada II) Culture.


Says who, wikipedia? :lol: This is not a genuine source.

Your date for the first king is about 2,900 BCE (the latest estimate).


That's not my date, that's the date mainstream historians accept. It was reduced from 5,700BC.

The YEC position is that Egypt was founded around 2200BC. As i showed you the chrnology is being reduced in time, it started at 5700BC now is down to 2900BC, only a gap of 700 needs to be filled to support Ussher's chronology. This will happen in the next few years. Mainstream Egytpologists are already thinking of reducing Menes to 2,600BC.

1) Provide evidence for your belief that all those cultures were contemporary.


Since the historical record only goes back to a specific time period. See the quote i gave you above. You can't prove anything existed before this. And the date of the start of ancient writings fully works with the Biblical framework.

2) Place the dates for all these into your framework.


All cultures trace back as early to 2242BC (Tower of Babel). Before this, there was only one race (i.e colour of man), one tongue and one culture.

#29 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 19 June 2010 - 11:37 AM

You have not explained the dating of those cultures. The first I mentioned used flint tools.

Flint is a metamorphic rock, based on limestone.

Limestone was formed during the flood, we know that because the number of deluge fosssils found (fish with other fish in theor mouths, obviously killed quickly. Many dinosaurs found in flooded environments.

Rock doesn't build up quickly. It might take a few hundred years for limestone to form from the mud following the flood.

After it has formed, it has to be moved from the surface of the Earth, where it formed down to near the bottom of the crust to achieve the high pressures and tempertatures necessary to metamorphise the rock into flint (it couldn't be the increased temperature caused by the flood, because the limestone wasn't formed until afterwards).

After it has been down that far it has to move back up to the surface where humans can find it and then fashion it into tools.

This has to happen before we reach the first king of Egypt.

#30 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 June 2010 - 11:51 AM

You have not explained the dating of those cultures.  The first I mentioned used flint tools. 

Flint is a metamorphic rock, based on limestone.

Limestone was formed during the flood, we know that because the number of deluge fosssils found (fish with other fish in theor mouths, obviously killed quickly.  Many dinosaurs found in flooded environments.

Rock doesn't build up quickly. It might take a few hundred years for limestone to form from the mud following the flood.

After it has formed, it has to be moved from the surface of the Earth, where it formed down to near the bottom of the crust to achieve the high pressures and tempertatures necessary to metamorphise the rock into flint (it couldn't be the increased temperature caused by the flood, because the limestone wasn't formed until afterwards).

After it has been down that far it has to move back up to the surface where humans can find it and then fashion it into tools.

This has to happen before we reach the first king of Egypt.

View Post


You fail at understanding my posts, so this is going nowhere. You are following an evolutionist assumption that primitive culture (i.e flint tools) had to predate civilization, so you are placing it before the founding of egypt.

Creationists don't believe culture 'evolved' from a primitive state, only evolutionists believe that.

The flood predated the founding of Egypt, i already gave you the date and numerous ancient sources.

#31 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 19 June 2010 - 12:00 PM

Okay, so explain the stone age to me.

#32 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 June 2010 - 12:03 PM

Okay, so explain the stone age to me.

View Post


It never existed. :lol: It's an imaginary age invented by evolutionists.

Remember you guys need to invent a fictional form of history that shows all of early man as primitive leading to civilization...the stone age was invented for this purpose.

by the way remote tribes in Polynesia use stone tools, does that mean we currently live in the ''stone age''? :blink:

#33 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 19 June 2010 - 03:23 PM

Wait a sec, Cass. We invented the stone age?

I guess you are being sarcastic. You must be. No-one can actually think the neolithic period is a figment of peoples' imagination.

#34 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 June 2010 - 04:01 PM

Wait a sec, Cass.  We invented the stone age?

I guess you are being sarcastic.  You must be.  No-one can actually think the neolithic period is a figment of peoples' imagination.

View Post


No creationist believes in the 'Stone Age', you clearly have never read any creationist literature. You just shut your eyes and close your ears to it...anyway let me give you an entire article i wrote two years back debunking the ''Stone Age''.

The Imaginary Stone Age

The “Stone Age” is an invented age by evolutionists and Uniformitarians. It never actually existed. It has no basis in truth and cannot be substantiated by any archeological evidence. This imaginary Stone Age, according to common belief spanned from around 2.6 million years ago to as recent as 10,000 years ago.

Not only is the idea ridiculous, it contradicts actual findings.

The Imaginary Ages of Evolutionists

 The Stone Age - 2.6 million -11,000 years ago (including the Paleolithic, or Old Stone Age, Mesolithic or Middle-Stone Age and Neolithic or New Stone Age).
 Copper Age/Chalcolithic - 8,000-3,300BC.
 The Bronze Age - Middle-east: 3200-1200BC, India: 3000-1200BC, East Asia: 3000-500BC, Europe: 3000-600BC.
 The Iron Age - Middle-east - 1300-600BC, India: 1200-200BC, Asia: 600BC-300AD, Europe: 1200BC-400AD.

It should be noticed that the evolutionary model of time, is completely wrong and is based on nothing traditional/factual.

Before I get onto this topic of exactly when metals were truly being made, I will first just disprove that the Stone Age existed.

The name of the Stone Age itself is based on the idea that the primitive ancestors of modern people 2.6 million - 10,000 years ago used stone (mostly flint) for tool making. If there was once a worldwide Stone Age, then billions of such tools should have been unearthed (since flint does not disintegrate easily), but as French author and archeologist Robert Charroux correctly noted (1979, p.6):

“The fact is that, relatively speaking, practically none have been found: only a few hundred thousand (Stone Age) axes, not enough to justify the assumption of more than twenty inhabitants of the globe per generation.”

Note: Charroux was certianly not a creationist, this shows many are skeptical of the evolutionist's concocted ''Stone Age'' outside of the creation science movement.

As Robert Charroux worked out, by simple mathematics, since the number of discovered Stone Age tools and weapons is such a low figure, only a few hundred thousand or a few million at the max, it implies the earth was only inhabited by about twenty inhabitants per generation from 2.6 million - 11,000 years ago. This is quite simply absurd. Since Charroux was born in France, he worked out the mathematics in relation to Stone Age tools unearthed in France. He detailed his discoveries in his study (1979, p.60-63) and concluded:

“The conclusion is obvious: the number of flint tools does not indicate the number of men who lived in France.”

This makes perfect logical sense because since adherents of the Stone Age believe the ancestors of modern man for millions of years made flint tools, then on average, a single individual would have made around a hundred at the very minimum during his or her lifetime. This means there should be a huge amount of such Stone Age findings:

“100 x world population”

No-one will ever know the world population of people or what evolutionists call ancestral “Hominids” 2.6 million or 11,000 years ago, though it can be suggested sensibly a figure from several million to the minimum of around 200,000. Though of course from 2.6 million - 11,000 years ago the world population would have changed. By going with the minimum estimate of 200,000 of a world population, at only one specific point in time, then the sum should be:

“100 x 200,000”

The answer is 20,000,000 (20 million), yet this number actually exceeds already actual findings, and this figure only represents one generation of the 2.8 million to 11,000 year ago period. If the 2.8 million figure (how long the Stone Age supposedly lasted) is divided by about 60 (representing a life span of about 60 = 1 generation) the answer is 46,666 generations. The correct sum should thus be 100 x 46,666 x 200,000. That is 100 Stone Age tools x 46,666 generations (covering 2.8 million years) x the world population figure.

The answer is: 933320000000 Stone Age findings should have been unearthed!

Of course this figure is completely ridiculous and as Robert Charroux pointed out it would be silly to presume billions and billions of Stone Age tools still remain buried and undiscovered in the ground. It can be concluded then, that the Stone Age is a pure invention by evolutionists, and has no basis in fact, simple maths and logic refutes it.

There are two questions that however remain unanswered.

1. Firstly, what was used as tools instead of flint by man several thousands of years ago.
2. Secondly how are the small amount of findings of flint tools explained, even though as established there were only a few hundred thousand ever made, meaning there would have only been under a few hundred used across the earth during one generation.

Answers:

1. People originally used non-stone tools and weapons but they have since disintegrated. This obviously relates to well known physics and the property of metals, which although are superior during their short existence - rust and disintegrate unlike flint. Iron rusts, silver, copper tarnish and eventually corrode, even gold can tarnish. And of course violent cataclysms would have completely destroyed such metals.

2. The people, who used flint weapons in the past, were extreme minorities and outcasts. These people only existed in the hundreds and were isolated tribes. Minorities on earth today still exist such as primitive tribes in New Guinea which still use stone tools. Stone and flint mines, which archaeologists have discovered, which are thousands of years old, were not used for the production of weapons and tools, but for the construction of homes, other buildings and monuments.

So it is vitally important to understand that both advanced civilizations and more backward cave cultures lived at the same time.* We thus have no reason to conclude that the less advanced peoples were ancestors of the more advanced ones.

*For example we have the testimony of Diodorus Siculus, who wrote of people living along the shores of the Red Sea in caves with stone weaponry, while at the same time classical Greece Rome flourished.

The Age of metals

The Bible of course teachs us that metals were in existance before the flood, during antideluvian times. Tubal-Cain is credited with having been the founder of brass and iron (Genesis 4: 22). What is apparent is that man appeared intelligent, as a builder and smelter, not having progressed from a lower level. A recent article i stumbled across perfectly explains all this in more depth, proving that archeology is no friend to evolution.

http://www.ensignmes.../evolution.html

Iron objects were also in Europe long before the 6th century BC. Evolutionists of course feel to need to 'primitivise' our ancestors, especially those from Northern Europe. However Iron objects and Iron bars were unearthed from Wayland’s Smithy, a chambered tomb in Oxfordshire, England and dated 2000BC (as documented in Antiquity Journal, 1921). Here then, it is apparent evolutionists need to revise their dates.

#35 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 19 June 2010 - 05:59 PM

“The conclusion is obvious: the number of flint tools does not indicate the number of men who lived in France.”

This makes perfect logical sense because since adherents of the Stone Age believe the ancestors of modern man for millions of years made flint tools, then on average, a single individual would have made around a hundred at the very minimum during his or her lifetime. This means there should be a huge amount of such Stone Age findings:

Of course this figure is completely ridiculous and as Robert Charroux pointed out it would be silly to presume billions and billions of Stone Age tools still remain buried and undiscovered in the ground. It can be concluded then, that the Stone Age is a pure invention by evolutionists, and has no basis in fact, simple maths and logic refutes it.

There are two questions that however remain unanswered.

1. Firstly, what was used as tools instead of flint by man several thousands of years ago.
2. Secondly how are the small amount of findings of flint tools explained, even though as established there were only a few hundred thousand ever made, meaning there would have only been under a few hundred used across the earth during one generation.

Answers:

1. People originally used non-stone tools and weapons but they have since disintegrated. This obviously relates to well known physics and the property of metals, which although are superior during their short existence - rust and disintegrate unlike flint. Iron rusts, silver, copper tarnish and eventually corrode, even gold can tarnish. And of course violent cataclysms would have completely destroyed such metals.

2. The people, who used flint weapons in the past, were extreme minorities and outcasts. These people only existed in the hundreds and were isolated tribes. Minorities on earth today still exist such as primitive tribes in New Guinea which still use stone tools.  Stone and flint mines, which archaeologists have discovered, which are thousands of years old, were not used for the production of weapons and tools, but for the construction of homes, other buildings and monuments.

View Post


You left out one of the most obvious reasons that could explain why more stone tools are not found. Did you ever buy a used car? I have friend who owns a rifle that was once owned by his father, that had been his grandfather's, and had actually been purchased by his great grandfather. He still uses it to hunt. Making weapons is labor (labour) intensive. Why make a new stone axe or arrowhead when you can use one that already exists? If someone was smart enough to make a tool, they would be smart enough to escape additional work.

You don't need to create a mine to find the chert necessary to make weapons. It commonly outcrops on the surface. One only needs to quarry stone when it is needed to make buildings, etc. How many weapons and tools could be made from a single block of building stone? Quite a large number. It would also be easier to work stone into tools when it was already broken up in smaller pieces by natural processes.

#36 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 19 June 2010 - 10:16 PM

Cass, I've just noticed something. All your ideas are based on peoples' opinions of the evidence rather than the evidence.

Rather than looking into what the evidence is, you take one person that talks about one aspect, show that person is wrong (by your own workings out) and by doing so think you have dealt with all the evidence.

That approach is known as strawman arguing.

Archaeology has shown that underneath the first civilisation with written "documents" in Egypt there were other people lliving there.

Looking at where they are found, continous occupation has been shown, plus flint tools.

There are distinctive styles of these groups of people, showing a change over time. (NOTE: I am not saying how much time).

Near the bottom of these groups are some using flint tools.

Menes lived in 2200BCE.

Creationists believe such cultures were contemporary with civilization around 2000BC.


The archaeology shows that they lived before Menes. Empirical evidence!

The flood happened in 2348 BCE

Let us assume that the flint tool using people lived in 2,000BCE.

That means in 348 years, limestone has to form, go to the bottom of the crust, get subject to heat and pressure for some time and then travel back up to the surface.

You have yet to provide, even within your own paradigm any evidence that Menes lived in 2,200 BCE.

How long does limestone take to form from extremely wet mud?

Limestone is compressed mud which over time The limestone deposits are kilometres deep, which means the mud must have been much deeper than that.

How fast does limestone take to form from that much soggy mud?

Manetho (and Herodotus) recorded that some of the pyramids were constructed from 2184 – 2181BC during the reign of Nitocris, perfectly fitting Ussher's chronology. The YEC view is that the pyramids were all built at the same date around this period after the flood


This gets funnier all the time. I hadn't spotted this.

My thought was that there was a development of pyramids as they moived from the highly eroded mud, stepped pyramids to the limestone and marble (another metamorphic rock, but must have formed under different conditions to the flint), and each was for the burial of a pharoah.

Obviously one pharoah just said "I need about 138 pyramids so that my descendants do not need to build them. Of course, they will still have to write documents detailing their construction so that Imhotep can be given a great positon in a couple of centuries, otherwise how will the film "The Mummy" get made?

#37 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 20 June 2010 - 08:08 AM

Cass, I've just noticed something.  All your ideas are based on peoples' opinions of the evidence rather than the evidence.

Rather than looking into what the evidence is, you take one person that talks about one aspect, show that person is wrong (by your own workings out) and by doing so think you have dealt with all the evidence.


The idea of the ''stone age'' is a modern concept invented by evolutionists. You would need to explain why thousands of years since documented history a mention of this age, or the concept behind it does not appear. This really is not a topic you should start to discuss unless you have an education or degree in history or archeology, otherwise we will just be arguing back and forth.

Archaeology has shown that underneath the first civilisation with written "documents" in Egypt there were other people lliving there.


No that's an evolutionist assumption.

Looking at where they are found, continous occupation has been shown, plus flint tools.


Evolutionist assumption, again. :P

The archaeology shows that they lived before Menes.  Empirical evidence!


What evidence?

You have yet to provide, even within your own paradigm any evidence that Menes lived in 2,200 BCE.


I've referenced numerous classical sources, for example Flavius Josephus who recorded ''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.

I also quoted the 12th century Byzantine Chronicle by Constantinus Manasses as stating 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.

These date place the founding of egypt around 2200BC.

How long does limestone take to form from extremely wet mud? 

Limestone is compressed mud which over time The limestone deposits are kilometres deep, which means the mud must have been much deeper than that.

How fast does limestone take to form from that much soggy mud?


All evolutionist assumption, the same as the assumption you guys have on ice cores which creationists have already debunked.

#38 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 20 June 2010 - 09:05 AM

The idea of the ''stone age'' is a modern concept invented by evolutionists. You would need to explain why thousands of years since documented history a mention of this age, or the concept behind it does not appear. This really is not a topic you should start to discuss unless you have an education or degree in history or archeology, otherwise we will just be arguing back and forth.


It's a convenient modern label for the time before documented history when stone tools were more prevalent. In the neolithic, of course, metals were being used, but in a much simpler way.

Before that there we have the mesolithic where their stone use was not as advanced and their use of metals was more restricted.

You seem to place a lot of faith in ancient sources. Whilst these have their place, their knowledge was in some ways more restricted than ours today.

Also the stuff about limestone etc - just sayiung it's an evolutionist assumption means you are dismissing it without looking at the evidence. This is no way to conduct a debate.

If you think limestone is made some other way, tell me how. If thje evolutionists are wrong, tell me how.

I'm here to learn and have learned somne things from this thread, but if you just throw around baseless asserrtions then no discussion can happen.

#39 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 20 June 2010 - 09:57 PM

You have not explained the dating of those cultures.  The first I mentioned used flint tools. 

Flint is a metamorphic rock, based on limestone.

Limestone was formed during the flood, we know that because the number of deluge fosssils found (fish with other fish in theor mouths, obviously killed quickly.  Many dinosaurs found in flooded environments.

Rock doesn't build up quickly. It might take a few hundred years for limestone to form from the mud following the flood.

After it has formed, it has to be moved from the surface of the Earth, where it formed down to near the bottom of the crust to achieve the high pressures and tempertatures necessary to metamorphise the rock into flint (it couldn't be the increased temperature caused by the flood, because the limestone wasn't formed until afterwards).

After it has been down that far it has to move back up to the surface where humans can find it and then fashion it into tools.

This has to happen before we reach the first king of Egypt.

View Post


I don't think you would find many petrologists who would consider flint to be a metamorphic rock, or a rock based upon limestone. It is chemically quite different than limstone being essentially quartz (silicon dioxide) that is cryptocrystalline. It is true to say that it is found in association with limestones.

It is considered a sedimentary rock that forms through chemical means (re-crystallization of the silica). This would probably take place fairly close to the surface rather than deep in the crust, with relatively low temperatures and pressures likely to be present.

#40 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 21 June 2010 - 05:08 AM

I'll check that Geode (sorry, I'm a sceptic :rolleyes: )




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users