Jump to content


Photo

Hello


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

#1 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 12 June 2010 - 12:40 PM

I have been searching for people with common sense relating to science and history and i found this forum/website and am impressed with seeing some educated science lovers who hold the YEC position.

Admittedly i'm not at all educated in science, though i try to read and understand to my best ability. My area of focus and interest is ancient history, i study this at University and came to believe in Young Earth Creation after reading many ancient historical works which perfectly fit the biblical chronology.

I follow James Ussher's dating which puts creation around 4000BC and the flood at 2348BC, though i am open to YEC's who hold to the Septuagint or slightly older creation date. Right now i am researching ancient egyptian documents and revising their chronology to fit Ussher's dating of the founding of egypt around 2200BC.

Anyway that's my introduction. Also i'm from UK. Unfortuantly we don't have many Young Earth Creationist's or organisations over here (CSM - Creation Science Movement is probably the only YEC UK based org), however a recent poll in UK showed 60%+ of the general public wish to see creation brought into the science room with the theory of evolution.

I also support Intelligent Design.

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 June 2010 - 04:41 PM

I have been searching for people with common sense relating to science and history and i found this forum/website and am impressed with seeing some educated science lovers who hold the YEC position.

Admittedly i'm not at all educated in science, though i try to read and understand to my best ability. My area of focus and interest is ancient history, i study this at University and came to believe in Young Earth Creation after reading many ancient historical works which perfectly fit the biblical chronology.

I follow James Ussher's dating which puts creation around 4000BC and the flood at 2348BC, though i am open to YEC's who hold to the Septuagint or slightly older creation date. Right now i am researching ancient egyptian documents and revising their chronology to fit Ussher's dating of the founding of egypt around 2200BC.

Anyway that's my introduction. Also i'm from UK. Unfortuantly we don't have many Young Earth Creationist's or organisations over here (CSM - Creation Science Movement is probably the only YEC UK based org), however a recent poll in UK showed 60%+ of the general public wish to see creation brought into the science room with the theory of evolution.

I also support Intelligent Design.

View Post


Welcome to the forum Cassiterides. With your background, I'm sure you'll find many thought provoking conversations here.

#3 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 12 June 2010 - 08:19 PM

I have been searching for people with common sense relating to science and history and i found this forum/website and am impressed with seeing some educated science lovers who hold the YEC position.

Admittedly i'm not at all educated in science, though i try to read and understand to my best ability. My area of focus and interest is ancient history, i study this at University and came to believe in Young Earth Creation after reading many ancient historical works which perfectly fit the biblical chronology.

View Post


Hello Cassiterides,

I look forward to seeing some of your insights from an historical point of view. I was quite keen on history in university taking quite a few courses. But my major study was geology in which I obtained two degrees. This is not too surprising, as geology is basically the only historical science and it combined my interest in history and science. I have worked professionally as a geologist in the petroleum industry for 30 years, including three years based in the UK working upon North Sea projects.

The rock record is basically like a history book, where many clues to the past are present. However, it takes skill to unravel these clues that are present, and that part of the process is akin to Sherlock Holmes detective work. There are a a great many different clues, and the best conclusions are reached when as many clues as possible are identified and rationalized.together, with not just one or two clues used to formulate a theory when ignoring the rest of the available lines of evidence. This is something that happens too commonly.

The peer review process is meant to help push the process in the self-correcting direction, and one of the last things a geologist wishes is for their ideas to be shot apart by others working in the same area that come forth with ideas better supported by all the available evidence. However, in the published geologic literature you will find responses to publications made in disagreement. This is one reason to do a thorough literature search and not accept a publication from long ago as the currently best accepted thought on the matter. However, it is a big planet and some areas are focused upon more than others, especially when a new idea comes forth and other workers seek to test the viability with their own studies. However, if you see a paper that relies upon cited sources that are decades old, there is probably subsequent work that is more up to date. A good geological paper will cite all the relevant earlier studies in the subject area, from the earliest to the latest. The discussion should also include as many of the differing ideas of conclusions that have been reached. If you find a paper that only cites the sources that agree with the point of view of the author, he or she has not done the proper scholarship that allows the reader to formulate their own conclusions from the evidence supplied. This practice just be a lazy approach, but it might also be done hide an opposing viewpoint that is viable. It is doubly embarrassing to be shown to be wrong when published and to have ignored the correct viewpoint and not have cited it.

Most geologists were drawn to the science by the lift that getting out into the field and looking at actual rocks in outcrop brings to us Unfortunately most geologists work for oil and gas companies and do not get into the field as much as we would wish. We more commonly work with data obtained in the field by "remote" means such as electric logging and seismic data. An extra bonus to working in the field is to witness the various aspects of nature, in which I personally perceive the hand of God.

Cheers, Geode

#4 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 12 June 2010 - 09:39 PM

Hello, thank you for the welcome.

What i know about geology is only the basics, however the modern founder of geology was a Young Earth Creationist of the 17th century (Nicolaus Steno), so i would presume there is avialable evidence, or atleast interpretation of rocks supporting the YEC view.

However i don't see rocks as historical evidence, since they can only be interpreted by man, unlike ancient historical writings they are not definate undisputable eyewitness testimony. This is why i only stick with history, since man was there then to observe and record. And the historical record only goes back a few thousand years, civilizations etc (Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian) all fit the YEC view.

#5 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 12 June 2010 - 10:27 PM

Hello, thank you for the welcome.

What i know about geology is only the basics, however the modern founder of geology was a Young Earth Creationist of the 17th century (Nicolaus Steno), so i would presume there is avialable evidence, or atleast interpretation of rocks supporting the YEC view.

However i don't see rocks as historical evidence, since they can only be interpreted by man, unlike ancient historical writings they are not definate undisputable eyewitness testimony. This is why i only stick with history, since man was there then to observe and record. And the historical record only goes back a few thousand years, civilizations etc (Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian) all fit the YEC view.

View Post


Yes, Steno is a true heavyweight in terms of the foundation he provided for geological study having developed several of the guiding principles of the science. Unfortunately I often see the principles or laws that he set forth ignored in discussions of geology, most typically by Young Earth Creationists. This is especially true about cross-cutting relationships but also at times dealing with Superposition. His studies in paleontology set forth a foundation that was used by later workers, notably William Smith (and even Darwin for that matter). Steno became a devout Roman Catholic and if he were alive today I seriously doubt he would be a Young Earth Creationist. I am pretty sure that he would fully accept Smith's principle or Law of Faunal Succession, that rocks can be typified by their fossil content.

Historical writings by definition are already evidence interpreted by man. The rock record is more accurate, for the evidences within it are pure and non-diluted since on their own they are un-biased. But yes, its interpretation is open to the mistakes and biases of man, as are all historical writings.

The fact that discovered historical records in a written language go back only a few thousand years is at first evidence that these are the oldest preserved records that we presently have found. It is also probably evidence that written language has been limited to a portion of human history. However, cave paintings are a form of history when they record hunts, etc. and have been dated as far older. Interpretation of these to the point of calling them "history" is probably inappropriate, but I think writing came out of further development of symbols used earlier.

I don't think an eyewitness account in writing makes it indisputable. I don't think we have a single history book that is completely accurate and without bias. I think the film Rashomon gives a very good object lesson about how different eye-witness accounts can be and how self-serving they can be.

#6 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 13 June 2010 - 06:20 AM

His studies in paleontology set forth a foundation that was used by later workers, notably William Smith (and even Darwin for that matter). Steno became a devout Roman Catholic and if he were alive today I seriously doubt he would be a Young Earth Creationist. I am pretty sure that he would fully accept Smith's principle or Law of Faunal Succession, that rocks can be typified by their fossil content.


William Smith was not a qualified geologist, he was a surveyor. Charles Lyell also had no degree in geology or science, but was a lawyer, James Hutton was a doctor etc. All of the first geologists who rejected the YEC view for uniformatarianism, evolution or old earth were all so called charlatans or tricksters (men who had no degree or qualification but professed wisdom in their field).

The funny thing is modern evolutionists are obsessed with accusing Young Earth Scientists as being pseudo-scholars, when all of their own founders had no degrees. Even Darwin was a school dropout because of alchohol, who had no science degree.

Historical writings by definition are already evidence interpreted by man. The rock record is more accurate, for the evidences within it are pure and non-diluted since on their own they are un-biased. But yes, its interpretation is open to the mistakes and biases of man, as are all historical writings.


Historical writings are not interpreted; for example if you find an ancient document with a date describing an activity or event - this is based on an eyewitness account of what happened in that year. History is therefore the only form of absolute fact we can go by.

The rock record is not ''more accurate'' since it is all interpretation or starts at assumption. Rocks don't have dates stapled on them, so you have no evidence a rock is older then a few thousand years. No one can prove they are millions or billions.

However, cave paintings are a form of history when they record hunts, etc. and have been dated as far older. Interpretation of these  to the point of calling them "history" is probably inappropriate, but I think writing came out of further development of symbols used earlier.


This is an evolutionist fallacy. Why do the so called ''cavemen'' have to be imaged as before civilization or ''older''? This is not what the historical record shows, for example Herodotus, Strabo and other Greek writers wrote of men who lived in caves during their own period. This does not mean everyone at one stage of time were ''cavemen'', what it tells us is that different people across the world have diverse cultures and living styles, nothing more.

As for cave paintings being dated older, i presume you are now talking about dating methods, these don't fit the historical record so should be disgarded. The historical record only begins 3000BC-2000BC, no ancient writings predate this.

#7 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2010 - 08:57 AM

You don't need a degree to be a scientist and make a huge leap forwards in science. You need to be right. To call these people charlatans or tricksters is a gross insult.

Neither Darwin, Lyell or Smith was neither and to make claims like that does a great disservice to them (all of them began as Creationists, and Lyell remained one for life).

Please do not throw insults like that around as it reflects on yourself and then creationists will also get tarred with the same brush.
  • Mat Hunt likes this

#8 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2010 - 09:49 AM

William Smith was not a qualified geologist, he was a surveyor. Charles Lyell also had no degree in geology or science, but was a lawyer, James Hutton was a doctor etc. All of the first geologists who rejected the YEC view for uniformatarianism, evolution or old earth were all so called charlatans or tricksters (men who had no degree or qualification but professed wisdom in their field).

The funny thing is modern evolutionists are obsessed with accusing Young Earth Scientists as being pseudo-scholars, when all of their own founders had no degrees. Even Darwin was a school dropout because of alchohol, who had no science degree.
Historical writings are not interpreted; for example if you find an ancient document with a date describing an activity or event - this is based on an eyewitness account of what happened in that year. History is therefore the only form of absolute fact we can go by.

The rock record is not ''more accurate'' since it is all interpretation or starts at assumption. Rocks don't have dates stapled on them, so you have no evidence a rock is older then a few thousand years. No one can prove they are millions or billions.
This is an evolutionist fallacy. Why do the so called ''cavemen'' have to be imaged as before  civilization or ''older''? This is not what the historical record shows, for example Herodotus, Strabo and other Greek writers wrote of men who lived in caves during their own period. This does not mean everyone at one stage of time were ''cavemen'', what it tells us is that different people across the world have diverse cultures and living styles, nothing more.

As for cave paintings being dated older, i presume you are now talking about dating methods, these don't fit the historical record so should be disgarded. The historical record only begins 3000BC-2000BC, no ancient writings predate this.

View Post


The rock record is 100% the result of the conditions that were present in its formation or during its later history. It is completely accurate in that regard and not an interpretation of any sort.

People still live in caves so I don't see that you are making a relevant point except to make a statement which sounds akin to Social Darwinism. Interesting that you want to throw out evidence that does not fit in with your opinion of what should fit the historical record. This sort of goes along with what I said earlier about the biases of some historians.

I don't think many will find your claim "History is therefore the only form of absolute fact we can go by" to be a very objective approach to the study of history. What if you have two authentic eyewitness accounts that vary in their details? Are both "absolute fact"...?

William Smith was a very qualified geologist who is credited with the first real geologic map. The others also became qualified through their own efforts to learn and master natural science. But what is your point? Are you invalidating the scientists in your footnote for the same reason? They had similar academic backgrounds to Darwin in terms of the fields in which they worked. One of them had no more formal education that Smith,

All of the first geologists who rejected the YEC view for uniformatarianism, evolution or old earth were all so called charlatans or tricksters (men who had no degree or qualification but professed wisdom in their field).


So with no better argument you are reduced to this ad hom approach?

The funny thing is modern evolutionists are obsessed with accusing Young Earth Scientists as being pseudo-scholars, when all of their own founders had no degrees. Even Darwin was a school dropout because of alchohol, who had no science degree.


Darwin had considerable university training in natural history, he had far more relevant formal training in his chosen field than some of those you placed in your footnote. I do not think you can provide evidence for your ad hom attack on Dawin stated here. It just isn't true.

#9 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 14 June 2010 - 10:27 AM

The rock record is 100% the result of the conditions that were present in its formation or during its later history. It is completely accurate in that regard and not an interpretation of any sort.


The interpretation is the age or how it came to be created. As i said rocks don't have dates stapled to them, rocks don't speak and give their age...

I'm sure you are aware of the whole Catastrophism vs. Uniformatarianism debate? One group says the rocks were created very rapidly, the other says very slowly over long periods. Both are two different interpretations, that's all rocks are. Men look at them differently. Show a rock or a fossil to 1000 people and you will get many different interpretations of it.

People still live in caves so I don't see that you are making a relevant point except to make a statement which sounds akin to Social Darwinism. Interesting that you want to throw out evidence that does not fit in with your opinion of what should fit the historical record. This sort of goes along with what I said earlier about the biases of some historians.


You said cave paintings are far older. What i said is that only evolutionists take this interpretation. Creationists don't believe we descended from 'cavemen', only evolutionists believe that since they need to 'primitivise' our ancestors of course or their theory wouldn't make sense.

I don't think many will find your claim "History is therefore the only form of absolute fact we can go by" to be a very objective approach to the study of history. What if you have two authentic eyewitness accounts that vary in their details? Are both "absolute fact"...?


Rarely has this happened in ancient history, if you study historiography you see that with all of the oldest civilizations there were specific employed historians who were paid to record the history of that nation. It had to be precise, was reviewed and to be without error. An example would be Sima Qian. These men typically had access to all the top records from royal archives etc.

On a local historical level however there can be conflicting eyewitness testimony, but still from this you can learn facts. This is the best definate evidence we have however since man was there then, since we don't have a time machine this is the best evidence.

William Smith was a very qualified geologist who is credited with the first real geologic map. The others also became qualified through their own efforts to learn and master natural science.


Well natural science was pioneered by Aristotle and the Romans (i.e Pliny the Elder), all were creationists or believed in intelligent design.

Evolutionists din't find or pioneer any field of science. Why? Because it's a theory that's not even 200 years old. Science goes back thousands of years, i'm more interested in those periods of vast accumalated knowledge then a single modern theory which can not be observed or proven.

But what is your point? Are you invalidating the scientists in your footnote for the same reason? They had similar academic backgrounds to Darwin in terms of the fields in which they worked. One of them had no more formal education that Smith,


Yet, they founded those fields of knowledge. If it wasn't for them, you would have no degree in geology. As for them not having degrees, most (all except one) as you agreed do.

Every single modern evolutionist today is in fact using areas of science founded by creation scientists...

Darwin had considerable university training in natural history, he had far more relevant formal training in his chosen field than some of those you placed in your footnote. I do not think you can provide evidence for your ad hom attack on Dawin stated here. It just isn't true.


Darwin had no degree. He was not a qualified scientist. What he studied no one really cares since he was not a scientist.

#10 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2010 - 12:19 PM

You don't need a degree to do science! There is no heirachy of people.

Read about the Mpemba effect. A schoolchild has done science that the rest of the science world is catching up on.

Your viewpoints on science are ...erm... individual.

#11 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 16 June 2010 - 06:56 AM

William Smith was not a qualified geologist, he was a surveyor. Charles Lyell also had no degree in geology or science, but was a lawyer, James Hutton was a doctor etc. All of the first geologists who rejected the YEC view for uniformatarianism, evolution or old earth were all so called charlatans or tricksters (men who had no degree or qualification but professed wisdom in their field).

The funny thing is modern evolutionists are obsessed with accusing Young Earth Scientists as being pseudo-scholars, when all of their own founders had no degrees. Even Darwin was a school dropout because of alchohol, who had no science degree.

View Post


I think you might want to review your signature line, for in it is listed a scientist who apparently did not agree with young age creationists such as yourself. Matthew Fontaine Maury is quoted as having said the following:

"I pass by the history of creation as it is written on the tablets of the rocks and in the Book of Revelation, because the question has been discussed so much and so often, that you, no doubt, are familiar with the whole subject. In both the order of creation is the same. First, the plants to afford subsistence, and then the animals, the chief point of apparent difference being as to the duration of the period between 'the evening and the morning.' 'A thousand years are in His sight as one day,' and the Mosaic account affords evidence itself that the term 'day,' as there used, is not that which comprehends our twenty-four hours. It was a day that had its 'evening and morning' before the sun was made."

He was not a charlaton or a trickster. But your statement above would imply that you think he would be one simply for this statement he made.

#12 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 16 June 2010 - 09:09 AM

I think you might want to review your signature line, for in it is listed a scientist who apparently did not agree with young age creationists such as yourself. Matthew Fontaine Maury is quoted as having said the following:

"I pass by the history of creation as it is written on the tablets of the rocks and in the Book of Revelation, because the question has been discussed so much and so often, that you, no doubt, are familiar with the whole subject. In both the order of creation is the same. First, the plants to afford subsistence, and then the animals, the chief point of apparent difference being as to the duration of the period between 'the evening and the morning.' 'A thousand years are in His sight as one day,' and the Mosaic account affords evidence itself that the term 'day,' as there used, is not that which comprehends our twenty-four hours. It was a day that had its 'evening and morning' before the sun was made."


As wrote Saint Augustine but still believed in Young Earth Creationism. Maurey was a Young Earth Creationist, he just believed the days were longer than 24 hours. That means he would have dated creation a few thousand years after 4,000BC/5000BC as did Augustine (< 5 600BC).

Augustine believed the days were figurative not literal, but at the same time the earth was young (< 5 600BC). There is no contradiction here after you realise the concept of millions or billions of years (outside of hinduism that is) is a completely modern idea.

So no, i won't be taking Maurey out my list since he was still a YEC.

#13 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

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

Posted 17 June 2010 - 03:19 AM

What about Watson and Crick? They were evolutionists.

Have you looked into the Mpemba effect yet? Also, look at this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...be-a-scientist/


it's too late to enter, but it shows amateurs doing science. Also, google for 'amateur science' and you will see that even today there are people doing real science that do not have a degree. The most obvious case is astronomy.

#14 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 17 June 2010 - 08:26 AM

As wrote Saint Augustine but still believed in Young Earth Creationism. Maurey was a Young Earth Creationist, he just believed the days were longer than 24 hours. That means he would have dated creation a few thousand years after 4,000BC/5000BC as did Augustine (< 5 600BC).

Augustine believed the days were figurative not literal, but at the same time the earth was young (< 5 600BC). There is no contradiction here after you realise the concept of millions or billions of years (outside of hinduism that is) is a completely modern idea.

So no, i won't be taking Maurey out my list since he was still a YEC.

View Post


If you take Maurey's quote as it reads, citing scripture no less, the act of creation was on the order of 7000 years or more....on its own before it was finished. Then we have thousands of years of recorded earth history following that. How do you reconcile a total of 6000 years for the entire shooting match to the present day?

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.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19



#15 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

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

Posted 17 June 2010 - 08:33 AM

Great quote! My opinion of him has gone up (and it was already high!)

#16 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 18 June 2010 - 12:20 AM

Great quote!  My opinion of him has gone up (and it was already high!)

View Post


He is one of the more interesting thinkers to have left his thoughts with us from so long ago. I find much of what he says to be as relevent now as it was in his time.

#17 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 18 June 2010 - 07:16 AM

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.


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

From Augustine's City of God, XII. 10: Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past.

''They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed''

Firstly note the chapter title, Augustine believed that the idea of history which ''allots many thousand years to the world's past'' to be false. He was a Young Earth Creationist. Then look at the quotation from the chapter, he believed 6,000 years had not passed since his own time.

354-430AD + 6,000 = (roughly) 5,600BC.

What does this show? It shows that even non-literalists believed in YEC. The same applies to Origen. As i said the belief in an Old Earth is alien to Christianity, and in fact comes from Hinduism or modern Atheistic Uniformatarianism.

#18 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

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

Posted 18 June 2010 - 09:19 AM

Right now i am researching ancient egyptian documents and revising their chronology to fit Ussher's dating of the founding of egypt around 2200BC.


Pardon? You are revising their chronology to fit Ussher's dating?

How much revision is required?

#19 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 18 June 2010 - 10:29 AM

Pardon?  You are revising their chronology to fit Ussher's dating?

How much revision is required?

View Post


Ussher already provided documentation that egypt began around 2200BC by Menes (Mizraim). He quoted from Constantinus Manasses' Chronicle as stating that the Egyptian state lasted for 1,663 years before Cambyses II conquered Egypt for Persia. This took place in 526BC. A backward extrapolation yields 2188 BC for the founding of Egypt by Menes. Flavius Josephus likewise provided a similar date.

What i am revising is the chronology or dating methods used outside of Biblical history, for example the sothic cycle.

Nothing could have predated the flood (2348BC), and egypt had to have been founded after the Tower of Babel (2242BC).

Posted Image

#20 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

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

Posted 18 June 2010 - 01:42 PM

Nothing could have predated the flood (2348BC), and egypt had to have been founded after the Tower of Babel (2242BC).


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.

The earliest known Egyptian pyramid is the Pyramid of Djoser (constructed 2630 BCE–2611 BCE) which was built during the third dynasty.


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!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users