Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
rosewhite

Littlest Dinosaurs At Bottom Of Sediment = 245 Million Years?

Recommended Posts

 

This is a forum on the debate evolution vs 'intelligent' design. It is hosted by a christian community. At least that's what I think it is.

Is it a forum that allows only 1 point of view? Is the other to be mocked into silence?

 

Who mocked you? Me? rosewhite? Calminian? Name him and quote him.

 

You avoided the thrust of my question so I will repeat it: "You see, I don't waste any of my time trying to persuade those who are mentally deranged nor do I waste time trying to argue with people who think they are space aliens from another world. It makes no rational sense to even try to be rational with such people. SO>..............................since you feel the way you do then WHY are you posting here to us 'silly' folk on EFF?"

 

The point being that if it is common sense to not waste ones time trying to argue with mentally insane, delusional people then why would you wish to waste your time with us 'silly' creationists? Now does that clarify matters enough for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We certainly did lose an awful lot of technology during the Flood.

 

Toothmarks on fossils are indisputable proof of carnivorous habits but not until God put the fear of man in them. All animals were originally vegetarian even if they had big beautiful teeth. Why that should be so hard to believe is a mystery.

The many pet and friendly 'carnivores' around the world show quite clearly that being a killer is easily suppressed behaviour - just as with the humans who murder.

 

At the moment beheadings are all the rage with terrorists beheading captives and crazies beheading people on British streets but for how long have such murders been carried out?

 

I don't see any mentally deranged posters on here though I do so many whose posts are a joke and many whose posts show they cannot think deeply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argyle if it is my posts you cannot understand it can only be you have been possessed by a spirit of incomprehension on Satan's orders and said spirit ensures you are unable to understand the written word and connect it with the evidence your eyes tell you.

 

Satan's chief aim is to make people think there is no God and no Satan and hence all life evolved from pondslime and naturally he will make sure his converts have their ability to understand blocked.

 

While ever you choose to define yourself as an atheist you will stay blind but the moment you accept you are wrong and Creation and God are fact then 'scales will fall from your eyes.'

 

Similarly Calypsis' refusal to back me up can only be because of lingering doubts about Creation despite claiming to be born-again in the spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argyle if it is my posts you cannot understand it can only be you have been possessed by a spirit of incomprehension on Satan's orders and said spirit ensures you are unable to understand the written word and connect it with the evidence your eyes tell you.

 

Satan's chief aim is to make people think there is no God and no Satan and hence all life evolved from pondslime and naturally he will make sure his converts have their ability to understand blocked.

 

While ever you choose to define yourself as an atheist you will stay blind but the moment you accept you are wrong and Creation and God are fact then 'scales will fall from your eyes.'

 

Similarly Calypsis' refusal to back me up can only be because of lingering doubts about Creation despite claiming to be born-again in the spirit.

 

Can anyone define the word 'troll' for rosewhite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't defend rosewhites position but your statement, "you may actually be an atheist trying to make creationists' beliefs look even more silly than they actually are" is as silly as you make us out to be. I am an ex-evolutionist who years ago finally realized that the belief in an accidental world that happened all by itself was pure idiocy and not science. Secondly, the belief that life arose by blind natural processes despite the incredible complexity of even the simplest living organism is also total idiocy.

But if that is the way you feel about us then what in the world are you doing here on EFF? Do you really think you are going to convert any of us to your ridiculous theory of accidentalism?

 

You see, I don't waste any of my time trying to persuade those who are mentally deranged nor do I waste time trying to argue with people who think they are space aliens from another world. It makes no rational sense to even try to be rational with such people. SO>..............................since you feel the way you do then WHY are you posting here to us 'silly' folk on EFF?

You've asked before what I'm doing on here, I'm curious as to why you single me out for that question. Why do you get all uppity if I call your beliefs silly when you and others on here frequently dismiss evolution with stronger terms as you've demonstrated above (total idiocy etc.). When you were an evolutionist did you think creationist beliefs were silly and what evidence did you suddenly see to show that yep, that single pair of kangaroos hopped all the way from Mt Ararat to reach SE Asia, got to the beach, then thought, yeah we'll swim it from here, and populated Australia. Those distant cosmic objects ? Yep God is just making it look like they're far greater than 6000 light years away.

 

Why are you on here ? Have you (or anyone else for that matter)converted anyone here to your views ? If you've got the will of God behind you (I presume you think God wants you to be here) evolutionists ought to be converting in their droves. I'm not seeing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argyle:

 

You quoted me:

 


But if that is the way you feel about us then what in the world are you doing here on EFF? Do you really think you are going to convert any of us to your ridiculous theory of accidentalism?

You see, I don't waste any of my time trying to persuade those who are mentally deranged nor do I waste time trying to argue with people who think they are space aliens from another world. It makes no rational sense to even try to be rational with such people. SO>..............................since you feel the way you do then WHY are you posting here to us 'silly' folk on EFF?

You've asked before what I'm doing on here, I'm curious as to why you single me out for that question.

 

I didn't single you out. I've asked that same question of several neo-Darwnian posters here on EFF.

 

 

Why do you get all uppity if I call your beliefs silly when you and others on here frequently dismiss evolution with stronger terms as you've demonstrated above (total idiocy etc.).

 

Don't say I'm 'uppity' just because I ask you a straight, common sense question....unless, that is, you are allergic to common sense.

 

That's right. I believe evolution to be idiocy...but I am HERE on EFF and not on some atheist rag that has no respect for the Creator God nor those who believe in Him as Creator.

 

When you were an evolutionist did you think creationist beliefs were silly and what evidence did you suddenly see to show that yep, that single pair of kangaroos hopped all the way from Mt Ararat to reach SE Asia, got to the beach, then thought, yeah we'll swim it from here, and populated Australia.

 

THAT is yet another reason why I think your position is idiocy. Funny how those of your persuasion never ask the same question about the long steady migration of the human race from Africa even to the far and isolated places of the earth like Samoa, the Falklands, or Diego Garcia. And somehow it escapes you that humans can take animals with them on those long migrations. Does it also escape you that the earth's landscape and geology was quite different in ancient times? Why is that such a difficult matter for you and those like you to conceive of?

 

Those distant cosmic objects ? Yep God is just making it look like they're far greater than 6000 light years away.

 

Tell us how many millions and/or billions of years old the following landscape is:

 

surtsey02.jpg

 

Answer my question here before you do anything else, please.

Why are you on here ? Have you (or anyone else for that matter)converted anyone here to your views ? If you've got the will of God behind you (I presume you think God wants you to be here) evolutionists ought to be converting in their droves.

 

To convert lost sinners like you so that you won't be in hell fire forever. If you continue to reject Him as Creator and Lord that's exactly where you will go after you die.

 

I'm not seeing it.

 

There's a lot you don't see. But that needs to change before you pass away and you have to face God on judgment day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you were an evolutionist did you think creationist beliefs were silly and what evidence did you suddenly see to show that yep, that single pair of kangaroos hopped all the way from Mt Ararat to reach SE Asia, got to the beach, then thought, yeah we'll swim it from here, and populated Australia.

 

THAT is yet another reason why I think your position is idiocy. Funny how those of your persuasion never ask the same question about the long steady migration of the human race from Africa even to the far and isolated places of the earth like Samoa, the Falklands, or Diego Garcia. And somehow it escapes you that humans can take animals with them on those long migrations. Does it also escape you that the earth's landscape and geology was quite different in ancient times? Why is that such a difficult matter for you and those like you to conceive of?

 

Those distant cosmic objects ? Yep God is just making it look like they're far greater than 6000 light years away.

 

Tell us how many millions and/or billions of years old the following landscape is:

 

surtsey02.jpg

 

Answer my question here before you do anything else, please.

 

Why are you on here ? Have you (or anyone else for that matter)converted anyone here to your views ? If you've got the will of God behind you (I presume you think God wants you to be here) evolutionists ought to be converting in their droves.

 

To convert lost sinners like you so that you won't be in hell fire forever. If you continue to reject Him as Creator and Lord that's exactly where you will go after you die.

 

I'm not seeing it.

 

There's a lot you don't see. But that needs to change before you pass away and you have to face God on judgment day.

What makes you think that we don't consider dispersal of people (or other organisms)? I'm sure there were many failed attempts and inevitable deaths over the millennia, however your SINGLE pair of kangaroos had just one chance. What was so different about landscapes and geology just 4000 yrs ago that allowed them to make it ? The distribution of life around the world is powerful evidence that creation is false, just look at the almost total absence of amphibians on oceanic islands that are perfectly congenial (warm and moist) places for them to live, yet reptiles have had no problem colonising these places. (amphibians are much more unlikely to make ocean crossings on vegetation mats because of salinity/dessication issues)

 

Regarding your photo, its Surtsey which is a few decades old but you don't tell how old the geology is just by looking at a picture. Has God put any endemic species on that island yet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who mocked you? Me? rosewhite? Calminian? Name him and quote him.

Example: Calypsis4

 

I won't defend rosewhites position but your statement, "you may actually be an atheist trying to make creationists' beliefs look even more silly than they actually are" is as silly as you make us out to be. I am an ex-evolutionist who years ago finally realized that the belief in an accidental world that happened all by itself was pure idiocy and not science. Secondly, the belief that life arose by blind natural processes despite the incredible complexity of even the simplest living organism is also total idiocy.

 

But if that is the way you feel about us then what in the world are you doing here on EFF? Do you really think you are going to convert any of us to your ridiculous theory of accidentalism?

 

You see, I don't waste any of my time trying to persuade those who are mentally deranged nor do I waste time trying to argue with people who think they are space aliens from another world. It makes no rational sense to even try to be rational with such people. SO>..............................since you feel the way you do then WHY are you posting here to us 'silly' folk on EFF?

(your earlier post)

To respond that question: How do I feel? You are asking a question based on a presumption in error. Also, the question was asked not asked to me, so I did not avoid it.

Don't say I'm 'uppity' just because I ask you a straight, common sense question....unless, that is, you are allergic to common sense.

 

That's right. I believe evolution to be idiocy...but I am HERE on EFF and not on some atheist rag that has no respect for the Creator God nor those who believe in Him as Creator.

Common sense = opinion.

The primary goal of this forum is to provide a place for honest, educational, civil and fun debate on the topic of origins.

Calling the other's position 'total idiocy' is neither education nor civil.

 

THAT is yet another reason why I think your position is idiocy. Funny how those of your persuasion never ask the same question about the long steady migration of the human race from Africa even to the far and isolated places of the earth like Samoa, the Falklands, or Diego Garcia. And somehow it escapes you that humans can take animals with them on those long migrations. Does it also escape you that the earth's landscape and geology was quite different in ancient times? Why is that such a difficult matter for you and those like you to conceive of?

It is a question of propability. The migration is more likely with multiple 'attempts' over a large span of time with a large group of humans then a single attempted crossing. According to the flood models that I read, post-flood geografie wasn't that much different compared to todays.

 

Tell us how many millions and/or billions of years old the following landscape is:

 

surtsey02.jpg

Looking at a picture is a very superficial approach to determining the age/details of a landscape/anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arglye:

 

 

What makes you think that we don't consider dispersal of people (or other organisms)?

 

Then give us documentation on that.

 

I'm sure there were many failed attempts and inevitable deaths over the millennia, however your SINGLE pair of kangaroos had just one chance.

 

You don't know that. No one knows what the terrain of southeast Asia nor the East Indies was in relation to Austrailia. There was no geologic survey of the region nor have there been any ancient maps of that same region that has survived to this time.

 

What was so different about landscapes and geology just 4000 yrs ago that allowed them to make it ? Without observation it is just guesswork for both sides.

 

Refer to what I just said above.

 

The distribution of life around the world is powerful evidence that creation is false,

 

That is total utter baloney and reveals your prejudice. The fact is that Genesis is established (in part) by the fact that history tells us that early civilized man had a seven day week...almost without exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week

 

...and THAT my friend, is written history; not guesswork.

 

just look at the almost total absence of amphibians on oceanic islands that are perfectly congenial (warm and moist) places for them to live, yet reptiles have had no problem colonising these places. (amphibians are much more unlikely to make ocean crossings on vegetation mats because of salinity/dessication issues).

 

Your problem is figuring out how they originated in the first place. How do living organisms arise from pre-biotic soup? Tell us. But again, the same factors that brought kangaroos to Austrailia would be involved in the existence of other species in other places, including isolated places. You've attempted to create a problem that really is no problem.

Regarding your photo, its Surtsey which is a few decades old but you don't tell how old the geology is just by looking at a picture. Has God put any endemic species on that island yet ?

 

Of course it's Surtsey, but if you hadn't recognized it you would, like almost all evolutionists do, conclude that the terrain (rocks/dirt) was multiplied millions of years in age even though it is only about 50 yrs old in its existence. Are you starting to get the point. If not, then let me put it simply: looks can be deceiving. I answered the starlight problem here on EFF some time ago. I can't remember the title of the OP. I don't have time to give them at the moment but I'll be back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example: Calypsis4

(your earlier post)

To respond that question: How do I feel? You are asking a question based on a presumption in error. Also, the question was asked not asked to me, so I did not avoid it.

Will you just quit dinking around about the matter and answer the question (although you weren't personally asked to begin with as you admitted). What are you attempting to do here on EFF? Fred Williams the owner of EFF gives you the right to be here. I am just wondering why you would bother if you think our stand/position is foolish or silly?

Common sense = opinion.

The primary goal of this forum is to provide a place for honest, educational, civil and fun debate on the topic of origins.

Calling the other's position 'total idiocy' is neither education nor civil.

 

I say it is idiocy to believe in an accidental world that came from nothing and that life generated by non-living matter even though we have no example of it and there is even an established law that tells us that life always arises from life. So live with it.

 

It is a question of propability. The migration is more likely with multiple 'attempts' over a large span of time with a large group of humans then a single attempted crossing. According to the flood models that I read, post-flood geografie wasn't that much different compared to todays.

 

I said nothing about a 'single attempted crossing'. Again, evolutionist assumptions.

Looking at a picture is a very superficial approach to determining the age/details of a landscape/anything.

 

I didn't think you'd answer it directly. But you know exactly what I was driving at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you were an evolutionist did you think creationist beliefs were silly and what evidence did you suddenly see to show that yep, that single pair of kangaroos hopped all the way from Mt Ararat to reach SE Asia, got to the beach, then thought, yeah we'll swim it from here, and populated Australia.

 

You know Evolutionists essentially believe scenarios just like that happened, e.g. where monkeys rafted and island hopped from Africa across the Atlantic to South America... I guess you think Evolutionist beliefs are silly now, too, right?

 

What makes you think that we don't consider dispersal of people (or other organisms)? I'm sure there were many failed attempts and inevitable deaths over the millennia, however your SINGLE pair of kangaroos had just one chance. What was so different about landscapes and geology just 4000 yrs ago that allowed them to make it ?

 

You know the kangaroos probably bred at some point after migrating from the Ark, instead of mindlessly sprinting across the world to their final destination.

 

The distribution of life around the world is powerful evidence that creation is false,

 

Incorrect.

 

just look at the almost total absence of amphibians on oceanic islands that are perfectly congenial (warm and moist) places for them to live, yet reptiles have had no problem colonising these places. (amphibians are much more unlikely to make ocean crossings on vegetation mats because of salinity/dessication issues)

 

Creationists do not believe that any animals were created on present day island formations... is that what you're implying? If reptiles excel at ocean crossings than Creationists would expect those potential distributions for the same reasons that evolutionists' would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calypsis, when did I call your religion silly?

 

Who are you that I have to justify myself to you? I have explained my being here on this forum elsewhere on this forum but it is not relevant here in this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem to me the fact there are multiple extinction events may itself be a problem for YEC which has only one.

 

That's silly, Piasan. That's like saying there was one house-fire event, yet 5 different areas of the house were consumed at different times, so therefore we can't call it one house-fire. Or because there was 5 separate skirmishes, we can't label it as part of a single war. The flood was a year-long, progressively destructive event, not an instantaneous extermination, thus we see different assemblages wiped out at different stages.

Since we see diversity of life building up after each of these "different stages," the analogy is more like you had a fire that burned down 95% of the house which was then rebuilt then there was a fire that burned down 70% of the house which was then rebuilt then there were another three major fires each of which substantially destroyed the house with similar reconstruction after each fire .... and calling all one fire because it was the same house. The same would apply to the "skirmish" argument..... I would point out that a "skirmish" that wipes out 50%-95% of your army is probably a pretty significant battle.

 

The problem remains. Flood geology provides a pretty poor explanation of the geological record.

 

Why do you keep mentioning that other groups went extinct as if it is an argument? I never denied this and I can't even tell what your point is. I am basing my argument on the Evolutionists' own literature. Experts that have researched this subject find it highly enigmatic why every dinosaurian animal was wiped out leaving such a large variety of similar animals to survive. That's where I'm coming from.

Just for openers, the proposed location of the impact event probably played a major role in determining which species would go extinct. A major strike in the Yucatan would create huge tsunami which would wipe out coastal species without disturbing similar species that live far inland.

 

There is also evidence (at least some) dinosaurs were in decline before the Chicxulub bolide struck. I tend to side with those who say this was a "1-2 punch" combining the Chicxulub impact with volcanic activity of the Deccan Traps which took place at about the same time. I tend to believe it is possible that shock waves from the asteroid strike may have reverberated thru the Earth causing cracks in the crust on the Indian sub-continent which resulted in the Deccan volcanic activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri:

 

 

Calypsis, when did I call your religion silly?

 

If I mentally confused you with what another poster said I am sorry.

Who are you that I have to justify myself to you? I have explained my being here on this forum elsewhere on this forum but it is not relevant here in this topic.

 

You don't have to justify yourself to me at all. I was just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we see diversity of life building up after each of these "different stages," the analogy is more like you had a fire that burned down 95% of the house which was then rebuilt then there was a fire that burned down 70% of the house which was then rebuilt then there were another three major fires each of which substantially destroyed the house with similar reconstruction after each fire ....

 

Yea, but that's not what the fossil record looks like. There is a pattern of novel assemblages of life appearing rather suddenly in different rock layers. Going back to the analogy it looks more like the "furniture" of "new rooms" of the house being progressively devastated, as opposed to prior areas being rebuilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't defend rosewhites position but your statement, "you may actually be an atheist trying to make creationists' beliefs look even more silly than they actually are" is as silly as you make us out to be. ......

 

But if that is the way you feel about us then what in the world are you doing here on EFF? Do you really think you are going to convert any of us to your ridiculous theory of accidentalism?

 

..... It makes no rational sense to even try to be rational with such people. SO>..............................since you feel the way you do then WHY are you posting here to us 'silly' folk on EFF?

 

You've asked before what I'm doing on here, I'm curious as to why you single me out for that question. Why do you get all uppity if I call your beliefs silly when you and others on here frequently dismiss evolution with stronger terms as you've demonstrated above (total idiocy etc.).

 

Will you just quit dinking around about the matter and answer the question (although you weren't personally asked to begin with as you admitted). What are you attempting to do here on EFF? Fred Williams the owner of EFF gives you the right to be here. I am just wondering why you would bother if you think our stand/position is foolish or silly?

 

First: it is hypocritical for Calypsis to object when someone calls his beliefs "silly" while the very name of this forum calls evolution a "fairytale" and Calypsis himself repeatedly refers to our position "idiocy."

 

Second; It is fairly typical for discussion groups such as this to have only 10-15% of membership actively taking part. From what I can tell, the vast majority of these forums are composed of "lurkers" who seldom, if ever, post. Many of those lurkers are also fence-sitters who may be persuaded one way or the other by what goes on in the exchanges between active participants. Those who do actively take part in the discussions tend to be "locked-in" to whatever position they already hold and, for that reason, are unlikely to change their mind.

 

Third: Fred doesn't give us the "right" to be here. This is a private group owned and operated by Fred.... our participation here is a privilege granted by Fred, not a right.

 

Fourth: I happen to enjoy these exchanges. Discussion forums such as this one wouldn't be interesting at all if they were composed of a "me too" group of like-minded individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arglye:

 

 

The distribution of life around the world is powerful evidence that creation is false,

 

That is total utter baloney and reveals your prejudice. The fact is that Genesis is established (in part) by the fact that history tells us that early civilized man had a seven day week...almost without exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week

 

...and THAT my friend, is written history; not guesswork.

I don't understand what the relevance of that link is to the distribution of species around the world ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Evolutionists essentially believe scenarios just like that happened, e.g. where monkeys rafted and island hopped from Africa across the Atlantic to South America... I guess you think Evolutionist beliefs are silly now, too, right?

Evolutionist ideas are the best explanation for what we see. The Atlantic was half as wide at the time monkeys are thought to have colonised South America, possibly via islands that no longer exist. If we knew it was just one pair of monkeys that made just one 'attempt' in a Noah's Ark dispersal scenario then that would be silly yes.

 

You know the kangaroos probably bred at some point after migrating from the Ark, instead of mindlessly sprinting across the world to their final destination.

Do you have fossil evidence of this ? If kangaroos (and all the other Australian marsupial fauna)inhabited Eurasia within the last 4000 years there should be some evidence, cave paintings perhaps ?

 

Creationists do not believe that any animals were created on present day island formations... is that what you're implying? If reptiles excel at ocean crossings than Creationists would expect those potential distributions for the same reasons that evolutionists' would.

Are you saying animals were only created on the mainland ? Where in Genesis does it suggest that ? Irrelevant anyway if they were all wiped out in the Flood. You're comfortable with your belief though that animals have had enough time in 4000 years to disperse across oceans to reach every part of the planet though (and also speciate at an incredible rate if the original 'kinds' were family level or above) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what the relevance of that link is to the distribution of species around the world ?

 

Oh, gee, let's see.....it just might have something to do with the truthfulness and veracity of scripture...which also tells us about a great flood that destroyed the world; the flood which is spoken of in about 275 ancient cultures with most of the same details about a man who was commanded to build an ark to save himself and his family from the coming destruction of the world. That ark took upon it animals of all kinds that later exited the ark and eventually the world was repopulated with both humans and animals.

 

So now are you going to ask me how that has any 'relevance' about the flood traditions?

 

How is it that you skeptics are so adept at missing the point...even when it is very obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calypsis, when did I call your religion silly?

 

If I mentally confused you with what another poster said I am sorry.

Lets continue with the understanding I do not consider your religion silly. I'm still an atheist and sceptic about a lot of things, but I consider it a responsiblity of the both of us to show each other a little respect and leniency simply because we have completely presuppositions.

 

Oh, gee, let's see.....it just might have something to do with the truthfulness and veracity of scripture...which also tells us about a great flood that destroyed the world; the flood which is spoken of in about 275 ancient cultures with most of the same details about a man who was commanded to build an ark to save himself and his family from the coming destruction of the world. That ark took upon it animals of all kinds that later exited the ark and eventually the world was repopulated with both humans and animals.

 

So now are you going to ask me how that has any 'relevance' about the flood traditions?

So the 7-day week is used to show the veracity of scripture. It is a good approach, but here is the point of view from the sceptic:

Based on your source:

The earliest references were at babylon (around 600 BCE) and is associated with Juddism (the Bible).

At a later date (date not specified) it was mentioned in the Hindo culture. I looked it up http://books.google.be/books?id=PaH4uKI7MaEC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=seven+day+week+Vedic+period&source=bl&ots=g2l7K1FUtA&sig=kwBZnJh-QbeLwdBWnbGRtGHRCy4&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=V10NVN6bCIHb7Ab33oDgDQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=seven%20day%20week%20Vedic%20period&f=false and this source showed the inconclusiveness of the claim. Considering the distance the appearance of this 7 day week in the earlier development of the culture can also be explained by trade between cultures.

Before it was mentioned in Chinese culture the date is already 4th century (CE) and even later in the Japanese culture (1007 CE).

Trade between cultures can also be used to explain these different 7 day weeks.

 

For the flood stories, it is a bit more complicated.

Other civilizations have flood stories as well. When looking to those we note a couple of interesting things:

Civilizations around mesopothanie have notable similarities in their flood stories, but other civilization again have differences.

 

How is it that you skeptics are so adept at missing the point...even when it is very obvious?

The hardest thing to explain is something obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolutionist ideas are the best explanation for what we see. The Atlantic was half as wide at the time monkeys are thought to have colonised South America, possibly via islands that no longer exist. If we knew it was just one pair of monkeys that made just one 'attempt' in a Noah's Ark dispersal scenario then that would be silly yes.

 

Common sense alone would tell you it would be more than one pair of Kangaroos. A haphazard animal migration from the middle-east to south-east Asia would take some time. Animals would do what animals do... you know.. eating, sleeping, mating... You really don't get that?

 

Apologizing for the monkey hypothesis by saying the Atlantic was less wide is irrelevant. We're still talking about crossing a massive body of water.

 

Again, you're in the awkward position of defending the same scenario in one model that you just called silly in another model.

How does that feel? Don't worry, all evolutionists have to go through this stage at some point.

 

Do you have fossil evidence of this ? If kangaroos (and all the other Australian marsupial fauna)inhabited Eurasia within the last 4000 years there should be some evidence, cave paintings perhaps ?

It's possible, but it isn't expected. Human populations (as with all populations) would have been extremely low at this time, so expecting to find any art or artifacts during this migratory timespan is unrealistic.

 

Fossils are generally not expected because this migration would have been post-flood. Though it's still possible a post-flood catastrophe would fossilize something.

 

We also know that simple remains of bones are not necessarily expected. Lion populations had been living in the Israel/Palestine region up until only a few centuries ago, and even being that recent, not a single trace of actual bone remains were found until a small discovery in the 1980's, I believe.

 

Are you saying animals were only created on the mainland ? Where in Genesis does it suggest that ? Irrelevant anyway if they were all wiped out in the Flood.

 

The entire topology of the Earth we see today would be a result of the Flood. No terrestrial distribution would match the original creation for the simple reason that the global terrain has radically changed since the creation. That's the very basis of the YEC model...

 

You really should at least be familiar with that much... Take a couple hours to study the basics of your opponent's position, it will help improve discussion.

 

You're comfortable with your belief though that animals have had enough time in 4000 years to disperse across oceans to reach every part of the planet though (and also speciate at an incredible rate if the original 'kinds' were family level or above) ?

 

Present a coherent argument if you have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri:

 

 

Lets continue with the understanding I do not consider your religion silly. I'm still an atheist and sceptic about a lot of things, but I consider it a responsiblity of the both of us to show each other a little respect and leniency simply because we have completely presuppositions.

 

You'll get my respect when you start thnking clearly and honesty stating your case. But the belief that our world is an accidental world that came from nothing and that life somehow generated itself without a single shred of an example that such a phenomenon ever occured in nature (especially since we have a LAW that prevents it) does not merit respect in my eyes. But that does not mean I refuse to communicate with all Darwinians...but my intent is always to help such people see their way out of that Orwellianized belief system they've been conditioned with.

 

So the 7-day week is used to show the veracity of scripture. It is a good approach, but here is the point of view from the sceptic:

Based on your source:

The earliest references were at babylon (around 600 BCE) and is associated with Juddism (the Bible).

 

The blindness just continues no matter what you are shown. FIND A CULTURE before Babylon, nay, before Israel (i.e. Abraham circa 2200 B.C.) that did NOT practice a seven day week. You are looking for every excuse to not believe what the Word of God, your Creator has to say about earth's origins and history.

 

For the flood stories, it is a bit more complicated.

 

Other civilizations have flood stories as well. When looking to those we note a couple of interesting things:

Civilizations around mesopothanie have notable similarities in their flood stories, but other civilization again have differences.

 

I didn't say they were all exactly the same. Do you even bother to read carefully what you are given in these posts or is it your habit to lend only a cursory examination of the facts? All of those accounts can be traced back to the original one as given by Noah, just as the languages of the world can be traced back to that time...as so beautifully brought out by Coopers work on the subject:
cover1.jpg

The hardest thing to explain is something obvious.

 

Only a person who has been mentally lobotomized by Orwellian style mind conditioning would say a thing like that.

 

I am an ex-evolutionist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the flood stories, it is a bit more complicated.

Other civilizations have flood stories as well. When looking to those we note a couple of interesting things:

Civilizations around mesopothanie have notable similarities in their flood stories, but other civilization again have differences.

 

Fjuri, what research have you done to confirm this? This is not my finding at all. Have you checked out Martins book, "Flood Legends"? There are a number of legends from around the world that I find to be absolutely uncanny. I'm thinking this book might change your mind, on this one particular detail.

 

flood_legends.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calypsis:

 

FIND A CULTURE before Babylon, nay, before Israel (i.e. Abraham circa 2200 B.C.) that did NOT practice a seven day week.

 

Ancient Egypt had a 10 day calender. There's one.

 

"The hardest thing to explain is something obvious."

 

Only a person who has been mentally lobomized by Orwellian style mind conditioning would say a thing like that.

 

It's hard to respond to that statement.

 

Calminian:

 

What research have you done to confirm this? This is not my finding at all. Have you checked out Martins book, "Flood Legends"? There are a number of legends from around the world that I find to be absolutely uncanny. I'm thinking this book might change your mind, on this particular detail.

 

I've checked out a couple (mainly original American, Chinese and Australian) myths.

In common are more or less in most creation myths:

- a displeased God destroying its own creation (not always though)

- few survivors (ranging from a single person to a tride)

 

There are accidental survivors, there are g*y survivors of which one is turned into a woman, there are survivors that mated with animals, there are newly created humans (so no humans before the flood) and many more differences.

The lenght of the flood is also different, ranging from a couple of days to a year.

 

Sources:

Searched through wikipedia

http://books.google.be/books?id=9I62BcuPxfYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl

 

Note: The similarities might be more important to you then the differences.

 

Also note that the age of the myth is very important to me. It should not be tainted by 'rediscovery'.

 

About your source, is that the source of the 275 flood myth's Calypsis talked about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms