BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 09:15 AM

Ok, all bible scholars, which of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata
do you believe to be the true gospel word of your imaginary deity?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 09:56 AM

I still haven't grasped what Niagara Falls has to do with anything (have so far found no reference to Niagara Falls in the Bible - I'll keep looking).

Anyway I couldn't help noticing this little gem among your latest 'cut-n-paste-from-the creationists-website' diatribe, Iona:

"One man who lived near the falls told Lyell that the falls had eroded 150 feet in the past 40 years. Divide 150 by 40 and you get 3.75 feet of erosion per year. If we use this method to date the falls, it comes out to the age of 7 to 9 thousand years old."

How do you know that the rate of erosion has been constant over time? Isn't that a "uniformitarian" argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 10:03 AM

1) Any discussion of the history of Niagra Falls that does not mention the Wisconsinan galciations and isostasy rebound is pure rubbish.

2) It reveals total ignorance to state that we need to know how much C-14 was initially present to get an accurate date. As BB points out, as with all radiometric dating techniques absolute amounts are never known and are irrelevant. It is always the *ratio* of parent to daughter product that fixes the date. The starting amount of parent does not matter in the least.

3) Steve Shaw is also correct. It is thoroughly insulting to those who know what they are talking about to be lectured by an ignoramus who is not even aware of how ignorant she is. Every time you post one of your pseudo-scientifc screeds it becomes ever more obvious that you read selectively and with little will (perhaps capacity?) for comprehension. I think it is time for me to start writing pseudo-scholarly lecturettes on the Bible...


Sheesh. Not worth it. Why should I bother with a closed (and small) mind, when I can address 65 young open minds four times a week (and get them in on the big hoax, right Iona?)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 01:00 PM

Why should I bother with a closed (and small) mind

The only reason I can think of is to make clear to third parties that that is what we are dealing with. It's quite easy to illustrate. On 02 Feb 12 - 03:58 AM she said "Let's drop the slurs and talk epistemology". Then again a little while later (at 06 Feb 12 - 02:16 AM) she says "I really think that we ought to talk epistemology".

So on 06 Feb 12 - 03:26 AM, I say something, while admitting I am no expert on the subject.

I may have miscounted, but I think she's posted 17 times since then. And where is the evidence that she 'really thinks we ought to talk epistemology' in those 17-odd posts and 10 days? Answer: absolutely nowhere, because she hasn't mentioned it since. And that happens pretty much whatever the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 01:13 PM

There's no evidence Iona is a she. I suspect they are in fact a committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 02:15 PM

And where is the evidence that she 'really thinks we ought to talk epistemology' in those 17-odd posts and 10 days? Answer: absolutely nowhere, because she hasn't mentioned it since. And that happens pretty much whatever the topic.
I know, I know.....I haven't answered a lot of the arguments that have been presented. I've got about three drafts full of them, but it's hard for one person to keep up with the arguments of who-knows-how-many. I am doing my best.

And yes, I plan on getting back to epistemology here soon. You all haven't answered my question yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 02:29 PM

"Iona works hard to say why she doesn't like any of the scientific evidence but says nothing in support of YEC. If YEC is true, what evidence would you present to a non-believer, Iona? Or is it only possible to believe in YEC if you also believe in the bible? "

There is tons of evidence for creationism. I've posted a lot already! The Mosinee Jellyfish, man besides dinosaurs, the problem of causality and inductive inference, the problem of evil, the rate of fossilization, great Creation scientists of the past, Niagara falls and uniformity......Both evolutionists and Creationists see the very same evidence, but come out with two completely different interpretations. And only one can be right. I believe that my worldview best fits the facts of the worldwide picture; which strongly upholds Noah's Flood!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 02:34 PM

Oh, I'm not insisting we discuss any particular topic; the epistemology was merely an example and I picked on that because it was one +you+ said you wanted to talk about. As for preparing drafts over days - that's fine but rather an odd way to carry on a conversation, don't you think. Everyone else here seems to post based on what they thi without feeling the need to go off to build a large cut'n'paste from other sites with what appears to so little personal knowledge that your only option if challenged is to go off and search the websites again. That's the only reason you can't keep up - you do not appear to be responding from your own knowledge.

Go on - surprise us. Make your next 10 posts without using any phrases we can find on other websites.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 02:51 PM

There is tons of evidence for creationism. I've posted a lot already! ... The problem of evil ... (etc)
Try reading the posts from people who understand all the things in your list. And I be glad if you could explain any remotely feasible connection between what you call 'the problem of evil' and the age of the earth which would be meaningful to a non-believer (which was my question if you remember)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:04 PM

Hi, Iona. The problem I see with Noah's flood is this: where did the water come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:55 PM

Don't even ask. There's an answer. Can't remember it, because it doesn't make sense.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 04:01 PM

Funny thing, DMcG. I don't go to creationist websites very often. And I DON"T cut and paste. You have no evidence that I'm cutting and pasting. I can just as well say that you all are cutting and pasting--I have the same amount of evidence!

Anyway, even if I *was* cutting from websites, you can't just discredit it because of that. It's still an argument, and you really ought to answer it! I am not illegitimate because I learn from like-minded scientists, just like you aren't a non-thinking idiot because you've learned your arguments from Evolutionary thinking. ;)
We all have presuppositions.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 04:26 PM

I don't cut and paste ...

Well, if you insist, I'm happy to take your word it, but expect to be jumped on by someone if you do!


Anyway, even if I *was* cutting from websites, you can't just discredit it because of that. It's still an argument, and you really ought to answer it!

The problem with that is that there is no discourse. I may agree or disagree, but unless an individual takes responsibility and says implicitly "this is what I believe and am prepared to defend" then it is no more of an argument then shouting at the television. If you cut'n'paste something you actually believe it is better if you write what you believe, because then you have expressed your belief as you see it. So no need for a cut and pasdte there. But if is something you more or less believe but wouldn't put it quite like that, it's not easy to defend because it's not really yours

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 04:46 PM

Good thing I don't cut and paste, then---isn't it, DMcG?


__________________________________________________________________
Hi, Iona. The problem I see with Noah's flood is this: where did the water come from?

Good question. It stumps a lot of people (even those who are Creationists).
In Genesis 7:11b, we read that "all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." John Morris does a better job than I could when he explains in this short article. {CLICKY }

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 04:56 PM

I suppose I should have guessed someone who is a literalist would think a link is dramatically different to a cut and paste. Admittedly you are not passing off something as yours when it isn't, but it's not explaining things in your own words is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 05:18 PM

I told you Iona isn't a person!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 05:35 PM

Iona, your assumption that I am making a "uniformitarian assumption" is incorrect.

On some parts of the earth, the action of plate tectonics is a gradual, relatively smooth process. The separation of the continents at the mid-Atlantic ridge, for example. For the most part, this is an up-welling of magma which pushes the two sections apart. And this happens at a fairly predictable (and predicted) rate.

There are other parts of the earth, however, when the shifting of plates is sudden and violent. The Fukushima earthquake is one example. Also, there is evidence that within recent history, the western side of the San Andreas fault suddenly shifted some fifteen feet to the north, relative to the rest of California (That must have been a lollapalooza!).

I could cite example after example of sudden (NON-uniformitarian) changes of position in the earth's crust, often followed by a long period of relative quiescence—due to the fact that the stress built up over time has released the tension, and it takes time for the slowly moving plates to build up tension again.

It is these sudden "nonuniformitarian" shifts that cause earthquakes.

I was citing the AVERAGE rates of continental drift, which includes BOTH gradual movement and sudden shifts.

I'm sorry, but if you think you have refuted my argument, then you are mistaken.

By the way, your Niagara Falls erosion argument does not relate to matters of plate tectonics. The two are quite different geological phenomena.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 05:45 PM

Told you it didn't make sense - it calls upon large underground reservoirs for which there is no evidence. Nor does it explain where the water went afterwards. Back to these reservoirs, which do not show up in analysis of seismic wave passage through the Earth?

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM

I kept reading that the flood in New Orleans that accompanied hurricane Katrina was "of Biblical proportions."

Unless one can find evidence for there having been a globe-covering flood, which the Biblical Flood is purported to be, and for which there is none, save, of course, for Biblical account, then it's more than likely that it was large, perhaps, but a LOCAL phenomenon.

By the way, one could make a case that the tale of the Flood makes a strong case for Evolution.

If backed into a corner, Creationists will admit that the ark was simply not large enough (and dimensions, prescribed by God, are readily available to anyone who cares to do a Google search) to carry a mating pair of every species. But God said "two of each kind," not "each species." So instead of having a pair of wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, and various canis familiaris aboard the ark, Noah would have to select only two canines, one male, one female. Then, when the ark moored at Mount Ararat and the animals dispersed, ALL dog-like creatures, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, Great Danes, corgis, St. Bernards, poodles, Yorkshire terriers, dachshunds, greyhounds, Chihuahuas, et al would evolve from this one pair.

(Get it? Got it? Probably not. . . .)

Don Firth

P. S. Oh, by the way. While on their cruise, what would keep the cheetahs from eating the gazelles?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 07:31 PM

I kept reading that the flood in New Orleans that accompanied hurricane Katrina was "of Biblical proportions."

You wouldn't say that in the UK. You'd say "the flood covered an area the size of Wales."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 07:38 PM

Thanks, Iona. If you'd take unsolicited advice from an old street-fighter, always deal with the biggest problem first. Then take 'em one after the other.

I appreciate your answer because it was honest, and whether or not I agree with your beliefs (which I'm sure you have surmised by now I don't), I like your spirit.

The universe itself is more than I can take in and I'm not smart enough to complicate my love of nature, science, philosophy, politics, anthropology, religions, farming, bird watching, songs, medicine, math, history--basically stuff I don't know much about--with other stuff I know even less about.

Way earlier in this thread Joe Offer said something that made absolute sense to me (not the first time he's done that but the first I'll admit to). It was a remark wherein he said that there is a 'force' that causes us all to seek, look, even argue over beliefs; he didn't say it that succinctly, but he was pretty good about making himself clear :-))). I took from that something I've thought since my youth: God's the reason we're here to figure all this out. I don't know whether God looks lots like my friend Vito or more like my friend Alain. Don't matter.

The people I know who believe in something are better off than those I know who believe in nothing. They sleep better at night. But please keep in mind that the people posting to this thread with whom you disagree and they you, have beliefs that are as sound as your own. S'true, the reasons are different, but the bottom line is the same.

Best regards to you.

PS I was a big fan of Roy's when I was a kid.

PPS The university education wasn't wasted on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggh. Sorry, that was me. And since I'm posting anyway, I am terribly disappointed that NO ONE--and that means you, Jack!--had the verve, elan or common decency to say something nice about my rap song. Eff the lot of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 08:25 PM

Please forgive the oversight, 999. But with all this dealing with earthquakes, floods, and other cataclysms, I'm sure you'll understand the oversight. Far be it from me to rap a rap song.

And that's a wrap!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 08:38 PM

"....where did the water come from?"

Iona provided the explanation....It rained..

from her link: "the "great deep" which was "broken up" evidently speaks of great subterranean reservoirs or chambers deep inside the earth, all of which spewed forth their contents at the same time. "

Simple, hmmm?

...except for the math and geological pre-suppositions required to clarify where "great subterranean reservoirs" got there, and how they re-absorbed all the water after 40 days....

And STILL she says "There is tons of evidence for creationism. I've posted a lot already!"...using a Biblical definition of 'evidence'.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 09:31 PM

Gentlemen, if you don't know, why do you think Iona should?

Lemme tell y'all something: if she's Scottish or Greek, which I think she is (or at least should be) you may as well stop arguing. She will never surrender nor will she ever quit.

Remember the Spartans, and Joltin' Joe.

Hard heads!


One more thing: I like this thread because I like all the people on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 03:02 AM

Gentlemen, if you don't know, why do you think Iona should?

There's a proverb that is, I think, Persian in origin that goes something like:

He who knows, and knows that he knows, he is a wise man, follow him.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not, he is a child, teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, he is asleep, wake him.
He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool, shun him.

It can be surprisingly difficult to distinguish the wise man and the fool in the proverb, and the best way of doing it is to see how they put together their solutions, propositions and arguments. The Socratic method is primarily to adopt the stance of the second line: I do not claim to know, you claim to know: show me why you are sure you know.

I have suggested that Iona tends to make some assertion, be challenged and then move onto something else without addressing the challenges. So I propose we concentrate on these mysterious underground chambers, and forget all the other issues until we have got to the bottom of this one. We all understand Iona believes in the Flood, but she proposed the link not as a defence of that belief, but as an explanation of where the water came from. So that's the challenge, really, Iona. Do you think the link is correct in claiming the waters came from these chambers? If so, it behoves you to answer Penny and Don about where they are. If, on the other hand you don't the link is correct on that matter, perhaps you will explain why you used the link in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 08:21 AM

A number of the Pre-Judaic religions of the region have flood "myths". The best explanation so far has been that they are from the flooding of the Mediterranean valley in pre-historic time, when the Atlantic broke through ( see Atlantis legends, Babylonian myths, et al).

There have been some recent discoveries of indications of villages well below the water line of the present Med.

To a culture of that time ( before 1500 BCE) that would have seemed like a world-wide flood. I am not aware of any similar myths associated with Asian or American cultures, though, so a "local" flood seems to be the likely source for the Biblical story.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 08:35 AM

Also suspected, the inundation of the Black Sea, more recently than the Med, also with old settlements below the current shoreline.

Also suspected, river floods in Mesopotamia, evidence for which is in clay horizons burying habitation sites.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 10:06 AM

i dont know why underground water is discounted seeing the russians have just succeeded in drilling down to a huge underground lake in antartica or why if for example catastrophic plate tectonics remodelled the topography,all the water that covered all the hills could not then drain into the new deeper ocean basins.
i suppose all you geologists have a reason you discount that but the theory would need to be layman friendly for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 10:14 AM

There's not a lot of water on earth - even now

I have no idea how accurate this is, but it is a fun image anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 10:20 AM

Thanks, Penny.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 10:32 AM

Lake Vostok is under the ice, not under rock. and there are easy to understand reasons for it being there, as for the other lakes in Antarctica. It is the same as any water under ice anywhere. It is three times the volume of Lake Ontario, and about the same in area. This is large for a lake, but not by comparison with the oceans. Underground lakes would have shown up by the way that earthquake waves pass through different materials, the way that the structure of the Earth has been determined. They haven't. We know about the shape of the solid core (it isn't smooth), and about the slabs of rock descending into the mantle from subduction zones along the trenches in the oceans, and about the semifluid layers on which the plates slide. But no-one has found evidence for buried lakes, and there would need to be many of them, and very large in order to inundate all the Earth. Scale is important.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 10:36 AM

Genesis 7:21-23 New International Version

21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.


The difficulties presented by those lines to people who believe in a word-for-word interpretation of The Bible are certainly far-reaching, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 10:53 AM

One of the reasons plate tectonics was initially not accepted was because no-one could work out a mechanism for the movement. To postulate catastrophic tectonism, a catastrophic mechanism would be needed, and none has been shown to exist. Nor has any such event left traces of itself. There is evidence of many phases of continental movement, lifting up successive ranges of mountains which havde then been eroded down, leaving traces of their granite cores in such places as Cornwall. But no evidence for a complete resurfacing. (Interestingly, there is evidence for something like that on Venus.)

We have evidence for major impacts, not just Chixulub - there was one at the Permian extinction as well as all that basalt (another ongoing bona fide argument there), but none of them has had the energy to completely remodel the Earth.

It is believed that there could have been a much greater impact creating the Moon, but that, though big enough for remodelling, would also have been big enough to destroy the whole surface. No evidence in the structure of the Earth has been found for this, though there is possibly some in lunar rocks and structure. (Another ongoing discussion about rival hypotheses there.)

It would take somthing of that size to completely resurface the Earth. Life would not survive. Not even bacteria would be likely to persist.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM

Re: Noah & water

How did the ark carry enough water to keep the passengers alive, or did they have a solar still?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 12:06 PM

Not a problem!

It was still raining when Noah got them animals on board and floated off. It would have taken 'awhile' to "cover the entire Earth"...maybe for...ummmm.. 20 days? Then 20 days to recede and drain back into those convenient underground chambers. (which, I assume, God closed for those 20 days to allow the flood to progress.) Perhaps it continued to rain off & on, even as the flood was receding.... (and of course, the two camels had plenty stored)

It's easy, if you just start with the assumption that it DID all happen, and that God could arrange it anyway he wished.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 12:30 PM

Adam and Eve got the ball rolling but the second birth of human kind was due to Noah and his family. This will drive geneticists crazy.

A monologue that changed a generation's views.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 01:41 PM

"This will drive geneticists crazy."

well, not those who accept the theory of Mitochondrial Eve

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 01:54 PM

Bill, behave. I spend more time looking in dictionaries with your posts than I do reading them--the posts, not the dictionaries. Then I end up looking at this this haplogroup chart which is really cool. I find the colour scheme a little less than aesthetically pleasing, but then I like ketchup and raspberry jam on hot dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 01:54 PM

However....it seems even the usual details of this idea has been challenged by creationists who do contorted calculations to 'prove' that the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) of extant humans was only 6500 years ago. (the usual calculations say about 150,000-200,000 years)

Here is an article about one such claim made on "the Answers in Genesis website"

http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 02:02 PM

Oh, those ARE bright colors! I think I prefer the colored charts showing migration patterns

(and remind me to not watch when we go out for hot dogs)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 02:15 PM

another biblical view of the Eve problem

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 02:34 PM

Mitochondrial Eve

T'was the night before Mitochondrial
And all through the whole land
Not a creature was living
Except Noah's small band
Of humans and animals
Of albatrosses and ducks
Of mosquitoes and leeches
Of critters that buck

On Mitochondrial Eve we all sat very still
Because water was rising
And the bilge pumps was broke
Caused by recent downsizing
Haul on that bowline
And get set said he
For we're off and gone
Forty days on the sea


It's a work in progress since no one liked my rap tour de force. Me, bitter? Pshaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 03:11 PM

You need to get the timing right. Forty days of rain. Seven months afloat before running aground. Three more months before the mountain tops are visible.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 03:19 PM

On the flood thing:

A great web site, complete with lots of photos, graphics, and links to related pages HERE.

I've driven through this area a number of times, and it's pretty awe-inspiring—if a bit bleak.

This is referred to, rather unappealingly, as the "Eastern Washington Scablands."

This happened no later than about 12,000 years ago, with the receding of the ice sheet and the melt and collapse of an ice dam, which released a huge flood over the area. This may have happened several times and in several locations.

Northwest Native American tribes have some really dandy Flood Legends.

Note the date. No later than 12,000 years ago, and as far as topsoil and such is concerned, it has only recovered this much in twelve millennia. If Noah's flood had happened within the time frame the Young Earth Creationists insist upon—no more than 6,000 years ago—and was world-wide, the whole earth would look no better than this!. And there would not be enough arable land to sustain a few small tribes, let alone 7 billion people!

Don Firth

P. S.   None of this, the idea that the Bible is a book of folk legend, myth, and metaphor rather than a rigorous book of literal history, and that scientific research into matters of cosmology and evolution provides a far more reasonable and believable explanation of the Way Things Are than the myths and folk tales espoused by Creationists and Fundamentalists, in no way contradicts or interferes with my religious beliefs and my sense of morality (good and evil), which I got more from Greek philosophers than I did from any religious teaching.

And I reject the idea that Plato got it from Jesus, because Jesus was born over 300 years after Plato. And no, the idea that Christianity is "retroactive," I'm sorry, is just plain silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 03:20 PM

"You need to get the timing right. Forty days of rain. Seven months afloat before running aground. Three more months before the mountain tops are visible."

Gonna be tough getting that to scan, Penny.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 03:21 PM

999, I haven't seen your rap. Must look for it. This is from me:

Maybe you're pissed, but I ain't gettin' the gist
All of this history, really just mystery
Of Adam and Eve, stuff I don't believe in
Cus way back when, there were no men
Except Adam and Eve with the whole world at stake,
And like evey good story, there was a snake.
Cain killed Abel and was banished from Eden,
And the people left, lookin' for things they were needin',
But they were intendin' there be no inreedin'.
So when Cain found a wife in the land of Nod
We see that SOME people were NOT made by God.
Where did those people come from? Where did they go?
I'm guessing creationists don't really know
According to them, the world WAS the Garden
Seem somewhat apochryphal, beggin' your pardon.

Word

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 05:02 PM

enjoyed the pics and video don .

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 06:28 PM

Just so its not forgotten this time: I enjoyed 'Eve', 999. And that one, Jeri [I sang 'Why we Sing' two weeks ago at our local club - do you want royalties? *smile*]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 07:04 PM

40 days? 150 days? 300 or so days?

not simple... but we sure can interpret...which merely changes the span, not the issue, of where all the water came from and went.