EthnAlln

Stop right there! You don't know other people's motives, and even if you did, they are a red herring. Even if their motives are terrible, it is still necessary to examine what they have to say on its own merits in order to refute it.

RED DAVE

You've had your month to get your sources together, praxeus. Now, shit or get off the pot.

RED DAVE

spin

Aww, RED DAVE, he was never gonna come up with anything. He knew that there was no hope. His apologetics are a smokescreen. Yes, subterfuge, illusion, pretense, self-deception. Most of all the latter. He can answer it, if he has enough time to find what the apologetically correct answer is. Sometimes though, that answer doesn't come along, so he'll stonewall and change subject, nitpick and throw ad hominems. In the end, he's said nothing and not done his job, but it's the trying that matters and praxeus has tried to fight the good fight, but what does it take to look at the evidence and admit -- to pagans!? -- that he's incapable of reconciling the bible's information with what he knows of the world. There must be a way of course, like the punter who believes he can eventually get on the right horse, despite his losses.

The bible is plain and clear in its information. It provides chains of births, giving the age of the father when the child is born. It's a no-boner to add the information up to provide the duration from the time of the flood to the time Jacob goes to Egypt, then we have nice round figures for the time from going into Egypt to the exodus and from then until the start of the construction of the temple. The biblical data is all there. praxeus simply cannot bring himself to admit failure. He's neither going to produce not quit, except by letting it drop though various subterfuges until he can safely forget about it for a while.


spin

RED DAVE

You've had 33 days to get your sources together, praxeus. Now, shit or get off the pot. Pardon my vulgarity: defecate or reliquish the vessel.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

While we're waiting for praxeus, here's a stab at a Flood date from Answers in Genesis.

The Date of Noah’s Flood

by Dr J. Osgood

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...oahs_flood.asp

RED DAVE

Amaleq13

Please note that Steven, along with several other members from a variety of fora, has been suspended so the wait will definitely continue at least as long as the duration (30 days?).

RED DAVE

First, let me say that I am opposed to his or anyone else's suspension.

Second, let me hope that during those 30 days, he'll gather the facts together to answer the question.

Third, my expectations are not very high.

Fourth, I'll gather some facts are biblical dating of the Flood in the meantime.

RED DAVE

gagundathar

I am mystified as to why such a debate even continues. Clearly the Noachian Flood never occurred. Such a global phenomenon would have left behind unmistakable geological traces at that stratum all over the world. Whereas we see an iridium-rich layer at the KT boundary in many and varied locations on the planet, we do NOT see any such layer of silt/clay as would presumably have been left behind by such a monstrous inundation.

Furthermore, we do not see any indication of coincidental population bottlenecks when we analyze the genome of various species. If the only animals alive on the planet after this proposed global flood were all part of a very small population this would doubtlessly show up in a genetic study. Instead, a genomic study of the giant panda shows that a population bottleneck occurred approximately 43,000 years ago. Zhang, Ya-ping, et al. (2002). "Genetic diversity and conservation of endangered animal species". Pure Appl. Chem. (Vol. 74, No. 4). The giant tortoises of the Galapagos show a bottleneck about 88,000 years ago according to a short article in Science (3 October 2003). This kind of biological data completely contradicts a global flood around the time posited by creationists.

Rather than parsing the remnants of ancient writings from prescientific cultures for clues as to the origin of this myth and thereby assigning the validity of such a myth an unmerited claim to veracity, I suggest that the myth itself be analyzed as to its functional adherence to the scientific data currently available to us. Where the myth fails to match the data, we can clearly conclude that the myth is not factual. I can see very few points where such a myth could even approach the reality of what occurs in the consensual world shared by sane people. Treating this subject as a serious study in archeology is similar to comparing the battle capabilities of the Enterprise-E vs. an Imperial Star Destroyer. It may be amusing and even enlightening, but it is not science.

RED DAVE

From gagundathar:
Please give a source for the iridium-rich layer.

From gagundathar:
Are either of these articles available online? Or, could you post excerpts?

From gagundathar:
Analyze away. You seem to have geological expertise.

RED DAVE

spin

But not in this forum. We've got another forum to deal with this stuff. We do BC&H here.


spin