angelo

Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse;that also should be studied and researched. And while we are at it, should we also research how Jesus was born of a virgin and other myths before we conclude they are pure unadulterated bullshit. As if legit. scientist have nothing better to do with their valuable time.

Dave Hawkins

Faid ... Except that you are wrong. They haven't discovered any real feathers at all ... Also, I think someone complained about my analogy ... There. Is that better?

Dave Hawkins

The Evil One ... If Josephus is correct, then we have 11 sources who agree with the ~1000 year figures and 1 source (the SKL) which disagrees. Note that I said "IF". I have not read Josephus' sources, but I'm guessing someone here has. So, as I said, IF Josephus is right on this point, then we have only to decide whether we trust the 11 sources or the 1 source. I hope you can see that this would not be a tough choice.

Y.B

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

Quoting a creationist talking bull (Caudipteryx was a non-avian dinosaur, so how can it been a flightless bird?) and citing Feduccia (an ornithologist, not a paleontologist) doesn't make the feathered dinosaurs go away. Nor are they hoaxes ("OMG Archaeraptor was a hoax so they all must be!").

No. The precursors of DNA and DNA itself didn't necessarily self-organize evolve in a warm pond. And no magic was involved in the evolution of the flagella. Magic is only evoked in the creationist scenario.

Dave Hawkins

Of course I believe that myths exist. It is often quite an easy decision. "Alice in Wonderland" for example was never intended by the author to be anything other than a work of fantasy. But Genesis, on the other hand, is a different story. Genesis bears many marks of being intended by the authors to be sober history. INTENT of the author is therefore important. Steven Boyd of the ICR RATE Team wrote a "Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3" in 2005 and came to the overwhelming conclusion that this portion, at least, was intended to be historical. There are also evidences of historical intent throughout the rest of Genesis. See my book review of “Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis.”

It seems that the primary objection to believing the pre-Flood men lived ~1000 years is nothing more than Personal Incredulity and Narrowmindedness. You see that man does not live this long NOW, therefore you say that they NEVER could have EVER.

Bah humbug. End of story. Inquiry is stifled.

On the other hand, if you have a high view of Genesis, you are a bit more thoughtful than this. You say "Hmmm ... what if it's true? What could possibly make man live so long? Could we discover something new here? Was it the pre-Flood environment? High atmospheric pressure? What they ate? Genetics? What could it be? Could we find the key to the aging process? If we could, think how that would sell !!"

Dave Hawkins

There were never any feathered dinosaurs IN THE FIRST PLACE to go away. I challenge you to show me a single example of a genuine, feathered dinosaur. But please do so on a new thread in the EvC Forum so as to keep this thread focused.

Secondly, evolutionists can write as many "just-so" stories as they want to about supposed flagellar evolution. But until they can demonstrate it, it's no better than "Alice in Wonderland."

Evolutionists invoke far more magic than Creationists when you actually examine their claims in detail.

deadman_932

You've personally examined inorganic radiometric dating and radiocarbon dating and you've failed miserably there, Davey. OUCH, huh? Those things alone show the sheer fantasy of your YEC claims.
Now, don't you have a bunch of questions to answer in this and other threads, Davey?
Why, yes, you do.

Y.B

And you know this how?

I already gave you a list of 15 genera. But you have already decided that they weren't feathered dinosaurs, no matter the evidence, so what's the point?

Scientific hypotheses are more than just-so-stories. But as you have already decided that flagella did not evolve, I won't bother to give you a certain link to talkdesign.org.

Examining the claims in detail is something you refuse to do, actually, as you ignore all the links and data provided to you.

Dave Hawkins

I'm going to see if I can hire some Chinese scam artists to build some 900 year old human skeletons for me ... evidently they are pretty good ... then we can settle this debate once and for all.

Maybe they'll give me a two-fer-one special and throw in some giant skeletons.

The Evil One

You can't have been reading the thread very closely, or else you would know that it is not only one source that claims lifespans on the order of 10K years. Firstly, there are comparable Assyrian and Babylonian sources and secondly, the SKL itself is represented in a variety of different sources (as you could tell from the different tablets mentioned in the English translation).

Now, you might say that the different sets of Sumerian tablets, do not constitute sources independent of one another. You might further add that given what we know of Mesopotamian history, the Assyrian and Babylonian versions do not constitute sources independent of the SKL.

If you did say that, you'd have made a very good point. Exactly the same point can be made about Josephus and the Torah. I am not convinced that you have considered this in sufficient detail.


Now here's the punchline. Among the "eleven sources" that Josephus cites in AJ Book 1, chapter 3, #9, is one "Berosus who collected the Chaldean monuments". Who is this Berosus? Why, none other that the "Berossus" that Roger Pearse mentioned, the Babylonian whose history included a list of long-lived antediluvians WHICH IS DERIVED FROM THE SUMERIAN KING LIST!

In other words, you are attempting to argue for the accuracy of Genesis over the SKL by citing the SKL as support for Genesis. Can you see the problem here?

Note that this is something you could easily have found out by googling the various names that Josephus mentions. you didn't need to "read" every source, just find out the bare minimum about them. Obviously you didn't do this. Obviously, your interest in Josephus' "sources" extends no further than accepting uncritically his word to have found lots of sources to back up his (and your) preferred creation myth.

Again, you have to explain this preferential treatment of certain sources.