pz

I hate to contribute to this overblown thread, but I don't think this is accurate. The ages in the bible are used as a rough guide, but the real reason the original date of creation was set by Ussher at 6000 years ago was largely numerological.

Besides, the bible is a bucket of mush that can be interpreted any old way anyone wants, and claiming that it says the flood occurred 2 million years ago is just as valid as saying it occurred 4000 years ago. I don't think atheists should even pretend to do detailed biblical analysis, beyond dismissing it as a bunch of old myths...christians will be able to run rings around you at the empty rhetoric of the biblical exegesis game.

ps418

Huh? You didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I'm not dating the creation, I'm dating the flood. And I contend that the date 4300-4500 is unavoidable based on the text itself, working backwards from Solomon to Shem.

I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the covenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. Yahweh establishes the covenant with Abram about 135 years after he was born (11:32, 26). Abram was born when Terah was 70 (11:26). Terah was born when Nahor was 29 (11:24). Nahor was born when Serug was 30 (11:22). Serug was born when Re'u was 30 (11:20). Re'u was born when Peleg was 30 (11:18). Peleg was born when Eber is 34 (11:16). Eber was born when Shelah was 30 (11:14). Shelah was born from a 35 year-old Arpach'shad (11:12). Arpach'shad was born from Shem 2 years after the flood (11:10).

Since the date of Solomon's reign is agreed to be about 950[+/- 50]BCE, we can calculate the time of the flood using this chronology. Starting with Solomon and working backward, we have:

950BCE +480 +430 +135 +70 +29 +30 +30 +30 +34 +30 +35 +2= 2285BCE.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that 2 million years is somehow consistent with the text.

No, its not just as valid-- ~4500 yrs is a straightforward deduction from the text, 2 million years is a denial of the text.

And you are entitled to that opinion.

No exegete will be able to show me that the text is consistent with Noah living 2 million years ago. And no exegete that I know of thinks Noah lived 2 million years ago.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Ed

That site appears to be a glossing over of the major differences especially mentally between Pongidae and Hominidae primarily for ideological purposes.

lpetrich

WHAT ideological purposes?

And why is Pongohominidae (noncommittal name for Pongidae + Hominidae) an illegitimate family?

Ed

Any evidence for these changes?

[b] I could be wrong about that, I thought I had read it somewhere.

Duvenoy

(Ol' doov circles the bait cautiously. He's interested, but has been hooked before. Hmm. He thinks t'would be best not to bite.)

The Devonian is a wonderful chapter in the history of our world. Then is when such creatures as Dimetrodon spread it's beautiful sail in the sun and Dinicythis ruled the seas. I would happily kill for the loan of a time machine!

doov

Ed

Sorry it has taken so long to respond, but I have been in Europe the last two weeks. But I am back! Arent you happy to hear from me? While not all creationists agree completely on what characterizes a kind, as time goes on more information about hybridization and phenotypes should help resolve many disagreements.

Ed

No need to get worked up, from your comment that they were our closest gilled relatives I thought that you were implying that we descended from them. Sorry if I misunderstood. I have encountered some evolutionists that use the same terminology for meaning that a species is ancesstral by being closely related.

Oolon Colluphid

Fair enough Ed. Welcome back. Please take the time to understand the following. If not... well at least the lurkers may benefit from my best attempt at explanation.

That’s hardly surprising really, is it? Grandparents are closely related to their grandchildren; so are first cousins. But only one is ancestral! What clearer terminology did you have in mind?!

Since offspring of sexual species get half of each parent’s DNA, the chances of a particular (nuclear) gene that I have being in my daughter is precisely 1/2. The chances of my father and my daughter sharing it is therefore 1/4.... and my grandfather and my daughter, 1/8.... and so on.

Now, my maternal grandmother had two children: my mum and my aunt. They both therefore are ‘1/2 related’ (forgive the crap terminology ) to her. So similarly, I and my aunt’s daughter are both ‘1/4 related’ to my mum’s mother. What this means is that we both have a 1 in 4 chance of sharing the same gene. Which means, you’ll notice, that we are also equally related to each other.

Related means sharing a common ancestor. But all modern species are cousins. By virtue of being separate species, no one of them is ancestral to another, they are all the current twiglets on the family tree.

The point, Ed, is that the same techniques that show that cousins are related, when applied to species, show the same sorts of results. And comparing DNA also lets us see -- precisely -- how closely related species are. The trees produced (generally) strongly correlate with those produced by entirely separate methods.

(An interesting case of it being wrong is New World raptors (predatory birds), which were thought to be close to Old World versions. Turns ouot that things like condors are actually closer to marabou storks. Convergent evolution can muddy the waters rather! But the point is, the DNA will always be right, because it is what actually flows down lineages, whereas characteristics can converge on simply what works in a given environment.)

We know that patterns in DNA are copied down generations... with occasional changes. This is why comparing DNA -- and finding similarities -- is direct evidence of relatedness. And crucially, it is not just a case of needing similar DNA to make similar bodies, because the vast majority of DNA doesn’t make bodies, so there’s no reason for it to be similar. Yet it is, in accordance with all the other indicators of relatedness.

(Does anyone have any refs for comparative analysis of my favourite genetic junk, sattelite DNA?)

***************

Reminds me of a little brain-teaser I heard yesterday:

Mary’s father has five daughters: Na-Na, Ne-Ne, Ni-Ni, No-No, and...?

(May work better when said rather than written.)

A free trip to Dr Dino’s website for the first correct answer. A trip to AiG to anyone who honestly gets it right first time.

Cheers, Oolon

[Edited cos I've no idea what a 'predaroty' bird is! ]

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

hyzer

Me, me, pick me, I know . . . . !