A Challenge to creationists

[Bubba]

Since Egyptian history dates to before 3000 B.C. and since the bible says a worldwide flood occured about 22509 B.C. I would like to know why the Egyptians never noticed this event.

Bubba:thumb:

[The Laughing Man]

(Is that a typo? I'm guessing you meant 2250.)

Show me exactly where the Bible says that specific date. Book, chapter and verse, please.

[Socratism]

Bubba,

Why do you say that Egyptian history dates to before 3000 BC? I thought things like that were only rough guesses.

[Hitch]

LOL

What cracks me up about the religion of evolutionism is what I learned in the second grade about the supersition of spontaneous generation.

A curious mixture of alchemy, woeful hope and conflicted science,, toss em in a fire and viola! Toads!

But if you toss the same recipie in the 'primordial soup' and let it stir long enough....viola! Toads

Aint science awsome?

H

[QED]

03-09-2003 @ 06:39 PM
Hitch:

LOL

What cracks me up about the religion of evolutionism is what I learned in the second grade about the supersition of spontaneous generation.

Spontaneous generation, although erroneous, was not propounded out of superstition. It was the observation of the (seemingly spontatneous) appearance of flies in dung, or maggots and rats in old grain, that led to the view. IOW, it was a theory derived from scientific observation.

Pasteur eventually falsified the idea of spontaneous generation as it was popularly understood. Superstitions tend not to go away when falsified. Scientific theories do.

(P.S. evolution isn't religion. It's what's called a scientific theory. You may wish to point that out to whatever confused soul led you to believe otherwise. Helps keep everyone involved honest!)


A curious mixture of alchemy, woeful hope and conflicted science,, toss em in a fire and viola! Toads!

Cello! A charicature of spontaneous generation as it was understood in the past.


But if you toss the same recipie in the 'primordial soup' and let it stir long enough....viola! Toads

Cello! A charicature of a curious combination of evolutionary theory and abiogenetic hypotheses.

( :smile: No offense at the Cello! joke - I just got a kick out of your typo & I had to jump on the opportunity for humor. I promise not to be offended if you poke fun at one of my future typos....)


Aint science awsome?

H

Indeed, it is a wonderful tool. I'm grateful for it. How about you?

[Welshdean]

Originally posted by: Bubba
Since Egyptian history dates to before 3000 B.C. and since the bible says a worldwide flood occured about 22509 B.C. I would like to know why the Egyptians never noticed this event.
You won't get an answer!! You can ask them all, but until Gish, Morris and Johnson et al come up with a 'party line', you won't get a response.
If there are any yecs out there with balls, answer Bubba's question, while your at it try these for size, (I've NEVER had a reasoned response to ANY of them;
Why did god tell noah to cover the ark with pitch when it had yet to be 'deposited'?
How could eight people feed, water, muck out and divide prey from predator for a whole year!
How many pairs of 'short span life forms' (may-fly etc) were taken on board?
How did noah make, design and build a boat of that size;
A) watertight?
B) capable of withstanding the deluge?
Where did noah keep the viruses?
Try and answer any of them, you'll be the first!



edited for typo, Welshdean.

[Tycho]

03-09-2003 @ 11:39 AM
Hitch:
What cracks me up about the religion of evolutionism is what I learned in the second grade about the supersition of spontaneous generation.

Is this "religion" a bit like the religions of gravitationalism, special reletivism, and atomism?

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-09-2003 @ 01:28 PM
Socratism:
Why do you say that Egyptian history dates to before 3000 BC?

Egyptian prehistory, although the object of intense research since World War II, continues to yield spotty evidence in some areas, to withhold evidence over large "gaps", and broadly speaking to prevent us from generalizing. And yet by and large we are not mistaken: around 3300 to 3200 B.C. a catalyst or combination of factors catapulted the Neolithic village into history.(Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Donald B. Redford, PG 1, my emphasis added)

Oh! Oh! I want to do the creationist quote of this!

Egyptian prehistory... continues to yield spotty evidence... and broadly speaking it prevents us from generalizing an age going back to 3300 B.C. How's that for creationist citation? :yipee:

[Hitch]

03-09-2003 @ 11:50 PM
Welshdean:


You won't get an answer!! You can ask them all, but until Gish, Morris and Johnson et al come up with a 'party line', you won't get a response.
If there are any yecs out there with balls, answer Bubba's question, while your at it try these for size, (I've NEVER had a reasoned response to ANY of them;
Why did god tell noah to cover the ark with pitch when it had yet to be 'deposited'?

Nonsense




How could eight people feed, water, muck out and divide prey from predator for a whole year!

With great skill and dexterity and the help of the Lord. Since the obvious has escaped your notice, the miraclous is presupposed.


How many pairs of 'short span life forms' (may-fly etc) were taken on board?


147


How did noah make, design and build a boat of that size;
A) watertight?

Remember the 'pitch' stupid?

B) capable of withstanding the deluge?

Tell me, is it more likely that a determined man with help could accomplish this over time or that chance could organize chemicals into self replicating lifeforms?



Where did noah keep the viruses?


Sweetie,,,most viruses are not harmed by floods, besides the 'carriers' came in two by two ,for the most part.

Try and answer any of them, you'll be the first!



edited for typo, Welshdean.

[jimbo]

Jinx,


(Is that a typo? I'm guessing you meant 2250.)

Show me exactly where the Bible says that specific date. Book, chapter and verse, please.

The Bible provides a chronology that places the date of the flood at 2252 BC. Go here:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/misctext/conflict.htm

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/flood032.htm

Do you think the Bible is inaccurate about the date of the great flood?

By the way, are you a worldwide flood Christian or a local flood Christian?

Tim

[Socratism]

03-09-2003 @ 07:47 PM
Jimmy Higgins:
(Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Donald B. Redford, PG 1, my emphasis added)


Can I take it from your reply that you believe that Egyptian history predates the presumed date of the Flood because you read this in a book?

If that is the case then can you tell me why you believe the account written in one book rather than the account written in the other?

[Hitch]

03-09-2003 @ 11:54 PM
Tycho:


Is this "religion" a bit like the religions of gravitationalism, special reletivism, and atomism? I dont know Ty ,do any of those sport a faith based origin of life theory?

take care

Hitch

[QED]

I dont know Ty ,do any of those sport a faith based origin of life theory?

As far as I know, evolution doesn't sport any origin of life theory. It sports diversification of life theories (not faith-based ones, though). A related endeavor, abiogenetic research, sports origin of life hypotheses (still none faith-based). Why?

[Hitch]

03-10-2003 @ 03:14 AM
QED:



As far as I know, evolution doesn't sport any origin of life theory. It sports diversification of life theories (not faith-based ones, though). A related endeavor, abiogenetic research, sports origin of life hypotheses (still none faith-based). Why? What cannot be observed leaves little but faith.
But its funny. Im certain you are much more well versed in the subject but I have heard many orginatins theories based on evolution. And I do my best to avoid em, how is it they all got past your obsevant eye?

O would Why be a better question?


H

[QED]

03-10-2003 @ 03:20 AM
Hitch:

What cannot be observed leaves little but faith.

Actually, there is also the possibilty of uncertainty. If I have not observed the room adjacent to my own, I may guess about it, and I may even construct models from my own experience to describe it. There is no obligation to believe by faith that my models are correct.

Contrary to what your sources may have led you to believe, evolution of life can be, and is, observed. Included are direct observations of evolution in the lab and field in real time (though the changes observed tend to be small, because of the time frames involve), and indirect observations of common descent through powerful evidence from genomics/genetics and the fossil record. So evolution, though it deals with the diversification (not origin) of life, is well-observed.


But its funny. Im certain you are much more well versed in the subject but I have heard many orginatins theories based on evolution. And I do my best to avoid em, how is it they all got past your obsevant eye?

No strictly evolutionary theories deal with the origins of life, but the related hypotheses (not theories, and again, not faith-based) of abiogenesis do. Sidney Fox, for instance, observed proto-cells in his many lab experiments. His hypotheses may not carry the day, since RNA-world type hypotheses seem to match the data at least as well.

I haven't missed the naturalistic investigation into the origin of life. I simply note that this is not the same as neo-darwinian evolution. It is a separate study, and one that has yet to meet with the success of the evolutionary theory.

In the case of abiogenetic research (that is research into the possibility of a naturalistic origin of life), faith is absent. Uncertainty rules the day. That was once the case where the diversity of life was concerned (before Darwin). It was also once the case where the motion of the planets was concerned (before Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus). Maybe it will continue to be the case. On the other hand, perhaps these problems will be solved. Who's to say?

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-09-2003 @ 09:34 PM
Socratism:
Can I take it from your reply that you believe that Egyptian history predates the presumed date of the Flood because you read this in a book?Well, I don't believe the flood ever happened. So I don't quite know how to answer that question. I guess a yes would be appropriate, if it was judged that the flood happened "after" the Egyptian kingdom came to be.

If that is the case then can you tell me why you believe the account written in one book rather than the account written in the other? (my emphasis added)
Well actually that quote I used, generally referenced other works as well, though because it wasn't a direct quote, but a general referencing, I decided to omit it. However, I will gladly show the referencing, which is as follows:

For general works on Egyptians prehistory, see J. Mellaart, The Earliest Civilizations of the Near East (London, 1965); idem, The Neolithic if tge Near East (London, 1975); W.C. Hayes, Most Ancient Egypt (Chicago, 1965); M. Hoffman, Egypt before the Pharoahs (New York, 1979); J.L. de Cenival, L'Egypte avant les pyramides (Paris, 1973); V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient Near East (London, 1953); F. Debono, in J. Ki-Zerbo, ed., General History of Africa (London, 1981), 634-55; D.A.E. Garrod and J.G.D. Clark, CAH (1971), 70-90. Those wishing a complete listing of sources should consult K.R. Weeks (A) Bibliography of Egyptian Prehistory (New York, 1985).
*Gasp*

Well, I think that short list, which could certainly be added up greatly amounts to alot more than what is said a few creationist fiction novels. Besides, what is the problem. The Tanakh never mentions when the Kingdom of Egypt was born! So where is the contradiction?

And as to the global flood, I'm personally cataloging alot of geotechnical drilling done in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland Area), and from all that evidence (aka over 69,000 feet of soil and rock), it is clearly evident that there never was a global flood. If there was, no signs of such were left behind! I've personally classified over a ton of local sedimentary rock, going as deep as 300'. I can speak on authority. Can you?

[TheFiveSolas]

QED wrote:


(P.S. evolution isn't religion. It's what's called a scientific theory. You may wish to point that out to whatever confused soul led you to believe otherwise. Helps keep everyone involved honest!)


Evolution, according to many philosophers of science, is a religion, a secular one (and an ancient one at that).



‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Michael Ruse, Former professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, and an ardent evolutionist and anti-creationist.

[Celsus]

Hi TheFiveSolas,

I would like to see the context and reference for those quotes. Firstly, Ruse is an ardent evolutionist. However, he has repeatedly criticised certain proponents for using evolution as a support for metaphysical naturalism (not to be confused with methodological naturalism, of which he is an ardent defender). It is not a condemnation of the evidence for evolution, but a critique of the abuse of evolutionary theory to further secular goals. Evolutionary theory on its own should in no way threaten theistic belief--although many people unfortunately do think it does, on either side of the divide.

Joel

[QED]

03-10-2003 @ 07:28 AM
TheFiveSolas:

Evolution, according to many philosophers of science, is a religion, a secular one (and an ancient one at that).



I don't know if Michael Ruse is representative of "many philosophers of science", but clearly he is incorrect on this point, or merely being understood. Celsus points out that he may have been critiquing metaphysical naturalism and the attempt to coopt the science evolution for furthering a secularist position on religion. This certainly lends weight to the possibility that this quote is misunderstood. However, there is never much to rule out the possibility that one commentator on the issue is simply a crackpot.

If indeed evolution is a religion, then you should be able to show how it lacks the criteria determining science, and replaces them with criteria that determine religion. This would serve much better than a dubious quote from someone else that expresses an opinion without giving a demonstration of its accuracy.

[Celsus]

Ok, I found a full text reprinted here (http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html), on a Creationist website (although ostensibly a site about "Academic Freedom," once you go inside you'll find an assortment of Creationist articles like the Paluxy trails).

From the text, it is clear that Ruse is talking about evolution as propagated by Darwin's followers (notably Huxley), and that much to Darwin's frustration, he used it to pursue his own social agenda (as I originally guessed) on social progress, which eventually led to the now-discredited Social Darwinism. That approach never quite disappeared, in his view (which he condemns, of course).

When speaking of the great evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s, Ruse speaks of evolution in completely different tones--almost as if there are two different "evolutions" that he is referring to:
Evolutionary ideas were to undergo a great transformation in the 1930s and 1940s, when a professional science of evolutionary studies was developed -- a professional science which stood on its own legs by its own merits, having no need for an alternative career as secular ideology. But this secular ideology or religion hardly folded its tents and crept away.
Indeed, he carefully distinguishes "professional evolution":
Today, professional evolution thrives. But the old religion survives and thrives right alongside it.
...
What is the moral to be drawn from all of this? You might think that the time has come to save evolution from the evolutionists.

Darwinism is a terrific theory that stimulates research in every area of the life sciences. In the human realm, for instance, discoveries in Africa trace our immediate past in ever greater detail, while at the same time the Human Genome Project opens up fascinating evolutionary questions as we learn of the molecular similarities between ourselves and organisms as apparently different as fruit flies and earthworms. Surely this is enough.

There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed.

But, let us be tolerant. If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business. Who would deny the value of Mr. Wilson's plea for biodiversity? Who would argue against Mr. Gould's hatred of racial and sexual prejudice, which he has used evolution to attack?

The important point is that we should recognize when people are going beyond the strict science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking of their theory as an all-embracing world picture. All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned -- unrealized even.

For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution. The Creationists are wrong in their Creationism, but they are right in at least one of their criticisms. Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying ideology, may be worthy. But if we feel strongly, there are other times and places to preach that gospel to the world.
I think the lines he draws are clear enough. Trust his attempt to build bridges with people of different beliefs to be conflated and used against his cherished "professional evolution."

Joel

[Tycho]

03-09-2003 @ 08:06 PM
Hitch:

I dont know Ty ,do any of those sport a faith based origin of life theory?

take care

Hitch
Evolution sports no faith-based origin of life theories, yet you proclaim it a religion. I don't know if you realized this, but scienctific theories, such as evolution, require no faith-based anything.

[Socratism]

03-10-2003 @ 10:20 AM
Tycho:


Evolution sports no faith-based origin of life theories, yet you proclaim it a religion. I don't know if you realized this, but scienctific theories, such as evolution, require no faith-based anything.

If faith is not required to believe that a cell developed "naturally" then I don't understand what the word "faith" means. ;)

[QED]

03-10-2003 @ 04:03 PM
Socratism:

If faith is not required to believe that a cell developed "naturally" then I don't understand what the word "faith" means. ;)

Faith is a mode of belief, divorced from the mode of belief that stems from scientific evidence. So, faith would not be required to believe that a cell developed "naturally" if there was sufficient evidence to believe that it had. However, as yet there is no theory that is commonly accepted which explains how living cells developed from complex self-replicating chemicals. So we are arguing over what a theory would be, not what the theory of evolution is.

The theory of evolution says nothing about the first life. It only talks of the diversification of modern life from a common ancestor. It does so using objective evidence, rather than faith. So we fail to see how you derive the idea that evolution is a religion from the fact that something other than evolution (abiogeneis, precisely), might seem to require faith under certain circumstances.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-10-2003 @ 11:03 AM
Socratism:
If faith is not required to believe that a cell developed "naturally" then I don't understand what the word "faith" means. ;) How did a thread on the Global Flood get to evolution? Also, you didn't respond to my response to you. Still waiting for a reply, thanks.

[Bubba]

Let's get back to the o.p. How do creationists explain Egyptian History Dating back to 3200 B.C. w/o a flood? Also, I wrote AIG. They put the date of the flood around 2200 B.C. and warn against changing the geneologies.

Bubba

[Sher]

03-10-2003 @ 07:11 PM
Bubba:

Let's get back to the o.p. How do creationists explain Egyptian History Dating back to 3200 B.C. w/o a flood? Also, I wrote AIG. They put the date of the flood around 2200 B.C. and warn against changing the geneologies.

Bubba http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp :huh: Wonder why they would tell you that when they post this article on their site.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-10-2003 @ 07:19 PM
SherBear:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp :huh: Wonder why they would tell you that when they post this article on their site. Are you implying that Bubba lied somehow or was purposely trying to mislead people here?

I quote from your link with my emphasis:
From the ages of his predecessors back to Noah, given in Genesis 12 and 13, it can be calculated that the great universal flood occurred 427 years earlier, about 2302 BC. But according to most authorities on Egyptian chronology the pyramids were built about 1550 BC, and the first dynasty of Egypt ruled about 3100 BC.
Bubba said:
Also, I wrote AIG. They put the date of the flood around 2200 B.C. and warn against changing the geneologies.
So 2200 BC, 2302(02?) BC. Pretty similar. So let the thread continue. Even AIG admits there being problems.
The issue is clear. An acceptance of the present chronological interpretation of Egyptian history, and a rejection of the Biblical chronology, opens the door to skepticism of the rest of the early Biblical records, including the record of the Creation of the world in six days. But if Egyptian chronology can be shown to be flawed, a major obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible records is removed, and the Genesis history stands justified.AIG, however, don't show how the Egyptian Chronology could be wrong.

[Jin-Roh]

People have become rebellious. Atum said he will destroy all he made and return the earth to the Primordial Water which was its original state. Atum will remain, in the form of a serpent, with Osiris. * (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Egypt)

Seems like at there is at least some indication of a flood story in egypt after all, even if it be a small one.

Of course its not the only one out there. The Aborigines (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3764.asp) have one, as due quite a few other cultures, (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) with some intresting similiarites. (http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-153b.htm)

Of course the question posed at the begining of the thread is rather oblique to begin with. I might as well say "If Iraq was Chemical weapons, why haven't we found a labatory that produces anthrax in Bagdad?" or "If John Walker Lindh really shot at U.S. troops, why don't we find any soldiers who remember being attacked by him?"

With the evidence at hand, I think it might be better to explain why there is flood legend in just about every culture.
:brow:

[Sher]

03-09-2003 @ 10:41 PM
QED:

Actually, there is also the possibilty of uncertainty. If I have not observed the room adjacent to my own, I may guess about it, and I may even construct models from my own experience to describe it. There is no obligation to believe by faith that my models are correct.Then again if you knew the designer, who provided you with a copy of the blueprints :brow: your model could obtain an accuracy superior to someone who thinks blueprints are bogus. My consternation is in those that make those guesses, then assert that they are the only reasonable explanation ... a "fact" that is taught as gospel to our succeeding generations. :read: :dunce:

[Sher]

03-10-2003 @ 10:27 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

Are you implying that Bubba lied somehow or was purposely trying to mislead people here?No... :huh:

I was questioning why Bubba would be told that when it appears to contradict something they apparently support. This article gives references that show need for changes in Egyptian chronology.
So 2200 BC, 2302(02?) BC. Pretty similar. So let the thread continue. Even AIG admits there being problems. AIG, however, don't show how the Egyptian Chronology could be wrong. Actually my emphasis would be on the proposed changes in Egyptian chronology. AIG may not show it, but they do refer to authors and their books which do show how the ECh could be wrong. Having actually read David Rohl's book, I agree with the need for changes and now pose in rebuttal that a correct Egyptian chronology, one which recognizes concurrent reigns, would obliterate the o.p. as stated.