Some Help from the Creationist

I was wondering if some of the Creationist could help me with this.If all of human kind was destroyed during the flood except for Noah and his family. If we are all descendants of Noah, how is it:1. Aborigines in Australia that migrated there approximately 40,000 years ago and never knew about Noah? They had a completely different belief system.2. Native American Indians had many different belief systems from tribe to tribe none of which mentions Noah.3. Papua New Guinea had many native people that only knew the next closest tribe or tribes. Then in 1938 a tribe of about 50,000 was found deep in the forest and never even knew other people existed. So not only did they not know other people lived a few miles from them, they did not know they were descendants of Noah.How can this be possible? From my understanding the Flood was only a few thousand years ago. If I remember correctly the flood happened between 4000 to 5000 years ago (going of memory). Surely not enough time for that many people to forget their ancestry. Maybe I am a little confused, so please enlighten me.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

In order to understand what is and isn't possible a couple of pieces of information would (it seems to me) be needed.1)Is the earth old? There are people who say it is and would point to the scientific evidence which indicates that it is. Two issues arise from that. The first is that you are unlikely to be in a position yourself to understand the nitty gritty of the mechanisms and methods applied to determine the earths supposed vast age. The science is very complicated so unless you're prepared to learn the science and gain experience in applying it you are very much in the dark in trying to decide whether it's accurate. This means you can at best trust the scientists who tell you so. That's faith and faith isn't fact. Thus, you cannot know for sure whether the earth is very old.2)Is the earth young? There are many who say it is. They study the chronology of the Bible, believe the Bible is Gods word (and is thus, inerrant) and form the conclusion that 4000 or so years is about right. The same problem exists with the above. Have they analysed the chronology correctly? The Bible says "for God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day". This kind of chucks a spanner in the workings of the chronological clock. Also if the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God then folk are really in a pickle.Either way, you are ultimately left with faith at the core, as the means by which you decide which is which.On the subject of whether such diversity in belief is possible within a shortish time span however then I'd pose that it is. If we are to look at the development of humanity over say the last 200 years we see an almost unbreachable gulf between now and then. A person from 1805 landing in the present day would have almost nothing with which to equip him for understanding of the way things work today. If that rate of change is kept up for even 1000 years then you would have variation more than sufficient to account for the diversity you mention.The same diversity is possible in belief systems. 200 years ago there was no:Jehovahs witnesses
Mormons
Christian Scienctists
New Age
Unification Chruch (Moonies)
Baha'ism
Divine Light Mission
EST
Hare Krishna
Rajneesh
Church of Scientology
Theosolpical Society...or evolution (which is appropriated by athiesm, which is a world view which can argued to contain many of the facets of a religion - based as it is on (faith that there is no faith as opposed to proof)Hope that helps a littleThis message has been edited by iano, 05-Aug-2005 05:03 PM

You are correct; I am not in a position to completely understand everything that is involved in determining the age of the Earth. How ever on the other hand I am learning more and more and intend to change my current career and go to college as a science major, Biology or Geology. So in the future I might have an in depth understanding of it. But without that you say I have faith in the scientists that do know how to determine the age. I would not call it faith, seeing as how someone else could disprove them. So unless everyone is lying that can measure the age of the earth, why would I not believe them. All it would take is for a YEC to learn how to perform the test to see if it is correct or not. Then they could prove it is a conspiracy. To my knowledge this has not happened. That is why science is so trustworthy. You can test another person’s results to see if the are fabricating their data or not and it has happened before.There is diversity among all cultures in how they view the world, which tells me they all developed independently. Every civilization believed in different God(s). My personal feeling, they did not understand things that we take for granted. Like the sun rising, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods to name only a few. So some deity must have caused it. They worshipped and prayed to these gods so that they could be praised and not punished. They offered sacrifices to the Gods so they would not be angered. I believe in Peru they have big gatherings from the villages and people fight each other to give blood offerings to the gods so it will rain that year. This goes on currently. Do you really think this ritual makes it rain?To me the Bible is nothing more than the beliefs of an ancient civilization that did not fully understand the world around them. They had a God instead of many. They prayed to their God like many other people prayed to theirs. Sometimes he helped them sometimes he did not. If he didn't it must have been for a reason and they made an answer for why. Israel was a powerful nation, they had their ups and downs, and they won some wars and lost some. Just like all the other civilizations. I cannot see how people in modern times can believe the same beliefs of those that existed thousands of years ago.But if we are all descended from Noah where is the proof and why do his descendants not remember him?Most of the above are my own personal beliefs from what I have read and how I understand things.

---

"A Dwarf on a Giants Shoulder sees the Furthest of the Two!"

The things that spring to mind here - and I am not criticizing or anything so please don't take it to be so - is that there are valid other ways of looking at things. But an openess to consider other options equally is a hard thing to do when there is a pressure, almost imposed by the existing orthodoxy, which tends to narrow the potentials to but a few. This applies equally well to many areas of life.1) That something is open to be disproved and has yet to be, isn't a heavy weight indication that it is right. Geocentrism reigned once, science moved on and the earth went around the Sun, Creation reigned once, science moved on and we evolved from apes...science will move on again and there is a danger with aligning oneself too closely with the present day view. Take ID for instance. Pilloried here and elsewhere. It may well be that it never will demonstrate itself to be a successor to evolution or maybe a part to be included in evolution, but I'm pretty sure the same virulent opinion was expressed of early Earth-around-Sun-ists, and early day, pre-darwin evolutionists. As long as there is a real acceptance of the tentitiveness of conclusions, manifested in a willingness and keeness to remain objective and critical no matter what, then no path is better than the other, be it evolution investigation or otherwise2) There are other reasons than lying, for folk getting it wrong. If they ever turn out to be wrong about Old Age Earth, it will more likely be some yet-to-be-discovered aspect of science which turns things on their head. No one knows what will turn up and whilst it's scientifically reasonable to do the best you can with the evidence you have (if viewed objectively), it's equally reasonable not to cling to hard to the feeling that 'truth' has reached.I wish you well on your new career. It'l' be a fascinating field, whichever it is you plump for... and a noble one at that...p.s. If your inclined, read post 1 of the thread "All Evolutionary Scientists are Evolutionary Indoctrinated" in the "Is it Science" forum. Don't bother with the rest, I didn't demonstrate this to be the case, but I think that there is a grain of truth in there somewhere for the person who is keen to remain obejective. Something to be mindful of.This message has been edited by iano, 05-Aug-2005 10:12 PM

Hi WolfA couple of things to think about. I would suggest that the majority of people fall somewhere in between Young Earth Creationism, and the form of Atheism that denies the metaphysical entirely. It isn't a simple either or solution.If you are into books there are a number of books to read that present the different positions.I'm at a little bit of a loss for books that push biblical literalism and YEC, but the best way to research that position is to just read the Bible. Also "Faith" on this forum does a good job of presenting that position. Read her posts.On the Atheistic side of things, the best known author that I know of is Richard Dawkins. He's written a number of books of which the two best known are "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker". He is an evolutionist who denies the metaphysical. Alister McGrath, (who like Dawkins is an Oxford professor), wrote a critique of Dawkin's books called "Dawkins' God....Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life".From a Christian perspective, but not a literalist perspective, (which is the position that I call home), I suggest CS Lewis' book "Mere Christianity".I call myself a creationist, as I believe that we are created beings. I'm not a biologist so I can't comment critically on evolution, but I'm quite prepared to agree with it as the majority of biologists do. As far as I'm concerned it's just the way God did it.I personally find science and my faith completely compatible, as do many others on this forum. The reason I got involved with this forum was because I found science fascinating. I thought that this would be a good place to learn more as I don't have a science background. (That has really worked out for me, and I am really grateful for the scientists on this site who have taken the time to instruct a neophyte like myself.)With my Christian bias I'd like to suggest a few things to think about.*The universe started as a point of infinite density and zero volume and has been expanding since them to form the universe that we have today. Is it more likely that this occurred by some fortuitous cosmic event totally on its own, or by the instigation of some metaphysical intelligence?*Is the intricate design and balance that we see in the universe, on this planet, and in all life including human life more likely to have evolved without any metaphysical direction, or does it seem more logical that the evolutionary process been planned and directed metaphysically?*We all have a built in sense of right and wrong. Which is more logical to you? Have we evolved organically this way, or is there something else beyond the physical that has given us conscience?*Where does our consciousness come from? Why do I have a sense of me? Why do we dream?*Why when we think of who we are, (without looking in the mirror), I suggest that we don't think of ourselves as any particular age, but as a composite of our entire lives that isn't ageing. Is that evidence of something about us that isn't part of time?*Why would a book written many hundreds of years ago have a story of creation that claims that the world had a beginning, and a beginning that was "formless and empty", long before science came to the same conclusion? (Just for the record I'm not saying that I believe the entire creation story should be read literally.)To me Theism makes far more sense than Atheism. I happen to believe that the Christian faith is the most coherent form of Theism, but it is a faith. There is no empirical proof for Christianity or for Atheism. You just have to go where the evidence and logic leads you.This message has been edited by GDR, 08-05-2005 04:48 PM

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

just a comment:you question has not been answereddon't get diverted to different discussions that are not related, if you can help it.I wish you luck.ps -- welcome to the fray.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Well, since nobody seems to have really taken a crack at your actual question, I'll play a bit of Devil's Advocate (which sounds really strange since I'll be defending Chrsitian Fundamentalism, but what the hey).(DevilsAdvocate)4-5000 years is enough time for a group of people to lose significant amounts of their history. We, today, don't know a whole lot about the past of humanity except through the field of archeology - and I doubt the Aboriginees or South American Indians for instance were digging around actively searching for evidence of their heritage. It's easy to imagine that, IF those people were descended from Noah, they could have forgotten it (their genetic diversity springing from such a small set of people just a few thousand years previous, however, may be another matter entirely).As far as belief systems not including Noah - this is true, but MANY (not all) religions DO have a Flood myth somewhat similar to the Noah story. One could imagine that, while these people forgot about their anscestry, they did not forget the Flood itself.But most of all, the Bible tells us what happened, and the Bible can;t be wrong, becuase it's the Word of God. Anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong by definition. The natives have either forgotten or are lying, and archeological evidence to the contrary is simply wrong.(/DevilsAdvocate)How was that for a Creationist explanation?Getting back to the real world, all of these things are highly improbable, and the events can easily be explained without bringing Noah into the mix. The global Flood never happened. There is no evidence that it did. Flood myths are common because civilizations, of necessity, must form near bodies of water. This means they will all experience floods at one point or another. It's easy to see that a perfectly normal but extraordinarily damaging local flood could be recorded in verbal history and passed down, exaggerated through the telling until it becomes a flood that covers the whole world (which could simply mean "the world our people are aware of - a few miles in each direction.").Of course, this could be the origin of the Noah story, as well. Especially since a nearly identical story was found chiseled into stone in Mesopotamia, if I remember correctly. As I recall (it was a documentary on the History channel, and I'm working from memory, so forgive me), the main character was a successful trader who lashed together several smaller "boats" (or what passed for boats at the time) into a single large vessel to increase his trading profits. A massive flood came, and he and his family survived on the vessel with the animals they posessed while nearly everything else drowned. He later went to a temple to thank the gods for his survival.I'll look into it over the weekend, and see if I can find some quotes so that I'm not working from memory.

If you want to discuss age dating methods and the evidence for an old earth you can reply to the {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.} thread (click). Pay particular attention to the correlations between the systems and the fact that any challenge to any one of them must explain why the correlations hold. Don't bother with the rebuttals and replies where you failed to demonstrate your case, but read your failed and invalidated hypothesis anyway?Why bother with one and not the other if you have "an openess to consider other options equally" eh? We'll see about "openess" if you reply to the thread listed above (and not use this to divert this thread from the topic) ...... because you still have not answered the NOAH question.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

LOL. Yes, if the definition of "somewhat" is very loose. The vast majority of those myths are creation myths and do not deal with a flood after creation. Of those that do, my personal favorite is:FROM: The Norse Creation Myth (click)
You of course can see the obvious correlations to the ark story and especially note all the animals in pairs on board. Gilgamesh?see National Geographic - 404for possible real event. Apologies for the excessive hyperbole of the writing.Enjoy.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes! That's the one. Sorry I couldn't think of the name offhand. I know. But most creationists I've spoken with mention the Flood myths of other cultures as proof of a global event. They just don't look into it any farther than necessary to confirm their already-formed conclusion.

There is also Deucalion (spelling), Prometheus’s son. He is referred to as the Greek Noah. If I remember correctly that story predates the bibles. If you go by what some scholars give as a date for the bible being written, somewhere around 600 BCE. (Its late I'm tired, mind not fully active). I know about the Black Sea story, where they might have found wood from homes approximately 300 meters below the surface. I know a bit about Gilgamish but not well versed in the entire story. Possibly flood waters from melting glaciers? Know of the scab lands in eastern Washington caused by several floods after the glaciers began to melt. Many mammoth bones found in the waters between France and England. When all that ice melted it had to go somewhereA passage for anyone who might be interested.Blessed is your rising in the horizon of heaven, living Sun, you who were first at the beginning of things. Your rays embrace the lands to the limits of all that you have made. - Hymn of Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt (1,000 BCE)Funny the Pharaoh knew the sun came first way before scientist figured it out. Oh also it helped to created our solar system as well, this he knew before science.Divine knowledge or perceptions of the world around him?That’s all for tonight thanks for the informative posts, hope to continue this tomorrow.

---

"A Dwarf on a Giants Shoulder sees the Furthest of the Two!"

2 questions.The Aborigines and the people in New Guinea, did they keep a record of their ancestry? Do they have a family tree that goes back 40,000/50,000 years?Or did we tell them how long they were there.One other thing, 4000-5000 years is plenty of time to forget an ancestry. My Grandfather could not even remember the name of his Grandfather, or did my family keep a record of our ancestry. I guess it is just not important to some people, but maybe for the God of Abraham it was?
Did Native Indians keep a record, and tell us how long they have been around? Or did we tell them how long they have been here?

Working where I work I have met a few archeologists that are doing digs for Indian artifacts. There is a layer of Volcanic Ash that dates back 7,000 years so obviously anything underneath that layer is at least 7,000 years old. Anything above it is less than 7K years old. The volcano that put down that layer of Ash was from Crater Lake in Oregon. Of course if you doubt the accuracy of dating techniques this is meaningless to you. Other evidence suggest the Aboriginees migrated to Australia some 40,000 years ago.

---

"A Dwarf on a Giants Shoulder sees the Furthest of the Two!"

Ah, so we told them how long they been there.My point is that we didn't have to tell the Jews how long they been around, they have a record.
That's all.