Would Evolutionists accept evidence for Creation?

quote:

---

I did not say events could not be figured out from the genealogies of the lifetime of the people that was involved.

---

So please explain how the time of the Babel story can be figured out, instead of dodging the question.

quote:

---

You mentioned time in several messages then in Re: Re-Flood (Message 56) You as much as said my understanding was competely off as the time was all messed up.

---

In fact I pointed out that just relying on the order of the verses to work out the order of events was messed up. And I explained exaclty why it was messed up. So in fact I pointed out that your method of working out a timeline didn't work.

quote:

---

I then went digging for notes as to why I believed what I did. I also went and found a Bible Timeline that is taken from the genealogies of the ages of the men in the Bible.

---

Which is only of use to this discussion if you can produce an actual date for the Babel story out of it. So are you going to explain how that is done ?

quote:

---

But I know you do not believe the Bible so it does not make any difference as you believe it is just a pack of lies anyway.

---

Just because I believe that those parts of the Bible are myth and legend doesn't mean that I don't care about representign them accurately. YOu would think that people who beleive that they are true would also care about that. Oddly enough it appears that they don't.

Hi Grizz,
I agree with much of what you say; if there were compelling evidence to be considered, then creationism wouldn't be so ridiculed by scientists. There isn't though.
I'm afraid that your question to creationists would definitely be off topic here (like much of the material posted above in fact), but Lithoid Man has already beaten you to it with this thread, "What evidence is needed to change a creationist?". Give it a bump and see what comes up.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi Paulk, Genesis 10:8 tells us Cush begat Nimrod.
Genesis 10:10 tells us Babel was the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom.
Genesis 10:25 tells us Eber begat Peleg.According to historical books;
1757-1996 Peleg (239)
1908-2123 Nimrod (215)
1948 Nimrod (40) begins his reign.
1993 The Tower of Babel falls.
Status code 404Nimrod begin to reign when Peleg was 191.
Babel falls 3 years before Peleg died.It is obvious Peleg was not named for the scattering of the people.
Genesis 11:8 scattered = #wp = to scatter, be dispersed, be scattered
Genesis 10:25 divided = glp = to divide, split, cleaveGenesis 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.The people was scattered abroad over the face of the earth in Peleg's days. (his lifetime)
The earth was divided in Peleg's days. (his lifetime)God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

According to historical books;
1757-1996 Peleg (239)
1908-2123 Nimrod (215)
1948 Nimrod (40) begins his reign.
1993 The Tower of Babel falls.

---

WHich historical books ? How do they work the date out ?
Have you noticed that it is DIFFERENT from the last source you used, by well over 100 years ?

quote:

---

It is obvious Peleg was not named for the scattering of the people.
Genesis 11:8 scattered = #wp = to scatter, be dispersed, be scattered
Genesis 10:25 divided = glp = to divide, split, cleave

---

If it's so obvious then why can't you come up with any valid arguments ?And why are you so determined to add a major scientific error into the Bible anyway ?

Hi Paulk, According to this chart: Status code 404
which pushes the events the furthest in Peleg's life.Lets see Peleg was 236 years old when Babel fell. So he wasn't named after the event.That left 3 years for the people to be scattered and the earth to be divided.His name Peleg did not mean to scatter, be dispersed, be scattered.His name was Peleg which means to divide, split, cleave, and it said this was done to the earth not the inhabitants of the earth.I am saying if the Bible is true or false this is what it describes is happening.My original comments on this is that if this is what happened and it happened after the flood how would you find a flood layer that would be readable if mountains were formed and the different oceans formed.What would you expect to find?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

According to this chart: Status code 404
which pushes the events the furthest in Peleg's life.

---

"Some guy says so" is not a valid argument. What's that basis for the chart - in particular how does it calculate the date when the Babel story supposedly happened ?

quote:

---

His name Peleg did not mean to scatter, be dispersed, be scattered.

​

His name was Peleg which means to divide, split, cleave, and it said this was done to the earth not the inhabitants of the earth.

---

Attempting to nit-pick the wording is also not a valid argument. The land was divided between the nations.

quote:

---

I am saying if the Bible is true or false this is what it describes is happening.

---

And you're wrong. That is your interpretation - and one you have great difficulty supporting. The absence of any direct reference to the event or any explicit reference to a physical division of the land is a difficulty you need to deal with.And if the Bible did say that then it would be WRONG. So I ask again, why are you so determined to read a major scientific error into the Bible ? Is it that important to you that the Bible should say what you want ?

quote:

---

My original comments on this is that if this is what happened and it happened after the flood how would you find a flood layer that would be readable if mountains were formed and the different oceans formed.

---

Yes. And that layer would be millions of years old because thats how long it would take for mountains to form and for different oceans to form. Since Noah's Flood didn't happen millions of years ago and we haven't had any new mountains or oceans since the time it was meant to have happened the point is moot.

I'll leave the Peleg part to others.But I'm gonna take a stab at this. We would expect to find a flood layer.If there were no mountains before Babel (after the global flood) and there were mountains after Babel (after the global flood) we would expect to see evidence of a global flood in all of the mountains. Ignoring for the moment that there is no historical evidence for mountains forming spontaneously about 3,000 years ago, we know that there is no historical evidence for rapid erosion (or dramatic uplift) of mountains since the supposed time of Babel. We also can deduce, according to your chart, that Babel happened about a century or so after the flood. More than enough time (ABE: for the sake of argument) for all the sedimentary layers supposedly laid down by the flood to harden enough to create enough resistance to form the mountains (and not be all slippery like so that people weren't walking in hundreds of feet of mud for a century or so and so that when the mountains did form they weren't just giant peaks of mush).**Now, knowing this, logically we can deduce that mountains of similar height will have an identifiable "flood layer" in approximately the same spot. All of the flora and fauna which supposedly went extinct during the flood should be contained in identifiable layers with no major regional differences (since it was all one landmass during the flood and they all got tossed around with the same force that carved the Grand Canyon then why would certain types of animals be confined to certain continents...or for that matter certain predicted stages of evolution) in just about the same spot as all of the other mountains of just about the same height.Of course, no one has been able to say what exactly this flood layer should look like (except to co-opt the actual geological record and make up some post-hoc reasonings as to why the fossils appear in the layers that they do - MAMMOTHS ARE LIGHTER THAN ARCHAEOPTERYX AND SANK SLOWER!!!), but once you all decide what it should look like then you can start looking at the 3,000 year old mountains and see if you find that layer. We'll be waiting.Should be fun. Ya know, repeating scientific history. A bunch of creationist scientists looking hither and thither for evidence of a flood and finding no such thing and concluding that the Earth must be much older than they thought based on the evidence.**Besides the geology, you would have to explain how mountains were formed so rapidly without creating so much heat that nothing would survive (even on a wooden boat...maybe one of simple's divine spaceships?). That (and hundreds of other reasons) is why people ask for a model that explains all of the evidence. Not just bits and pieces to your liking. Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

You would find a world much different from ours.Leaving aside all of the volcanic activity that would go on if you shifted the continents from Pangea to what we see now in only a couple of years, and all of the earthquakes that would be going on basically nonstop all over the globe of a magnitude so large we don't even have a number on the Richter scale for them (and somebody would have written about that)...In geology, we see rock layers that have folded. The rock literally flexes and folds under the extreme pressures of tectonic motion. But rock doesn't only flex - it crushes, and it fractures. This is a great example of a fold in rock.If the tectonic plate movements of billions of years were concentrated into only one or two, the pressure would be far too great for the rock to simply bend - it would fracture, or even be crushed, somewhat like a tree branch. A little pressure and it bends, too much and it breaks. With the kind of force you are suggesting, it would be completely pulverized. Current plate movement ranges from 1-10cm/year or so. You're talking about over a thousand miles of movement in a single year.The flood layer should still be present, but would be among all of the fragmented rock.There's more to contradict your silliness, but this is enough to outright refute it, so we won't bother with the rest.In other words, ICANT, what we see completely and directly contradicts your silly idea derived from stoneage mythology.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Hi PaulkThe charts are taken from the ages of the men from Adam given in the Historical book of Jasher. Message 63The first chart I gave you was from a Bible timeline Adam and forward by the years of mens lives. Message 57So you are saying Pangea did not exist and the breaking up of the continents did not happen.My avatar is a picture of Pangea. Science says it was at one time.
Science says it separated into the continents we have today.Genesis 1:9 says: "water gathered to one place rest called land."
Genesis 10:25 says: "earth was divided in Peleg's days."Now you twist that any way you want too. It will still indicate the land was in one place and that the earth was divided (cleaved) in the days of Peleg.It matters not whether the Bible is true or false. It still says it.God Bless,God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Jaderis,I am not a YEC or ID creationist.I was not trying to prove anything.I made a simple statement. Now I am being hammered to explain how all these things happened.
So I will say as jar would "soforgetaboutit".Now if you will read all my posts you will see where I tried to find the information demanded of me.I did find information but Paulk will have none of it.I will say again the Bible says:
Gen. 1:9 Land in one place. provided water was in one place.
Gen. 10:25 Earth divided in Peleg's lifetime.Whether the Bible is true or false it states two things that science says happened. The Bible said it a long time before science had a clue.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rahvin,I am not trying to prove anything to you or anyone.I said:1...Bible says in Gen. 1:9 Land in one place. provided water was in one place.
2...Bible says in Gen. 10:25 Earth divided in Peleg's lifetime.
3...Science says the land was in one place.
4...Science says land divided.Is any of these statements 1-4 false?If all are true the Bible and Science agree.God Bless,

That would be the work described here. It's a midrash and it is relatively recent (first published 1552 AD - although according to Wikipedia the only evidence for that is an assertion in the first known edition from 1625).It can't be considered a reliable source: And that explains why many people ignore it (as your earlier source did).

quote:

---

So you are saying Pangea did not exist and the breaking up of the continents did not happen.

---

No, I'm not - as you should know if you have been following what I have said. I'm saying that it happened milliosn of years ago and that continental drift happens at speeds within an order of magnitude of those observed today. What did NOT happen is a far faster break-up in the last 5000 years or so - and THAT is what you are claiming.

quote:

---

My avatar is a picture of Pangea. Science says it was at one time.
Science says it separated into the continents we have today.

---

Science says that the continents had started to break up more than 200 million years ago. Long before there were any humans.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:9 says: "water gathered to one place rest called land."
Genesis 10:25 says: "earth was divided in Peleg's days."

​

Now you twist that any way you want too. It will still indicate the land was in one place and that the earth was divided (cleaved) in the days of Peleg.

---

And that division almost certainly refers to the forming of the nations in Genesis 10:32. The "sea gathered in one place" does not mean that the land was gathered in one place (that is your twisting) There is NO reference to a sudden and catastrophic physical movement of the land in the Bible for that period. Nor is there any scientific evidence that such an event took place at that time. All you have is your interpretation of an off-hand reference in a genealogy - a reference which you claim is not explained in the Bible (although it should be) and refers to something that is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible (nor even in "The Book of Jasher" used to compile the chart you referred in in Message 63)

quote:

---

It matters not whether the Bible is true or false. It still says it.

---

If the Bible was important to you you wouldn't be so determined to force your own false ideas into it.So let us be clear.The Bible does not mention ultra-rapid continental movementMainstream science does not include ultra-rapid continental movement - and dates the break-up of Pangaea to long before humanity existed.That is your idea.Please learn to distinguish it from what the Bible says and what science says.

Hi Paul, So you are agreeing that Pangea did exist.
You are also agreeing that the continents were formed by that one land mass dividing.Does the Bible verses I quoted say there was a fast breakup?
They did say it happened.Did they say it happened 5,000 years ago?
No.Did I say it happened 5,000 years ago?
No. Please explain how nations divided in the earth = earth was divided. Paulk's Source
In the picture named PERMIAN 225 million years ago.Was the land gathered in one place? OR
Was the water gathered in one place? OR
Was they both true? The Bible does not mention rapid movement nor does it rule it out. You then say: "This is your idea."Since I have not mentioned this and you are the only one who has, how can it be my idea?1...Science theory is it broke up over 225 million years and is still moving.2...Science does not say humanity did not exist 225 millions years ago. It does not say that it did either.Number 2 above have no bearing on:Science says all the water was in one place one time leaving all the land in one place.
The Bible saying all the water was in one place at one time leaving all the land in one place.Science says all the land divided.
Bible says earth divided in the days of Peleg.
Just to clarify: Gen. 1:10 says dry land was called earth.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

By no rational chain of logic do your conclusions derive from anything PaulK said. It is just such obvious stupidities that cause people to ask whether you are a troll. Suggest more often putting your brain in gear before typing.AbE: Whoops! Ignore this post completely. Somehow or other I read that as, "So you are agreeing that Pangea did *not* exist." Apologies, etc. --PercyEdited by Percy, : Add retraction.Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

Of course you are. You're trying to show that science and the Bible agree on something they most certainly do not agree on. You're demonstrating some of the most massive cognitive dissonance I've ever seen, paying attention only to those parts of the conversation you believe agree with your existing ideas, and completely ignoring everything else. That the Bible says 1 and 2 can be true, assuming your interpretation of the text is correct. 3 and 4 are also true. But saying that this means that the Bible and science agree demonstrates either a total lack of comprehension on your part, or deliberate lying. Science most certainly does not say that the continents were divided in anyone's lifetime - no humans were around that long ago, and it happened over such a long period that to say it happened over the span of even a biblical lifetime is pure insanity.Continuing to ignore the details that refute your position that science and the Bible agree demonstrates that you either cannot understand the subject matter, or you prefer to lie.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.