Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot?

Green, I'm afraid you've lost me.What exactly are you trying to prove with your post?Are you suggesting that the Younger Dryas is responsible for a worldwide drought? This is highly unlikely. While some fresh water would have been locked up in glaciers, it's virtually impossible to impose a single weather event which hits all places equally.Are you suggesting that the Youger Dryas was a contributing factor for switching from hortoculture to agriculture? Probably. However, aggriculture developed in different ways in different places at different times.Are you suggesting that the Younger Dryas was a contributing factor in domesticating livestock? Probably.But, most importantly...Are you suggesting that any of this is evidence FOR Creationism? From previous posts, it seems that way.The Younger Dryas, as an event, at the very least disproves the literal YEC view of the Bible - especially when looked at in context of New World archaeology.

quote:

---

t never mentions trees of the field just plants and shrubs, so that would allow us to look at wild figs.

---

Firstly this doesn't address either of the points I made. Secondly figs grow on trees. And it certainly indicates that it is talking about a range of plants and not just one specific species (or only grasses in general).

quote:

---

Further, and the start, there is no domestic plants but there are wild plants (Gen 1), and by Gen 4:2 Cain was tilling fields.

---

I note that you are ignoring Genesis 2:5-8. Those verses imply that God created man to look after the plants - which you insist are domesticated plants. And those must be included in the plants tat God places in his garden. There's no domestication. In fact there are no earlier humans TO domesticate plants (2:5).

quote:

---

If Gen 2 is all plants, then Plants are created before man in Gen 1 and after man in Gen 2, the Bible contradicts itself. If it is only domesticated plants that are created after man, then there is no internal contradiction and also agreement with science.

---

If we read Genesis 2:5 as referring only to domestic plants there is still a conflict with science. Science states that humans existed long prior to the domestication of plants and that humans did the work of domestication over many generations. By your reading of Genesis 2 humans preceded the creation of domesticated plants only by a very short time and had nothing to do with the work of domestication.

quote:

---

As for no rain, Scientists discusses how people were harvest crops around 11,000 BC, but then the Younger Dryas hit. In the Middle East it was a drought of 1,300 years and far worse than any in historic times.

---

According to you, the verses of Genesis 2 we are discussing refer to the creation of domestic plants - and 2:5 clearly indicate that there were no humans around. Yet according to you also there were humans and domesticated plants prior to the Younger Dryas.
The contradiction is obvious.

Simple, I was connecting the Bible's statement about no rain, no farmers and no domesticated plants with Scientists statement that in the fertile crescent and possibly all of the Middle East, there was a severe drought, that there was no farmers, and that there was no domesticated plants. Then, at the mountain that fits the Biblical description of the location of the Garden, scientists say that farming started, as does the Bible. I was focusing on the accuracy of the passage. Now, Young Earth Creationists have to explain the drought also. I don't particularly support the YECs. I think that a more solid interpretation, as I have tried to do would also stop Christians from shooting themselves in the foot. I have no problem with creation over millions of years. I rather like the punctuated evolution model, first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould. The moments of dramatic change might be correlated with some creative act of God. Still, that is just speculation on my part rather than anything from the Bible. I would be happy if that is how God works, and I would be happy if the Gen 1 creation was in another way. My speculation on Gen 1 is very different from my analysis of Gen 2

Looks like the thread is starting to spiral off topic. Let's try to get back to creationists shooting themselves in their feet (the imagery never gets old )Another creationist side-effect I discovered (from a short but interesting article that can be found here: http://www.asa3.org/asa/pscf/2000/pscf6-00lahti.html) is that the fallacious arguments used by creationists to discredit evolution, can be just as easily used on Christianity.Take the Red Herring Fallacy, for instance.1. Richard Dawkins is an atheist who believes in no higher purpose.
2. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist.3. Therefore evolution undermines any theistic point of view.Any creationist who thinks it is ok to use such arguments will have to allow for similar attacks on Christianity or Creationism. For instance:1. Hitler claimed to be a Christian
2. Hitler was a genocidal maniac.3. Therefore Christians are genocidal maniacs.*The article provides an example of such a Red Herring by John McIntyre: Teaching Christians to rely on fallacy instead of real arguments will only damage their own agenda in the long run.

Do please stay on topic. I'm not a mod, but I would rather not have to read through ten off-topic posts just to see where the thread is going. Thank you.

Why? Clearly the Bible is not refering to the Younger Dryas event.It's refering to a legendary time.Hell, why start at the Younger Dryas and a debate about aggriculture? Let's start 50 million years ago. Clearly the Bible is right that 50 MILLION years ago there were no farmers and no domesticated plants. "Eden" was taken from the Sumerian "edin" meaning steppes or plains. There would be no mountain. Clearly the Bible is incorrect. Except that they aren't. That sort of a statement is nothing more than fantasy.You might as well say that the events of the Civil War correlate to the temperment of Thor.There's no evidence to support the existance of, let alone actions of, any sort of magical wizard, Jewish or otherwise.Co-opting Gould's work for your own purposes is dishonest.

I particularly like it when they display profound stupidity.I've actually had this argument presented to me:"The Earth is very young, only a few thousands years old. It was created shortly after the last ice age."When someone presents something that ignorant, it's almost impossible to respond.What argument could you POSSIBLY make that that person would comprehend?Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Made me laugh Excellent example of what a clueless person, reconciling known world-history with creationism, might say.At least we can derive some humor from the side-effects of creationism. That I suppose is one of their biggest contributions to societyEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

These profound stupidities that the Creationists spout, such as dinosaurs coexisting inspired my study. I was truly amused when one of their evidences, the human footprints next to the dinosaur footprints in a Texas riverbed was shot down. In a drought year, the footprints dried out more and the other two toes appeared. They weren't human prints after all, they were dinosaur prints after all.
When it comes to painting people with a brush, I have seen the evidence connecting Psychiatrists, rich folks like Rockefeller and the whole state of California with Hitler's genocide. Uh Oh, I'm a Californian and the son of a Psychiatrist.
There has bee some interest in debating my ideas which I have tried to relate to the topic though it is not specifically on topic. Do you want to keep it here or start a new thread?

In Message 55 you say Now you change your argument completely and say that the Younger Dryas IS responsible for the beginning of agriculture. So when you get shown you are wrong you alter your argument? I am still waiting for you to point out the scientists that agree with the above statement.More importantly what does all this have to do with anything. As I have said before you are not going to impress or baffle us with your BS.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

So which argument are you going with. The one in Message 55 that there were no plants or men because of this drought, or the one in Message 60, that the drought brought on agriculture. You cannot argue both. They are complete opposites.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

In message 60, I quoted two scientists and gave websites. I stated that the story of the garden was immediately after the Younger Dryas. I looked again, the Biblical passage could be referring to during the Younger Dryas. Scientists are still debating on exactly when wheat was domesticated, during or right after. Look at those two sites plus the study by Heun. They all say that it was during or immediately after the Younger Dryas and in the vicinity of Mt Karacadag. If suffering the Younger Dryas drought forced them to domesticate wheat, then for the first part, there was no rain and no farmers so there was no domestic plants.

i assume you've taken into consideration the very real possibility that Moses wrote about the account of creation more then once.He wrote the order of events of creation in Gen 1.
Then he wrote a more detailed account about Adam and Eve in Chpt 2.
Then he wrote an account of how the serpent interfered with Gods creation in chpt 3.Why must these separate accounts be considered as one piece of writing??? I'm sure you realise that they weren't one piece of writing before they were compiled into the form of a book.For evidence of that you just have to look at the dead sea scrolls. Among these scrolls are sections of bound scroll with particular books from the bible in them. Not one scroll contains a complete 'book' of the bible as we have it. So why is it assumed that Moses wrote the 'book of Genesis' as one complete chronological piece of writing? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

There are various versions of your suggestion. Another is that the Ancient Hebrews wrote some generalized statements and then went back in time to fill in various details. This version is found all through the Old Testament, so we don't even have to use your separate pieces argument. In your favor is the idea that Moses collected the Oral stories that God preserved. Each of the Oral Stories starts with the phrase, "These are the Generations of." There is one of those phrases between Gen 1 and the story of the Garden. One of the problems with this being a retelling of the creation of man in Gen 1:27 is in Gen 1, Plants and then animals were created before man, and in Gen 2, man was created first. Yes, I considered it. I believe the weight of the evidence is against it, but would be happy to be proven wrong. I can't ignore a few facts that are inconvenient to a theory. I have struggled with many theories because I limited myself to theories that account for all the facts.

Sounds an aweful lot like a work of fiction where the author(s) wrote something down quickly and then went back later on to fill in the details. An example of this is Sir Author C. Clarke's The City and the Stars.