Owen,

During the Great Dying it seems that “up to 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species [became] extinct; it is the only known mass extinction of insects.”

Of course that’s supposed to have happened more than 250 million years ago, but who knows what that means?

As for barren landscapes - on Surtsey, that tiny island out in the North Atlantic, it seems that after a mere 40 years “30 [species of plants] have become established,” all without human intervention and all on what began as bare volcanic rock.  Imagine how much better seeds could do (and, yes, they can survive being soaked in salty water for considerable periods of time) germinating in flood sediments in warmer parts of the world.

Maybe it’s because we’ve become so used to hearing of Earth’s supposed 4.5 thousand million year history that we think 6,000 years is a very short time.  But the Maoris arrived in New Zealand only about 800 years ago - and they found no other human beings there.  (How come that took so long if human beings have been around for at least 250,000 years?) Europeans started colonising Australia only 220 years ago and look how much the place has changed in that short time.  When I think of that then 6,000 years looks like a very long time indeed.

That you can’t believe that the Flood occurred as Genesis describes it only says that you can’t believe it.  That cultures from all around the world have flood stories suggests that there really was such a flood.  For instance, did you know that the Chinese character for ‘boat’ is made up of three elements; one represents ‘a vessel’, one represents the number ‘eight’ and one represents ‘mouth’.  See this article titled “Biblical Encoding in Chinese Characters”.  Maybe you will be intrigued.  Or maybe not.

During the Great Dying it seems that “up to 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species [became] extinct; it is the only known mass extinction of insects.”

Wow, I’ve never heard of that before!

I’m not wanting to wade into this debate but this link looks interesting http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

I know nothing about this site as to its attitudes toward Christianity or Genesis. I simply found this page interesting for its lists of worldwide flood stories and myths.

I wonder what the ethics of a Christian linking to a blatantly anti-Christian site to argue about the Bible are.

talkorigins is blatantly anti-YECS. Information is information no matter what the source.
Janice, I am aware that there are flood myths all over the world. That is hardly surprising. Humans naturally set up near rivers and similar sites cos they have to. Floods happen. The fact that most cultures also consider water sources as sacred doesn’t also mean I have to worship water does it?

And your Surtsey example is irrelevent. It is happening on a populated planet with lots of life extant including those pesky humans who colonise the world by seed just by going near places.
And some seeds can cope with saline water, most don’t like to be drowned in it for a year.
And as for the Maoris recently finding NZ. I’m sorry, I don’t even understand the question. Are you implying the necessity of humans having found every space on the planet cos we have been around for ages? You are joking aren’t you?

Dannii Willis - 11 August 2008 12:03 AM

I wonder what the ethics of a Christian linking to a blatantly anti-Christian site to argue about the Bible are.

My apologies. I did not know the site was anti-Christian as I had only come across this single page.

I just thought the extensive list of the ‘Flood stories’ might be of interest.

If the attitude of the website owner is that the flood stories discredit Noah’s flood one could just as easily argue that the existence of such stories supports Noah’s flood.

I haven’t removed the link because I think the info is still of value but I will go back and add a disclaimer re: site.

Ok sorry Adam, just people have used talk origins and other similar sites before knowing their objectives, and I don’t think it’s right.

And as for the Maoris recently finding NZ. I’m sorry, I don’t even understand the question. Are you implying the necessity of humans having found every space on the planet cos we have been around for ages? You are joking aren’t you?

Well when most of the other land masses had been reached thousands of years before that it does make you wonder why NZ hadn’t been.

And why was Madagascar settled by people from Borneo? In the million+ years humans had been in Africa had no one ever built canoes?

The Polynesian people were amazing seafarers, but they were no more intelligent than any other people before.

And why was Madagascar settled by people from Borneo? In the million+ years humans had been in Africa had no one ever built canoes?

That can easily be turned on its head if we ask- how come if folks were able to just walk to Madagascar they didn’t, They had feet didn’t they?

That is a good question… so Madagascar was connected by a land bridge during the times humans were supposed to have been around?

Dannii
I have no waqy to answer that question cos YECS denies all the timelines accepted by science.
Also, the YECS presupposition is that people were around when Madagscar was attached. Where they were is another issue isn’t it?

But by conventional science homo sapiens evolved in Africa. So there would be several hundread thousand years at least where if there was a land bridge as you suggested (was there? I don’t know) they could have gone, or by canoes or even by floating on vegitation in a storm. Maybe the lack of colonisation can be accounted for, maybe not, but there’s certainly no issue if people were only around for a few thousand years instead.

Owen Atkins - 11 August 2008 06:18 PM

YECS denies all the timelines accepted by science.

You may or may not be aware that sometimes old-earth Christians do this too, e.g. Dr Hugh Ross.  This emerged when he was challenged in debate somewhat as follows:

“You accept that Noah’s Flood wiped out all humanity except the eight in the Ark.  You also accept that that flood happened about 5,000 years ago.  But according to evolutionary dating, the Australian Aborigines have been there since 40,000 years ago.  Does that mean they’re not part of humanity?”

To which Dr Ross really had only one option, which was to dispute the dating methods by which it’s claimed that the Aboriginals arrived in Australia 40,000 years ago.

So I guess my question to you, Owen, arising from this, is:  if you can call into question some dating methods when they contradict a “good and necessary consequence” of Scripture, why not others?

Owen Atkins - 11 August 2008 09:58 AM

And as for the Maoris recently finding NZ. I’m sorry, I don’t even understand the question. Are you implying the necessity of humans having found every space on the planet cos we have been around for ages? You are joking aren’t you?

Janice is perfectly serious.  Although it’s not a mathematically tight argument, there’s a good deal of statistical force to the contention that the longer humans have been around, the less likely it is that they will NOT have arrived at every habitable corner of the globe.

You may well think that “YEC” is something new-fangled, so here is Richard Baxter expounding a similar line of argument in 1662, in his book “A Saint or a Brute”.  As you might guess this is an evangelistic work, and there’s no effective evangelism without a good dose of apologetics too:

“Quest. 1. ‘ If the Scripture be not the word of God, how
could it tell us of the making of the world, and such like
things, which none but God alone could tell ?’ I know you
will say, I know not whether it tells us true or not ; or whether
the world were not, as Aristotle thought, from eternity.
But tell me this then, (to pass by the rest now ;) How comes
it to pass that in all the world there are no books or monuments
known of any longer standing than the time that
Scripture assigneth to the creation ? It is not six thousand
years since the creation. If the world had lasted thousands
and millions of years before, is it possible that all its antiquities
should be lost, and not one to be seen, nor mentioned
by any man in all the world ? (For the fabulous tales of
some in China, without all proof, are not worth the mentioning.)
Certainly some book would have been saved, or some
cities, or lasting piles, or stony monuments preserved, or
some sign or tradition kept alive, of some of all those many
thousand years.

“If you say, that writing or printing were not then known,
you come to that which confounds you more. How is it
possible that in so many hundred thousand years, the world
grew to no more experience, and arts and sciences were ripened
no more, when now they have ripened in a shorter
time ? How is it that printing and writing were not found
out ? and that all sciences and arts are of so late invention,
and as it were, but in their youth? Certainly knowledge is
the daughter of experience, and experience the daughter of
time ; and therefore if the world had been from eternity, it
must needs have been many a hundred thousand years ago,
at a far higher state of knowledge than is yet attained in the
world. For every age receiveth the experiences and writings
of the former, and hath opportunity still to make improvement
of them. At least the world could not have been ignorant
so long of printing, writing, and a hundred things
that are certainly of late invention. It is therefore an incredible
thing that an eternal world should lose all the memorials
and monuments of its antiquity, before the Scripture-
time of the creation. And therefore doubtless it began but
then.”

NB:  it’s true that Baxter is confounding the origins of man and of the world as a whole; but insofar as human origins are under discussion, I believe his argument is as cogent today as it was then.  Obviously he doesn’t refer to Maoris or Aboriginals as Oz/NZ weren’t yet known to Europeans!

Dan, I’m not an Old Earth Creationist. The descriptor might more liokely be Theistic Evolutionist. The Old Earth guys have paid heed to the demands of geology and cosmology, they aren’t paying heed to most other data.
So I think I will be more attentive to the discoveries of science than interpretation of Scripture when it comes to this stuff.

As for the whole thing about Maoris getting to NZ. Good grief. NZ is yonks from anywhere. The seas aren’t always that friendly and the populations were smaller making the demands of exploration less exigent.
As for Baxter, well I know YECS has a lineage going back somewhat. I just think the whole thing has had its day and is nothiong more than a remnant thoughtstream with nothing to validate it. His (Baxter’s) ideas don’t hold any water to me, it’s all built on the assumption that the earliest man had a developed civilisation that was literate, urban and into monuments whereas it rather seems that this came very recently and that rather detracts from his arguement.

So I think I will be more attentive to the discoveries of science than interpretation of Scripture when it comes to this stuff.

That says it all. I believe scripture is the most important thing we have. Sure we may have many wrong interpretations, possibly even a majority is wrong, but striving to understand scripture correct is about the most important thing we can ever put our time into.

His (Baxter’s) ideas don’t hold any water to me, it’s all built on the assumption that the earliest man had a developed civilisation that was literate, urban and into monuments whereas it rather seems that this came very recently and that rather detracts from his arguement.

Does it really?
There’s no evidence of language evolving (no animal has anything like it) and all languages are just as complicated.
The earliest monuments weren’t preceded by millenia of shoddy workmanship, but were built quickly and without precedent.
And even Genesis suggests Adam had a book and could write.