Does anyone even listen to creationists these days?

[Husar]

Like I said, copyright enforcement: listen only to me, and if you listen to others you are a recreant. But it has one more dimension to it: all prophets are extinct and anyone in the future who will pretend to be one is not. As if times around 0 AD abounded in prophets and they have become increasingly scarce since then and eventually modern era is barren and arid.

Depends on who or what you believe makes people speak in tongues and others translate it. I've also seen preachers who claimed to relay prophecies, all fraud you might say but not all christians believe that god has been quiet for 2000 years, quite the contrary. The whole personal relationship with Jesus thing of the modern apostolic churches/pentecostals or how they are called in English is about god being right there and you getting in touch with him and he will let you know what he wants from you. None of them have changed the bible however.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Earth is not a closed system, evolution is the increasing order of molecules that have a sun to pump in what amounts to "free" energy. Creationism is absurd, agriculture developed in literally 3 major river bed areas within a handful of centuries and then spread from there. Some areas never developed agriculture until Europeans came by, hardly a universal phenomenon. I have been drinking white Russians for two days straight, I will not be defending this post in any rigorous manner, I am looking at you monty

[Montmorency]

Hell, I haven't even followed this thread.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Creationism is absurd, agriculture developed in literally 3 major river bed areas within a handful of centuries and then spread from there. Some areas never developed agriculture until Europeans came by, hardly a universal phenomenon.

This is wildly incorrect. According to the mainstream secular viewpoint, agriculture was developed in India 9000 BC (barley, wheat, jujube), Egypt in 8000 BC, China in 8000 BC (rice, millet, soy), Mesopotamia in 7000 BC (wheat, dates, peas, legumes, apples), Mexico in 7000 BC (maize, potato, peppers, beans), South America 7000 BC (potato, beans, coca), New Guinea 7000 BC (sugar cane, root crops).

Other areas that developed it slightly later mostly still developed it independently. For example North America in 1800 BC (sunflowers, tobacco, squash), Australia in 3000 BC (bush onions, millet, fish farms).

We're talking about a huge variety of crops in hugely different environments that have very varying degrees of susceptibility ot climate change etc. The only explanation for this sudden global onset is a rapid settlement of intelligent humans bringing their knowledge with them.

[Beskar]

Outside the US I think Creationism mostly exists in the minds of its opponents, I get pretty sick of the whole "do you believe in evolution?" question when people find I out I believe in God and want him to send me back in time to save the Roman Empire so we can all have jetpacks and have colonies on Saturn's moons.

It depends on what point in Roman history you want to go to, you might inadvertently destroy your faith.

[Major Robert Dump]

A guy leading a slave back from the market comes upon another guy beating his slave to death and says "bro, that's so old testament"

[Papewaio]

I can think of a book that needs that a whole lot more

George R. R. Martin will finish the book after the TV episodes are complete.


...what we are talking about popular works of fiction aren't we...

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is wildly incorrect. According to the mainstream secular viewpoint, agriculture was developed in India 9000 BC (barley, wheat, jujube), Egypt in 8000 BC, China in 8000 BC (rice, millet, soy), Mesopotamia in 7000 BC (wheat, dates, peas, legumes, apples), Mexico in 7000 BC (maize, potato, peppers, beans), South America 7000 BC (potato, beans, coca), New Guinea 7000 BC (sugar cane, root crops).

Other areas that developed it slightly later mostly still developed it independently. For example North America in 1800 BC (sunflowers, tobacco, squash), Australia in 3000 BC (bush onions, millet, fish farms).

We're talking about a huge variety of crops in hugely different environments that have very varying degrees of susceptibility ot climate change etc. The only explanation for this sudden global onset is a rapid settlement of intelligent humans bringing their knowledge with them.

From the pattern of agriculture emergence, your theory would state that these humans came from India since that was the first area that developed agriculture. Do we see the genetic evidence to back this up? Also, what you just listed fits my idea as long as I stipulate to leave out the Americas who I would consider to be concurrently developing agriculture at the same time as a mere coincidence (just as many scientific discoveries are made by two unconnected people at the same time). From Egypt, India and China their interactions with nomadic peoples slowly influenced these nearby hunter-gathers/pastoral group to convert to agriculture over time.

If you want my real opinion on this matter. I think the truth is a mixture of optimum climate conditions that allowed for low tech agriculture (much of what is now desert was once grassland and fertile) as well as what I described above. Certain areas which developed later as you mentioned could not have been completely ignorant of agriculture unless they were truly isolated (the level of long distance trade even back in ancient times is surprising, or at least it was to me in the textbooks I have read). North America consists mostly of harsh desert/flatlands, or cold tundra or extremely plentiful forests that probably encourage hunter-gatherer lifestyles due to the abundance of natural resources in (what is considered today) Eastern US. Australia is mostly desert and would be hard to achieve, so again no surprise it happened later there.


When we are talking about timelines which span across multiple millenniums, I think it is important to keep in mind the generations of contact which occur within a 1,000 years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It depends on what point in Roman history you want to go to, you might inadvertently destroy your faith.

I was thinking just prior to the First Crusade, I'd take the formula for Portland Cement and the plans for a manuballista with me.

[Gilrandir]

I have been drinking white Russians for two days straight, I will not be defending this post in any rigorous manner, I am looking at you monty

Hell, I haven't even followed this thread.

He meant not the thread but drinking. Hell, if there's virtual sex, why can't you two engage in virtual drinking?

The whole personal relationship with Jesus thing of the modern apostolic churches/pentecostals or how they are called in English is about god being right there and you getting in touch with him and he will let you know what he wants from you.

Which means that anyone can be a prophet. Up with private propheting!!! Sounds sensible.

According to the mainstream secular viewpoint, agriculture was developed in India 9000 BC (barley, wheat, jujube), Egypt in 8000 BC, China in 8000 BC (rice, millet, soy), Mesopotamia in 7000 BC (wheat, dates, peas, legumes, apples), Mexico in 7000 BC (maize, potato, peppers, beans), South America 7000 BC (potato, beans, coca), New Guinea 7000 BC (sugar cane, root crops).

Yet having appeared relatively simultaneously, each civilization went its own pace in development. So some other factors were at work besides simple evolution.

[Husar]

Which means that anyone can be a prophet. Up with private propheting!!! Sounds sensible.

Private propheting? Should that be a government thing where only Merkel and Putin can receive and interprete god's words?

[Gilrandir]

Private propheting? Should that be a government thing where only Merkel and Putin can receive and interprete god's words?

... and then go and collect their Nobel Prize. Guess the category yourself. Wait, it is a wrong thread. Well, disregard it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

From the pattern of agriculture emergence, your theory would state that these humans came from India since that was the first area that developed agriculture. Do we see the genetic evidence to back this up? Also, what you just listed fits my idea as long as I stipulate to leave out the Americas who I would consider to be concurrently developing agriculture at the same time as a mere coincidence (just as many scientific discoveries are made by two unconnected people at the same time). From Egypt, India and China their interactions with nomadic peoples slowly influenced these nearby hunter-gathers/pastoral group to convert to agriculture over time.

If you want my real opinion on this matter. I think the truth is a mixture of optimum climate conditions that allowed for low tech agriculture (much of what is now desert was once grassland and fertile) as well as what I described above. Certain areas which developed later as you mentioned could not have been completely ignorant of agriculture unless they were truly isolated (the level of long distance trade even back in ancient times is surprising, or at least it was to me in the textbooks I have read). North America consists mostly of harsh desert/flatlands, or cold tundra or extremely plentiful forests that probably encourage hunter-gatherer lifestyles due to the abundance of natural resources in (what is considered today) Eastern US. Australia is mostly desert and would be hard to achieve, so again no surprise it happened later there.

When we are talking about timelines which span across multiple millenniums, I think it is important to keep in mind the generations of contact which occur within a 1,000 years.

If it was just a case of two independent developments in Asia-Africa-Europe and the Americas, I agree it could be a coincidence. But there were nine of these independent developments across the world. According to this article (which admits this presents something of a conundrum) these are the "Fertile Crescent, China, Mesoamerica, Andes/Amazonia, eastern United States, Sahel, tropical West Africa, Ethiopia and New Guinea".

My view of what happened is that a people with extensive knowledge of agriculture, seafaring, urban development etc first settled in the Middle East and then settled the world over a period of about 1,000 years. Regarding the dates I gave earlier - I wouldn't read too much into a variation of 1,000 years - the figures are extremely speculative since radiocarbon dating is not far short of useless for absolute dating - its use lies in relative dating which is used alongside much less precise theories to come up with dates. Their significance IMO is in showing a very sudden appearance of civilization across the whole world - something that doesn't fit with evolutionary models for human development.

Have you ever come across any of David Rohl's books or documentaries? He is a secular archaeologist and is (was?) Britain's top expert on the ancient Middle East - he does an excellent job at pointing out how flimsy current scientific interpretations of these ancient times are, as well as highlighting systematic problems in the scientific community, and in particular its failure to harmonize findings from different disciplines as well as its refusal to appreciate the value of literary sources for cultural reasons (eg, the perceived faith v science conflict which means even attempting to reconcile archaeological findings with literary accounts is a career-wrecker).

If you want a secular and serious critique of much of modern science and history, then he's your man.

[Husar]

How exactly does the invention of agriculture relate to the topic of intelligent design and history according to the bible?
Is your point that since agriculture only came up about 6000-700 years ago everywhere, this sort of proves that god created man back then and man spread around the globe?

[Rhyfelwyr]

How exactly does the invention of agriculture relate to the topic of intelligent design and history according to the bible?
Is your point that since agriculture only came up about 6000-700 years ago everywhere, this sort of proves that god created man back then and man spread around the globe?

Not just agriculture - all civilization and human history is traced back to that time.

My point is this - evolutionists argue that fully intelligent humans were wandering the earth for hundreds of thousands of years (millions of years if you include the various proto-humans) and then suddenly all the hallmarks of civilization (agriculture, permanent settlement, organized religion, government etc) spring up almost simultaneously and completely independently in lots of locations all across the world.

Either that's a phenomenal coincidence, or their narrative is wrong.

[Husar]

Not just agriculture - all civilization and human history is traced back to that time.

My point is this - evolutionists argue that fully intelligent humans were wandering the earth for hundreds of thousands of years (millions of years if you include the various proto-humans) and then suddenly all the hallmarks of civilization (agriculture, permanent settlement, organized religion, government etc) spring up almost simultaneously and completely independently in lots of locations all across the world.

Either that's a phenomenal coincidence, or their narrative is wrong.

And dinosaur skeletons that are deep below the earth were intelligently placed there to be found by us?

[Rhyfelwyr]

And dinosaur skeletons that are deep below the earth were intelligently placed there to be found by us?

That's a whole other question. Do you, as an evolutionist, have any sort of answer to my above post?

Regarding dinosaurs, I would question the dating. I don't doubt they existed.

[Montmorency]

Rhy, we've already discussed the explanations for behavioral modernity: Population density and relative longevity. As archaeological finds of simple cultural products and practices build up, the date is being pushed back towards 100,000 years ago, leaving much less of a "sapiens" gap" than was assumed even 50 years ago.

Also, long-distance migrations were still the norm ten thousand of years ago, all the way up to the Medieval period.

Widespread agriculture in the several major Eurasian regions took over 5,000 years to develop, but it began almost immediately following the end of the glacial cycle/"ice age", indicating that it's pretty much like inventing the light-bulb, or printing press, or steam engine, or really anything else. 5,000 years is only "simultaneously" on a geological time-scale - not a human one.

[Husar]

That's a whole other question. Do you, as an evolutionist, have any sort of answer to my above post?

A lot can happen in a thousand years, it's not simultaneous.
And not all human history is traced back to that time, some of it is traced back to quite a while before that, but if you claim that the tracing is all lies and mistakes then how do I know that your number of 7k years ago isn't all lies and mistakes either?

[Sigurd]

We are discussing a young earth... but let the big elephant in the room go unnoticed. Not only does the Creationists claim the earth is young, but the whole universe is treated in the creation story in Genesis.
If God created all the stars and the unnumbered systems out there at the same time as the earh, explain Andromeda.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhy, we've already discussed the explanations for behavioral modernity: Population density and relative longevity.

And I've said that that such factors would not have been anywhere near uniform across the many different global locations where civilization suddenly appeared. Different climates, different demographics, different ecosystems, different crops, different resources, different landscape, etc.

Are you telling me that these extremely different environments all suddenly (the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms) created the same population pressures that forced/pushed the development of agriculture, permanent settlement and civilization across the world?

As archaeological finds of simple cultural products and practices build up, the date is being pushed back towards 100,000 years ago, leaving much less of a "sapiens" gap" than was assumed even 50 years ago.

I am aware of a couple of bits and pieces that are pre-date the roughly 10k year timeframe I've been working in previously. But then again they are dated with the same methods that confuse recent murder victims with ancient skeletons. As I said earlier radiocarbon dating and other methods from that group rely on relative rather than absolute dating - much of it lies in the interpretation and that's why I'm disagreeing with.

Widespread agriculture in the several major Eurasian regions took over 5,000 years to develop, but it began almost immediately following the end of the glacial cycle/"ice age", indicating that it's pretty much like inventing the light-bulb, or printing press, or steam engine, or really anything else. 5,000 years is only "simultaneously" on a geological time-scale - not a human one.

The simultaneous dates I gave were comparing several regions across the globe, not variance within a particular region. Naturally agriculture will only be adopted when technology and social conditions make it worthwhile - there are parts of the world today where those conditions still haven't been met. Regarding timescales, the only inconsistency is how you reconcile the sudden advent of civilization across the world with the slow, gradual, hundreds-of-thousands-of-years evolutionary approach.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A lot can happen in a thousand years, it's not simultaneous.
And not all human history is traced back to that time, some of it is traced back to quite a while before that, but if you claim that the tracing is all lies and mistakes then how do I know that your number of 7k years ago isn't all lies and mistakes either?

Anything before that is prehistory and is basically nothing but pure guesswork. All we have to understand it is relative (not absolute) dating systems from which we can produce theories.

As for a lot happening in a thousand years, I don't believe the evolutionary model allows for contact between Mesopotamia, China, Papua New Guinea, sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas and all the other places that independently developed agriculture within that 1,000 year timeframe. If you can't explain it by human contact and the spread of ideas/technology, then how do you explain it?

We are discussing a young earth... but let the big elephant in the room go unnoticed. Not only does the Creationists claim the earth is young, but the whole universe is treated in the creation story in Genesis.
If God created all the stars and the unnumbered systems out there at the same time as the earh, explain Andromeda.

I'm only going to fight one battle at a time, but I'm guessing your question has something to do with the fact that conditions in the very early universe were totally different from what they are now (as in, basic fundamental laws etc).

[Sigurd]

I'm only going to fight one battle at a time, but I'm guessing your question has something to do with the fact that conditions in the very early universe were totally different from what they are now (as in, basic fundamental laws etc).

That's fine. Anyone could answer this. No, I am thinking about the timescale here. 6 days - 6000 years old earth. How is Andromeda visible on our night sky?

[Montmorency]

Are you telling me that these extremely different environments all suddenly (the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms) created the same population pressures that forced/pushed the development of agriculture, permanent settlement and civilization across the world?

Er, well, ice ages tend to be global phenomena, so, yes. No indication of "forced", by the way - just enabled.

But then again they are dated with the same methods that confuse recent murder victims with ancient skeletons. As I said earlier radiocarbon dating and other methods from that group rely on relative rather than absolute dating - much of it lies in the interpretation and that's why I'm disagreeing with.

Laughably false in every respect.

how you reconcile the sudden advent of civilization across the world with the slow, gradual, hundreds-of-thousands-of-years evolutionary approach.

Not only are you misapplying a principle, but you are misunderstanding the basic nature of gradualist/Darwinian evolutionary theory. "Gradual" just means as opposed to saltational or punctuated. The movement of a car across a highway is gradual, yet its speed may range from 0 to 100 k/h at any given time or in any given interval.

[Ironside]

And I've said that that such factors would not have been anywhere near uniform across the many different global locations where civilization suddenly appeared. Different climates, different demographics, different ecosystems, different crops, different resources, different landscape, etc.

Are you telling me that these extremely different environments all suddenly (the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms) created the same population pressures that forced/pushed the development of agriculture, permanent settlement and civilization across the world?

Yes. Here's a nice page for the global temperature for the last 100.000 years. Notice how relatively stable the temperatures became when the ice age stopped.

It can also be worth remembering that pretty much all ancient cities and most civilizations died out because of starvation due to temperature changes.

And I still don't get the jump from "God gave humanity the new idea of agriculture" = "The earth is very young". I mean the killer of the young earth theory was geology, rather than biology and evolution.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's fine. Anyone could answer this. No, I am thinking about the timescale here. 6 days - 6000 years old earth. How is Andromeda visible on our night sky?

Cannae answer that myself and I don't want to insult you with an Answer in Genesis copy/paste. Maybe we can have that debate in the future.

Er, well, ice ages tend to be global phenomena, so, yes. No indication of "forced", by the way - just enabled.

Long before the end of the last Ice Age the majority of the earth was still suitable for agriculture and was mostly temperate/desert/tropical. Most major crops can be grown in different climate zones and would easily grow in many places even with the more rapid temperature fluctuations.

Laughably false in every respect.

Nope, its a fact (gave you a link to an evolutionary site so you can't complain - note how their "response" totally misses the point). Dating living snails from 2,000 to 27,000 years old, living penguins to 8,000 years ago, the body of a seal that died 30 years ago dated to 4,600 years ago. And then even secular scientists themselves say radiocarbon dating is only useful for relative dating beyond around 3,500 years.

Not only are you misapplying a principle, but you are misunderstanding the basic nature of gradualist/Darwinian evolutionary theory. "Gradual" just means as opposed to saltational or punctuated. The movement of a car across a highway is gradual, yet its speed may range from 0 to 100 k/h at any given time or in any given interval.

I am fully aware of the principles of bottlenecking, watersheds etc, and how these could present a staggered pattern of progress. The problem is you have to give reasons for why these happened, and I disagree with the explanation (climate fluctuation during the Ice Age) that you have given.

Yes. Here's a nice page for the global temperature for the last 100.000 years. Notice how relatively stable the temperatures became when the ice age stopped.

It can also be worth remembering that pretty much all ancient cities and most civilizations died out because of starvation due to temperature changes.

And I still don't get the jump from "God gave humanity the new idea of agriculture" = "The earth is very young". I mean the killer of the young earth theory was geology, rather than biology and evolution.

Right, and I am to believe that a reduction in this climate fluctuation suddenly presented the exact same demographic pressures in completely different ecosystems with different wildlife, crops, climates and landscapes all across the world at near enough the exact same time? Never mind the fact that most of the staple crops can be grown in quite different climates and would surely grow in much of the world even with the sort of fluctuations your graph presented.

As for how this relates to the Young Earth argument... well I think the sudden emergence of civilization across the world fits with the Biblical narrative of an intelligent people with basic technologies for civilized urban life rapidly settling the earth, as opposed to the evolutionary theory of milling around doing nothing but surviving in loose tribal arrangements for hundreds of thousands of years before all of a sudden becoming civilized in the last few millenia. I want to develop a systematic history that shows this, then expanding upon it to show how the original monotheism degenerated into polythiesm and then atheism, how the original godly governments descended into tyranny. Pretty much the story of Romans 1:18-25, I call it the fall of man within the fall of man. Go against the grain of pretty much every secular theory on ancient history. But I'm rambling and need to go now...

[HopAlongBunny]

I think this debate illustrates something very nicely:

Science supports my view = Science is the measure of truth
Science does not support my view = Science is actually a worthless standard in discussion of such issues

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ly-from-facts/

[Montmorency]

Long before the end of the last Ice Age the majority of the earth was still suitable for agriculture and was mostly temperate/desert/tropical. Most major crops can be grown in different climate zones and would easily grow in many places even with the more rapid temperature fluctuations.

Population density, as I said earlier. The end of that era as a global phenomenon brought about a population boom throughout Eurasia.

Nope, its a fact (gave you a link to an evolutionary site so you can't complain - note how their "response" totally misses the point). Dating living snails from 2,000 to 27,000 years old, living penguins to 8,000 years ago, the body of a seal that died 30 years ago dated to 4,600 years ago. And then even secular scientists themselves say radiocarbon dating is only useful for relative dating beyond around 3,500 years.

Are you going Kadagar on us? Read the source you linked.

The problem is you have to give reasons for why these happened

Er, why? Just like we must follow every generation of every species through all time or else clearly God dit it? What?

Pick up a pebble off the street. Say it weighs 40 grams. If you can not explain why it does not presently weigh 41 grams, or elaborate on its state of formation at any instant in its history, then surely Satan must have created it to tempt you into sin.

Make sense?

exact same demographic pressures in completely different ecosystems with different wildlife, crops, climates and landscapes all across the world

Similar biomes in just a smattering of places (e.g. temperate/subtropical major river valleys) would be sufficient to discredit your argument. Especially considering that local plant variety and other ecological factors would account for difference in crop dominance for particular areas.

Just consider how long it really took agriculture to take hold, despite more than 10,000 years of extensive ancient and prehistoric contact between societies and kinship groups. Just consider how Africa and Australia, insofar as fully-tropical biomes, developed agricultural societies both extremely late and sporadically (e.g. the West African river valleys as a notable exception to the absence of agriculture in old Africa). Even now, Africa is pretty piss-poor for agriculture, when taken as a whole.

As for the American Indians, most of them did not develop agriculture until the colonial period, again due to the details of geography - though do note that the North American Indians seem to have been on the verge of developing extensive agricultural societies shortly before that point. Ultimately, when we think of American pre-Columbian agriculture, we think of what turn out to be relative sweet spots: tropical mountain-ranges and the well-watered basins between mountain and coast. So it is not surprising that, where there was a sort of midpoint between the most conducive Eurasian geography and the least-conducive African geography is where extensive agricultural cultivation came to be practiced in the Americas, and furthermore at a point later than Eurasian agriculture but earlier than African agriculture.

Another important factor in the ecology of agriculture was the domestication and domesticability of suitable local animal life, but this lines up with the above.

Thus, after the ice age, where the geography was right, the leap to cultivation was not just inevitable, but quite simple to make. Elsewhere, it needed additional contributions. From there on, it was a matter of geopolitics and reaching subsequent population threshold(s).

Never mind the fact that most of the staple crops can be grown in quite different climates

Just to be pedantic, you obviously can't compare modern strains of agricultural material to the undomesticated varieties societies first began to experiment with. Plus, you ignore your own point on crop diversity.

[Gilrandir]

Regarding dinosaurs, I would question the dating. I don't doubt they existed.

Why do you put dinosaurs in plural? In fact, there was only one dinosaur species, only paleontologists assemble the bones differently every time they find some.

Also, long-distance migrations were still the norm ten thousand of years ago, all the way up to the Medieval period.

And much later - think of Israel after WWII.

If God created all the stars and the unnumbered systems out there at the same time as the earh, explain Andromeda.

Once upon a time there lived a Greek guy named Perseus...

My view of what happened is that a people with extensive knowledge of agriculture, seafaring, urban development etc first settled in the Middle East and then settled the world over a period of about 1,000 years.

It doesn't account for great cultural and technological differences between the civilizations you mentioned. Like the American ones never knew the wheel.

[Montmorency]

And much later - think of Israel after WWII.

If you want to go that route now, think of regional and international movement and migration of labor today: hundreds of millions in China alone, to say nothing of Eastern Europe-Central Asia, Latin America to North America, internally in the United States, Western Europe as we all know...

However, crucially, by this time the migration of massive and cohesive social units (e.g. "tribes") is over.

With rather few exceptions, whole nations are not v'pokhode gatoviye.

That said, out of interest what are the major exceptions from the past century? That is, general immigration patterns or sporadic refugee movements aren't really counted here.

1. Israel
2. South Vietnam-United States
3. Soviet Jewry-United States/Israel
4. Ethnic cleansing of Prussia

...