AIG live chat on "When was the Ice Age in Biblical History?"

Yes, 2PM ET (according to the AiG page pointed to above. Unfortunately, I will be otherwise occupied at the time.

I'd like to hear about how cattle, sheep and goats managed to speciate from the (presumably) clean 14 of the bovid-kind on the Ark in eight human generations from Flood to Abraham. The story of Abraham in the Bible clearly distinguishes between these three members of the family Bovidae.

given this B.S. as typical of their writings and "research", it's understandable how the authors couldn't land respectable positions anywhere other than a place like AIG, though maybe the Discovery Institute might be interested?

Ummm...last time I checked, EDT was GMT -4 (EST is GMT -5.) So 2 PM EDT is 1600 GMT.

W. H. Heydt said: Ummm...last time I checked, EDT was GMT -4 (EST is GMT -5.) So 2 PM EDT is 1600 GMT.

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said: Ummm...last time I checked, EDT was GMT -4 (EST is GMT -5.) So 2 PM EDT is 1600 GMT.

2pm = 1400 (12pm = 1200)

The Persian Gulf apparently did not exist during the Ice Age. [listed as from 2,250B.C. to 2,000 B.C. !!!] The ocean was so low that coastal waters became dry land. Conditions were harsh, so archaeologists do not find cities from this time. After the ice melted and filled the gulf, however, people returned to the area and built cities like Ur, a thriving port on the gulf.

Well all you have to do is ignore all of the evidence and presto, the earth is young! Just ignore the tree ring data, the ice core data, the pollen stratigraphy data, the coral reef data, all of the radio carbon dating evidence, continental drift, glaciation, etc. etc. etc. And then there is all of the biogeography and genetic data, but I guess that's too hard to understand anyway. Of course you won't be able to fool anyone who knows anything at all about any of this data. I guess that's why they feel the need to control education as well.

I forgot magnetic pole reversals. Oh well, too late now.

We historians and philologists of the Ancient Near East naturally have similar "disagreements" with the YECs and similar buffoons writing such papers. Obviously, such a timeline is exactly as ludicrous in the face of the evidence from the ANE as it is when set against that from biology. And while the YEC community loves to point out dissent from evolutionary theory among biologists (or act like they have found some), I am aware of no professional, practicing historian, archaeologist or philologist of the ANE who holds to a 6000 timeframe, though there may well be some that have escaped my attention. It is interesting that though the YECs have launched (or never stopped launching) such a virulent assault on evolutionary biology in the educational system and tried to get its "theories" taught alongside it, they do not seem to have made any serious attempts to do the same in the historical fields. Of course, such silliness will be taught in private religious schools and colleges, but I know of no campaigns, lawsuits or legislative efforts to insert a YEC reading of historical sources into public education such as biologists have had to contend with.
Why is this? It is surely not that fear a confrontation with the clear evidence. They have shown clearly that they are capable of "dealing" with such in the case of biology. Presumably it has to do with the matter of scale, i.e. since historical and archaeological evidence only proves YEC theories wrong by some thousands or tens of thousands of years, respectively, evobio proves them wrong by many hundreds of millions of years. This allows them to act like the historical and archaeological evidence can be whipped into form with a few minor tweaks and nudges, while evobio blows it all completely out of the water.
Little do they know, that the former is just as devestating.
Sigh...

It would be interesting to see AIG discuss the five (not one) ice ages that geologists have identified along with their corresponding very long warm interglacial periods. The fifth ice age has had four glacial periods with interglacial periods as well. We are likely living in one now between the fourth and possible future fifth glacial episode. Not only does AIG need to explain how "the" Ice Age occurred in less than 200 years, but also explain five of them with their obvious non-glacial sediments interspersed between them. Then there is the "snowball earth" evidence for the second identified ice age not to mention how all this fits with the often abused Second Law of Thermodynamics! Oh, and why are human artifacts found only with the latest of the last ice age glacial periods and not all of the ice ages?

Also, the Permo-Carboniferous glaciation (~300 Mya) was massive, and produced striations on several continents that point radially out from what was then the South Pole, recording the northward flow of glaciers on the ancient southern continent of Gondwana. However, AIG's Creation Museum has a huge display that clearly states that Pangea [Gondwana is the southern part of Pangea] formed AND existed AND broke apart all under water at the bottom of the ocean during the one year of Noah's Flood. This causes countless problems for fossil distributions and many geological lines of evidence caused by Permo-Carboniferous glaciation.

If you re-assemble S. America, Africa, Madagascar, India, Australia, etc. around Antarctica, thus re-forming Gondwana, the glacial striations point radially out from the then-South Pole like a daisy flower, and the numerous fossils of leaves of the fern glossopteris form a near-perfect circle at the edge of the glaciated region.

Moreover, the present-day distribution of living Nothofagus [Southern Beech trees] is scattered about the Southern Hemisphere today, with apparent randomness, but if you re-assemble Gondwana they would form an arc about the then-South Pole. If, as AIG claims, Pangea formed AND broke apart all under water at the bottom of the ocean during the one year of Noah's Flood, how could Southern Beech trees, after the Flood was over, know they should grow only on continents that have fossils of Southern Beeches that got buried during Noah's Flood?

Fossils of glossopteris and Nothofagus have both been found in Antarctica, as predicted by conventional plate tectonics. Outside of the arc of glossopteris fossils, in further semi-circles or arcs are distributed the fossils of Triassic era synapsid (not dinosaur) reptile species like lystrosaurus (once very, very numerous) and cynognathus. Fossils of the fresh-water aquatic reptile mesosaurus (not to be confused with mosasaurs) form an arc inside the glossopteris arc.

But if, as AIG claims, Pangea formed AND broke apart all under water at the bottom of the ocean during the one year of Noah's Flood, then how can you explain the glacial striations pointing radially outward from the then-South Pole, the glacial pavements, the glacial sediments, and the tillites of the Permo-Carboniferous era; not to mention the arc-like distribution about the then-South Pole of fossils of living trees like Southern Beeches and extinct ferns like glossopteris; and extinct reptiles like lystrosaurus, cynognathus, and mesosaurus-- but NO mammal fossils, NO whale fossils, and NO bird fossils with that distribution?

and not a single writer seemed to have noticed that everyone in the world died 4,000 years ago.

Jared Miller said: We historians and philologists of the Ancient Near East naturally have similar "disagreements" with the YECs and similar buffoons writing such papers. Obviously, such a timeline is exactly as ludicrous in the face of the evidence from the ANE as it is when set against that from biology. And while the YEC community loves to point out dissent from evolutionary theory among biologists (or act like they have found some), I am aware of no professional, practicing historian, archaeologist or philologist of the ANE who holds to a 6000 timeframe, though there may well be some that have escaped my attention. It is interesting that though the YECs have launched (or never stopped launching) such a virulent assault on evolutionary biology in the educational system and tried to get its "theories" taught alongside it, they do not seem to have made any serious attempts to do the same in the historical fields. Of course, such silliness will be taught in private religious schools and colleges, but I know of no campaigns, lawsuits or legislative efforts to insert a YEC reading of historical sources into public education such as biologists have had to contend with. Why is this? It is surely not that fear a confrontation with the clear evidence. They have shown clearly that they are capable of "dealing" with such in the case of biology. Presumably it has to do with the matter of scale, i.e. since historical and archaeological evidence only proves YEC theories wrong by some thousands or tens of thousands of years, respectively, evobio proves them wrong by many hundreds of millions of years. This allows them to act like the historical and archaeological evidence can be whipped into form with a few minor tweaks and nudges, while evobio blows it all completely out of the water. Little do they know, that the former is just as devestating. Sigh...

and they can’t invoke Rohl’s authority or Rohl’s arguments because they’re based partially on astronomical events that are fixed in time, and can’t be moved unless creationists invoke miracles to alter the laws of planetary motion.

Well, invoking the "authority" of David Rohl in ANE studies would be like invoking the "authority" of Dembski in biology, and indeed, his chronology wouldn't help the YECs much anyway.
Apart from issues of authority, Rohl's chronology is all but universally rejected by mainstream researchers because it leads to a multitude of contradictions with evidence from various directions, something that will be familiar to the biologists who frequent these pages.
The Narmer Pallette would be one of hundreds of pieces of evidence that fit much more convincingly with the conventional chronologies than with a chronology reduced by 350 (or more) years. (The Narmer Palette alone won't get you very far toward constructing a reliable chronology.) Again, familiar to biologists will be the tendency to cherry pick those pieces of evidence that one would like to believe would support a certain scheme, then to either ignore or do violence to any evidence that seems to counter your pet paradigm, accusations that persons such as Rohl often find themselves faced with, accusations that they never seem to get around to addressing head on.
It is true of course that planetary motion cannot be fiddled with; the real trick, however is correlating any mention of an astronomical event in an historical source with the event known from the astronomical sciences. This indeed is replete with challenges and can only be used together with all the other lines of reasoning. So when the supporters of a chronology claim to have "the solution", because it is anchored to astronomical events, red flags should go up all over the place. This is not to reject them entirely, but to align them along with all the other evidence.

Crud I'm in a meeting for this 'talk'. I'm curious as to how they explain the massive swings in temperature for their ice age to present. I'm fairly certain that ancient tribes of humans weren't burning fossil fuels to increase global temps.

Aside, I heard about something similar in which they would be explaining how marsupials ended up in Australia after the Flud(tm). Has anyone else heard this or am I just hearing things?

Well, if the Flud rearranged the continents and all that, maybe Australia used to be a lot closer than it is now?

Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a "read this chapter" or "read this article" rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

lkeithlu said: Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a "read this chapter" or "read this article" rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

ogremk5 said:

lkeithlu said: Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a "read this chapter" or "read this article" rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

Given my experiences... you were in exactly the right place. Sadly...

I've sent Byers' raving to the BW. See him there, please.

lkeithlu said: Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a "read this chapter" or "read this article" rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

Jared Miller said: Well, invoking the "authority" of David Rohl in ANE studies would be like invoking the "authority" of Dembski in biology, and indeed, his chronology wouldn't help the YECs much anyway. Apart from issues of authority, Rohl's chronology is all but universally rejected by mainstream researchers because it leads to a multitude of contradictions with evidence from various directions, something that will be familiar to the biologists who frequent these pages. The Narmer Pallette would be one of hundreds of pieces of evidence that fit much more convincingly with the conventional chronologies than with a chronology reduced by 350 (or more) years. (The Narmer Palette alone won't get you very far toward constructing a reliable chronology.) Again, familiar to biologists will be the tendency to cherry pick those pieces of evidence that one would like to believe would support a certain scheme, then to either ignore or do violence to any evidence that seems to counter your pet paradigm, accusations that persons such as Rohl often find themselves faced with, accusations that they never seem to get around to addressing head on. It is true of course that planetary motion cannot be fiddled with; the real trick, however is correlating any mention of an astronomical event in an historical source with the event known from the astronomical sciences. This indeed is replete with challenges and can only be used together with all the other lines of reasoning. So when the supporters of a chronology claim to have "the solution", because it is anchored to astronomical events, red flags should go up all over the place. This is not to reject them entirely, but to align them along with all the other evidence.

Richard B. Hoppe said: I've sent Byers' raving to the BW. See him there, please.

lkeithlu said:

ogremk5 said:

lkeithlu said: Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a "read this chapter" or "read this article" rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

Given my experiences... you were in exactly the right place. Sadly...

Ahhh...okay. Then it was pretty pathetic.

Kevin Nelstead You still haven't answered the first question about Yellowstone. Answers Magazine Sorry, we didn't see the Yellowstone question. Can you restate? Thanks! -Mike Richard B. Hoppe Here it is: Kevin Nelstead I have written a review of the Ice Age article at geochristian.wordpress.com . In the authors' scenario, Yellowstone volcanism would have to have happened during the ice age, as tephra (ash) deposits from Yellowstone are found between layers of glacial till on the plains. The Yellowstone Caldera had three "supervolcano" eruptions, plus numerous smaller eruptions. On top of all of this, Yellowstone had a large ice cap during the ice age, and there is good evidence for glaciation in between eruptions as well. How do you fit numerous volcanic eruptions and multiple glaciations into one ice age only 250 years long? Answers Magazine Hi Richard, That's a good question but very specific and outside of the scope of the actual article. The staff geologist who cowrote the article with me is not present, and I did not run across this specific question during the production of the article. Richard B. Hoppe It's Kevin's question, and directly addresses issues strongly implicated in your article.

diogeneslamp0 said:

lkeithlu said: Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a "read this chapter" or "read this article" rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

That's exactly what happened.

"That’s a good question but very specific and outside of the scope of the actual article."

That's what happens when a question gets specific. You find out that you didn't know as much as you thought, and now it's time to evade.
I am astounded at how general (and limited) your knowledge has to be to buy into this.

Not surprised that Snelling was not avialable, and the AiG editor couldn't answer any substantive questions.

Those dolts banned me for suggesting that "Intelligent Floating" might explain why placental mammals did not follow the marsupials to Australia

Anyone who is stupid enough to be convinced by the evasive shucking and jiving of this crowd is unreachable anyway

Most of them were talking about homeschooling :)

Tough when you are attacked by the intelligent and educated segment of the culture isn't it

lkeithlu said: "That’s a good question but very specific and outside of the scope of the actual article." That's what happens when a question gets specific. You find out that you didn't know as much as you thought, and now it's time to evade. I am astounded at how general (and limited) your knowledge has to be to buy into this.

Scott F said: I'm always amazed by these timelines. AIG's timeline shows that Noah left the ark almost exactly 200 years after the Giza pyramids were completed. There was an uninterrupted period of almost 1,200 years of pyramid building which completely spanned The Flood(tm), and no one in Egypt seemed to notice or even remark on it. We have almost 6,000 years of written history, and not a single writer seemed to have noticed that everyone in the world died 4,000 years ago. Their timeline also claims that the "First Cities" show up around 2,100 B.C., though Ur is known to have existed as early as 4,000 to 3,000 B.C. (originally a coastal city), and Jericho appears to have been settled as early as 9,000 B.C. Yet, according to the AIG timeline:

The Persian Gulf apparently did not exist during the Ice Age. [listed as from 2,250B.C. to 2,000 B.C. !!!] The ocean was so low that coastal waters became dry land. Conditions were harsh, so archaeologists do not find cities from this time. After the ice melted and filled the gulf, however, people returned to the area and built cities like Ur, a thriving port on the gulf.

Funny that no one told the Egyptians nor any of the city states in Mesopotamia or the Indus valley about any of this harsh deprivation.

diogeneslamp0 said: Also, the Permo-Carboniferous glaciation (~300 Mya) was massive, and produced striations on several continents that point radially out from what was then the South Pole, recording the northward flow of glaciers on the ancient southern continent of Gondwana. However, AIG's Creation Museum has a huge display that clearly states that Pangea [Gondwana is the southern part of Pangea] formed AND existed AND broke apart all under water at the bottom of the ocean during the one year of Noah's Flood. This causes countless problems for fossil distributions and many geological lines of evidence caused by Permo-Carboniferous glaciation. If you re-assemble S. America, Africa, Madagascar, India, Australia, etc. around Antarctica, thus re-forming Gondwana, the glacial striations point radially out from the then-South Pole like a daisy flower, and the numerous fossils of leaves of the fern glossopteris form a near-perfect circle at the edge of the glaciated region. Moreover, the present-day distribution of living Nothofagus [Southern Beech trees] is scattered about the Southern Hemisphere today, with apparent randomness, but if you re-assemble Gondwana they would form an arc about the then-South Pole. If, as AIG claims, Pangea formed AND broke apart all under water at the bottom of the ocean during the one year of Noah's Flood, how could Southern Beech trees, after the Flood was over, know they should grow only on continents that have fossils of Southern Beeches that got buried during Noah's Flood? Fossils of glossopteris and Nothofagus have both been found in Antarctica, as predicted by conventional plate tectonics. Outside of the arc of glossopteris fossils, in further semi-circles or arcs are distributed the fossils of Triassic era synapsid (not dinosaur) reptile species like lystrosaurus (once very, very numerous) and cynognathus. Fossils of the fresh-water aquatic reptile mesosaurus (not to be confused with mosasaurs) form an arc inside the glossopteris arc. But if, as AIG claims, Pangea formed AND broke apart all under water at the bottom of the ocean during the one year of Noah's Flood, then how can you explain the glacial striations pointing radially outward from the then-South Pole, the glacial pavements, the glacial sediments, and the tillites of the Permo-Carboniferous era; not to mention the arc-like distribution about the then-South Pole of fossils of living trees like Southern Beeches and extinct ferns like glossopteris; and extinct reptiles like lystrosaurus, cynognathus, and mesosaurus-- but NO mammal fossils, NO whale fossils, and NO bird fossils with that distribution?

Richard B. Hoppe said: I've sent Byers' raving to the BW. See him there, please.

IBelieveInGod said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: I've sent Byers' raving to the BW. See him there, please.

So much for opposing opinions:)

IBelieveInGod said: So much for opposing opinions:)

The GeoChristian (who participated) has some comments on the AIG Facebook chat here.

The fact 'IBelieveInGod', that you can post here at all speaks volumes for humanists generally, and accepters of evolution specifically. If you had your way, tell me what ideas contradicting god's holy writ you would encourage to be disseminated? Trying to post on conservative web sites is a game of identity, and their protection of percieved truths. I've long since given up trying to post at Uncommondescent, I have been expelled, and refuse to use a psudonym, too honest you see, I'm an atheist.

Robert,

Are you the van Bakel who wrote the 2010 paper on pervasive transcription?

I would like to say yes, but no! Just a fan of Pandas ever since Dover, and someone who gets too much joy, I fear, out of crackpots made to look as such, in an open forum of course.

Filed under the "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?" category.

Wow, that's weird. I just clicked on the AIG page link, (apparently because I'm a masochist) and read through their timeline.

One thing popped out to me.

They're very specific about the Great Flood, they put it at 2350 BCE.

But I thought prior to the flood the ancient patriarchs lived 1000 years.

That means everybody born after 3350 BCE was killed in the flood and was therefore evil (in 2350, only the Noahs were "just" and worth saving).

Or, to put it a little differently, aside from clan Noah, the last honorable person on Earth was born in 3351 BCE.

If Usher was right and man was created in 4004, then good people were born for no more than 653 years - about 39% of the timespan of God's creation.

Then, aside from the Noahs, there were nothing but evil people born after that - 1000 years.

Nothing. Not one single good and just person.

I believe lore has it that Noah was 90 when he completed his Ark.

That means that God could have commanded Noah to begin the Ark no earlier than, say 2428, when Noah was 12 (a "man" under Jewish law, although I'm iffy if "Jewish law" would have existed yet).

The Bible says that "God saw men were evil" and decided to destroy them.

When?

Apparently no earlier than 2416 BCE. After all, before Noah, everyone was evil, why wait, just kill 'em all, there's nobody worth saving, right?

God's project goes off the rail in only 635 years, and nothing but evil people are born for 910 more years and God doesn't' notice it?

Or God noticed immediately but decided to not take any action for 910 years while forty four more generations of evil people were born?

Or did he have to let all the good humans die "naturally" first before he could act, biding his time while mankind got larger and larger and more and more evil all the time? Why did he force the last 999 year old just and true man to even live in such an evil world? It must have been terrible! What depravities and degradations did those last just men suffer in their final few centuries at the hands of all those heathens?

Do any of these things sound like the actions of a God who watches every sparrow fall and hand-shapes every snowflake?

More to the point, do people like AIG ever actually pause to think about the logical and ethical consequences of the models they build and how completely, batshit insane they make God sound?

diogeneslamp0 said:

Jared Miller said: Well, invoking the "authority" of David Rohl in ANE studies would be like invoking the "authority" of Dembski in biology, and indeed, his chronology wouldn't help the YECs much anyway. Apart from issues of authority, Rohl's chronology is all but universally rejected by mainstream researchers because it leads to a multitude of contradictions with evidence from various directions, something that will be familiar to the biologists who frequent these pages. The Narmer Pallette would be one of hundreds of pieces of evidence that fit much more convincingly with the conventional chronologies than with a chronology reduced by 350 (or more) years. (The Narmer Palette alone won't get you very far toward constructing a reliable chronology.) Again, familiar to biologists will be the tendency to cherry pick those pieces of evidence that one would like to believe would support a certain scheme, then to either ignore or do violence to any evidence that seems to counter your pet paradigm, accusations that persons such as Rohl often find themselves faced with, accusations that they never seem to get around to addressing head on. It is true of course that planetary motion cannot be fiddled with; the real trick, however is correlating any mention of an astronomical event in an historical source with the event known from the astronomical sciences. This indeed is replete with challenges and can only be used together with all the other lines of reasoning. So when the supporters of a chronology claim to have "the solution", because it is anchored to astronomical events, red flags should go up all over the place. This is not to reject them entirely, but to align them along with all the other evidence.

Jared, the Wikipedia page on Rohl's New Chronology includes almost no substantive objections to the NC, except for radiocarbon dating, and it makes Rohl's critics look very closed-minded. Perhaps this page needs updating with some substantive criticisms?

IBelieveInGod said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: I've sent Byers' raving to the BW. See him there, please.

So much for opposing opinions:)

stevaroni said: More to the point, do people like AIG ever actually pause to think about the logical and ethical consequences of the models they build and how completely, batshit insane they make God sound?

Jared Miller said: We historians and philologists of the Ancient Near East naturally have similar "disagreements" with the YECs and similar buffoons writing such papers...

IBelieveInGod hypocritically said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: I've sent Byers' raving to the BW. See him there, please.

So much for opposing opinions:)

Matt Bright,
I don’t think it really is harder. They just cherry pick just like they do with everything else. Here is an example I recently read that shows the general tendency:
So I apologize if I am writing stuff you already know, but the consensus among archeologists is that the Israelites didn’t arrive in Canaan in a wave of conquest in1400 BC like it says in the book of Joshua. Israelites were Canaanites who migrated from Canaanite cities into the countryside when city life became unsafe around 1200 BC. The short version of the Joshua debunking is that most of the cities that Joshua supposedly conquered weren’t actually conquered around that time. Some were unoccupied at that time. Others that were supposed to be burned to the ground were continuously occupied during that time. On the front of Israelites moving to the country side around 1200 there are three lines of evidence: 1) an Egyptian written reference, 2) countryside archeological digs and 3) the written and archeological records of a three way war between the Hittites the Egyptians and the Philistines in which all of the battles happened in or near Canaan and a few major Canaanite cities were razed and burned.

I saw all of this cheerfully bastardized on a creationist site as:
Archeology supports the bible version of events because they have verified the destruction of some of the cities that are reported destroyed in Joshua and verified that there were Israelites in Canaan by 1200BC.

stevaroni said: Wow, that's weird. I just clicked on the AIG page link, (apparently because I'm a masochist) and read through their timeline. One thing popped out to me. They're very specific about the Great Flood, they put it at 2350 BCE. But I thought prior to the flood the ancient patriarchs lived 1000 years. That means everybody born after 3350 BCE was killed in the flood and was therefore evil (in 2350, only the Noahs were "just" and worth saving). [...]

IBelieveInGod said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: I've sent Byers' raving to the BW. See him there, please.

So much for opposing opinions:)

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: I've sent Byers' raving to the BW. See him there, please.

So much for opposing opinions:)

IBelieveInGod, Robert Byers is an Idiot for Jesus who disrupts every thread he appears in with his gross stupidity and his pathological need to annoy everyone with his annoying inanity. To put it another way, if you had a babbling lunatic come into City Hall every day who did nothing but interrupt every single proceeding with nonsensical rants, and drool all over all of the furniture, would you fault the staff for throwing him out?

Henry J said: So, Methuselah was evil? Huh. Funny I don't recall it saying that. But I did the math on that, and his reported DOD was within a year of the Flood thing. Er, at least in my edition of the Bible it was.

Of course there's the inconvenient fact that there is no ice age in Biblical History.

Almost as if "God" didn't know about it.

Imagine that.

Glen Davidson

PZ has fun with the paper underlying the live chat.

So; how does AiG know all that chronology? Were they there? How do they know their holy book was written by people who were there? Were they there to verify that people back then didn’t just make crap up? Just how does AiG know that their holy book wasn’t written yesterday?

How long did it take for the Earth to cool off after the flood? 400 megatons of TNT going off for every square meter of the Earth’s surface for 40 days and nights would be pretty certain to heat things up; as would all that super-heated water if it came up from the lithosphere at something like 1000 degrees Celsius. And if the entire surface of the planet was just simply rearranged by pushing up mountains and continents while gouging out ocean basins in a period of 40 days; how does that happen without melting the surface of the Earth?

According to AiG, the temperature of the Earth’s surface had to go from thousands of degrees to being covered with ice in just a few centuries. And eight people not only survived, they multiplied; and all those animals dispersed and evolved within that same period. How did they manage those temperature extremes?

I wonder what these AiG idiots see when they look in the mirror.

How did they manage those temperature extremes?

Okay. Enough about physics and archeology and history and stuff. As Byer's is wont to say, "That's just a line of reasoning." (Ooo, how I hate that phrase with a passion.) Let's look at some real numbers. Math doesn't lie. Let's look at AIG's timeline more closely.

The Flood ended at 2350 B.C. The Tower of Babel was created in 2250 B.C. What was so distinctive about the Tower of Babel? It was big. Big enough that God noticed and got really pissed. So, since the Great Pyramids were big, and it didn't seem to piss off God so much, the Tower of Babel must have been bigger. Right? How many people did it take to build the Tower of Babel?

I'm going to make some assumptions here. Based on the AIG time line, let's assume an average life span (a "generation", as they say) of 30 years, over this period. Let's assume women were fertile from age 15 to age 30. Assume that each woman was fertile every 12 months, assuming 3 months of breast feeding after birth. Let's assume an infant mortality rate in those days of 50%, given all the privations of the post-Flood world. Let's assume there were the same number of girls as boys born each generation, leaving only half of the population to bear children. Let's assume it took a local population of 10,000 men to support monumental building on that scale in 2250 B.C. Let's assume another 10,000 men to support the builders, for a total population of 20,000 men. So starting from 4 women in 2350 B.C., 100 years later we would need a population of 40,000 to build and support the Tower of Babel.

How many children would have to be born each year to reach that population in 100 years?

I'm no population specialist, but some back-of-the-spreadsheet calculations suggest that every fertile woman must have given birth to an average of 1.73 live children every year for 15 years each for 100 years. So, pretty much every woman would have to give birth to twins every year, for 15 years of her life.

And that's just enough to fill one minor city-state at the end of 100 years.

250 years after that, we have populated the rest of world, including Egypt, Babylon, China, India, and all the rest of the city states.

So, is AIG claiming that people bred like rabbits in those days? It appears so. And that is *not* just a line of reasoning.

The flood and the ice age occurred after centuries after Egypt first started using written language, and yet there is no indication that Egyptian life was disrupted in any way, and no record of either. Why aren't ice age records in the bible? The same reason that llamas, kangaroos and the meteor crater of Arizona are not there. The only things you find in the bible are those things experienced by people in the Middle East.

Aside from the simple observation that ice ages are not even mentioned in any part of the Bible, there is no reason why Answers in Genesis should be taken seriously when they make assertions based on no evidence whatsoever and then evade attempts to either verify their claims or criticize them.

lkeithlu said: The flood and the ice age occurred after centuries after Egypt first started using written language, and yet there is no indication that Egyptian life was disrupted in any way, and no record of either. Why aren't ice age records in the bible? The same reason that llamas, kangaroos and the meteor crater of Arizona are not there. The only things you find in the bible are those things experienced by people in the Middle East.

Jared Miller said: the tendency to cherry pick those pieces of evidence that one would like to believe would support a certain scheme, then to either ignore or do violence to any evidence that seems to counter your pet paradigm, accusations that persons such as Rohl often find themselves faced with, accusations that they never seem to get around to addressing head on.

Sure, one can start with

Pruzsinszky, R. (2009): Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C. An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 22. Wien.

Huber, P.J. (2011): The Astronomical Basis of Egyptian Chronology of the Second Millennium BC., Journal of Egyptian History 4, 172-227.

Krauss, R./D.A. Warburton (2009): The Basis for the Egyptian Dates, in: D.A. Warburton (Hg.), Time’s Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 10. Athens, 125-144.

Sassmannshausen, L. (2006): Zur mesopotamischen Chronologie des 2. Jahrtausends. BagMitt 37, 157-177.

van Koppen, F. (2010): The Old to Middle Babylonian Transition: History and Chronology of the Mesopotamian Dark Age, Ägypten und Levante 20, 453-463.

Hornung, E., Krauss, R. and Warburton, D. A., eds. 2006: Ancient Egyptian Chronology (HdO I/83), Leiden – Boston.

von Beckerath, J. 1997: Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten (MÄS 46), Mainz.

Have fun!

Jared Miller said: Sure, one can start with Pruzsinszky, R. (2009): Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C. An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 22. Wien. Huber, P.J. (2011): The Astronomical Basis of Egyptian Chronology of the Second Millennium BC., Journal of Egyptian History 4, 172-227. Krauss, R./D.A. Warburton (2009): The Basis for the Egyptian Dates, in: D.A. Warburton (Hg.), Time’s Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 10. Athens, 125-144. Sassmannshausen, L. (2006): Zur mesopotamischen Chronologie des 2. Jahrtausends. BagMitt 37, 157-177. van Koppen, F. (2010): The Old to Middle Babylonian Transition: History and Chronology of the Mesopotamian Dark Age, Ägypten und Levante 20, 453-463. Hornung, E., Krauss, R. and Warburton, D. A., eds. 2006: Ancient Egyptian Chronology (HdO I/83), Leiden – Boston. von Beckerath, J. 1997: Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten (MÄS 46), Mainz. Have fun!

There is a big thick book by Kenneth Kitchen that is worth having:

On The Reliability of the Old Testament (2006)

You won't have to read the entire thing; just look up his chronology and reasons for it. He talks about the destruction layers at Jericho and Hazor, as well as the Exodus.

Carl,
On your recommendation I went and looked him up. He seems to be a creationut that has written a huge book of garbage. Why would I want to own that? Is it so over the top that it is funny?

Ron Bear said: Carl, On your recommendation I went and looked him up. He seems to be a creationut that has written a huge book of garbage. Why would I want to own that? Is it so over the top that it is funny?

Professor Kenneth Kitchen of Liverpool University is absolutely not a creationist! He is a respected Egyptologist and expert on the Pharaonic periods of Egypt. Where did you read that he is a creationist? Wherever you read that, it's wrong.

This is from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kitchen
“Biblical scholarship
Kitchen is an evangelical Christian and has published frequently from that background on questions relating to the Old Testament. His publications in this area have consistently defended the historical books of the Old Testament as an accurate record of events, i.e., as history, against the academic consensus that they are primarily theological in nature.”

I also found creationist websites quoting him as a scholarly source defending biblical inerrancy. Granted Wikipedia also notes that he is a noted and respected scholar on Egypt.

I am not claiming to be an expert on this guy, but what I am finding doesn’t fill me with confidence about his writing.

Creationist websites are not reliable, and neither is Wikipedia.

I don't recall reading anything in Reliability about biblical inerrancy. I do recall him questioning if the tenth plague of Moses was historical. Methinks the word "creationist" has morphed to include positions that it should not include, kind of like Kent Hovind and "evolution".

Diogenes requested a source for the Egyptian chronology. Jared Miller provided several that look like scholarly papers. I provided a scholarly source written for a general but sophisticated audience.

The Wikipedia page on Rohl's New Chronology gives Kitchen as the only knowledgeable critic of Rohl, with other scholars allegedly deferring to Kitchen's authority.

If Kitchen were a creationist or fundamentalist, it would be ironic as creationists cite Rohl to shorten Egyptian chronology, but Kitchen opposes Rohl.

If you want an example of a young-earth creationist who is also an archaeologist, Bryant Wood is your man. He says "The Biblical Date for Exodus is 1446 BC":

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/03/30/The-Biblical-Date-for-the-Exodus-is-1446-BC-A-Response-to-James-Hoffmeier.aspx

Professor James Hoffmeier disagrees:

http://www.questia.com/library/1P3-1304439381/what-is-the-biblical-date-for-the-exodus-a-response

Hoffmeier and Kitchen say the Exodus occurred in ~1250 BC. Wood's chronology crams too much history up against The Flood, but that's a problem he and other YECs must address. This PT thread is about YECs and chronology.

I tried to follow this mess but it was just too mind numbingly stupid. The "moderator" was clueless and every question was "beyond the scope of the paper" which simply stated that the Ice Age(s) was/were in this 250 year period. Typical AIG - statement of fakeroo and no explanation.

Sadly, there was one poor commenter who claimed to be taking a geology class in college and to paraphrase their advice to her, "close your eyes, plug your ears and chant LALALALA!"

The bible had got the ice age wrapped with this sentence Proverbs ch 31 vs 21. Clothing plays an important part in getting through the different environments presented to the planet.

Marilyn said: The bible had got the ice age wrapped with this sentence Proverbs ch 31 vs 21. Clothing plays an important part in getting through the different environments presented to the planet.

Proverbs 31:21 said: When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.

Marilyn said: The bible had got the ice age wrapped with this sentence Proverbs ch 31 vs 21. Clothing plays an important part in getting through the different environments presented to the planet.

Wear scarlet, and you'll never have a problem in an ice age.

If only the Neandertals knew that.

Glen Davidson

Marilyn said: The bible had got the ice age wrapped with this sentence Proverbs ch 31 vs 21. Clothing plays an important part in getting through the different environments presented to the planet.

Marilyn said: The bible had got the ice age wrapped with this sentence Proverbs ch 31 vs 21. Clothing plays an important part in getting through the different environments presented to the planet.

Let's not attack Marilyn; she might have been being ironic.

Wear scarlet, and you’ll never have a problem in an ice age. If only the Neanderthals knew that.

DS said:

Marilyn said: The bible had got the ice age wrapped with this sentence Proverbs ch 31 vs 21. Clothing plays an important part in getting through the different environments presented to the planet.

So what do you say Marilyn, is the earth millions of years old? Billions of years old? Thousands of years old? How about the magic flood, imaginary or not? How about the magic ark, imaginary or not? Were the ice ages real or imaginary? Why doesn't the bible mention them? Please enlighten us.

Marilyn said:

DS said:

Marilyn said: The bible had got the ice age wrapped with this sentence Proverbs ch 31 vs 21. Clothing plays an important part in getting through the different environments presented to the planet.

So what do you say Marilyn, is the earth millions of years old? Billions of years old? Thousands of years old? How about the magic flood, imaginary or not? How about the magic ark, imaginary or not? Were the ice ages real or imaginary? Why doesn't the bible mention them? Please enlighten us.

I would not like to think that the only thing between me and a natural disaster such as flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, meteor, ice age was a scarlet cardie, but all too often that is what a person stands in, old age and a nightie after a disaster nowhere to turn. To me, again it's a warning to be prepared for all calamity. For me the Ark was an apt clothing for a flood. The Earth goes as far back as to where you see the first knock on fact that disasters happen and realize the preparation needed to overcome them wherever possible. The bible has 66 books in it and covers quite a lot, sometimes in a single word. Where would we be without science it's amazing, as long as it keeps focused on the right subject and what it's out to achieve, it has answered most likely the age of the Earth and a lot more things I myself can't see where the bible says don't disagree with fact.

DS said:

Marilyn said:

DS said:

Marilyn said: The bible had got the ice age wrapped with this sentence Proverbs ch 31 vs 21. Clothing plays an important part in getting through the different environments presented to the planet.

So what do you say Marilyn, is the earth millions of years old? Billions of years old? Thousands of years old? How about the magic flood, imaginary or not? How about the magic ark, imaginary or not? Were the ice ages real or imaginary? Why doesn't the bible mention them? Please enlighten us.

I would not like to think that the only thing between me and a natural disaster such as flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, meteor, ice age was a scarlet cardie, but all too often that is what a person stands in, old age and a nightie after a disaster nowhere to turn. To me, again it's a warning to be prepared for all calamity. For me the Ark was an apt clothing for a flood. The Earth goes as far back as to where you see the first knock on fact that disasters happen and realize the preparation needed to overcome them wherever possible. The bible has 66 books in it and covers quite a lot, sometimes in a single word. Where would we be without science it's amazing, as long as it keeps focused on the right subject and what it's out to achieve, it has answered most likely the age of the Earth and a lot more things I myself can't see where the bible says don't disagree with fact.

Thanks for answering the questions Marilyn. So to review, you believe in a young earth, a magic flood and a magic ark. Got it.

I think her last sentence says that science is probably right about the age of the Earth and "a lot more things". And I think "I myself can’t see where the bible says don’t disagree with fact" means that Marylin believes that passages in the Bible DO NOT supersede physical fact. I think her "don't" is a sort of double negative slip-up.

Am I on the right track, Marilyn?

DS said: So what do you say Marilyn, is the earth millions of years old? Billions of years old? Thousands of years old? How about the magic flood, imaginary or not? How about the magic ark, imaginary or not? Were the ice ages real or imaginary? Why doesn't the bible mention them? Please enlighten us.

Just Bob said: I think her last sentence says that science is probably right about the age of the Earth and "a lot more things". And I think "I myself can’t see where the bible says don’t disagree with fact" means that Marylin believes that passages in the Bible DO NOT supersede physical fact. I think her "don't" is a sort of double negative slip-up. Am I on the right track, Marilyn?

Marilyn said:

DS said:

Marilyn said: The bible had got the ice age wrapped with this sentence Proverbs ch 31 vs 21. Clothing plays an important part in getting through the different environments presented to the planet.

So what do you say Marilyn, is the earth millions of years old? Billions of years old? Thousands of years old? How about the magic flood, imaginary or not? How about the magic ark, imaginary or not? Were the ice ages real or imaginary? Why doesn't the bible mention them? Please enlighten us.

I would not like to think that the only thing between me and a natural disaster such as flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, meteor, ice age was a scarlet cardie, but all too often that is what a person stands in, old age and a nightie after a disaster nowhere to turn. To me, again it's a warning to be prepared for all calamity. For me the Ark was an apt clothing for a flood. The Earth goes as far back as to where you see the first knock on fact that disasters happen and realize the preparation needed to overcome them wherever possible. The bible has 66 books in it and covers quite a lot, sometimes in a single word. Where would we be without science it's amazing, as long as it keeps focused on the right subject and what it's out to achieve, it has answered most likely the age of the Earth and a lot more things I myself can't see where the bible says don't disagree with fact.

Hey, quit jumping on Marilyn! I THINK she's saying that the Bible is not a science book, and Bible verses don't overrule plain facts. I suspect that for her that's a big step into the dangerous territory of skepticism and rationality. Let's encourage her.

Go Marilyn!

Just Bob said: Hey, quit jumping on Marilyn! I THINK she's saying that the Bible is not a science book, and Bible verses don't overrule plain facts. I suspect that for her that's a big step into the dangerous territory of skepticism and rationality. Let's encourage her. Go Marilyn!

Carl Drews said: If you want an example of a young-earth creationist who is also an archaeologist, Bryant Wood is your man. He says "The Biblical Date for Exodus is 1446 BC": http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/03/30/The-Biblical-Date-for-the-Exodus-is-1446-BC-A-Response-to-James-Hoffmeier.aspx Professor James Hoffmeier disagrees: http://www.questia.com/library/1P3-1304439381/what-is-the-biblical-date-for-the-exodus-a-response Hoffmeier and Kitchen say the Exodus occurred in ~1250 BC. Wood's chronology crams too much history up against The Flood, but that's a problem he and other YECs must address. This PT thread is about YECs and chronology.

diogeneslamp0 said: The Wikipedia page on Rohl's New Chronology gives Kitchen as the only knowledgeable critic of Rohl, with other scholars allegedly deferring to Kitchen's authority. If Kitchen were a creationist or fundamentalist, it would be ironic as creationists cite Rohl to shorten Egyptian chronology, but Kitchen opposes Rohl.

diogeneslamp0 said: I'll start with the ones in German!

Jared Miller said:

diogeneslamp0 said: I'll start with the ones in German!

Hi Diogenes, If you prefer German, I can give you plenty more in German. I was of course assuming that English would be your primary language.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Jared Miller said:

diogeneslamp0 said: I'll start with the ones in German!

Hi Diogenes, If you prefer German, I can give you plenty more in German. I was of course assuming that English would be your primary language.

How about a web-accessible review of the issue in English for those of us whose German courses are decades in the past?