Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B][QUOTE] Reply:
Now you're talking. You're right--no more of this naturalistic, it "must have" (happened this way) mentality that is being disguised in our textbooks as science.

​

In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)

​

--Marty[/B][/QUOTE]

​

OK, time to put up or shut up.

​

Please list some textbook titles, publishers, page numbers, and quotes to back up your claim that science textbooks teach that there is no God.

​

Reply:
I pick the "put up." The first high school text book I picked up when I became interested in this controversy, is entitled, "BIOLOGY." It was authored by Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D., et al. (New Jersey, Prentice, pp.344-345, 1991). Here's one portion that I'd like to comment on:

​

The next step in our story is the most difficult to understand. From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed the Earth's oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved. Scientists do not know how these vital information carriers formed.

​

That's it. Many evolutionists would emphasize that the last sentence straightens everything out--scientists don't know. But it doesn't straighten anything out--it's saying that the scientists don't know HOW THE EVOLUTION OCCURED, BUT THAT IT "MUST SOMEHOW HAVE EVOLVED." Because if it didn't evolve, well, well then . . . well, we can't even consider anything except that it HAD TO evolve.

---

The book is 11 years old. I think that current books might talk a bit about panspermia.

quote:

---

I didn't read that whole book, but such irrational comments as this citation provides, is typical of the blatant assumptivism that runs rampant throughout "science" textbooks.

---

If you didn't read the whole book, then how do you know what is "running rampant" through it?How can you possible say, on the basis of a prefuctory skimming of a single 11 year-old textbook, that there is "blatant assumptivism that runs rampant throughout "science" textbooks."Give me a break.What other books did you skim, or was it just this one?

quote:

---

No, it was not said explicitly that there is no God, but it doesn't need to--the force of such implicit statements as I allude to, especially when carried with the force of repetition throughout everything a student is exposed to, accomplishes the same job effectively enough.

---

OK, so now "everything a student has to do" in Biology class undermines their faith in God?Talk about hysterical paranoid conspiracy fantasies!Damn those heathen microscopes! May the pipettes and lab manuals and dissection specimins burn in hell forever!

quote:

---

That whole organic soup nonsense is typical textbook evolutionary conjecture, nothing but an irrational requirement of a not so modern myth that the facts have failed.

---

So, what about "scientists don't know what happened" don't you understand?My goodness.If someone's faith is so fragile and weak that a single sentence can destroy it...well, the problem is with the faith and not the single sentence, don't you think?Considering that there is no evidence that anything else happened, (much less the Christian Creationist's Biblical scenario) and there IS evidence that evolution at the molecular level happens...Well, call scientists crazy, but going with the evidence is the scientific thing to do.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
I don't mind limiting science to empirical data. But I insist on distinguishing empirical data from governing philosophical systems that assume BECAUSE WE STUDY NATURE, NATURE IS ALL THAT EXISTS.

---

j: OK, but I think you are missing the more important point. How do we determine the veracity of a claim if we have no data? If you claim that we have non-natural data, explain what it is and how we can verify it.Reply:
m: Admitedly, the veracity of the fact that "Godidit" will not be available in the sense you're suggesting until Jesus returns to the Earth and straightens all of the survivors out. I'm not saying that our textbooks should say "Godidit"; how about just not making our textbooks as proselytizing tools for the metaphysical desciples of naturalism, as I intimated above.

quote:

---

". . . and this is the part of the story that is the most difficult to understand; at some point these physical particles must have come together to form life from nonlife."

---

j: Without assuming things for which we HAVE NO DATA, this is correct. How do you get around the problem of not having any data?Reply:
m: I believe my latter reply co.vers this. Also, that quote above is a poor paraphrase of the actual quote that I refer to below (after your final comment).

quote:

---

It is not empirical.

---

j: Empirical refers to data that we can sense, at least it is derived from such data. It is empirical. What you are proposing is NOT empirical.Reply:
m: You might not have understood my position sufficiently well when you responded there. I'm just saying that it is more empirical to not assume, because we are limited to a study of nature, that nature is all that exists--a philosophy that is implicit to "science" textbooks (as I make reference to below).

quote:

---

It is not just procedurally innocent ol' blokes who use "naturalism" simply because they are limited to their senses when they investigate nature.

---

j: This, I think, I've covered.Reply:
m: Then, do you also have a problem with textbook tradition in the sense of what I intimate above (which is demonstrated further in my final referece below)? [quote][b]It is philosophical indoctrination. You disagree with this, don't you?[/quote][/b]j: Not entirely. I understand your meaning but it doesn't get you around the problem of evidence or the lack of it. I think I've asked you before but if not I'll ask now. How without data do you distinguish true from false?Reply:
My comments above take care of this question, right?

quote:

---

I believe there are good grounds for making the case that we can appeal to the issue of secondary assumptions (and evolutionism's overuse of them) in order to illustrate the superior nature of creationism over evolutionism.

---

j: So make the case, in detail, please.Reply:
m: First, consider a few basic predictions of creation and evolution.creation: stars "unchanging," life only from life, distinct kinds of organisms, no new kinds appearing, mutations: harmful, natural selection: a conservative process, fossil record: systematic gaps, no ape-human intermediates, etc.evolution: stars changing into other types, life evolving from non-life, continuum of organisms, new kinds appearing, mutations: beneficial, natural selection: a creative process, fossil record: "innumerable" transitions, ape-human intermediates, etc.The primary models (as defined in their most general terms) for evolution and creation would present predictions of this sort which could be modified by secondary assumptions to fit certain conditions. If the "predictions" of evolution were actually observed in the natural world, they would, of course, in every case be acclaimed as strong confirmations of evolutionism--this fact justifies the conclusion that these sorts of predictions are the BASIC predictions. The predictions of the creation model do fit the observed facts in nature better than do those of the evolution model. The data must be EXPLAINED (enter secondary assumptions) by the evolutionist, but they are PREDICTED by the creationist.

quote:

---

Here are some distinguishing traits of the meaning of "kind":
--One kind cannot transform itself into another kind.
--Each kind may experience a limited variation as per the genetic
barriers incorporated into the kind (thus, many different
varieties can emerge within the basic framework of each kind).
--A great many different kinds were created in each of the nine
major groups (excluding man) that are specifically listed in
Genesis.

---

j: But nothing here allows for rigid categorization and testing. If so, we could settle this issue in matter of years. This is just double talk.Reply:
m: No, it's not double talk. It's not rigid, but it does provide some key perameters that may be compared to what exists in nature. I refer you to some applicable reasoning, maybe you can appreciate it (in the sense that it legitimately bolsters my reply here), maybe not:To see the situation clearly we must first distinguish two kinds of confirmation, general and specific. General confirmation is a matter of compatibility without definite corroboration of particular points. Much of what has already been discussed as explanation and illustration may be regarded as general confirmation. The picture fits the frame; the melody and the accompaniment are harmonious. The force of such evidence is cumulative. The more we find that items in the picture of the past presented by the Bible, even though not directly attested, are compatible with what we know from archaeology, the stronger is our impression of general authenticity. Mere legend or fiction would inevitably betray itself by anachronism and incongruities.

quote:

---

That is a fantastic claim.

---

j: Well, thousands of archeologists and palentologists disagree with you.reply:
m: Yes, the sociological vortex of evolutionary doctrine is certainly entrenched, "and they are few, who fighting it, can cry once sharply of the essential greatness in man."

quote:

---

We are created in God's image. God did use consistency. We do too. It's one of those secondary assumptions to conclude that this would imply a weakness on God's part.

---

j: I anticipated this. We are a reflection of God and so our nature says something about God. As above so below and beyond I imagine. It is just about the only argument I can think of that makes any sense at all.I said nothing about weakness.Reply:
I guess your term was limitation, was it. I view the terms as being synonymous in the context I shared it, but no big deal. By the way, I really like the sound of the part, ". . . the only argument I can think of that makes any sense at all."

quote:

---

Now you're talking. You're right--no more of this naturalistic, it "must have" (happened this way) mentality that is being disguised in our textbooks as science.

​

---

j: Good. Where is your hard evidence?Reply:
m: Please see my response (#348) to Schrafinator's #337.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Admitedly, the veracity of the fact that "Godidit" will not be available in the sense you're suggesting until Jesus returns to the Earth and straightens all of the survivors out. I'm not saying that our textbooks should say "Godidit"; how about just not making our textbooks as proselytizing tools for the metaphysical desciples of naturalism, as I intimated above.

---

Essentially then, we are left with faith of which there are many. How do we distiguish between these faiths before it is too late?

quote:

---

I'm just saying that it is more empirical to not assume, because we are limited to a study of nature, that nature is all that exists--a philosophy that is implicit to "science" textbooks (as I make reference to below).

---

You are mis-using the term 'empirical'. 'Empirical' refers to the senses. It is that simple.I think what you mean is that it is more rational to not assume. I can agree with that, but it leaves nothing of substance. Everything becomes ephemeral. One has to accept some assumptions-- start from somewhere and the only place to start is with the only thing we've got.

quote:

---

Then, do you also have a problem with textbook tradition in the sense of what I intimate above (which is demonstrated further in my final referece below)?

---

I have a problem with textbooks being too dogmatic and inflexible. I do not have a problem with textbooks presenting conclusions based on the only evidence we have.

quote:

---

they are PREDICTED by the creationist.

---

Creation doesn't predict anything. It means different things to different people. old earth, young earth, theistic, hindu, etc. It isn't a model. There are hundreds of versions of creation and not one can be tested.

quote:

---

Mere legend or fiction would inevitably betray itself by anachronism and incongruities.

---

Which the Bible does in spades, but through faith its believers are blind to that fact.

quote:

---

Yes, the sociological vortex of evolutionary doctrine is certainly entrenched, "and they are few, who fighting it, can cry once sharply of the essential greatness in man."

---

yes, the conspiracy....

quote:

---

By the way, I really like the sound of the part, ". . . the only argument I can think of that makes any sense at all."

---

In context, assuming God for the moment, it is. It is the only reason I can think of that God would design as we would. Of course, it is just as easily explained by our having created the concept of god. Deadlock.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Essentially then, we are left with faith of which there are many. How do we distiguish between these faiths before it is too late?

---

By taking a look at the evidence. There is much more evidence that Jesus lived than Caesar did. Take a look at the cities named. They existed. Corinth, Ephesus, Colossus, etc. There is also plenty of archaelogical evidence that the old testament is true-if you ever read David Rohl (a famous if not the most famous archaelogist in Britain)'s series A Test of Time-From Myth to History (and also the presenter of the series "Pharaohs and Kings" produced by Channel Four in the UK and Discovery in the US), you'll see what I mean. If you ever have the time, try looking for his books and reading them. Previously the argument that the old testament wasn't true was because of the incongruity of the chronologies of Israel, Assyria and Egypt; however, recently David Rohl has created a New Chronology which solves most if not all of the problems historians had with the Old Chronology. Try taking a look at just some of the evidence outlined in his book here
Evidence in there includes evidence for Joseph along with his palace and tomb, who was the Egyptian Vizier during the reign of Amenemhat III, Moses as a prince of Pharaoh Khanaferre, the step father of Moses accoring to Artapanus), evidence for the exodus, evidence for the bible story of Jericho and its walls, evidence for Solomon's wealth and high culture (with Solomon as the contemporary of Egypt's Haremheb, with archaelogical evidence supporting the bible which says Solomon married an Egyptian princess and built her palace on a hill, following the details of where it was described in the bible), letters from King Saul (aka Labayu as his Egyptian name) and the Amarna Tablets, equating the biblical Shishak as Ramesses, King David, evidence for Moses and the ten plagues in Egypt in Avaris, "The continuing archaeological discoveries here in the ancient city of Avaris mirror exactly the early Israelites revealed in the Old Testament. For two centuries no evidence was found for the Israelites when looking in the strata of the 19th Dynasty. Now that the chronologies have begun to be amended and the sojourn in Egypt placed in the 12th and 13th Dynasties, we have a wealth of archaeological evidence corroborating the biblical account."Seriously, just take a look around on the internet and search for David Rohl and new chronology.Then there are also biblical prophecies-some being fulfilled today, some recently, and some further back in the past. Just take a look at this site-100prophecies which has only 100 among the many other prophecies fulfilled.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002][This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]

Well, at least you took the question seriously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
There is much more evidence that Jesus lived than Caesar did.

---

I'm sorry, but there is not. I am not aware of any evidence at all that Jesus actually walked the earth. Make me aware. I don't feel like arguing generalities. Prove this claim to me.

quote:

---

Take a look at the cities named. They existed. Corinth, Ephesus, Colossus, etc.

---

Big deal. Many more cities are named in Egyptian mythology. Will you take that as proof that of the reality of the Egyptian pantheon? H.P. Lovecraft named city after city in his short stories. Does this prove the reality of Cthulhu?

quote:

---

There is also plenty of archaelogical evidence that the old testament is true

---

There is some evidence that a few of the stories in the Bible resemble reality. Again, it proves nothing. The Koran also resembles reality, probably by orders of magnitude more than the Bible. So ought we then to confess our faith in Allah?

quote:

---

if you ever read David Rohl

---

Ever notice that you can tell a lot about a person by looking at his web-site? No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nunki.net It doesn't fill me with confidence. The guy is a media hound. I find there is an inverse relationship between fluff and substance. Pretty fluffy site wouldn't you say?So no, I probably won't read his books. I prefer real archeology.

quote:

---

Previously the argument that the old testament wasn't true was because of the incongruity of the chronologies of Israel, Assyria and Egypt; however, recently David Rohl has created a New Chronology which solves most if not all of the problems historians had with the Old Chronology.

---

Look, if you want to play defender of David Rohl, go ahead. Pick a specific instance and lets analyze it.

quote:

---

evidence for Moses and the ten plagues in Egypt

---

Sorry, you have got ot be kidding?

quote:

---

Seriously, just take a look around on the internet and search for David Rohl and new chronology.

---

Did that. Looked it up within a few seconds of reading the name. So far it looks like hype. Lots of people claim to have proof that Atlantis existed too. Interesting.... bet those guys have the same publisher too.

quote:

---

Then there are also biblical prophecies-some being fulfilled today, some recently, and some further back in the past. Just take a look at this site-100prophecies which has only 100 among the many other prophecies fulfilled.

---

I took a quick look at it. Found my favorite fullfilled prophecy-- the creation of Israel. But I have to go to work now... ta ta...------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
So are you saying that the Great Barrier Reef formed in months, or years? How much has it grown since we have been observing it? This might give a clue as to how fast it formed.

​

reply:
I've taken note of the Great Barrier Reef, and if you don't mind waiting, I'll get back with you about that example. One of the assumptions of naturalism that isn't necessarily correct (as it applies to this topic), is that observed geological structures were formed slowly, or over successive vast periods of time.

---

You misconstrue. This is NOT an assumption of naturalism. The only real assumption of naturalism is that the natural world can be explained as coming about my natural processes. Some of those processes are rapid, some are slow. Naturalism DOES NOT assume that geological features formed slowly, or rapidly.

quote:

---

reply: How do you know for sure that the reefs were built up at different times, in the sense of what I think you're suggesting (that there were vast spans of times between the growth of each)?

---

Because we see them stacked successively in the geological record of several basins. We can also correlate between the geolgical columns of different areas and deduce that the reefs are of different ages. Furthermore there is a variation of the types of fossils found in coral reefs of different ages.

quote:

---

e: And to top it off, all of the rapid events that you have mentioned are readily addressed by mainstream geology.

​

reply:
Mainstream geology, as developed as it may be, is still an interpretive science.

​

e: Your point being? Oh, maybe you have something better?

​

reply: As familiar with the proponents of evolutionism as I am, it still surprises me to constantly encounter this shrugging off of the interpretive issue (that just feeds back to the philosophy of naturalism).

---

Hmm, need I remind you that we convict people and punish them based on circumstantial evidence? Hey, it's just an INTERPETATION of the evidence, isn't it? The point here is that any explanation of the past, even in recorded history, is based on interpretation. It is ALL that we've got. We cannot know everthing between A and B. The question is the validity of the underlying premises. Moose has given us a very succinct and comprehensive list of mainstream geological premises, and maybe he could reproduce them here (I didn't copy them as I should have), so that you could refute them one by one.I dare say that your own scenario is heavily based on interpretation, also. So my question remains: What do you have that is better?

quote:

---

There is something better than operating as if one's favored beliefs represents the best or most accurate beliefs, especially when such beliefs, by definition, rule out the possibility that a challenging view may be the right one. Of course, the problem really comes home when textbooks are imbued with that type of thinking.

---

Okay, then what is that 'something better'?

quote:

---

e: Why do you think there was such a shift to naturalism? Could it be that the evidence pointed in that direction?

​

Reply:m: The evidence that seemed to support the philosophy was emphasized, and the evidence that contradicted it was ignored. I still think realism is more rational than naturalism, though.

​

e: Ignored? Heck that's all they had before naturalism. How could it have been ignored? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that evidence led the creationist scientists toward naturalism?

​

Reply: No. The tide of Darwin's influence was so philosophically irresistible that event the most prestigious of scientists--Harvard's Louis Agassiz, for example--became an instant has-been for failing to join the movement. Paleontologists became so committed to the "new" way of thinking that fossil studies were published only if they supported the theory, and were discarded as failures if they showed an absence of evolutionary change. As Phillip Johnson correctly pointed out, "Darwin apparently passed the fossil test, but only because it was not allowed to fail."

---

So, you say that everyone just jumped because the siren call of evolution was too hard to resist! No one resisted the call to evolution! Hmm, that's not exactly what other creationists say. I mean we have all those creationist scientists in the past who stalwartly fought the urge to join the parade! Sorry, but this doesn't pass the giggle test.I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that perhaps the evidence seemed to weigh heavily in favor of evolutionary theory. There must have been something mystical about it.

quote:

---

M: Reply: Creationism hasn't failed scientifically (nor in any other way, except that, for mere sociological reasons, it has not become the state-embraced religion as naturalism has in many ways). It's one philosophy (that garners support from physics) versus another philosophy (that garners support from physics). Evolutionary scientists move on, and so do creation scientists move on.

​

quote:
e: No. It has failed miserably.

​

reply: m: What has? Evolutionism?

​

e: Please read my post in context. You are wasting time and space.

​

reply: But evolution HAS failed miserably (--that was my point; I don't think it was a waste of space any more than your original comment there). If you're offended by the degree of light sarcasm, then I think that there's good fodder for offense throughout this website on both sides of the great divide.

---

So you make your points by misrepresenting mine? Why not just make your case?

quote:

---

e: No creationist yet has explained to us why flowering plants are found only in strata from the latest Mesozoic to the present.

​

reply:
m: Evolutionists have not dared to concede what evolutionist Dr. E.J.H. Corner (Cantab.) admitted: "To any fair-minded person, the fossil record of plants is in favor of creation--not evolution." The truth is that many scientists believe in evolution, not because the scientific evidence favors evolution instead of creation, but because they prefer to believe in evolution, no matter what the scientific evidence says.

​

e: Are you saying that you can't explain it?

​

reply:
I'm saying that an honest expert, who is surely knowledgeable of your question (and of far more--enabling him to have a better perspective about botany than either of us), concedes what he concedes for a reason, i.e., due to the evidence.

​

But, again, I've noted your question and I'll get back with you.

---

No rush. I've been waiting a long time for an answer to this one.

quote:

---

reply: You might not care at all about someone's informed opinion if that opinion undermines your philosophy of life. Statements by some honest evolutionists seem pretty noteworthy to me, though (especially when their credentials are better than most, perhaps better than anyone who is a regular on this website).

---

So, the real question is: Why is this person still an evolutionist?

quote:

---

No creationist has brought to the table a credible instance of a human being or human artifacts in existence in the Cambrian Period.

​

reply: No evolutionist has brought to the table a credible instance of a life form that led to the (actually, sudden appearance of) complex invertebrate life at the Cambrian level.

​

e: Are you answering my statement or diverting attention? In answer to yours, yes this has been done. There are precursors in the Vendian lifeforms.

​

reply:
I'll see about the Vendian and previous claims.

---

Perhaps I should say that the presence of Vendian organisms suggests the strong possibility of precursors.But you have executed a cute two-step here: I am also waiting for a credible example of 'out of place fossils.' I want to see human fossils or artifacts in Paleozoic or Precambrian strata; or something equally startling.

quote:

---

e: Why? We can give reasonable answers to these questions right now. It is not a matter of philosophy. It is a matter of evidence. Where is your evidence?

​

reply: I've taken down your questions. I've explained why I can't give pat answers right now for some technical matters--isn't that fair enough?

---

Once again. I am patient.

quote:

---

e: But that's the whole idea of science. To make reasonable explanations of nature. If you have something better it should be a better explanation.

​

reply:I have never had a problem with the idea of science making reasonable explanations of nature. I have a problem with the mindset that perpetuates the Darwinian error: arriving at conclusions by way of naturalistic philosophy rather than from empirical evidence.

---

Ah, good! Now, here is the place where you can present us with some of that empirical data. Why not pick you favorite single piece of data and post it here, perhaps under a new thread?

Well, before dismissing David Rohl off as a joke why don't you go to a library and borrow his book "A Test of Time"? It really is a good book, and has so much archaelogical evidence in it (tablets, cuneiforms, use of hypocoristicons to show how Egyptian writers wrote Hebrew names and vice versa), Assyrian and Egyptian digs, evidence from Egyptian and Assyrian writings, his zillions of pictures and quotes. And as well as finding proof for the bible stories, he also has made numerous famous archaelogical digs and findings.

quote:

---

Big deal. Many more cities are named in Egyptian mythology. Will you take that as proof that of the reality of the Egyptian pantheon? H.P. Lovecraft named city after city in his short stories. Does this prove the reality of Cthulhu?

---

What about cities? Well, if you take a look at the Qu'ran, NONE of the cities mentioned in it have ever been found. This has been a major source of embarassment for Muslims.

quote:

---

Ever notice that you can tell a lot about a person by looking at his web-site? http://www.nunki.net It doesn't fill me with confidence. The guy is a media hound. I find there is an inverse relationship between fluff and substance. Pretty fluffy site wouldn't you say?

---

Do you think Rohl would actually make that site? Most of the time he is somewhere or other making archaelogical digs. He simply doesn't have time to make that site (I don't think anyway). Other people made it, not him. Anyway, instead of taking a look at that site, why not take a look at this one.

quote:

---

Did that. Looked it up within a few seconds of reading the name. So far it looks like hype. Lots of people claim to have proof that Atlantis existed too. Interesting.... bet those guys have the same publisher too.

---

Instead of looking up just David Rohl, why not search for something such as "David Rohl "A test of time" Israel Egypt Shoshenk Shishak Joseph Moses David Saul Ramesses" and you will find better pages. Just click -

---

This message is a reply to:
	Message 355 by John, posted 08-03-2002 10:10 AM		John has replied

---

Replies to this message:
	Message 359 by John, posted 08-03-2002 9:55 PM		blitz77 has replied

---

Peek

From Edge (message 356):

quote:

---

Hmm, need I remind you that we convict people and punish them based on circumstantial evidence? Hey, it's just an INTERPETATION of the evidence, isn't it? The point here is that any explanation of the past, even in recorded history, is based on interpretation. It is ALL that we've got. We cannot know everthing between A and B. The question is the validity of the underlying premises. Moose has given us a very succinct and comprehensive list of mainstream geological premises, and maybe he could reproduce them here (I didn't copy them as I should have), so that you could refute them one by one.

---

I presume this is what your looking for -
from Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale -
and, more specificly Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale :

quote:

---

Background

​

Stratigraphic Principles and Relative Time

​

Much of the Earth's geology consists of successional layers of different rock types, piled one on top of another. The most common rocks observed in this form are sedimentary rocks (derived from what were formerly sediments), and extrusive igneous rocks (e.g., lavas, volcanic ash, and other formerly molten rocks extruded onto the Earth's surface). The layers of rock are known as "strata", and the study of their succession is known as "stratigraphy". Fundamental to stratigraphy are a set of simple principles, based on elementary geometry, empirical observation of the way these rocks are deposited today, and gravity. Most of these principles were formally proposed by Nicolaus Steno (Niels Steensen, Danish), in 1669, although some have an even older heritage that extends as far back as the authors of the Bible. A few principles were recognized and specified later. An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology", published in 1830-32, and does not differ greatly from a modern formulation:

​

1) The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.

​

2) The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.

​

3) The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.

​

4) The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.

​

5) The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.

​

6) The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.

​

Note that these are principles. In no way are they meant to imply there are no exceptions. ...

---

One might also wish to use this sites "search" utility, to find other topics that Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale has appeared in.Cheers,
Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Something weird is going on when I try to reply-quote to your post, so I am going to be brief.I have been digging through archealogical data for decades now and I have seen nothing that supports what Rohl is saying.I see no evidence of any peer review and little evidence of actual data on the Rohl sites I've visited, but much inferrence that such data is there. Not a good combination.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Mmm? Well, even if you don't think his chronology is true, what about the conventional chronology? Well, anyway, if just for your own interest, next time you go to a library go and take a look at it. David Rohl, in his own words has "no religious axe to grind". He is not religious. He is a historian who wants to search for the historical truth. He is not Christian. So you can't argue he's biased!

quote:

---

Why not pick you favorite single piece of data and post it here, perhaps under a new thread?

---

Well, anyway if you want some specific examples, here are some from the book which might make you interested to read it (has photos, archaelogical finds and digs, Hebrew letters, Hieroglyphs, etc) which proves Biblical stories and people-
[from this site - there are links on the left for specific biblical stories and people]
For Joseph- [quote]There is a rock-cut tomb in middle Egypt that dates from just before the time of Joseph. On the interior wall there is painted a scene of Asiatics entering Egypt carrying goods to sell to the Egyptians. There is text accompanying the scene. They wear colorful striped garments which numerous commentators have likened to Joseph's 'coat of many colors'. These were Midianite caravaneers like the ones who brought Joseph into Egypt. (pg 359-360)Joseph's administrative programs-

quote:

---

There is evidence of Amenemhat III's preparation for the floods. (pg 343)
There is a building with 3,000 chambers. (pg 344)Three regional departments were set up to oversee the agricultural labor, conscript labor and the storage of grain supplies for redistribution to the Egyptian population during periods of famine. (pg 348)

​

Avaris [in Goshen] is the site of one of the 3 regional departments. (pg 356)

​

There is a twice-life-size statue (probably of Joseph himself) found in his tomb in which he is wearing a coat of many colors. (pg 366)

---

Evidence for the 7 yr famine-

quote:

---

The is archaeological evidence for a famine preceded by bumper harvests at the time of Joseph. (pg 335)

​

For 60 years starting with King Amenemhat III the Egyptians monitored the level of the Nile inundation near the 2nd cataract (rapids). (pg 335)

​

What was different about the inundations to require that they should be so closely monitored? There was a very drastic rise in the Nile flood levels in the reign of Amenemhat III. (pg 337-338)

​

In Amenemhat's 12th year the flood levels rise 27 feet above the 'good' flood level. There would be 3-4 times the volume of water which would have led to famine. The water would wash away villages, break down dikes and causeways and take longer to subside so the fields can't be made ready for planting season. (pg 340)

---

Pharaoh gains control of Egypt-

quote:

---

The local chieftains found their own grain silos exhausted and were forced to sell their land holdings to the Pharaoh. The power of the governors of Egypt was broken and Pharaoh became the sole authority in Egypt -- the evidence for this is that the grand tombs of the governors of Egypt ceased to be built. This signals the diminution of the authority of a semi-independent nobility and the return of political control to the kingship. (pg 342)

---

For Joseph's home in Goshen-

quote:

---

Archaeologists have found the residence of Jacob built and planned in the tradition of his original homeland. The tombs located in the garden contained Asiatic grave goods confirming that the occupants originated in the Levant. It is dated to the time of Jacob's arrival in Egypt. (pg 355-356)
Joseph had a large Egyptian-style palace in Goshen and it was likely the focal point of Israelite settlement. It clearly belonged to a very important official. This is built directly over Jacob's dwelling and can be ascribed to the period following the death of Jacob when Joseph was of mature years (perhaps about 50) and, no doubt, occupied with the administration of his own large estate bequeathed to him by the grateful Pharaohs. (pg 354-356)

​

There are twin suites (for Manasseh & Ephraim and families) attached. (pg 356)

---

Joseph's tomb and removal of the coffin-

quote:

---

Joseph's palace had a garden tomb. (pg 358)

​

Joseph was buried in a coffin within his own tomb. It is the largest sepulchre found at Avaris [in Goshen]. (pg 361)The body was removed but without signs of the grave having been plundered. (pg 361)

​

There was a careful clearance of the vault rather than the usual ransacking. This reopening of the tomb took place while the chapel was still in use. Moses extracted Joseph's remains to take them to the promised land. (pg 363)

---

Statue of Joseph-

quote:

---

There is a twice-life-size statue in Joseph's tomb. The statue is clean shaven instead of the usual beard of the Asiatics. (pg 363)

​

After the Exodus, some vengeful individuals attempted to destroy the statue. The nose was smashed off. The eyes were gouged out. There are blows visible on the top of the head. It is not hard to imagine the men of the town descending upon the tomb of Joseph so as to vent their wrath in memory of the disaster that caused Pharaoh to let the Israelites go. (pg 364)

---

You might be interested in looking at how this evidence supports the biblical text-The site puts the evidence on the right and the bible text on the left. His actual book has hundreds of pictures, hieroglyphics, artifacts, etc and is one of the best and well supported books I have ever seen (if not the best supported).If you want evidence for other people, click on the names on the left-there is just as good evidence for Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, and other kings of Israel. David Rohl is in the process of writing other books in the series- A Test of Time is one book in his series and it deals mainly with Genesis and Exodus-the first two books in the Bible-and also a bit up to Kings.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002][This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Mmm?

​

Mmmm.... indeed.

​

I went through about half the site you suggested. I found nothing substantial.

​

For example:

​

From the Bible--

quote:

---

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love. . . . Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering. . . ." (Genesis 22:2)

---

​

From Rohl's book--

​

[quote] Human first-born sacrifice was fairly common in those days. (pg 26-27)[/b]

---

This is silly.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Nothing substantial because there wasn't the book to accompany it. Many diagrams, examples, maps, texts, artifacts, finds, all for you to look at in the book. But of course, if you want to see for yourself and so that you can judge the book by actually reading it, why not next time you go to a library and borrow it? It's worth the time I know from experience... I was quite doubtful, but once you read the book, it is quite convincing... and after reading it you can't doubt that he's a bloody good archaelogist/historian/egyptologist. All his photos are probably copyrighted as he's the one who took them Many of the digs shown there are ones dug up by he himself.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
But of course, if you want to see for yourself and so that you can judge the book by actually reading it, why not next time you go to a library and borrow it?

---

I'll pick up something on Atlantis and Lemuria while I'm there.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I'll pick up something on Atlantis and Lemuria while I'm there.

---

lol... am I right in thinking that you currently think it's total rubbish?! Well, anyway, don't say afterwards that I didn't warn you that he's one helluva perfectionist archaelogist... it's a really long book...[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-04-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

There is also plenty of archaelogical evidence that the old testament is true

---

There is some evidence that a few of the stories in the Bible resemble reality. Again, it proves nothing. The Koran also resembles reality, probably by orders of magnitude more than the Bible. So ought we then to confess our faith in Allah?[/B][/QUOTE]then why don't you both do? Allah scored twice in this forum(the first one's in Free-for-All) right? ...sorry, can't resist the temptation to do that!