ACtually the rivers have emptied into the Persian Gulf since the mid
Pliocene times about 3.5 myr ago. Prior to that they would have been
captured into the Mediterranean. Only by assuming that you are correct
and that Adam and Eve were definitely within the past 10,000 years can your
argument carry weight. Since we are discussing which view is correct, the
post 10,000 year Adam vs. my view which places him much longer ago, it is
incorrect argumentation to assume that you are correct and then use the
recent emptying of these two rivers into the Persian Gulf as evidence that
you are correct. It is a case of begging the question.
Thus I would say to your statement that the rivers have emptied into the
Persian gulf over the past 10 kyr--you are correct but so what? That
doesn't mean you have delivered a fatal blow to my views. In fact you
haven't delivered any kind of blow to them at all other than by assuming
them to be wrong.
>
>Comment 2: As Dick pointed out, ancient cultures other than the the
>one founded by Abraham have names of kings that sound like 'Adam'. One
>must conclude that the names spead either through descent or contact.
This is not necessarily so. Sometimes transliterations and just plain dumb
luck account for several of these. For instance, the chinese word for
mother is
'ma' or 'ma ma'. They didn't get their word from English. Similarly,
Pinker notes:
". . .the word for "blow" is pneu in Greek and pniw in Klamath (an American
Indian language spoken in Oregon), or the fact that the word for 'dog' in
the Australian aboriginal language Mbabaram happens to be dog."
~ Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct, (New York: Harper/Perennial,
1994), p. 255-256
And Lissner notes:
"The Polynesian word for sun is ra, and it was not long before certain
so-called authorities claimed that the Polynesians must at one time have
lived in Egypt, because Amon Ra was ancient Egypt's sun god." ~ Ivar
Lissner, The Living Past, translated by J. Maxwell Brownjohn, (New York: G.
P. Putnam's Sons, 1957), p. 233
Coincidences happen even without contact.
>
>Comment 3: Both Sumerian and Akkadian cultures recorded genealogies
>similar in style to the genealogies in Genesis.
So what? the Maoiri's of New Zealand had similar style genealogies for the
40 generations prior to western contact with them. They could name all of
the Maori kings.
>
>If we use 'consilience' as a subjective criteria of judgment, the latter
>three comments are consilient. A paleo-Tigris is not consilient with the
>second comment.
I don't see this at all. You have to demonstrate that the names are not
coincidence first.
>
>Glenn wrote:
>
>>If you try to match geologic ages to events in Genesis 1, you will end up
>in a hopeless muddle.
>So let me try again. What epochs might correspond to each Genesis day?
>And once the epoch is identified, what phrases do not match the
>correspondence.
>
>The formation of the solar system corresponds to day one. The phrase
>that does not fit is "God called the light day ... " Who is God talking
>to? This phrase is different from the others, since it is an act of
>naming.
>
>The accretion of the planet earth corresponds to day two. The phrase
>that does not fit is "God called the firmament the heavens ...".
Which occurred before the creation of the sun on day 4!
>
>The formation of the earliest continents corresponds to the start of
>day three. The phrase that does not fit is "God called the dry land
>earth ..."
>
>The founding of life that was photosynthetic (vegetative) and whose
>reproduction was mediated by DNA (bearing according to its kind) corresponds
>to day three. The phrases that do not fit are "God created the plants
>bearing seed ...". And these really don't fit.
But I must strenuously protest your use of 'according to its kind.' NO
WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT KIND OF OFFSPRING THE PLANTS
WOULD HAVE (or animals for that matter)!!!!!! It says the land brought
forth plants after their kind. It doesn't say plants brought forth plants
after their kind. This is such an ingrained error that I despair of every
changing anyone's opinion on it. LAND IS THE SUBJECT OF THE SENTENCE NOT
PLANTS!!!!!!!
>
>
>Now, if we look at the 'phrases that do not fit', we can see that they
>do resemble the corresponding epoch, but not as visualizations. Rather,
>they resemble the importance of the corresponding epoch to humans. If
>you were going to try to answer the question 'How do I experience each
>of the epochs decribed above?', the Genesis 'phrases that do not fit'
>provide evocative and accurate answers. For example, my everyday
>experience of grasses and fruit trees points to and is a consequence of
>the earliest forms of life that grew and reproduced in a vegetative manner.
>
>That is how I get the name 'two tiered' resemblance. Visualization and
>meaning.
>
>I hope this clarifies my previous comments.
It does clarify things a bit, but it doesn't escape the problem of having
the sun and moon created after the formation of the solar system or after
the trees. And please don't try that bit about the earth being cloudy for
the first 4.1 billion years of its existence until day 4. And please
explain why the stars were created after the trees, ocean and earth. Didn't
God create the universe prior to the creation of the earth? You seem to
have avoided the paleontological difficulties I listed before by stopping
short of them in your discussion of the days. Creeping things (which is
believed to be insects under most interps) are found with the mammals, but
that is not the case paleontologically. Birds are not found with fish. So
explain how that fits into a day-epoch scenaro.
The whole concept of doing a day-age things is as falsified as the YEC
viewpoint yet intelligent people like you keep trying to make it happen. If
you want any correspondence (or consilience) with Genesis and the Geologic
record, you better do what I do--make it a planning stage in which the
order of the plans don't need to bear a relationship to the order of
fulfillment. Tying any of this to the paleontological record and trying to
maintain the order of events is simply silly in light of modern knowledge.
If you want to make it a vision, then make it a vision with no
correspondence to reality. That is more defendable.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution