Young Earth Creationist

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Aug 2, 2022, 11:09:41 PMAug 2
to
Some have tried to dennigrate my beliefs regarding origins by asserting
that they are a recent fallacy and that historical Christianity has
never claimed that the earth is only 6,000 years old. It seems, however,
that St Augustine was a young earth creationist and makes the same point
I have made from time to time - why believe the conflicting speculations
of scientists rather than the sure word of God?

============
In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that
Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred
thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who
learned letters from Isis their mistress not much more than two thousand
years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in
history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books.
For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is
called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try
to persuade us of anything regarding an amount of time so different
from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the
past should we credit more than Him Who has also predicted things to
come which we now see fulfilled? And the very disagreement of the
historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather
to believe Him Who does not contradict the divine history which we hold.
But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered
everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers,
none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them
disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory
of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being
sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no
doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false, whatever may be the
case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or
false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily.
City of God, XVIII.40
============

God bless,
Kendall K. Down


John

unread,
Aug 3, 2022, 7:19:42 AMAug 3
to
On 03/08/2022 04:08, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> Some have tried to dennigrate my beliefs regarding origins by asserting
> that they are a recent fallacy and that historical Christianity has
> never claimed that the earth is only 6,000 years old. It seems, however,
> that St Augustine was a young earth creationist and makes the same point
> I have made from time to time - why believe the conflicting speculations
> of scientists rather than the sure word of God?

Augustine didn't have the knowledge we have now. All the evidence
points to the Earth being millions/billions of years old, you just
choose to ignore it.

First we had habilus, then erectus, then homo, not forgetting the
offshoots neanderthal and denisovan.

So which of these was Adam? Was he habilus, and instead of humans
evolving over a million years or so, maybe it all happened in the space
of 2000 years. If he was sapien then how do you explain the other 4
species?


John

unread,
Aug 3, 2022, 7:49:43 AMAug 3
to
On 03/08/2022 12:13, John wrote:

> First we had habilus, then erectus, then homo....


Sorry, that should read sapien.


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Aug 3, 2022, 2:19:43 PMAug 3
to
On 03/08/2022 12:13, John wrote:

> Augustine didn't have the knowledge we have now.  All the evidence
> points to the Earth being millions/billions of years old, you just
> choose to ignore it.

I notice that when I pointed out the fallacy in C14 dating, you were
conspicuously silent. It seems to me that your belief in evolution is as
mindless and unthinking as the most rabid and credulous votary of
superstition. If "all the evidence" points your way, how about you
engage in some scientific debate and demonstrate it?

> First we had habilus, then erectus, then homo, not forgetting the
> offshoots neanderthal and denisovan.

You forget all the frauds and fallacies along the way; what about
Piltdown Man? Dartford Man (I've held his skull!), Peking Man and all
the rest of them? What brave conclusions can be based on a tooth and a
toe bone!!

> So which of these was Adam?  Was he habilus, and instead of humans
> evolving over a million years or so, maybe it all happened in the space
> of 2000 years.  If he was sapien then how do you explain the other 4
> species?

Degenerate offspring, the result of unfortunate inbreeding. Instead of
evolution, they are evidence of devolution.

John

unread,
Aug 3, 2022, 7:39:42 PMAug 3
to
On 03/08/2022 19:17, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 03/08/2022 12:13, John wrote:
>
>> Augustine didn't have the knowledge we have now.  All the evidence
>> points to the Earth being millions/billions of years old, you just
>> choose to ignore it.
>
> I notice that when I pointed out the fallacy in C14 dating, you were
> conspicuously silent. It seems to me that your belief in evolution is as
> mindless and unthinking as the most rabid and credulous votary of
> superstition. If "all the evidence" points your way, how about you
> engage in some scientific debate and demonstrate it?

There would be little point, I remember having a previous conversation
with you about carbon dating, which you dismissed out of hand.

>> First we had habilus, then erectus, then homo, not forgetting the
>> offshoots neanderthal and denisovan.
>
> You forget all the frauds and fallacies along the way; what about
> Piltdown Man? Dartford Man (I've held his skull!), Peking Man and all
> the rest of them? What brave conclusions can be based on a tooth and a
> toe bone!!

Piltdown man was a fraud according to the sources I've checked

By Dartford man do you mean Swanscombe man? Apart from it being the
skull of a woman I can find no evidence it was a fraud.

Peking man, again from sources I've checked, suggest it wasn't a fraud.

>> So which of these was Adam?  Was he habilus, and instead of humans
>> evolving over a million years or so, maybe it all happened in the
>> space of 2000 years.  If he was sapien then how do you explain the
>> other 4 species?
>
> Degenerate offspring, the result of unfortunate inbreeding. Instead of
> evolution, they are evidence of devolution.

Only neanderthal and denisovan have existed alongside sapien, since
erectus became extinct and sapien replaced erectus, so was obviously
more adaptable to the climate back then.

As inbreeding has existed over the centuries since Jesus, why are we not
seeing similar offshoots of homo sapien today? I mean the population has
exploded since then so you'd have thought it much more common.

Anyway, you disn't answer the question. Was Adam habilis, erectus,
sapien, neanderthal or denisovan?



Kendall K. Down

unread,
Aug 4, 2022, 1:49:44 AMAug 4
to
On 04/08/2022 00:30, John wrote:

> There would be little point, I remember having a previous conversation
> with you about carbon dating, which you dismissed out of hand.

If you mean that I dismissed C14 dating out of hand, then you are
correct - but if you think that I missed something in my analysis, you
are welcome to point it out.

> Piltdown man was a fraud according to the sources I've checked

That is the point.

> By Dartford man do you mean Swanscombe man?  Apart from it being the
> skull of a woman I can find no evidence it was a fraud.

Sorry, yes. I found the skull in Dartford museum (many years ago) and
the curator seemed regretful that no one paid it any attention any more.
He seemed pleased when I expressed an interest in seeing it and
photographing it and that was when I was allowed to handle it.

Er - which of the skull features showed that it was a woman?

> Peking man, again from sources I've checked, suggest it wasn't a fraud.

Depends on what you mean by "fraud". Certainly it was not in the same
class as Piltdown, but you won't find any mention of it in modern
textbooks. It seems to have dropped out of the reckoning. Why?

> Only neanderthal and denisovan have existed alongside sapien, since
> erectus became extinct and sapien replaced erectus, so was obviously
> more adaptable to the climate back then.

You are assuming two things: first, that the dating methods are reliable
and correct; second, that all the sapiens bones have been found. Lucy's
bones, for example, were found scattered over the ground, but what if
her sapiens neighbours buried their dead in a cave somewhere or cremated
them or even threw them into a river?

> As inbreeding has existed over the centuries since Jesus, why are we not
> seeing similar offshoots of homo sapien today? I mean the population has
> exploded since then so you'd have thought it much more common.

I used to work in a home for retarded children, a number of whom were
the result of incest. One lad in particular looked exactly like the
text-book illustrations for Cro-Magnon man, another could have passed
for the Floriensis hobbit. So I would say that we *are* seeing such
offspring.

> Anyway, you disn't answer the question. Was Adam habilis, erectus,
> sapien, neanderthal or denisovan?

Or possibly none of the above. If the Flood was as devastating as some
believe, it is unlikely that any human remains will be found from that
period.

John

unread,
Aug 4, 2022, 9:59:43 AMAug 4
to
On 04/08/2022 06:42, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 04/08/2022 00:30, John wrote:


>> By Dartford man do you mean Swanscombe man?  Apart from it being the
>> skull of a woman I can find no evidence it was a fraud.
>
> Sorry, yes. I found the skull in Dartford museum (many years ago) and
> the curator seemed regretful that no one paid it any attention any more.
> He seemed pleased when I expressed an interest in seeing it and
> photographing it and that was when I was allowed to handle it.

Its in the Natural History Museum now.

> Er - which of the skull features showed that it was a woman?

I read it on 3 different websites, including this one

Although the skull is often colloquially called "Swanscombe Man", the
delicate muscle attachments suggest it was in fact a young woman,
despite its thickness. The inside of the skull reveals the shape and
size of the brain, which are similar to those of modern humans.

However, the proportions of the skull and a small depression near its
base are features shared with the much later Neanderthals; it appears
that Swanscombe Woman was both a descendant of Boxgrove Man, and a
distant ancestor of the Neanderthals. She came from one of the higher
gravel horizons, rich in pointed handaxes.

http://www.swanscombeheritagepark.co.uk/interpretation.htm



>> As inbreeding has existed over the centuries since Jesus, why are we
>> not seeing similar offshoots of homo sapien today? I mean the
>> population has exploded since then so you'd have thought it much more
>> common.
>
> I used to work in a home for retarded children, a number of whom were
> the result of incest. One lad in particular looked exactly like the
> text-book illustrations for Cro-Magnon man, another could have passed
> for the Floriensis hobbit. So I would say that we *are* seeing such
> offspring.

I'm speechless. I suppose you assume the same for all those who are down
syndrome as well?



>> Anyway, you disn't answer the question. Was Adam habilis, erectus,
>> sapien, neanderthal or denisovan?
>
> Or possibly none of the above. If the Flood was as devastating as some
> believe, it is unlikely that any human remains will be found from that
> period.

Er, I can't believe I just read that!!

The flood, once receded, would have unearthed the bodies of all the dead
people, so why would we not have human remains from that period?

Homo Adamus would presumably have lived on through Noah and his family.






















Kendall K. Down

unread,
Aug 4, 2022, 4:09:41 PMAug 4
to
On 04/08/2022 14:59, John wrote:

>> Sorry, yes. I found the skull in Dartford museum (many years ago) and
>> the curator seemed regretful that no one paid it any attention any
>> more. He seemed pleased when I expressed an interest in seeing it and
>> photographing it and that was when I was allowed to handle it.

> Its in the Natural History Museum now.

I'm glad to hear that it's in the NHM. If the curator is still around, I
imagine he is pleased.

> Although the skull is often colloquially called "Swanscombe Man", the
> delicate muscle attachments suggest it was in fact a young woman,
> despite its thickness. The inside of the skull reveals the shape and
> size of the brain, which are similar to those of modern humans.

So it "suggests" - but of course it might simply have been a young chap
with not much muscles - they do exist, you know. Notice also that this
"primitive" man/woman was as brainy as us!

> However, the proportions of the skull and a small depression near its
> base are features shared with the much later Neanderthals; it appears
> that Swanscombe Woman was both a descendant of Boxgrove Man, and a
> distant ancestor of the Neanderthals. She came from one of the higher
> gravel horizons, rich in pointed handaxes.

All very interesting, thanks. I don't know whether you have ever studied
the art of flint knapping? Or possibly even tried it? It is by no means
a "primitive" technology, but requires dexterity and ingenuity.

> I'm speechless. I suppose you assume the same for all those who are down
> syndrome as well?

No, I don't believe that Down's Syndrome is related to in-breeding.

> Er, I can't believe I just read that!!

You are welcome to read it again if you need persuading on the point.

> The flood, once receded, would have unearthed the bodies of all the dead
> people, so why would we not have human remains from that period?

There are two pictures of the Flood. One is that it was a fairly tame
affair - the water rose, the water fell, end of story; the other is that
it was a huge and violent affair during which vast deposits were laid
down, mountains formed, continents split, and so on. On the whole human
remains do not survive very well when a 1,000' layer of rock has been
slid over them.

> Homo Adamus would presumably have lived on through Noah and his family.

One presumes so, in which case something very much like modern humans is
the answer to your question.

John

unread,
Aug 5, 2022, 9:09:43 AMAug 5
to
So you don't believe there was erectus and habilis before sapien then?


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Aug 5, 2022, 3:59:42 PMAug 5
to
On 05/08/2022 14:07, John wrote:

> So you don't believe there was erectus and habilis before sapien then?

Contemporary with, probably, but not before.

John

unread,
Aug 6, 2022, 5:49:44 AMAug 6
to
On 05/08/2022 20:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 05/08/2022 14:07, John wrote:
>
>> So you don't believe there was erectus and habilis before sapien then?
>
> Contemporary with, probably, but not before.


Given that sapien was the sole survivor, and according to Lukes
genealogy Jesus can be traced back to Adam, then Adam must have been sapien.

So now you have a problem, given that habilis and erectus can be dated
back further than sapien, even if you disagree with the dating methods used.



Kendall K. Down

unread,
Aug 6, 2022, 3:49:43 PMAug 6
to
On 06/08/2022 10:45, John wrote:

> Given that sapien was the sole survivor, and according to Lukes
> genealogy Jesus can be traced back to Adam, then Adam must have been
> sapien.

I don't disagree with your logic.

> So now you have a problem, given that habilis and erectus can be dated
> back further than sapien, even if you disagree with the dating methods
> used.

According to the Bible, humans before the Flood lived for a very long
time. Did animals have similarly extended life spans?

Let us suppose that the answer is "No". You would then expect to find
multiple monkey or dog or giraffe skeletons that were much older than
the first human skeleton!

Can you find a hole in my logic?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages