Search This Blog

Friday, March 31, 2006

Last Day for Carnival Submissions!

This is the last day of the month (and also the last day to submit to the Darwin is Dead Carnival).

In my business, it was a very significant day. Vendors are paid month to month and have quotas from quarter to quarter. Thus, I put in about a 12-hour workday full of angst and excitement and negotiation. The technical term for my state of mind now? I am FRIED!

Therefore I intend to wait a day before I answer my various commmenters, or try to put together another post full of quotes and so on. I am just beat like a drum. It appears that I made the biggest deal of the month for my company on this, the last day, and that is a very good thing. But I am glad it is over and I can try to relax now.

One way I like to relax is to watch my fish. We have three tanks. The small ten-gallon holds a Pumpkinseed (bluegill) fish who we call "Mr. Personality" who is not yet a year old. He will very soon outgrow his tank. I bet we can keep him for at least ten years.

The second tank has a few live-breeders, all Swords and Platys, it is a 29-gallon tank. I have some juvenile Plecostomus and a couple of Botia/Loach fish in there. The live-breeders are colorful and the special moss we have in the corner helps provide cover for baby fish. We will probably move Mr. Personality into this tank and buy a new one for the live-breeders.

Both of those tanks are downstairs, where we have the big screen TV and the surround sound stereo and two couches, a loveseat and a church pew (!) from one of my previous churches. This is where the teens and pre-teens like to hang out and where we go to watch movies, or 24, etc.

The third tank is the one I watch most often, the one in my office upstairs. It is a 55 gallon tank with a few Barbs and Tetras, some Corydoras Cats, a Red-Tailed Shark, two upside-down African Catfish and two Plecostomus. The Cory Cats, there are six of them and they sometimes tend to herd, they are the James Browns of the tank, the hardest workers. The Barbs and Tetras often school, but the Barbs also engage in many oddball activities. They like to float almost in a headstand, which looks rather odd, and they will also do a mating dance in which they "kiss" and spin in blurring circles. I have also seen them line up to put their bodies in the flow of a bubble stream and be flung up to the top of the tank.

The Red-Tailed Shark likes to "herd" the Tetras and Barbs into the East half of the tank, for some reason. He will chase them into that end, and the ones who do not go willingly he will chase all over the tank until worn out. We really don't know why. He gave up trying to herd the Corys and Plecos and now ignores them as if they don't exist.

My Plecos are both over seven years old and both almost a foot in length each. They have learned to come up to the top of the tank when I open the hood, to get first crack at whatever food is served up. But when it is worm cubes, the Cory Cats have learned to come up to the top of the tank and fight with the Plecos for control of the cubes. These learned behaviors are at odds with the normal behavior of both species. Corys usually stay at or near the bottom of the tank, other than the occasion in which they take a breath. They are abdominal breathers, and once every hour or two they will rise to the top to grab a breath. They resemble "scrubbing bubbles" normally, continually working hard to find something to eat at the bottom of the tank, industriously sticking their noses into every crack in the process. When they want a breath, they wiggle like they are getting incredibly angry, and then shoot up to the surface to take a quick breath and just as quickly dive back down to the bottom.

The Barbs and Tetras have learned to be more aggressive when worm cubes are presented, for if they don't rise to the surface and "hit" the cube they may find that the Plecos and the Corys will get it all. Needless to say, a worm cube or two makes for a big happening in my largest tank. Only the upside-down cats stay out of the fray. They like to move and feed nocturnally even if they are too big to hide out during the day now. They each have a hiding place and their bodies stick out from behind their place now, places that covered them completely when they were only an inch or two long. Do they know or care?

What does this have to do with anything? Not sure, but the fish relax me when I take a bit of time out to watch them. So this post is kind of like an internet version of watching the fish. My mind wants to relax.

I realized today that I have attended nine years of post-high school higher education
classes in my lifetime. Three years of normal, secular universities (at three schools, non-consecutive) and three years of seminary (at one school, consecutive) and three years of technical training ( at four schools, non-consecutive) and out of those nine years, I had to work while going to school during seven of them. I have three certificates and/or degrees from these institutions but my resume in this regard sounds like that of a scion of a rich family who becomes a professional student rather than go out into the real world.

I work in the Internet industry these days. It is dog-eat-dog and it is constantly changing. What you knew last year is generally defunct today. One has to scramble to stay near the cutting edge. There is extra reading to do, seminars, all of that stuff. Hoping that such activities help stave off Alzheimers...

In terms of knowledge, I considered what some of my commenters had said and I will say a few things about that. I know far more about Biology than the average guy, but far less than the average Microbiologist. I know more about Math than the average guy, but less than a Mathematician. In the sciences, I am familiar with them but not a master of any of them. I love History and Literature but don't claim real expertise in either field. I believe it is Dan S who pointed me to a posting by a science writer who warned against going beyond "my tether" in the field of science and it may be that I have, indeed, gone beyond from time to time. I think I have a couple of posters who fervently would agree with that assessment!

My expertise, other than within my profession, likely tilts toward the Bible. I have done a great deal of study of that book and taken classes in the doctrines, the original languages and even the events surrounding the compilation of the texts of that particular book. In addition, I am pretty good at trivia in general, music and sports trivia in particular and can do a reasonable impersonation of a Sabremetrician in baseball. I was reading Bill James before reading Bill James was cool...and that ceased being cool ten years ago.

So how did I wind up with a blog that seems to be mostly about science? (some commenters have called it a "hilarious anti-science blog?") Gee, it seems that creation science is a hobby of mine and because I began posting about that it has turned into the major conversation on the blog. Discussions with Darwinists have taught me a great deal (mostly about Darwinists, but also some of the ideas they have transmitted) and caused me to further study the positions I take and the information I value in this one area. I really had a great post I wanted to make today but being mentally exhausted it will have to wait until tomorrow.

Anyway, to the readers, to the guys who comment, for a minute let us forget our various positions on issues and just be who we are. Hi, I am a father, the lover of a great woman, a friend to a few, a sports nut, a trivia buff, a reader, a lover of movies and music, a writer of poems and songs, a singer (who has been paid to sing in the past, thank you very much), a lecturer (who has been both paid and comped to speak at conferences and events), a grandfather (dude, you must be OLD), a teacher, a writer of sorts (who once used to be paid to write) and owner of a sarcastic quick-wit who loves puns and stupid jokes. My wife and I kid about my current title, "The Mouth Of God" regarding the blog as it now stands. Yeah, I am a big mouth all right. I admit it, though.

I know what it is like to hit the winning home run, and what it is like to miss the shot that would have won a championship. I know what it is like to hold my child immediately after birth and cutting the cord, welcome him or her into the world. I know what it is like to be praised and to be humiliated. To stand before a large crowd and receive thunderous applause. To face the prospect of bankruptcy. To bury a close relative before his time and mourn. Life, right? Ups and downs.

We pass comments back and forth about issues, usually. But for this one day, for this one post, if you have a comment why not tell me WHO you are. Forget your politics (Yes, I am a conservative but you likely knew that) and your scientific stance and all of that. Who are you? One of my commenters turns out to be a gifted artist. Another is a music buff who can rock out on the guitar. Another is a gifted martial artist. Yet another turns out to be able to frame a picture with a camera and make it a piece of art.

Just for today, forget Darwin and Behe and all of those guys. Who are you, what do you love to do? I promise to get back on point tomorrow, really!

Leonard Susskind, eh?

"Scientists in glass houses, throwing stones

New Scientist magazine interviews Leonard Susskind, professor of theoretical physics at Stanford:

"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?"

"I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now, we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."

One of the reasons that I think so little of Darwin's more outspoken defenders is that most of them are not genuine scientists, they are at best third-rate academics. I do not subscribe to either ID or evolutionary theory, (being firmly agnostic on the question of both origins and methods*), but I have to say that the behavior of the evolutionists over the past few years has me leaning towards the ID camp, mostly because they don't behave as if they have something to hide."

The above? Nope, not my words. It is from Vox Popoli. Nice to know I am not the only one, especially hearing it from an "agnostic on the question of both origins and methods" who has no agenda other than stating what seems obvious. I am on the side of those who "...don't behave as if they have something to hide."

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Pictures the New York Times will never show you..

Release The Hounds!

About World View.....and Science

There are several good reasons that Darwinism needs to be questioned and other possibilities need to be considered by serious students. The philosophical stance of so many in the scientific community today cause them to work long and hard to keep creation science and Intelligent Design from the discussion. Ad hominem attacks and the dismissal of the numbers of non-Darwinist scientists and their work are the best weapons Darwinists have. When the fight comes down to science they struggle.

The Odds

I am told that I don't understand math while being in agreement with Michael Dembski, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago and has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University (and other stuff, but it gets pretty long, his list of accomplishments). That's fine, call what I presented a fallacy but that is because Darwinists cannot disprove it. So they try to talk their way around it by changing the assumptions and reworking the equation. Boo!


Irreducible complexity is another problem for Darwinists. I only really concentrated on one of myriad examples in that post. What about the neck of the Giraffe, or the Bombadier Beatle's defense mechanism?

There are more huge problems for Darwinists, but even one major issue would be enough for serious scientists who would like to know the answers to questions no matter what they might be. If you read the comments sections of this blog, you will see that the Darwinists say the same thing in different ways, over and over. They do not want anything but macroevolution taught or even considered. They make fun of scientists who disagree with them and denigrate their work. They ignore the brilliant men who disagree with them (I am talking about guys like Behe and Townes and Tipler and Barrow, not me!),

The search for truth should be done with honesty and a willingness to learn something new. Many Christians believe in macroevolution and many believe in long ages for the earth, or at least for the universe. Many are young earth creationists. Some dyed-in-the-wool macroevolutionists are Christians. Some people who believe in a creation or at least in Intelligent Design do not believe in God per se. There are not just two simple sides in the debate. Heck, some of my best friends are Darwinists, hee hee!

What surprises me is the dogmatism associated with the apparent majority of Darwinists who cannot abide and even fear the teaching of creationism/ID. I believe a lot of that stems from philosophical differences, although some of them deny it (but not all). I have difficulty seeing their logic otherwise. I see them trying to deny and stifle something that threatens their very core beliefs even if it is a futile task.


Bible modernists have sought for ways to take the impact of the Bible away by casting doubts upon authorship. They attacked the book of Genesis based on the names in that book used for God. The JEDP documentary hypothesis requires remarkable twists of logic and it also requires a willful ignorance. For even as they sought to parse and part out that book by the use of the name of God, they knew that God was referred to by various names in other books as well. Good Bible students know that these various descriptive names had nothing to do with the author. (One can see that Moses may have used historical tablets as a basis for Genesis and it is possible the tablets had been passed down and added on to since Adam and on down. That only makes the record that much more reliable.)

But the Bible and Christianity have actually been key to the advance of Western Civilization and individual freedoms in the last few centuries. Francis A Shaeffer has written a great deal about the philosophy of the rational Christian and the effect of Christianity on today's world. I want to bring a few of his quotes into the discussion. This is because I believe, as the summary of his book How Should We Then Live states,

"Schaeffer wrote that, "To understand where we are in today's world -- in our intellectual ideas and in our cultural and political lives -- we must trace three lines in history, namely, the philosophic, the scientific, and the religious." That is exactly what he does in How Should We Then Live?. The way a person lives is based on how they view the world. Ideas are not without consequences."

We all stand on a platform of world view. This world view greatly impacts all that we think or do. Francis Shaeffer, in the aforementioned book, considers both the Renaissance and the Reformation as he looks at the three lines of history and mankind. All of the following quotes are from Shaeffer:

"There is a flow to history and culture. This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people. People are unique in the inner life of the mind -- what they are in their thought-world determines how they act. This is true of their value systems and it is true of their creativity. It is true of their corporate actions, such as political decisions, and it is true of their personal lives. The results of their thought-world flow through their fingers or from their tongues into the external world. This is true of Michelangelo's chisel, and it is true of a dictator's sword."

One's world view comes with presuppositions:

" People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world-view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People's presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions."

The man who has presuppositions based on Biblical absolutes is dangerous to those who do not. He is at odds with the totalitarian. He is at odds with oppression.

"No totalitarian authority nor authoritarian state can tolerate those who have an absolute by which to judge that state and its actions. The Christians had that absolute in God's revelation. Because the Christians had an absolute, universal standard by which to judge not only personal morals but the state, they were counted as enemies of totalitarian Rome and were thrown to the beasts."

Many Humanists today point their fingers at the Islamofascists (when they are not busy defending them) and say that this is what Christians would become if given the chance. Go read the Democratic Underground, the LA Times, the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for awhile if you doubt it. In truth, Islamofascism and the rule of Sharia Law are among the things a Bible absolutist would recognize as entirely wrong.

"Because the Reformers did not mix humanism with their position, but took instead a serious view of the Bible, they had no problem of meaning for the individual things, the particulars; they had no nature-versus-grace problem. One could say that the Renaissance centered in autonomous man, while the Reformation centered in the infinite-personal God who had spoken in the Bible. In the answer the Reformation gave, the problem of meaning for individual things, including man, was so completely answered that the problem -- as a problem -- did not exist. The reason for this is that the Bible gives a unity to the universal and the particulars."

I endorse a world where the seeking of knowledge would be encouraged and there would be no orthodox or dogmatic stand against the advance of science where it did not intrude into the arena of Right or Wrong. Let Darwinists seek to prove macroevolution if they will and let all men of science seek for ways to improve the human condition and learn more about the world around us without doctrinal hindrances from religion (Christian or Humanist or any other).

" First, the Bible tells men and women true things about God. Therefore, they can know true things about God. One can know true things about God because God has revealed Himself. The word God was not contentless to Reformation man. God was not an unknown "philosophic other" because God had told man about Himself. As the Westminster Confession (1645-1647) says, when God revealed His attributes to people, the attributes are not only true to people but true to God. That is, when God tells people what He is like, what He says is not just relatively true but absolutely true. As finite beings, people do not have exhaustive truth about God, but they can have truth about God; and they can know, therefore, truth about that which is the ultimate universal. And the Bible speaks to men and women concerning meaning, morals, and values.

Second, the Bible tells us true things about people and about nature. It does not give men and women exhaustive truth about the world and the cosmos, but it does give truth about them. So one can know many true things about nature, especially why things exist and why they have the form they have. Yet, because the Bible does not give exhaustive truth about history and the cosmos, historians and scientists have a job to do, and their work is not meaningless. To be sure, there is a total break between God and His creation, that is, between God and created things; God is infinite and created things are finite. But man can know both truth about God and truth about the things of creation because in the Bible God has revealed Himself and has given man the key to understanding God's world.

So, as the Reformation returned to biblical teaching, it gained two riches at once: it had no particulars-versus-universals (or meaning) problem, and yet at the same time science and art were set free to operate upon the basis of that which God had set forth in Scripture. The Christianity of the Reformation, therefore, stood in rich contrast to the basic weakness and final poverty of the humanism which existed in that day and the humanism which has existed since."

The Bible includes historical narratives that help us understand science and history. But the Bible is not a science book and it was not given to us merely as a book of history. It is rather a basis for studies in science and history. But it is especially a book in which God presents to us His world view and invites us to live it.

"It is important that the Bible sets forth true knowledge about mankind. The biblical teaching gives meaning to all particulars, but this is especially so in regard to that particular which is the most important to man, namely, the individual himself or herself. It gives a reason for the individual being great. The ironic fact here is that humanism, which began with Man's being central, eventually had no real meaning for people. On the other hand, if one begins with the Bible's position that a person is created by God and created in the image of God, there is a basis for that person's dignity. People, the Bible teaches, are made in the image of God -- they are nonprogrammed. Each is thus Man with dignity.

That Man is made in the image of God gives many important answers intellectually, but it also has had vast practical results, both in the Reformation days and in our own age. For example, in the time of the Reformation it meant that all the vocations of life came to have dignity. The vocation of honest merchant or housewife had as much dignity as king. This was strengthened further by the emphasis on the biblical teaching of the priesthood of all believers -- that is, that all Christians are priests. Thus, in a very real sense, all people are equal as persons. Moreover, the government of the church by lay elders created the potential for democratic emphasis.

The Bible, however, also says that man is fallen; he has revolted against God. At the historic space-time Fall, man refused to stand in the proper relationship with this infinite reference point which is the personal God. Therefore, people are now abnormal. The Reformation saw all people as equal in this way, too -- all are guilty before God. This is as true of the king and queen as the peasant. So, in contrast to the humanism of the Renaissance, which never gave an answer to explain that which is observable in people, the Bible enabled people to solve the dilemma facing them as they look at themselves: they could understand both their greatness and their cruelty."

It is the world view of the Bible that has given us liberty as individuals. It is that world view that was the basis for the Constitution of the United States. It was the world view of Pasteur, of Newton, yes even of Galileo as he defied the orthodox view of the Catholic Church. It is that world view that I hold. Those who do not share that view, they are those who seek to ban the teaching of ID or creationism from the classroom. They fear ideas that do not agree with theirs. But how futile and foolish this is!

I think macroevolution was an interesting concept and that as science learned more about the nature of organisms it should have been discarded. But I don't want to ban macroevolution from science, from the classroom and from the museums. No! I endorse the free exchange of ideas and let the truth come forth. Man seeks for truth and in a free society he will continue to do so. The study of macroevolution has been, to some extent, the study of microevolution and such studies have reaped rewards to mankind. Since the proponents of macroevolution are at work to ban the very idea of creationism or ID then I must labor against them even as I know that we could both do more good were the issue settled and our energies devoted to better endeavors.

But I have a certain hope. In the book of Acts, when Peter and other believers were doing miracles and preaching in the name of Jesus, the orthodox Jewish leadership sought to oppose them and perhaps even have the men put to death. But then Gamaliel, a Pharisee, rose and spoke these words: "...Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." - Acts 5:38 & 39

I must, I have to believe that truth wills out and that man will continue to seek for truth. Creation science will either continue to prove to be the best scenario for the origins of all things, in my opinion, or it will not. I say to the Darwinists who seek to keep creation science and ID out of the classroom and the laboratory and the observatory, let my people go... if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Charts for The Descent of the Danish and Norwegian Kings (and Icelanders and English Saxons)


Ancient Genealogies support the Bible and Noahic Flood

It was the 1800's, a century when both Darwinism and Uniformitarianism would raise their ugly heads and cast ripples, nay, giant waves through the scientific community. Those waves kept going, sweeping into other disciplines such as History and Bible Studies and on until they washed back through the place they had begun, Philosophy. It was a tsunami that has done lasting damage and I am among those who work to repair and rebuild.

Darwinists fear the teaching of Intelligent Design even while loudly crying that it is "not science!" No, it is not their science because it doesn't fit into a materialist (some say naturalistic - To-may-toe, to-mah-toe) philosophy within which Darwinism must be encased. Darwinism doesn't play so well when all possibilities are allowed to be considered and Darwinists furiously fight to remain the only players allowed on the field. That way, they always win!

Once historical documents were cast aside or ignored by the powers that be because those documents did not fit the Catholic point of view. These were the days of the Catholic-church-as-totalitarians, days that produced the Inquisition and also, eventually, the pushback of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Yet many old documents remained obscure by omission rather than nonexistence. Later, when Darwinism came into bloom, there came the need to find long ages whenever possible. New textural criticisms of the Bible (the JPED Documentary Hypothesis in particular) arose, not from better information, but because there was a need to find long ages and discount all information that indicated otherwise. Few "theories" are as twisted and unlikely as the JPED and yet it is satisfactory to Darwinists because it casts doubt on the veracity of the book of Genesis.

"The evidence presented here points to the following conclusion: there is much more uniformity and much less fragmentation in the book of Genesis than generally assumed. The standard division of Genesis into J, E, and P strands should be discarded. This method of source criticism is a method of an earlier age, predominantly of the 19th century. If new approaches to the text, such as literary criticism of the type advanced here, deem the Documentary Hypothesis unreasonable and invalid, then source critics will have to rethink earlier conclusions and start anew." (p. 105 of The Redaction of Genesis by Rendsburg (Eisenbrauns: 1986) as quoted by Glen Miller.

Unfortunately long-agers, there are many other historical records that help prove that the Genesis account is genuine and remarkably accurate. These are records gleaned from different cultures and eras, many by peoples who did not interact and had no knowledge of the records held by others. These are records from all over the globe.

I may have mentioned previously that Noah is recorded in cultures around the globe as the patriarch that built the Ark and was preserved along with family and wildlife in the Noahic Flood. Some of the cultures that have an historical Noah include Hawaii (where he was called Nu-u), the Sudan (Nuh), China (Nu-Wah), the Amazon region (Noa), Phrygia (Noe) and among the Hottentots (Noh and Hiagnoh)(Hat tip to Chris Parker of S8int). But now let us take a closer look at historical records, some of which have been ignored by the Orthodox keepers of the Darwinist flame due to their content, and see what we may see:

Bill Cooper, who spent 25 years in compiling the evidence for his book, After The Flood, and has authored The Table Of Nations (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal) and other reference materials, has compiled a wonderful treasure trove of information from ancient documents and I will be using them during the rest of the post. All quotes below, unless otherwise attributed, are taken from those two sources.

I had previously posted that Manetho had mentioned Peleg and the Tower of Babel in his writings concerning the history of Egypt, and indeed Egyptians did consider themselves the offspring ofCush, the son of Ham, the son of Noah.

"Josephus writes:

'...time has not at all hurt the name of Chus (i,e. Cush); for the Ethiopians over whom he reigned, are even at this day both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites'. "

Cooper notes that,"The name of Cush is preserved in Egypt's hieroglyphic inscriptions as Kush, the name referring to the country that lay between the second and third cataracts of the Nile. This same land was later known as Nubia. Additional confirmation of this location is given in an inscription of Esarhaddon of Assyria (681-668 BC), who tells us that he made himself king of 'Musur, Patorisi, and Cush. Some assert that the name of Cush was also perpetuated in that of the Babylonian city of Kish, ostensibly one of the earliest cities to be built after the Flood "

A numbered geneological table of descendants of Ham with each number corresponding to a paragraph of historical information is in the Table of Nations.

After the Tower of Babel, the descendants of Ham tended to move South and West, the descendants of Shem remained closer to their original homes and those of Japheth scattered to the East and North. It is my intent to focus on records of the descendants of Japheth, seeing as how both myself and my readers are most likely to have come (primarily) from that branch of the Noah tree.


The name of Japheth as progenitor is found in many historical geneologies of peoples that have been passed down to us. For the Greeks, he was Iapetos. In Sanskrit (India) Pra-Japati (Father Japheth). The Romans called him Io-Pater or Jove and later of course, Jupiter. He was normally Japheth for Irish-Celtic and Viking lines but in the Saxon tongue it was Sceaf (!).


Edgar Truax translated the geneologies of this people, who had kept the geneologies for thousands of years before coming in contact with a Bible. Consider the line of progression:

Dirt (or "Adam" who was named after the red dirt from which he was formed) is the first man. Just as Genesis says that all other men were descended from Seth, the Miatso call him Se-teh. Other men between Adam and Noah (Nuah to the Miatso) are identifiable in the Genesis account. Unlike the Bible, Noah's wife is named (Gaw Bo-lu-en).

In Genesis, Noah's three sons are Ham, Shem and Japheth. In the Miatso account they are Lo Han, Lo Shen and Jah-phu. The Miatso are descended from Jah-phu. It is amazing that the same names are in the cultures so far apart in ways other than geographical. Amazing unless, of course, they are truly historical records.


"The records in which early Irish history is preserved have been masterfully set out and enumerated by Miss Cusack, authoress of The Illustrated History of Ireland, published in 1868 (and from which the above passage is taken). For her history, she drew upon an extensive number of manuscripts, many of which still survive, and are known under such evocative names as The Book of Leinster (written in 1130 AD, and copied from the much older Saltair of Cashel;) The Book of Ballymote (1390 AD;) and the Annals of the Four Masters. But two others received special mention, the Chronicum Scotorum, and the even more important (because earlier) Cin Droma Snechta.

The Cin Droma Snechta is now lost by all accounts, yet its contents were preserved by Keating, the Irish historian who wrote his own History from this and many other early manuscripts in about 1630. (See Bibliography.) The importance of the Cin Droma Snechta lies in the early date of its compilation, concerning which a note in the twelfth-century Book of Leinster tells us:

"Ernin, son of Duach, that is son of the King of was he that collected the Genealogies and Histories of the men of Erinn in one book, that is the Cin Droma Snechta." 3

The importance of this statement lies in the fact that Duach, Ernin's father, lived towards the end of the fourth century AD, which places the compilation of the Cin Droma Snechta well before the coming of Christianity to Ireland (and the oft-alleged forgeries of the Christian monks)!"

The Irish records include dates beginning with the creation of the world (Anno Mundi) and record the landing of the first colony on Ireland as 2520 AM. Irish geneologies begin with Noah, through Japheth, through Magog and some 24 generations later produce Riondal. There were several incursions from different groups in the Japheth line, including:

1) PARTHOLAN. The first person to colonize Ireland after the Flood, His people landed in Ireland in the year 1484 BC, Patholan died in 1454 BC, and the entire colony was wiped out by plague 300 years later in 1184 BC.

2)BAATH and JOBHATH. These two names also occur in the earliest portions of the British genealogy where JOBAATH is rendered IOBAATH. An intriguing thought is the possibility that these two names may betray the origins of the European royal blood. The very concept of royalty has long been a mystery, as has the reason why descendants of a certain family have always been set apart from and above the common herd. The royal families of Europe have always been interrelated to a greater or lesser degree throughout history and it seems very likely that the blood-royal began with Baath and Iobaath. The fact that here Baath and Jobaath are depicted as brothers, whereas in British genealogy, they are depicted as father and son, testifies to the distortion these records underwent in transmission. Their historicity, however, is convincingly demonstrated in their appearance in such diverse records as the Irish-Celtic and British.

3) EASRU and SRU. These two names, along with those of Baath and Iobaath, also occur in the earliest portions of the British genealogy where they are rendered IZRAU and EZRA, and again they appear to be the names of important founders of European royalty who lived before the division and dispersal of the various races and tribes of Europe.

4) HEBER and EREMON. The leaders of the Milesian settlement who landed in Ireland in the year 504 BC. From Heber, from whom Ireland derives its name Hibernia, are descended the great southern clans of Ireland, the McCarthy's and O'Brien's, and so-on, while from Eremon are descended the northern clans of O'Connor, O'Donnnell and O'Neill.

"The appearance of Magog's name in the Milesian ancestry is of great significance, for we saw in Part I of our study how Magog was the founder, or co-founder, of the Scythian peoples, and the early Irish chroniclers were emphatic in their claim that the Irish were descended from Scythian stock. This claim is confirmed in many points, not the least of which is the fact that "Scot" and "Scythian" share the same etymological root:

"Scot (is) the same as Sythian in etymology; the root of both is Sct. The Greeks had no c, and would change "t" into "th" making the root "skth," and by adding a phonetic vowel, we get Skuth-ai (Scythians,) and Skoth-ai (Skoths.) The Welsh disliked "s" at the beginning of a word, and would change it to "ys;" they would also change "c" or "k" to "g," and "th" to "d;" whence the Welsh root would be "Ysgd," and Skuth or Skoth would become "ysgod." Once more, the Saxons would cut off the Welsh "y," and change the "g" back again to "c," and the "d" to "t," converting the Ysgod to Scot." 10

The early Irish were originally known as Scots, of course, and they were later to leave Ireland and invade and settle the country that still bears their name, displacing and subduing the native Picts in waves and waves of invasion.

"The Books of Genealogies and Pedigrees form a most important element in Irish pagan history. For social and political reasons, the Irish Celt preserved his genealogical tree with scrupulous precision. Property rights and the governing power were transmitted with patriarchal exactitude on strict claims of primogeniture, which could only be refused under certain conditions defined by law...and in obedience to an ancient law, established long before the introduction of Christianity, all the provincial records, as well as those of the various chieftains, were required to be furnished every third year to the convocation at Tara, where they were compared and corrected."


"We shall begin this section of our study by considering the work of a British scholar named Nennius. (The term British means he descended from the original peoples who settled in Britain after the Flood. The modern Welsh are descended from that same stock.) Nennius completed his famous work, the Historia Brittonum, towards the very end of the eighth century AD, and his achievement was to gather together, and thus preserve, a whole series of documents and sources that collectively shed much light specially upon the early pagan (i.e. pre-Christian) history of the early Britons. 16 In the preface to his work, he tells us (in Latin) that he is recording certain facts that the British had stupidly thrown away (quae hebitudo gentis Brittaniae deiecertat.)"

British geneologies also begin with Noah and Japheth but it is then that they are descended from Javan, although some intermarriage with the line of Magog is later not uncommon. Several generations later there is Alanus, from whom the Franks, Latins, Albans, British, Bavarians,Vandals,Saxons,Thuringians, Goths,Walagoths,Gepids,Burgundians and Langobards all trace descent.

The British Kings trace their descent from Noah down to the first ruler, Brutus. (He was the first to colonize the British mainland after the Flood, and was Britain's first king. The land of Britain and its people, the Britons, derived their name from him. His wife, Ignoge, the daughter of a "Greek" king named Pandrasus, was married to Brutus against her will.) The line goes unbroken from Brutus through some well-known kings such as Coel ("Old King Cole") and Utherpendragon and Arthur (later fictionalized as the Arthur of Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table) and Cadwallader (The son of Cadwallo, he succeeded his father as king. Bede knew him as Cliedvalla, and the Welsh knew him as Cadwaladr. He died in 689 AD.)

Yvor was the last king of pure British blood, taking the rather diminished throne in about 665 AD.

Interestingly, Bill Cooper was able to use five different sources to trace the lineage of the British from Japheth down to Brutus, sources that include Virgil, The Early History of Rome, Geoffrey Monmouth (discounted by modernists due to philosophical reasons primarily) and Nennius.


"One of the most remarkable things to be noticed about the Anglo-Saxon genealogies, is that so many have survived. Not only have they endured intact the ravages of some twelve or more centuries of war, worm, damp and decay; they have also survived the ravages of kings whose political interests once lay in the suppression of such records, namely the Vikings, Normans and Plantagenets."

The Geneologies of the Saxons, Danes, Icelanders and Norwegians all trace their lineage through Woden (Voden, Uuothen, Othin, or Uuoden) who was a descendant of Noa (Noe) and all lines include Fin (Finn). Various sources miss one name here and one there but by combining them the geneology is illustrated and preserved.

All six Saxon houses trace their lineage from Woden (who, like Japheth becoming Jupiter, was turned into a mythical Norse figure as Odin) and that includes the House of Kent.

"The Houses of Wessex (Occidentallium Saxonium;) of Lindsey (Lindis feama;) of Kent (Catwariorum;) of Mercia (Merciorum;) of Northumbria (Northa hymborum;) and of East Anglia (Estranglorum,) are all represented and all are seen to have traced their ancestry directly back to Woden and beyond. Fortunately, Woden's own ancestry is also shown in various sources, and this goes way back to Noah through Sceaf (of whom more shortly,) thus providing us with an invaluable and unbroken link with the immediate post-Flood era.

The political supremacy of these various Houses fluctuated almost from one decade to the next, and the particular king who at any one time held sway over the others, was accorded the title Bretwalda. The East Anglian king, Redwald, was a particularly famous Bretwalda and it is thought by many that it was his grave that was discovered during the excavations of the Sutton Hoo burial.

Redwald, however, as well as being an East Anglian king, also belonged to the famous clan of the Wuffingas. This name derived from his ancestor Wuffa, and it demonstrates the seriousness with which the early Saxons kept their genealogies. Undoubtedly, Wuffa would in time have been deified as an ancestor, as were other notable founders of clans before him, and it was only the presence of the early medieval Christian Church that prevented this happening in Wuffa's case. For example, Geat was not only the founder of the Geatingas (Beowulf of epic fame was a Geating,) but he became also one of the major gods or demi-gods of the Saxon pantheon."

There is more, yes, there is more. The curious reader can begin by clicking on some of the links provided. There will be another installment coming in the next days to continue the presentation of evidence for the geneological records in Genesis and their historical accuracy.

News on Natalie - New Blog to Visit.

For all those who were concerned (and I thank you!), My niece, Natalie, has gone through successful surgery and is now recuperating at the hospital. She is sore but all went well.


The following is a post from Woman Honor Thyself -

OdE to Sept.11 FamilieS of LoveD OneS

More Human Remains Found Near WTC Site

"NEW YORK - Construction workers cleaning toxic waste from a vacant skyscraper near the World Trade Center site have found more bone fragments and human remains, officials said Tuesday.

The city medical examiner's office plans to extract DNA from the latest remains to be recovered from the former Deutsche Bank building and try to match it against a database of the 2,749 people killed at the trade center on Sept. 11, 2001, said Ellen Borakove, spokeswoman for the city medical examiner's office.

More than 40 percent of the victims at the trade center have not been identified. The medical examiner's office is storing more than 9,000 unidentified remains and hope that more sophisticated DNA technology can allow for identifications in the future."

Bone fragments of an innocent American man or woman...Unspeakable.

The Izlamo-fascist Terrorists attempted to teach us some lessons from the taste of our own blood..
They who teach their children to dance in the streets upon viewing carnage.
They who share the hallmarks of a true barbarian :a total lack of empathy while demonizing of the innocent.

What do the Terrorists want?..
Is it our land, our wealth, perhaps our stunning monuments..
Perhaps... But the true goal is much more insidious than that my dear friends..

The ultimate aim is to rent a room inside your head, your psyche,
to rob you of your precious peace of mind, of knowing what it feels like to have faith and trust in something larger than yourself..
To prevent you from believing that this convoluted world of ours can also be merciful, excercise justice, and celebrate true freedom...
But most of kill your belief that Love survives.

But my precious fellow Americans and New Yorkers...Love has...It has.

So bring it on Izlamo-fascists...because God is still in His Glorious Heaven...and
There isn't a bomb built that can ever extinguish that.

Tell it like it is!

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Commenters make my case for me- Part Two

First, I want to clarify my response to a Dan S question. Second, I will use one commenter as a dialogue for the blog post. Third, I will preview tomorrow's new direction for the posts.

1) Question:

Allow me to re-address the question to me from a new perspective. Were I to be convinced that the universe was of a very old age, and were I to be convinced that macroevolution is the means by which organisms that are here today came about, would it shake my faith? No.


In that case, I would have to re-address my understanding of Genesis 1-3. There are some who believe that the reading of Genesis 1:2 contains a gap or allows for a gap. Here is Genesis 1:1-2 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

I have bolded the phrase which is in the original "tohu a bohu" which is translated "without form and void". Now the without form, or Tohu portion of this can mean the following:

formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

1. formlessness (of primeval earth)
1. nothingness, empty space
2. that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)
3. wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
4. place of chaos
5. vanity

and "Bohu"

1. emptiness, void, waste

(Strong's Old Testament Hebrew Dictionary)

Some Bible students believe this phrase allows for a gap that could be billions of years, to accomodate a very old age for the universe. I disagree, but there are those who firmly believe this. In addition....


Psalms 90:4
"For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night."

and also

II Peter 2:38
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Bible students also know that at times the language of the Bible is figurative although it is usually literal. The book, context, speaker, style and situation all let the reader know which is which. For these reasons I believe that the reading of the first three books of Genesis is to be done as an historical narrative. Note how the days are presented...

Genesis 1:5
"God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

An evening and a morning. Just like any other day. Note that the Jewish believer has continued to consider that a day starts in the evening and ends in the morning. This is of particular interest when studying the crucifixion narrative in the New Testament. It explains why the men charged with crucifying Christ and those who had come to bury him were in a rush to get him down from the cross when in our culture it was the middle of the day. It was because with the beginning of evening was a new day, a High (or special) Sabbath day and taking down and entombing a body would be considered work, which was not to be done on a Sabbath. But I digress.

The Hebrew word for "day" in this passage is "Owr"
which means primarily this: bright, clear, day, etc. In any event the usage and language indicates an actual morning and evening, one 24-hour day. But many believe that this day is a figurative day or an epoch in which thousands and perhaps millions of years could pass. They believe the six days of creation are a general description of the stages of time in which God used millions of years and macroevolution to form life as we know it. I don't believe this, but many do.

In any event, I will continue to have faith in God. I hope this settles the question to the satisfaction of all???


The bold portions to come are from my post. The italicized portions to come are from a comment to the last issue of this dialogue and then I enter responses.

The commenter is saying that only his world view is scientific.

No, the commenter is saying only the scientific worldview is scientific. Law of identity has got you there. Science is only concerned with what it can observe, and all it can observe is matter/energy. Therefore, science is inherently a materialistic study. Come up with a God-o-meter, and we'll talk.

Wrong! Science is concerned with what can be observed and the implications thereof. The materialist excludes the idea of the supernatural and God, thus limiting his science to boundaries set by his world view. I say that such a view hinders his ability to operate as a scientist.

One's world view has a great effect on one's scientific stance.

Depends on what you mean. Technically, you are correct; if I view the world from physical perspective A and you view the world from physical perspective B, we will see different data, and therefore could potentially draw different conclusions. But, I think you mean that people's philosophical world view colors their science. This is only true of poor science, such as creationism. True science minimizes a priori assumptions and is based on the data. As the only data we can measure is material data, it is necessarily limited to materialism. Again, waiting on your God-o-meter to come out.

Wrong again! (Hee-hee, two for two!) Both creation scientists and evolutionists evaluate data and the same data is available to both. The difference is in the interpretation of the data. Your science is limited by your world view and so also your science is the poor science out of the two.

I am saying that, as you say, that both sides should be presented along with the evidence for both. Being in England, I believe, you don't know how it goes here in the states but in our schools Darwinism is presented as the ONLY possibility, which smacks of indoctrination rather than education.

No, evolution is presented as the only theory supported by the evidence (which is true). In science, Bible does not equal evidence.

First, no one has proven macroevolution to be true. Second, the Bible is a historical document and historical documents are evidence that are used in several disciplines known as science. Try archaeology without documentation sometime...

Perhaps you would consider the existence of Jesus Christ and the miracles he performed as evidence?

Again, in science, Bible does not equal evidence.

Again, see above.

But most of the other evidences such as the fossil record and rock layering depend entirely on how you wish to see them, it would seem.

Amazing how the same people who insist on literal reading of the Bible also insist on convoluted and self-contradicting reading of physical evidence.

Oh, that is rich! Until Uniformitarianism became popular in the 1800's thanks to men such as James Hutton and Charles Lyle, geologists believed that the rock record demonstrated the catastrophic effects of a world-wide flood. Uniformitarianism paved the way for a belief in Darwinism. Now that Uniformitarianism is being challenged and discarded, Darwinists have returned to catastrophism. But now they see the rock record as a series of catastrophes, around the world, rather than all related to the flood.

There is then some follow up stuff, a brief and inaccurate ad hominem attack and then back to our movie...

I posted a thorough look at statistics and have not been given back a straight answer yet. Take the Houdini out of your answers and play it straight, people. Mumbo jumbo with math might impress your friends but not me.

It's the typical creationist "Explain difficult science completely thoroughly, but use small words." You're a computer guy--write me a 100% effective anti-virus program using only BASIC. You have 15 minutes...go!

While plenty of people have given you perfectly correct answers, I'll try to rephrase. It seems like the basic statistical trap you have fallen into is a presumed outcome. You set up your probability based on the premise that evolution requires that we start with slidge and end up with life as we know it. This is untrue. There is no a priori requirement that life end up as we know it today! That's why, even if you knew the correct probability functions to plug into your model, you would fail. It is quite possible that we could have ended up with life that was completely different than what we know right now. To correct an analogy that creationists are fond of abusing, evolution does not predict that a tornado in a junkyard will create a 747. Evolution predicts that a tornado in a junkyard will produce a configuration of junk that has lower wind resistance than the original configuration.

Your answer fails again. The answers I get basically throw out statistics as a science and say that anything could happen and all possibilities are possible. That is the stuff that comes out of the end of the horse! (Previous post)

I did a long post on that one, carefully and patiently explaining why macroevolution, if it operates, must do so against the second law of thermodynamics.

*sigh* Fine, a thermo lesson. The 2nd law, as you stated in the other post, only states that, in the absence of an input of energy, heat only flows from hot objects to cold objects; that is, the thermodynamic entropy of a system can only increase in the absence of an input of energy. Fortunately, we have the Sun. It inputs a lot of energy, increasing the overall entropy of Earth. Plants take that excess energy and use it to generate ordered biomolecules. You can do it without life through photochemistry; unliving molecules get excited by light, and join together into more complex molecules (e.g. aryl azide chemistry). No thermodynamic problem here.

Your ignorant bastarization of the 2nd law states that things can only get less complex. Unfortunately for you, anyone who has seen a snowflake, or a quartz crystal, or normal ice can refute that terrible interpretation--things can and do assume more complex forms without any intelligence guiding them. Another example would be the formation of nylon-digesting bacteria. This entirely new function did not exist before man created nylon; it formed by genetic mutation and selection, causing a new function never before seen on Earth to form. This would also be against Radar's bastardized 2nd Law of Thermo, but fortunately, nature doesn't care what he thinks.

Previous post again. Gee, since the sun was around back in the days of Robert Boyle or Carnot, don't you think they would have been unable to postulate such a thing as thermodynamics? The idea that the sun makes the earth an open system has already been refuted. Tell you a story - When we decided to build our house three years ago, we put a pile of bricks and wood and other stuff on the property we had purchased and left it open to the sun. In a few months the sun had built the house for us and we moved in - NOT!

The sun is undirected energy and guess what? Leave a pile of stuff out for the sun to shine on and it will begin to fall apart and degrade. Cover it up so the sun doesn't shine upon it? It will begin to fall apart and degrade. Here is one of the quotes again...

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

How many of you have the guts to say, "I believe in macroevolution and that life has evolved. Nothing radar can say will change that?"

Because it isn't true. If you discover data and show it to me, it is possible that you could disprove macroevolution and cause a complete reworking of the theory. But either creationists can't be bothered with something as trivial as finding new data, or else they just can't find any convincing data to disprove evolution, no matter how hard they try. Which is it?

Neither. Creationists continue to present data while macroevolutionists try to suppress it and call it names. Macroevolutionists in general are afraid to openly discuss creation or Intelligent Design issues and avoid the data whenever possible. They fight hard to keep the open consideration of both schools of thought out of classrooms. It is macroevolutionists who have fought so hard to keep ID information out of classrooms. Why, because ID or creationist proponents are trying to toss Darwin out? No, because they simply want both sides to be considered and the macroevolutionists, far from challenging the other side to present information, are working hard to stifle that information. You claim you want science and only want to study the data but in fact you try hard to stifle any thoughts or ideas that disagree with your own!

For instance, macroevolutionists have tried very hard to stifle the presentation of ideas that do not support evolution in Kansas. Let's take a look at a FAQ for the Kansas Science Standards.

Some excerpts -

Q: How do parents want evolution taught?

A: Parents want evolution taught honestly. Most Polls conducted by highly
regarded organizations show that more than 80% of the public oppose an
“evolution only” curriculum, i.e., one that discourages critical analysis of evolution.

Q: Did the Board remove evolution from the standards as stated by the
National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)?

A: No. This is misinformation that seeks to suppress any critical analysis of

Q: Why has the Board opened Pandora’s box by inserting discussions
of “origins” into the standards?

A: The Board did not insert origins. It inserted objectivity into an existing onesided discussion of origins. Textbooks and prior science standards teach the origin of the universe and the origin of life and its diversity from a single
perspective. The new standards are more objective.

Q: Do the changes seek to criticize evolution to advance religion?

A: No. They seek to eliminate rather than advance a religious bias that
permeated the old standards.

Your world view determines to a great extent where you stand on the creation versus evolution question.

You are absolutely correct; if you demand physical evidence for your belief, then you will twist or ignore the writings in ancient texts and fall toward the evolution side. If you demand a literal interpretation of an internally and externally inconsistent collection of ancient writings, then you will twist or ignore the writings in the ancient texts and fall toward the creation side.

Dr. Henry Morris said this:

"The question arises then, if evolution is so solidly proven, what are evolutionists afraid of? Why must evolution be protected from scrutiny? Why must students be shielded from other views? Why not present all the pertinent facts and encourage the students to think critically, as a good scientist should? Would this not be a good educational technique? Would this not produce better citizens and scientists?

Evolutionists purport that there is no real science supporting intelligent design, that ID is just religion, or at least a “backdoor” to religion. But the facts are that many secular scientists, through observation and experimentation and based on the scientific evidence and data they’ve obtained, have come to the conclusion that life has been designed, not created by mere chance from nothing.

Science involves conducting research, using the scientific method in various disciplines, and reporting on the data and results. There’s no religion in the facts. ICR has recently discovered groundbreaking evidence about rock dating, carbon-14 in diamonds, excess helium within zircons, and other geologic data supporting a young earth. ICR is adamant that this science be available for scrutiny by critical thinkers—that students, specifically, are able to evaluate the evidence and formulate their own beliefs If the science points to a designer, so be it. But if the evidence suggests otherwise, which we’re sure it does not, then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

Perhaps evolutionists’ avoidance of these kinds of data exposes a basic insecurity in their position. ICR has long held that evolution cannot stand the test of science—it must avoid the light of open inquiry. Only by limiting the debate can evolutionists hope to maintain their monopoly on education. Yet, it serves us well to recognize that the debate involves a deeper issue than just control of academic content. If evolutionists admit that science does indeed support intelligent design, then they are admitting that there is a possibility of a Creator. Perhaps what evolutionists are truly afraid of are the implications of the presence of a higher power. Higher power means higher authority and, ultimately, higher accountability."

Thank you, Dr. Morris, a founding member of ICR.

It is in fact the macroevolutionist who tries to twist statistical analysis and the second law of thermodynamics like pretzels to fit their postulations. It is the materialists who have sought to re-write history by ignoring and attacking the older geneological records and recorded histories available to them because such histories support the Bible records and they cannot stomach this. My next post, tomorrow, will address this because I have to get the geneological evidence out there before I get to the Flood itself. But I have to tell you, after you read my post you will probably know whether you are descended from Ham, Shem or Japheth!

Monday, March 27, 2006

Monday Miscellany

Mark My Words! The Right Wing Nation is holding a Linkfest. In fact, all these guys are holding linkfests. It was suggested I check them out and although I never had gone to a linkfest it is an idea...check it out.

Firebrands and Accountants????

Algorica reacts to an invasion of (ugh!) Christians?!

Amy Proctor sheds light on Jesus, Mary and Hillary.

Something Important!!! There is a very nice couple named Rob and Christy who live in Washington State. After long years of trying they became pregnant (mainly Christy) and it later turned out to be TWINS!!!

However, recently there were problems and Christy was ordered to be on bedrest for the six more weeks until the twins would be born. That was a week ago. Friends bring over food, and Rob has supplied Christy with books, but it is still going to be a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng five more weeks! Kindly pray, if you pray, that the babies will be healthy and safe along with the mother and that the Rob-Christy marriage thing gets even stronger in the midst of the trials. Big thanks to all!!!

Finally.....It's Possible for a Religion to Thrive Without the Threat of Murder
An Editorial by Frank J.
Gee, shouldn't someone tell the Muslims about this?

Philosophy - The commenters make my case for me

The soon-to-come posting will begin to address Genesis 10 and 11 and how the names found in the Bible have been documented to have been recorded in cultures around the world, startling proof of the veracity of the Bible. But let us first digress into the world of the commmenters....

"Everyone who has had my beliefs forced on them, please raise your hands?" (my words)

"All the kids in Kansas can now raise their hands." (an anonymous commenter)

The above is an example of why I have previously stated that the current evolutionist majority is currently playing the role of the Catholic Church and creationists find themselves playing Gallileo. Here is a commenter who is upset because Kansas school children can see both sides of the issue of origins rather than simply having the orthodox (Darwinist view) presented to them as scientific fact. It would be laughable were it not so true...

Right now, it is the majority of the kids not in Kansas who are having Darwinist beliefs forced upon them at school. The above commenter no doubt thinks that is just fine.

"Science is not a world view. It's a process.
I don't object to your world view, I object to you framing your world view as science when it's clearly not."
(an anonymous commenter)

To paraphrase George Lucas, "Ah, the prejudice is strong in this one!" The commenter is saying that only his world view is scientific. How arrogant a remark, and yet it is commonly held. Materialists, being in the majority, now believe they own the field.

"You want to trivialize what I say because you fear that there may be truth there," (my statement)

"No I don't. I trivialize what you say because it's ignorant and not scientific. It's also not backed up by any observations." ( an anonymous commenter)

The above reply is one of the more ignorant comments ever made to this blog! I have spent a lot of time illustrating how creation fits into the observable present more neatly than Darwinism and also presented a great deal of evidence at the same time. My commenters may not agree with the evidence (in fact many of them object very strongly!), but to say that there are no observations and that it is not scientific means that this commenter has really drunk the kool-aid. Drunk it, binged on it, begged for more.

I am glad for the comments, though, because they prove the point of my posting. One's world view has a great effect on one's scientific stance. That particular commenter is incapable of even considering anything that does not fit into his world view, no matter what the evidence. Not only that, he cannot see it. Perhaps he is not even capable of seeing it?

"However - i do disagree in your belief that ONLY your world view has any merit, and should be taught as factual truth. I can't speak for American schools, but that is NOT how we teach evolution over here. we say, this is the evidence found, and these are the scientific theories that seem to fit the evidence. we are still looking for further evidence & new theories." (Mrs. Aginoth)

Mrs. A, I did not say that only my point of view has any merit and only it should be taught. That is what the evolutionists are saying, as I just illustrated above. I am saying that, as you say, that both sides should be presented along with the evidence for both. Being in England, I believe, you don't know how it goes here in the states but in our schools Darwinism is presented as the ONLY possibility, which smacks of indoctrination rather than education.

She goes on to say..."I do not look to science to disprove God. i would be quite delighted if you could come up with a single scrap of scientific evidence to proove he definitely exists - it absolves us of all responsibility."

God bless you, Mrs. A! You look at it quite differently than I. I believe that the existence of God actually comes with responsibility to Him, as our maker. Perhaps you would consider the existence of Jesus Christ and the miracles he performed as evidence? Just a suggestion. But most of the other evidences such as the fossil record and rock layering depend entirely on how you wish to see them, it would seem.

"...It's the lazy man's way of looking at the world IMO. However, neither you, nor any of your creationist buddies have managed to come up with any proper evidence. Just saying "but we're all here" is not evidence, it is belief (as you have so rightly said) and therefore, we all have the right to believe differently if we so wish."

Lazy? Not sure how that would apply? Whereas I disagree with your review of the evidence, may I point out that it is Darwinist commenters who have stated that we must have evolved 'because we are here' whereas I have said that we were created. But yes, yes, YES!!!! We all have the right to believe as we will. I agree entirely. Let's be honest enough intellectually to present more than one side and let students come to an informed conclusion, shall we?


Newton said, when complimented on his success in science, that "we stand on the shoulders of giants," referring to those who made discoveries in the past. Science has depended on a world that was orderly and logical. How odd that this world that materialists believe has occurred quite randomly nevertheless is very orderly. Every single discipline has found this and counted upon it. One can find and conclude that there are laws of motion, for instance, rather than forces being arbitrary and unpredictable.

The universe, and nature, have the appearance and the earmarks of design. Materialists hate to admit this but it is quite true. Not one of my commenters ought to argue with that, but rather that the appearance of design does not mean design has occurred.

I have admitted my world view and how it filters and colors what I see. I fear I am more honest than some of you in this way. I admit it, I understand it and am able to think logically anyway. If I were to use my commenters as an example, I would say that some evolutionists cannot even admit to themselves that their world view filters and colors their view of science. No, they will bluster and accuse and deny and denigrate but they mostly will not admit to it.

I am a Christian and a creationist and I hold a creationist viewpoint. There are hundreds of scientists, some of whom have won major scientific awards, who are either creationists or at least adherents to Intelligent Design. Many more are willing to say that macroevolution is not proven and there needs to be more study on the subject. My commenters know this is true and try to ignore it. They wish to trivialize creation science.

Dan S admits to having a world view that is part of his scientific beliefs. Mrs. A is willing to say that people should be able to make up their own minds. But there are other commenters who just cannot tell it like it is. They should admit it, "I am a materialist and I have a materialist view of science."


Let's go there. (I have one commenter who keeps asking me about the ACLU when I have already taken a stand and made my statement on the subject. Get a life, dude! It is off the subject, but the ACLU gets a large part of their income from tax dollars and in fact legislators are working on ways to prevent them from doing so in the future. If they couldn't draw big settlements and attorney's fees from suing a municipality for displaying a creche, then maybe they would just do what they say they are there for instead. That is what I say, what I believe and I am not going to swerve from that. Period!)

I hear people say I duck the statistical issues and also bring up the second law of thermodynamics. I posted a thorough look at statistics and have not been given back a straight answer yet. Take the Houdini out of your answers and play it straight, people. Mumbo jumbo with math might impress your friends but not me. Every answer a commenter has tried to give me began by reframing the question. No!

The second law? I did a long post on that one, carefully and patiently explaining why macroevolution, if it operates, must do so against the second law of thermodynamics. It just so happens that we must bring effort into this world to overcome that law. I clean my desk because it gets messy. Men work at factories because the parts would not assemble themselves without bringing in outside effort. Yet despite this, on the whole, entropy continues to win the fight against energy and of course one day energy will cease to be available, assuming nothing changes in the interim. I plan to be dead before then. But the point is that we must bring in outside effort to a system to overcome the second law. Random mutation within the gene pool of organisms will tend to bring about harm to the creature. We bring in outside effort (animal husbandry) to get fatter turkeys, specific dog traits, cows that give more milk and so on. These things don't just happen. Yet, in the mind of the macroevolutionist they do and they have. If you want to believe that, it is your right, but know that it is against the second law of thermodynamics.

I was accused of evading Dan S concerning his faith question (although Dan himself did not say so)? I thought I had made that clear. I believe in God and that He created and nothing that Dan can say will change that. How many of you have the guts to say, "I believe in macroevolution and that life has evolved. Nothing radar can say will change that?" Dan, I hope that is a complete answer to your question. But if you wish to frame it another way I will address that too, because I am not trying to avoid it. I just thought I had answered already.

As I said, I had been on the evolutionist side and have changed sides. My hope is that some of the people who read this blog may follow that same road. Therefore I plod away at my task. I know full well that some come here, lured by the idea that this is "an hilarious anti-science blog" and I dialogue with those who are merely here to mock. That is because I believe some of the evolutionists that come here are honest with me and with themselves and some honest exchange of ideas takes place. I therefore learn from those individuals and appreciate their participation.

Furthermore, sometimes the conversation goes elsewhere. IAMB pointed out The Mars Volta to me, a group I had not otherwise encountered. Jim just sent me a funny little video, thanks very much. It also seems I have received contributions from both sides of the fence for the next Carnival, so that should be interesting. And, yes, I am posting the pro-Darwin contributions, too!

Therefore, to commenters like Mrs A and Dan S and Matt among others, thanks. You disagree with me but you are straightforward and I am glad you are around. Actually, sometimes I think Dan S has longer commment contributions than that of the posts to which they pertain! To commenters who know where I am coming from like Tim and Mark and Amy and Jim, I appreciate your support!

Your world view determines to a great extent where you stand on the creation versus evolution question.

Sunday, March 26, 2006

The Philosophy of Evolutionists versus Creationists

"radar, I asked a question some time ago (don't worry, this isn't about horses!); perhaps I failed to recognize your reply as an answer.

Let's say it was shown to you beyond reasonable doubt that not only was evolution correct, at least in its broad outlines (I don't imagine anyone with any degree of science literacy imagines the current account to be complete and infailable), but so, similarly, were those parts of of modern archaelogy, geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology (even mainstream biblical scholarship) that the YEC position denies or contradicts.

How would this affect your faith in God?

-Dan S. "

The above was a question, and a good one, from a consistent (and sometimes humorous) commenter. It ties in with another commenter who expressed surprise when I mentioned that there was a philosophical side to the evolution versus creation dialogue. Thus, this posting.

I want to thank in advance Bill Cooper and also his book, After The Flood ISBN 1-874367-40-X, who has written a great deal about Genesis 10 and 11 in particular and will provide me with some material. The following includes some quotes from his book and also some sources that I used based on information found from his book.

The Philosophy of Evolution versus Creation

Some of my commenters have suggested that their stand on this particular issue is based on science rather than world view. I have tended to take such statements with a grain of salt. In fact, some of the early Darwin proponents were unapologetic in their admission that world view was integral to their scientific stand.

Allow me to mention some quotes from that post:

“[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” - Julian Huxley, British biologist.

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually- fulfilled atheist." - Richard Dawkins, Darwinian apologist.

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." - Aldous Huxley, philosopher, author, lecturer -(REPORT, June 1966. "Confession of Professed Atheist."}

The above three men are not necessarily representative of Darwinists, who are not known to be wild and crazy (and amoral) guys, at least not all of 'em. But this quote below is quite representative:

"We [scientists] have … a prior commitment to materialism [and] we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations… Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” -Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.


Lao-Tzu, 6th century taoist philosopher - "Before time, and throughout time, there has been a self-existing being, eternal, infinite, omnipresent.....Outside that being, before the beginning, there was nothing." Tao-te-ching. (English version by Derek Bryce)

Kuo-Hsiang, contemporary (of Lao-Tzu)philosopher - "I venture to ask whether the creator is or is not. If he is not, how can he creat things?....The creating of things has no Lord; everything creates itself." - Nature in Question by John Clarke

It seems that the knowledge of a creator god as described by Lao-Tzu had been known in ancient cultures but there were also the materialists who did not allow for such a god. Long before Jesus walked the earth and long before Darwin sailed on the Beagle the debate had begun on philosophical rather than scientific grounds. It was the commonly held view in ancient cultures like Egypt and Greece and China that there was, indeed, a creator god. This was true even in cultures that were otherwise polytheistic. Some works that have passed down to us include statements that sound remarkably like passages from the Bible.

Bill Clark translates this from a text in Heliopolis in Egypt: "I am the creator of all things that exist....that came forth from my mouth. Heaven and earth did not exist nor had been created the herbs of the ground nor the creeping things. I raised them out of the primeval abyss from a state of non-being..."

From 8th century BC, The Theogony of Hesiod: "First of all the Void came into being Earth...Out of the Void came darkness...and out of the Night came Light and Day." (as translated by Norman Brown)

Plato makes this statement in Timaeus and Criteas: "Let us therefore state the reason why the framer of this universe of change framed it at all. He was good, and what is good has no particle of envy in it; being therefore without envy, he wished all things to be as like himself as possible. This is as valid a principle for the origin of the world of change as we shall discover from the wisdom of men...."

In a later post I will address one reason why men of the ancient world understood the idea of a Creator God who was good, and all-powerful. It was because they were all descended from the same family! This basic knowledge had been taken with people wherever they had gone and was the accepted understanding of beginnings among great men of the day. But materialism appeared in 6 century BC in China, as previously mentioned and around that time there lived Thales of Miletus (625-545 BC) who is sometimes credited with being the author of materialism among the Greeks. But the first recorded challenge to standard Greek creationist wisdom came from one of Thale's pupils, Anaximander. Plutarch quotes Anaximander as having said "...originally humans were born from animals of a different kind...." which sounds rather familiar to us today. No, Darwin was not unique nor were his views entirely based upon his observations of nature, His was a materialistic viewpoint and that viewpoint colored his observations of the world.

Plato spoke concerning materialists thusly: "Some people, I believe, account for all things which have come into existence now, and all things which will do so in the future, by attributing them either to nature, art, or chance." Plato, The Laws. (Trevor Sanders translation) He went on in the same treatise to call such thoughts "pernicious doctrine" that must be "the ruin of the younger generation, both in the state at large and in private families."

It fell to Epicurus of the 4th century BC to mount a challenge to Plato and creationist thought. He argued for random events and a universe that was neither designed nor well-ordered. But outright atheism was easily defeated in arguments with thinkers of the times, so he refused to deny the existence of god or gods while at the same time not allowing for an orderly and created universe. Epicurean materialism had it's followers but the majority of the Greeks remained in the creationist camp. Zeno founded the Stoics in approximately 308 BC and one of their number, Chrysippus, is quoted by Cicero in On the Nature of the Gods:

"If there is anything in nature which the human mind, which human intelligence, energy and power could not create, then the creator of such things must be a being superior to man. But the heavenly bodies in their eternal orbits could not be created by man. They must therefore be created by a being greater than man.....Only an arrogant fool would imagine that there was nothing in the whole world greater than himself. Therefore there must be something greater than man. And that something must be God." - translated by Horace Macgregor.

Whereas it may seem strange for Greeks to acknowledge a creator God when we generally think of their pantheon of gods, which were more like super-men and women who were neither morally nor intellectually superior to men, as being their gods. But they did acknowledge one superior creator god, although that knowledge began to fade over the centuries. Note that the Apostle Paul addressed the greek tradition of acknowledging this god in Acts 17:22-24:

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

It is Cicero who said this: "When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? Our friend Posidonius as you know has made a globe which in its revolution shows the movements of the sun and stars and planets, by day and night, just as they appear in the sky. Now if someone were to take this globe and show it to the people of Britain or Scythia would a single one of those barbarians fail to see that it was the product of a conscious intelligence?"

Bill Clark sums up thus: "With these beautfully simple words, Cicero gives voice to an idea which even today is the most difficult for the materialist to refute, for it is nigh impossible to explain away convincingly, say, the indescribable complexity of living organisms, or even merely parts thereof, as the product of blind chance or accident."

Cicero also spelled out, as it were, the puzzle later presented by Huxley as the odds against the evolution of the horse:

"Is it not a wonder that anyone can bring himself to believe that a number of solid and separate particles by their chance collisions and moved only by the force of their own weight could bring into being so marvellous and beautiful a world? If anybody thinks that this is possible, I do not see why he should not think that if an infinite number of examples fo the twenty-one letters of the alphabet made of gold or what you will, were shaken together and then poured out on the ground it would be possible for them to fall so as to spell out, say, the whole text of the Annals of Ennius. In fact I doubt whether chance would spell out a singe verse!"

But the epicurean, Lucretian, sought to bring in a relativistic view when he said, "It is a matter of observation that one thing is limited by another. The hills are demarcated by air, and air by the hills. Land sets bound to sea and sea to every land. But the universe has nothing outside to limit it." Lucretius - On The Nature Of The Universe

Thus, the materialist's call for longer time and more space in which evolution might take place also began before there was a Darwin. Yes, the creation versus evolution debate is framed differently post-Darwin but it is the same argument that inspired dialogues among great minds of the past. The materialist seeks to view a world where faith is not allowed and the supernatural cannot exist. This is the viewpoint of the majority of scientists today and therefore their belief system guides them.

It was Immanuel Kant who complained that there was no getting away from faith, for even if all outside influences were discarded and one's own senses and reasoning to be relied upon, one had to have therefore faith in his own senses and his own ability to reason and as he stated, " remains a scandal to philosophy and to human reason in general that the existence of things outside us...must be accepted merely on faith and if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof." The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism - Barry Stroud.

I posit therefore that we all come to the table with a faith, with presuppositions, with a world view. Since well before Christ there have been two dissenting opinions on the origin of things. Once creationists were in the majority, later evolutionists found themselves the more numerous and as I have predicted before that pendulum has swung and creationists are becoming more numerous. No matter which camp you are in, you hopefully are able to admit to yourself that your stated belief begins with your philosophical core and not the evidences you have observed and the doctrines you have been taught.

I was once an evolutionist, Dan S, and it was a combination of the change of world view and the investigation of the evidence that brought me around to the other side. I am at the place now that my faith is an integral part of me and I am certain that no one will be able to show me beyond a reasonable doubt that life evolved. So I don't believe it is available, frankly, nor do I believe my faith is likely to be shaken. This is because I have seen so much evidence for both sides and have already made my choice. I do try to look at all evidences and consider them even as I realize that I have a world view that tends to filter or color that information in a certain way. But who among us can honestly say otherwise?

I shall repeat my previously stated conclusion: There is room for both believers and non-believers in the scientific community. Some, like Einstein, will come to science with a readiness to believe in God but will remain unconvinced. Others, like Tipler, find their predisposition to ignore God tossed aside in the face of the evidence they have found in their research. My personal belief is that the more we learn about life and the cosmos, the more compelling the evidence will be that God does exist and did, indeed create all things. I leave the last word to Sir Francis:

"A little science estranges a man from God; a lot of science brings him back." Sir Francis Bacon

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Please Pray For Natalie!!!

My sister Shelley lives with her husband and two wonderful daughters in central California. My niece, Natalie, who turned 12 years old on March 20th, must go into the hospital on the 27th to have surgery for scoliosis. It will require a 24-inch incision and at least a one-week recuperative stay in the hospital. I would thank all of you that pray if you would kindly pray for Natalie and for those who will care for her. Natalie is, as her mom says, a "trooper" but mom and dad are a bit more stressed.

Thanks to all of you who do pray on Natalie's behalf!!!

Why not go for three????

Another Google video with spooky implications....

Wolfpack dug this one up, too.

Bruce Lee Speaks!

Bruce Lee interview - 25 minutes.

If you ever got into "Enter The Dragon" or any other work featuring Bruce Lee, you will find this to be fascinating!

Friday, March 24, 2006

The Atom

Hat tip to my bay area friend Wolfpack.....

For those of you that love cars...and even those that aren't really in to them...this is pretty awesome.

The Atom: The Video!

Back to the subject: The Noahic Flood and Time

Commenters such as Creeper, IAMB, Mrs. A and Dan S (among others) have provided counterpoints to many points I have made concerning Darwinism (macroevolution) versus creationism. There have been some points I feel they have failed to address with any degree of success (such as statistical laws that show macroevolution to be a mathematical impossibility) and some areas where they have brought up some excellent questions. Today's subject is one such area - Just when did this Noahic Flood take place, especially in the light of evidence for a very ancient Egyptian culture. Could a flood have wiped out everyone else and left Egypt high and dry? Are the Genesis geneologies inaccurate? Is it necessary, as some have said, to add in years to that chronology? I have acknowledged that some believed it would be necessary and there was strong evidence that some Middle Eastern peoples "skipped" people in their geneologies. (Even though it has been more common for geneologies to add people and years that did not exist).

I have addressed some of this, as have commenters such as Highboy, but I realized this was an area in which I had done little research and would require a bit of poking about. Thus, the following:

Manetho and Egyptian History: The original works are lost.

Manetho is the prime source used by those who study ancient Egypt geneologies.

"Despite Manetho's importance for the study of the history of Ancient Egypt, nothing much is really known about the man himself. Even the exact meaning of his name has been a point of discussion among Egyptologists and although it is now generally agreed upon that the name "Manetho" comes from the Ancient Egyptian mniw-htr, which means "keeper of the horses", the existence of such a name is not attested by Ancient Egyptian sources.

Manetho lived in Sebennytos, the capital of Egypt during the 30th Dynasty, and was a priest during the reigns of Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II. He is said to have been involved in the creation of the cult of Serapis - a god added to the Egyptian pantheon with both Hellenistic and Egyptian traits during the reign of Ptolemy I -, but this can not be confirmed.

Manetho owes his importance to the fact that he wrote the Aegyptiaca, a collection of three books about the history of Ancient Egypt, commissioned by Ptolemy II in his effort to bring together the Egyptian and Hellenistic cultures."

The same source reveals that - "Soon after the original composition, the Aegyptiaca was epitomised, probably by extracting a framework of kings to which clung the occasional historical statement. At the same time, however, the original work was being abused, commented and falsified for political and religious motives. It is not unlikely that at this time, new works about the history of Egypt were being written under Manetho's name. Such works were often full of tendentious commentaries and anachronisms.

The classical authors who copied, commented or made references to the Aegyptiaca were thus confronted with different sources, all claiming to have been based on the original work. Josephus knew both the original Aegyptiaca or its epitome, and the fake Manethoan literature, but he was often unable to distinguish between them. Africanus knew and used the epitomised Aegyptiaca, while Eusebius quoted from Africanus and from a version of the Epitome altered by the Hellenistic Jews for religious purposes."

So, whereas the Genesis material has been carefully copied and documented for over three thousand years, the original work of Manetho is not available and there is no certainty of the accuracy of the currently available references to his work. This doesn't discount the available information but makes the researcher aware that total accuracy will not be found. Even before we delve too deeply into Manetho we know that it will be a source for approximate dates rather than a resource for certainty.

Manetho recorded The Tower of Babel and birth of Peleg as historical events!

"An interesting piece of information comes from Manetho, who recorded the history of Egypt in the third century BC. He wrote that the Tower of Babel occurred five years after the birth of Peleg. If this was so, then this would confirm that the migrations recorded in Genesis 10 occurred over a period of time, for the apparent leaders of many of these national groups would have been very young children when the confusion of languages occurred." Larry Pierce.

Pierce makes a strong case for using the Bible with other ancient resources to better establish the beginning of Egypt:

" Four generations after Noah, Genesis 10:25 records the birth of Peleg (meaning division) ‘for in his days was the earth divided’. Some suggest the continents of the earth were divided at this time. However, this seems unlikely, as such a process would have had to occur within a very confined time period. The resultant geological violence would be overwhelmingly catastrophic—like another Noahic Flood all over again. Any continental separation thus likely occurred during the Flood.

The traditional interpretation, which seems more reasonable, relates this verse to the division of people/nations at the Tower of Babel event in Genesis 11. (Just like the English ‘earth’ can have a variety of meanings, the Hebrew erets can also mean nation(s)—thus erets Yisrael, the land (nation, people) of Israel.) According to the biblical chronology as deduced by Archbishop Ussher, the Flood occurred in 2349–2348 BC, and Peleg was born in 2247 BC about a hundred years later. Do ancient writers shed any light on when this happened? The answer is a resounding yes.

Babylon begins

The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens’) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number.

Egypt emerges

The Byzantine chronicler Constantinus Manasses (d. 1187) wrote that the Egyptian state lasted 1663 years. If correct, then counting backward from the time that Cambyses, king of Persia, conquered Egypt in 526 BC, gives us the year of 2188 BC for the founding of Egypt, about 60 years after the birth of Peleg. About this time Mizraim, the son of Ham, led his colony into Egypt. Hence the Hebrew word for Egypt is Mizraim4 (or sometimes ‘the land of Ham’ e.g. Psalm 105:23,27)."

Dr. Clifford Wilson suggests that there is evidence that Moses got his geneologies not from word-of-mouth and inspiration of God but from written records: New Conditions After The Flood

"After the Flood, atmospheric and climatic conditions apparently changed, and the potential life-span of all created beings was dramatically reduced. Archaeologists such as Professor Samuel N. Kramer have pointed to the record outside the Bible of the dispersion that took place at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel. Eminent Professor William Foxwell Albright wrote about the astonishing accuracy of the ‘Table of Nations’ in Genesis chapter 10. The fragmentary ‘Epic of Atrahasis’—including both creation and the Flood—has caused some scholars to acknowledge that Genesis chapters 1 to 11 were written as literal history. That history starts at Genesis chapter 1—and the term ‘mythical'; (even used in a philosophical sense) should not be applied to the Bible record.

Records Written Before Moses

Another interesting point is that those early Genesis records were in written form even before the time of Moses (he collated them). Way back in 1948 P.J. Wiseman had his book published, New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis. His son, Professor Donald J. Wiseman, retired Professor of Assyriology a London University, recently updated his father’s work in Clues to Creation in Genesis, supporting the basic theories of his late father.

The early records were written on clay tablets, divided by the literary device of a colophon at the end of each tablet—indicated by the words, ‘These are the generations of...’."

It is Egyptian Chronologies which require adjustment.

"By the traditional chronology of Egyptian history the 18th dynasty ruled from about 1550 to 1320 BC. According to Bible chronology the Exodus occurred about 1446 BC. But there is no evidence from 18th dynasty Egyptian records of a major disaster such as would have resulted from the 10 devastating plagues that fell on Egypt, or of the destruction of the Egyptian army during this period. Nor is there archaeological evidence for an invasion of Palestine under Joshua during this period.

The solution to this problem is a recognition that the chronology of Egypt needs to be reduced by centuries, bringing the 12th dynasty down to the time of Moses and the Exodus. When this is done there is found abundant evidence for the presence of large numbers of Semitic slaves at the time of Moses, the devastation of Egypt and the sudden departure of these slaves.

A reduction of the chronology of Egypt would also be reflected in the interpretation of the archaeological ages in Israel. There is little evidence for an invasion of Palestine at the end of the Late Bronze Period. But at the end of the Early Bronze Period there is evidence of Jericho’s fallen walls and the arrival of a new people with a new culture who should be identified as the invading Israelites under Joshua."
- Archaeologist David Down.

What follows is an excerpt from Down's article in Journal of Creation (TJ) Archive > Volume 15 Issue 1

A proposed revision of Egyptian chronology

"It is true that there is no evidence for Moses, the ten plagues that fell upon Egypt or the exodus ‘at that time’. But there are a number of scholars who claim that a gross error in chronology has been made in calculating the dates of Egyptian history and that they should be reduced by centuries. Such a re-dating could bring the 12th dynasty down to the time of Moses, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in that dynasty to support the Biblical records.

One of the last kings of the 12th dynasty was Sesostris III. His statues depict him as a cruel tyrant quite capable of inflicting harsh slavery on his subjects. His son was Amenemhet III, who seems to have been an equally disagreeable character. He probably ruled for 46 years, and Moses would have been born near the beginning of his reign.

Amenemhet III may have had one son, known as Amenemhet IV, who was an enigmatic character who may have followed his father or may have been a co-regent with him. If the latter, Amenemhet IV could well have been Moses. Amenemhet IV mysteriously disappeared off the scene before the death of Amenemhet III.

Amenemhet III had a daughter whose name was Sobekneferu. It is known that she had no children. If she was the daughter of Pharaoh who came down to the river to bathe, it is easy to understand why she was there. It was not because she had no bathroom in her palace. She would have been down there taking a ceremonial ablution and praying to the river god Hapi, who was also the god of fertility. Having no children she would have needed such a god, and when she found the beautiful baby Moses there she would have considered it an answer to her prayers (Exodus 2:5—6).

But when Moses came of age he identified himself with the people of Israel and was obliged to flee from Egypt. This left a vacuum on the throne, and when Amenemhet III died there was no male successor. Sobekneferu ascended the throne and ruled for 8 years as a Pharaoh, but when she died the dynasty died and was succeeded by the 13th dynasty.

The Israelite slaves

For the past 15 years I have been promoting a revised chronology for Egypt. This results in identifying the Semitic slaves, who were employed in building the pyramids of the 12th dynasty at Kahun in the Faiyyum, as the Israelite slaves referred to in the book of Exodus. Fifteen years ago I was regarded as being out of touch with archaeological reality, but time has changed all that.

Of course, Dr Immanuel Velikovsky proposed the same revision before I did, and so did Dr Donoville Courville, but they were written off as irrelevant because they were not archaeologists. Since then, recognized archaeological scholars have joined the chorus of revision.

In 1991, Peter James published his book Centuries of Darkness, claiming that the chronology of Egypt should be reduced by 250 years. James was a reputable scholar, and his book carried a preface by Professor Colin Renfrew of Cambridge University recognizing that ‘a chronological revolution is on its way’ (p. XVI), claiming that ‘history will have to be rewritten’ (p. XIV). In 1995, David Rohl published A Test of Time, in which he claimed that the chronology of Egypt should be reduced by 350 years. All this meant that the end of the 12th dynasty of Egypt would be dated to the 15th century BC, which would be about the time of the Biblical Exodus, and the slaves known to have lived at Kahun and laboured on the building of the 12th dynasty pyramids were the Israelite slaves.

Professor Bryant Wood, from the Associates for Biblical Research, has also concluded that the Semitic slaves who lived at Kahun were indeed the Israelites. He reaches his conclusion from a different perspective but the end result is the same. He concludes that the period of 430 years mentioned in Exodus 12:40 was not the total period of time from Abraham to the Exodus, as seemingly implied in Galatians 3:17, but was the actual period of the Israelite presence in Egypt. This assumption would likewise place the Israelite slaves in the 12th dynasty

The evidence very well fits the Biblical record which says,

‘There arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, "Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply and it happen in the event of war, that they join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land." Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens’ (Exodus 1:8—11).

Sir Flinders Petrie excavated the city of Kahun in the Faiyyum and Dr Rosalie David wrote a book about his excavations in which she said,

‘It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt … . Their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined … . The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.’

Neither Rosalie David nor Flinders Petrie could identify these Semitic slaves with the Israelites because they held to the traditional chronology which placed the Biblical event centuries later than the 12th dynasty.

There was another interesting discovery Petrie made. ‘Larger wooden boxes, probably used originally to store clothing and other possessions, were discovered underneath the floors of many houses at Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two or three to a box, and aged only a few months at death.’

There is a Biblical explanation for this. Pharaoh had ordered the Hebrew midwives, ‘When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birth stools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him’ (Exodus1:16). The midwives ignored this command so ‘Pharaoh commanded all his people saying, "Every son who is born you shall cast into the river … " ’ (verse 22). Many grieving mothers must have had their babies snatched from their arms and killed. They apparently buried them in boxes beneath the floors of their houses.

Another striking feature of Petrie’s discoveries was the fact that these slaves suddenly disappeared off the scene. Rosalie David wrote:

‘It is apparent that the completion of the king’s pyramid was not the reason why Kahun’s inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses.’

‘There are different opinions of how this first period of occupation at Kahun drew to a close ... . The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may indeed suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated.’

The departure was sudden and unpremeditated! Nothing could better fit the Biblical record. ‘And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years–on that very same day–it came to pass that all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt’ (Exodus 12:41).

The ten plagues on Egypt

Pharaoh had yielded to Moses’ demands to allow his slaves to leave because of the ten devastating plagues that fell on Egypt (Exodus 7—12). The waters of the sacred River Nile were turned to blood, herds and flocks were smitten with pestilence, lightning set combustible material on fire, hail flattened the crops and struck the fruit trees, and locusts blanketed the country and consumed what might have been left of plant life. The economy of Egypt would have been so shattered that there should be some record of such a national catastrophe–and there is.

In the Leiden Museum in Holland is a papyrus written in a later period, but most scholars recognize it as being a copy of a papyrus from an earlier dynasty. It could have been from the 13th dynasty describing the conditions that prevailed after the plagues had struck. It reads,

‘Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water … . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire … . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere … . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says "there is no more". The storehouse is bare … . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.’"

There is excellent evidence to suggest that the Biblical geneologies are accurate and it is the Egyptian dates that are incorrect. In addition, the Egyptian records indicate a flood, the Tower of Babel and a start for the empire after the birth of Peleg (one of the Bible Patriarchs). All of this is consistent with the creation scenario.

It is well known that writing began with the children of Israel. What is not often publicized is the occasional find of writings in the fossil record. One could suggest that it is probable men were writing long before the flood but such records were almost entirely wiped out along with other traces of culture by the incredibly dynamic and violent Flood. The Bible account is the only one we have concerning life before the Flood and the growth of civilization thereafter. It appears that Manetho does not present evidence to the contrary.