Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
I'll check this out. Though Calvinists teach the doctrine of TULIP, that many scholars say is a non-Christian doctrine, much like the Catholic's dogmas. But I will not go there. You will not find me justifying the sins of John Calvin. If he did this, it would be wrong. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am aware of the excesses of the catholic papa, but what did John Calvin do? Please educate me. He had the scientist Michael Servetus (who contributed enormously to medicine and was the first European to describe pulmonary circulation) put to death for "heresy". He was also a strong supporter of biblical geocentricity denouncing those who "pervert the course of nature" by saying that "the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns." Quite small black marks on his reputation compared to the infamy of the popes of those days!
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM, wrote: > On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > I am aware of the excesses of the catholic papa, but what did John Calvin > do? Please educate me. > > He had the scientist Michael Servetus (who contributed enormously to > medicine and was the first European to describe pulmonary circulation) put > to death for "heresy". He was also a strong supporter of biblical > geocentricity denouncing those who "pervert the course of nature" by saying > that "the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that > it turns." Quite small black marks on his reputation compared to the infamy > of the popes of those days! > Calvin's Geneva http://www.stephenhicks.org/2010/11/27/john-calvins-geneva/ <> <<‘But even the elite—the clergy, of course—were allowed few diversions. Calvinists worked hard because there wasn’t much else they were permitted to do. “Feasting” was proscribed; so were dancing, singing, pictures, statues, relics, church bells, organs, altar candles; “indecent or irreligious” songs, staging or attending theatrical plays; wearing rouge, jewelry, lace, or “immodest” dress; speaking disrespectfully of your betters; extravagant entertainment; swearing, gambling, playing cards, hunting, drunkenness; naming children after anyone but figures in the Old Testament; reading “immoral or irreligious” books; and sexual intercourse, except between partners of different genders who were married to one another.” >> Harry
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am aware of the excesses of the catholic papa, but what did John Calvin do? Please educate me. He had the scientist Michael Servetus (who contributed enormously to medicine and was the first European to describe pulmonary circulation) put to death for "heresy". He was also a strong supporter of biblical geocentricity denouncing those who "pervert the course of nature" by saying that "the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns." Quite small black marks on his reputation compared to the infamy of the popes of those days!
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
With regardd to the place of death of Aaron. This is what the Bible has to say
about it.
20:27 And Moses did as the LORD commanded: and they went up into mount Hor in
the sight of all the congregation. 20:28 And Moses stripped Aaron of his
garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of
the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount. 20:29 And when all
the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they mourned for Aaron thirty days,
even all the house of Israel." (Numbers 20:22-29 KJV)
33:37 And they removed from Kadesh, and pitched in mount Hor, in the edge of
the land of Edom.
33:38 And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at the commandment of the
LORD, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were
come out of the land of Egypt, in the first day of the fifth month.
33:39 And Aaron was an hundred and twenty and three years old when he died in
mount Hor." (Numbers 33:37-39 KJV)
"10:6 And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the
children of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and
Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead. 10:7 >From
thence they journeyed unto Gudgodah; and from Gudgodah to Jotbath, a land of
rivers of waters. 10:8 At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to
bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister
unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day. 10:9 Wherefore Levi hath no
part nor inheritance with his brethren; the LORD is his inheritance, according
as the LORD thy God promised him." (Deuteronomy 10:6-9 KJV)
So, John is complaining that the Bible says two different locations for the
place of death of Aaron. In fact that would be true at first glance, until you
realize that Mosera (or Moseroth) is in the general area of Mount Hor. Just
like when we say "Yellowstone", it is a big place with many places.
When you read the verses carefully, you will realize that Aaron died on the top
of Mount Hor, he was brought down from the top and people mourned him for 30
days and he was buried in Mosera, which was within the vicinity of the base of
Mount Hor.
So, in fact, there is no contradiction.
NEXT!
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Jojo Jaro
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
Yes, we are discussing what the Bible says. Where in the Bible does it say
the sun revolves around the Earth? Where does it say the Earth is 6000 years
old? That is all I'm asking. IF you want to accept my challenge, show me
where the Bible says something that is categorically wrong.
So, you have a problem because it says in one place that Moses wrote the
tablets and then it says in another place that God wrote the tablets. Is this
the crux of your objection? It's funny cause if you are quibbling about the
exact person who had the pen in his hand (or chisel), you could have used a
better example from the Bible.
When someone helps me with my autobiography, someone like my secretary. Do
we say she wrote the autobiography because she was holding the actual pen (or
computer in our case)? Or do we say I wrote my autobiography? Both statements
are of course True. She wrote my autobiography because she was the one who
physically wrote (or typed), at the same time, I can say that I wrote my
autobiography because I provided the contents. My friend, you are quibbling
over a minor "figure of speech" issue. The Bible does use "figures of speech"
you know. Jesus Christ is not a chicken because he said he wanted to gather
Jerusalem under his wings.
Seems to me that this is a very weak objection. You can do better. Visit
some atheist web site and get some ideas from them. But please, do it one at a
time so that I can address it properly.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
On 2/01/2013 4:44 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting-
the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman
argument. I never believed in geocentrism
We were not supposed to be discussing what you *believed*. We were
supposed to be discussing what your Bible *says*.
Where in the Bible does it say 6000 years is the Earth's age.
It can be derived from Bible genealogies using rather simple arithmetic as
I am sure you know. You must have adopted some way to weasel around the
obvious meaning of words like "morning and evening" and "... lived xxx years
and begat ...".
Again, you can not put beliefs int
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
Yes, we are discussing what the Bible says. Where in the Bible does it say the sun revolves around the Earth? Where does it say the Earth is 6000 years old? That is all I'm asking. IF you want to accept my challenge, show me where the Bible says something that is categorically wrong. So, you have a problem because it says in one place that Moses wrote the tablets and then it says in another place that God wrote the tablets. Is this the crux of your objection? It's funny cause if you are quibbling about the exact person who had the pen in his hand (or chisel), you could have used a better example from the Bible. When someone helps me with my autobiography, someone like my secretary. Do we say she wrote the autobiography because she was holding the actual pen (or computer in our case)? Or do we say I wrote my autobiography? Both statements are of course True. She wrote my autobiography because she was the one who physically wrote (or typed), at the same time, I can say that I wrote my autobiography because I provided the contents. My friend, you are quibbling over a minor "figure of speech" issue. The Bible does use "figures of speech" you know. Jesus Christ is not a chicken because he said he wanted to gather Jerusalem under his wings. Seems to me that this is a very weak objection. You can do better. Visit some atheist web site and get some ideas from them. But please, do it one at a time so that I can address it properly. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution On 2/01/2013 4:44 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting- the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman argument. I never believed in geocentrism We were not supposed to be discussing what you *believed*. We were supposed to be discussing what your Bible *says*. Where in the Bible does it say 6000 years is the Earth's age. It can be derived from Bible genealogies using rather simple arithmetic as I am sure you know. You must have adopted some way to weasel around the obvious meaning of words like "morning and evening" and "... lived xxx years and begat ...". Again, you can not put beliefs into someone and proceed to demolish it. Faulty logic. I have never claimed the Earth is 6000 years old. Some of my friends do, and we sometimes argue (discuss) it. But, really, even if I do, what scientific fact - I mean real scientific fact, not conclusions and conjectures and speculations, do you have to say that this is wrong. Yeah yeah, I know about your shellfish study and your ice core data. At best they are not "settled" science, just the opinion of some researcher. It becomes obvious that any science that disagrees with your prejudice will simply be called "unsettled" and "just someones opinion". But it also becomes very obvious that the meaning of most of the statements in your Bible regarding scientific issues is also "unsettled" and "just someones opinion"! So why would anyone care any more for what your Bible says, than what science says? - since what your Bible says is also just unsettled "conjectures and speculations" that can be argued about ad-nauseum. So regarding your supposed contradictions, you acknowledge that it is difficult to "draw out" and yet you proclaim it as a contradiction. Something is wrong with that thinking my friend. This is hardly the forum for discussing Hebrew letters getting dropped from names - particularly when you will only ignore any effort I put into it in much the same way as you ignore anything else that you disagree with. Did you decide who wrote on Moses' second set of tablets? Or where Aaron died? Yeah, just go ahead and weasle away. Most people do that when they been found to be either lying or wrong.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
On 2/01/2013 4:44 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting- the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman argument. I never believed in geocentrism We were not supposed to be discussing what you *believed*. We were supposed to be discussing what your Bible *says*. Where in the Bible does it say 6000 years is the Earth's age. It can be derived from Bible genealogies using rather simple arithmetic as I am sure you know. You must have adopted some way to weasel around the obvious meaning of words like "morning and evening" and "... lived xxx years and begat ...". Again, you can not put beliefs into someone and proceed to demolish it. Faulty logic. I have never claimed the Earth is 6000 years old. Some of my friends do, and we sometimes argue (discuss) it. But, really, even if I do, what scientific fact - I mean real scientific fact, not conclusions and conjectures and speculations, do you have to say that this is wrong. Yeah yeah, I know about your shellfish study and your ice core data. At best they are not "settled" science, just the opinion of some researcher. It becomes obvious that any science that disagrees with your prejudice will simply be called "unsettled" and "just someones opinion". But it also becomes very obvious that the meaning of most of the statements in your Bible regarding scientific issues is also "unsettled" and "just someones opinion"! So why would anyone care any more for what your Bible says, than what science says? - since what your Bible says is also just unsettled "conjectures and speculations" that can be argued about ad-nauseum. So regarding your supposed contradictions, you acknowledge that it is difficult to "draw out" and yet you proclaim it as a contradiction. Something is wrong with that thinking my friend. This is hardly the forum for discussing Hebrew letters getting dropped from names - particularly when you will only ignore any effort I put into it in much the same way as you ignore anything else that you disagree with. Did you decide who wrote on Moses' second set of tablets? Or where Aaron died? Yeah, just go ahead and weasle away. Most people do that when they been found to be either lying or wrong.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting- the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman argument. I never believed in geocentrism and I have not met anyone of my church friends who does. But, we do believe in a different kind of geocentrism, that with all of God's creation, the Earth is the center of his attention. Where in the Bible does it say 6000 years is the Earth's age. Again, you can not put beliefs into someone and proceed to demolish it. Faulty logic. I have never claimed the Earth is 6000 years old. Some of my friends do, and we sometimes argue (discuss) it. But, really, even if I do, what scientific fact - I mean real scientific fact, not conclusions and conjectures and speculations, do you have to say that this is wrong. Yeah yeah, I know about your shellfish study and your ice core data. At best they are not "settled" science, just the opinion of some researcher. So regarding your supposed contradictions, you acknowledge that it is difficult to "draw out" and yet you proclaim it as a contradiction. Something is wrong with that thinking my friend. Yeah, just go ahead and weasle away. Most people do that when they been found to be either lying or wrong. NEXT Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution On 2/01/2013 4:59 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: First, you came up with the opinion of a man and proceeded to demolish it. If this is not a clear example of a Strawman argument, I don't know what is. I won't even bother to rebute this argument as it is clearly fallacious. I said provide a statement FROM THE BIBLE, not some person. This is not the opinion of one man, but was the strongly held opinion of the whole of Christendom from the least to the greatest, and a matter for which great scientists were threatened with torture and burnt at the stake. Within that discussion are many statements *from the Bible* that support a geocentric worldview. But like I said, this is one that we can likely agree on because the scientific evidence has now persuaded modern biblical scholars (yourself included) that they need to interpret those passages differently. I brought up this point to illustrate that Bible interpretation is an evolutionary process which we are in the middle of (and some of us are considerably more evolved than others!) Second, you question the integrity of the Bible by saying that it claimed that the Earth is ~6000 years old. Please point to me where it says in the Bible that the Earth is 6000 years old. This age is a conjecture by scholars when they attempt to trace back the genealogy of people mentioned in the Bible. This figure is by no means an agreed figure. This figure is "by no means an agreed figure" for the simple reason that it is no longer tenable (except by the most determined literalists), so of course scholars have to come up with a different interpretation than the obvious straightforward meaning of the text. The geocentrism argument has been considered lost by almost everyone except the gentleman I pointed to. The group you belong to has accepted that the 6000 year old earth is untenable but doesn't yet know what figure to retreat to. Whether Noah's flood was local or global seems to be an argument that your group has not yet considered very seriously. I know a Christian denomination that holds the entire Bible in the highest regard, and yet happily teaches that all of Genesis before Abraham is not to be taken literally but rather has deeper spiritual meanings (much as Jesus' parables are not historical events but have spiritual meanings). So you see that there is almost *no* point at which believers will be unable to change their interpretation in order to keep their Bible as without error. For myself I can't see why the book needs to have no errors. We don't demand it of any other book so why this one. ... You also mentioned Noah's flood and you provided Ice core "evidence", sea shell "evidnece" etc. Show me the data for these? I thought I did (see link preserved at end) - was the plotted data not data for some reason? All you have provided are conclusions of people. This is by no means settled science. These are just conjectures and conclusions. Regarding your statement the all the ice is assumed to have melted in Noah's flood. Why would you assume that? What evidence do you have that that indeed happened. Other researchers say the opposite of what you are assuming. A global deluge would cool the Earth and form ice, not melt it. Regardless of what happened (cooling or melting), one would expect a glitch or discontinuity in the
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
set of
tablets):
Exod 34:1 And Yahweh said to Moses: "You yourself chisel out two stone
tablets like the first that *I* might write upon the tablets the words
that were upon the first tablets that you shattered."
Exod 34:27-28 'And Yahweh said to Moses: "*You yourself* write these
words for upon the command of these words I have made a covenant with
you and with Israel." And he was there with Yahweh for forty days and
forty nights, he neither ate bread nor drank water but wrote upon the
tablets the covenant words'
Deut 10:4 And he {Yahweh} wrote upon the tablets like the first writing
(the ten words that Yahweh spoke to you on the mountain from the midst
of the fire on the day of the assembly) and Yahweh gave them to me.
The third (where did Aaron die):
Aaron died atop the Mountain of Hor according to Num 33:38 (which is the
35th stop in the Numbers itinerary).
Aaron died at a place called Moserah (the singular form of Moseroth)
according to Deut 10:6 (which is the 28th stop in the Numbers itinerary
- see Num 33:30-31).
But I have no intention of continuing this discussion on this forum.
*From:* jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au <mailto:jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:02 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
...
Checkout the agreement between the entire ice core data and the
benthic foramanifera core data (which come from tiny shellfish
living and accumulating on the sea bed) at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. This data is
from such different sources that this agreement can only be
produced by a common driving mechanism (ie climate). Yet one would
expect the arctic snow fall to be far more affected by a global
flood than the steady accumulation of foramanifera on the sea bed
(which would be scarcely altered by a flood). So one can't
suggest that many of the ice core layers were produced by multiple
snow storm events in a single year, and still have the two
independent data sources agreeing so well.
...
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
John, You seem to have attempted to answer my challenge on 2 fronts. First, the geocentricity of the Earth and the Second, the age of the Earth. OK, Let's examine the evidence you've provided. First, you came up with the opinion of a man and proceeded to demolish it. If this is not a clear example of a Strawman argument, I don't know what is. I won't even bother to rebute this argument as it is clearly fallacious. I said provide a statement FROM THE BIBLE, not some person. Second, you question the integrity of the Bible by saying that it claimed that the Earth is ~6000 years old. Please point to me where it says in the Bible that the Earth is 6000 years old. This age is a conjecture by scholars when they attempt to trace back the genealogy of people mentioned in the Bible. This figure is by no means an agreed figure. This is just the opinion of some scholars. But I do believe in a young Earth, how young exactly, I do not know. The Bible does not say. You also mentioned Noah's flood and you provided Ice core "evidence", sea shell "evidnece" etc. Show me the data for these? All you have provided are conclusions of people. This is by no means settled science. These are just conjectures and conclusions. Regarding your statement the all the ice is assumed to have melted in Noah's flood. Why would you assume that? What evidence do you have that that indeed happened. Other researchers say the opposite of what you are assuming. A global deluge would cool the Earth and form ice, not melt it. Come on, this is your best scientific evidence? You can do better and it does not help that you cap out immediately by saying that I will not look at your evidence. I am currently in an offline discussion with a respected member of Vortex and he can attest that I am looking at the data he presents. Regarding you claims of contradictions, please elaborate. What contradictions? Jojo PS. As I said in my original challenge. It would help if you can post one objection at a time. If you overwhelm me with a bunch of issues to address and respond to, I will not be able to answer it in a meaningful way. That of course is counterproductive, unless that is what you want to begin with. - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution On 1/01/2013 2:47 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: ... I have still to encounter a statement in the Bible that science has found to be categorically false. I challenge you or anyone to prove me wrong on this. But do it one at a time so that I can respond properly to it. Do not cut and paste a blog from an Atheist web site. I won't have time or the capability to respond to that in a meaningful way. Let's start with one that we can probably all agree on: I was rather amazed to find recently that there was a Professor Philip Stott arguing on an international website of a doctoral degree granting theological seminary, that the earth really was fixed and that the sun etc revolved around it! (I don't blame the seminary - I am impressed that they allow such freedom of expression! and he is not a Professor of the seminary) Here is a link to some of his writing regarding geocentricity: http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/geo/pages/01-thinking-reasoning-geocentrically.htm Quoting a snippet: To the Bible-believers of Copernicus's day there was simply no doubt about the Bible's geocentricity. Copernicus said "surely it is more reasonable to assume that the earth rotates once each day than that the entire universe rotates around it." Calvin countered with "The heavens revolve daily; immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions" [commentary to Psalm 93:1] in deliberate scripture-based contradiction. Luther, speaking of Copernicus's idea said "Even in these things which are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures." Galileo was so confident that the Bible puts the earth stationary at the centre of the universe that to disregard it he had to say "In matters concerning the natural sciences Holy Writ must occupy the last place." Why were they so certain of the Bible's stand? Well for one thing Genesis 1 tells us that God created the unformed watery waste of the earth on the first day. On day two He separated the waters above from the waters below by an expanse called the "firmament," and on the fourth day He set the sun moon and stars in this firmament. Where is the possibility for the day-one-created earth to be circling around the day-four-created sun? And so he goes on, completely convinced that the Bible states that the earth is fixed in space and accepting this fact
Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
On 1/01/2013 2:47 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: ... I have still to encounter a statement in the Bible that science has found to be categorically false. I challenge you or anyone to prove me wrong on this. But do it one at a time so that I can respond properly to it. Do not cut and paste a blog from an Atheist web site. I won't have time or the capability to respond to that in a meaningful way. Let's start with one that we can probably all agree on: I was rather amazed to find recently that there was a Professor Philip Stott arguing on an international website of a doctoral degree granting theological seminary, that the earth really was fixed and that the sun etc revolved around it! (I don't blame the seminary - I am impressed that they allow such freedom of expression! and he is not a Professor of the seminary) Here is a link to some of his writing regarding geocentricity: http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/geo/pages/01-thinking-reasoning-geocentrically.htm Quoting a snippet: To the Bible-believers of Copernicus's day there was simply no doubt about the Bible's geocentricity. Copernicus said "surely it is more reasonable to assume that the earth rotates once each day than that the entire universe rotates around it." Calvin countered with "The heavens revolve daily; immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions" [commentary to Psalm 93:1] in deliberate scripture-based contradiction. Luther, speaking of Copernicus's idea said "Even in these things which are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures." Galileo was so confident that the Bible puts the earth stationary at the centre of the universe that to disregard it he had to say "In matters concerning the natural sciences Holy Writ must occupy the last place." Why were they so certain of the Bible's stand? Well for one thing Genesis 1 tells us that God created the unformed watery waste of the earth on the first day. On day two He separated the waters above from the waters below by an expanse called the "firmament," and on the fourth day He set the sun moon and stars in this firmament. Where is the possibility for the day-one-created earth to be circling around the day-four-created sun? And so he goes on, completely convinced that the Bible states that the earth is fixed in space and accepting this fact "by faith" in "the testimony of the One who can [stand outside the universe and look in]". As scientific support for a fixed earth he mentions the famous Michelson and Morely experiment and quotes Bernard Jaffe "The data were almost unbelievable. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw, that the earth was at rest ..."! Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be aware of the Sagnac effect which is a very similar experiment (and was also attempted by Michelson) and proves rather convincingly that the earth really does turn! One wonders what Prof Stott's answer would be if this Sagnac effect was pointed out to him. I expect that he would simply change his mind on the interpretation of the Bible passages that suggest geocentricity, and accept that Christendom of Galileo's day had universally misinterpreted scripture, and that the modern interpretation is after all, correct. This illustrates that attempting to find "a statement in the Bible that science has found to be categorically false" is likely a pointless exercise. If the evidence is convincing enough, then the believer will simply reinterpret the passage in the light of scientific discoveries. If the evidence is less convincing (by not being aware of the enormity of the evidence), then he will simply say that the scientists have got it all wrong, they made incorrect assumptions and they are self-deceived, or they are lying to protect their income source. Since I have no idea of Jojo's position on how literally he interprets Genesis, let's skip the ridiculously young (~6000 year old) universe, young earth, very recent life creation, and take a quick look at Noah's flood - because I would guess from a previous posting that Jojo considers this to be an unembellished historical account. According to the record Noah's flood should have occurred approx 4400 years ago. Since it was global, there really should be some signature of its occurrence in some paleoclimatology proxy - such as the ice core data (since I imagine that all polar ice should have been melted by the flood?). But to the best of my knowledge there is absolutely none - and I think that in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Individual year cycles can be easily counted much further back than 4400 years in some of the proxies: In fact it seems tree rings can be counted back well beyond a young earth date (from Wikipedia): "Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 11,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the
