blackbird

Their not alone in claiming antiquity. Some natives in B.C. claim that they go back 10 or 15 thousand years I think.

What for? Creation scientists and others don't accept the old earth concept anyway.

Could also have been some more distant relatives or friends living in his house.

Personally I don't think there were human bones and tools etc older than 6000 years in existence. Some of those so-called pre-historic men were found to be fake. Such as the so-called Piltdown man. What some paleontologist have apparently done is find a tooth or such and from that draw a jaw, then the rest of the skull and create a pre-historic man. Then later people found out the tooth was actually from an ape. That sort of thing.

I just looked it up. It says in Genesis ch7 vs1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark" So who knows how many people were in his house. Could have been a number of couples (sons, daughters and their spouses)

What if he brought a son with a wife on board the ark? I see what you mean. Could be that's the way it had to be. Those were unique times, but all the details of who was taken on the ark perhaps are not mentioned. I don't know.

I believe the fossils were either formed since creation, perhaps as a result of the flood OR the fossils were created to be in the earth at the time of creation.

God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. It had to happen somehow.

Maybe Adam and Eve had more children than are listed in the Bible. Not sure every detail is mentioned.

Good point. I would have to go and read that part. Maybe Noah brought his family on the ark and could it have included a son-in-law or daughter-in-law?

Yes there may have been some close family connections with Adam and Eve's children in order to start the human race. But perhaps that was how it happened.

From what I have heard by a slide-show presentation by Prof Philip Stott, the fossil record is somewhat confused and many missing pieces.

Well, I don't see why dinasaurs couldn't have lived a few thousand years ago. Maybe they did. I don't believe in neanderthal man or than man came from apes.

That's up to you. I am not trying to impress the world or non-believers. As I said believing in the Bible will not get you into favour with the world. You can't have it both ways. The science subjects you mention are still perfectly legitimate. Christian scientists believe those subjects. But just have a problem with old earth age and evolution.

The creation discussion re fossils is somewhat involved. That website I gave goes into aspects of it. You may find more related subjects there. It seems to be saying that the Biblical flood called Noah's flood in Genesis was a catostrophic event which caused the fossils to be deposited as they are now. The website goes into some of that. The age of the earth is only a few thousand years so whether it was created with the fossils already in it at the time of creation or whether they were created by the flood I don't know.

Yes, it is a departure from "normal" whatever normal is. As the Bible says spiritual things are foolishness to the world. God has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise. The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. If you would rather be "normal" and be a part of the world system which is doomed, that's up to you. If you want to be part of God's family in the heavenly, kingdom then you have to have spiritual eyes and accept the Bible as the truth from God.

This website gives some pretty good explanations about that: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

Doesn't matter to me if you think what I believe is an aberration. Go ahead and believe that. If you don't want to believe in the supernatural, that's up to you. You have some opinions I agree with but not in this subject.

You're the one who was questioning the answers I gave you. I was simply responding to what you said earlier.

The Bible is a supernatural book. It was written by God and simply states what happened in terms that ordinary people could understand down through the ages. It boils down to faith in what God said in the Bible.

I don't claim to be an expert and don't know about coal. As I said before the earth must have been created with an apparent age. When a tree is created for example, how old is it? How old will a rock appear to be? etc. Light from stars will have to have the appearance of having travelled a great distance at the moment it was created. You miss the main point. The creation was a supernatural event.

Quote Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8 have both roots and rootlets attached. Such trees, and their missing roots are discussed in detail in an article on 'Fossil Forests'. 9 Likewise many, if not most, of the large, fragmented, and broken-off Stigmaria roots (of these trees) are also missing their rootlets. In fact, that's how the word "stigmaria" (roots) got its name: i.e. because of the scar marks left behind from the broken off (and now missing) rootlets. 9 Many of these roots and rootlets are also buried individually. 9 Thus virtually proving that neither the trees themselves, nor their rootlets were buried in the place where they grew, or "in situ," but were uprooted and re-buried where they are now found. Unquote This article demonstrates that there must have been a great flood which tore trees from their roots and then deposited them in other places. This would not happen without a catastrophic event such as a great flood to tear the trees out and move them quickly.

Here is a interesting article on the EVIDENCE for the flood. http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm Quote One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world: especially in and around coal seams. They are often in the form of fossil trees that were buried upright and which often cross multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, shale, limestone and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. Sometimes they are oblique (or at an angle to) the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular with (or standing 'upright' in) it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of the trees are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7 Unquote I have seen a photo of fossilized trees standing upright. They were caught suddenly by the massive sediment as a result of the flood and never had a chance to get old,die, and fall as trees normally do. This is strong evidence of the flood.

Gilgamesh is the semi-mythic King of Uruk best known from The Epic of Gilgamesh (written c. 2150-1400 BCE) the great Sumerian/Babylonian...

Apparently there are other stories about the flood. These reportedly came from varies other places and sources around the world. The fact that other peoples from various countries have a tradition of reporting there was a flood just reinforces the truth of the biblical account that there was indeed a great flood as recorded in Genesis. Gilgamesh may have been just another source among many that reported a flood in ancient times. The biblical account did not come from Gigamesh. The biblical account of Noah's flood is accurate because it came from God. Men recorded it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. One source estimate a very rough guess of a date of 2,300 years B.C. or 4,300 years ago. That is not regarded as accurate but only a dates some scholar put forward.