Perhaps I didn't need to. You did supply plenty of ammunition for the opinion I developed. The main thrust of your rebuttals have been to refute those areas which are not pertinent to the discussion,

twisting the authors words and/or intent,

attack the author's style rather than content

and lastly imply that you have evidence contrary to his points and later admit that you didn't

Neanderthals not human ancestors
AP
A Neanderthal jaw from Croatia
Modern humans do not have Neanderthal ancestors in their family tree, a new DNA study concludes.

The DNA extracted from the ribs of a Neanderthal infant buried in southern Russia 29,000 years ago was found to be too distinct from modern human DNA to be related.

"There wasn't much, if any mixture, between Neanderthals and modern humans," said William Goodwin, of the University of Glasgow, UK. "Though they co-existed, we can't find any evidence of genetic material being passed from Neanderthals to modern humans."

The new work, published in the journal Nature, contradicts recent evidence from ancient remains of a child found in Portugal, which appeared to combine Neanderthal and human features. Those researchers concluded that some interbreeding must have taken place.

Last of the Neanderthals

The bones from the Neanderthal infant were very well preserved and the child must have been among the last of the Neanderthals as they died out about 30,000 years ago.

Exactly what happened to them is a mystery. Conflicting theories suggest that they were massacred, out-competed for food or simply absorbed by interbreeding with modern humans.

The research by Dr Goodwin and his Swedish and Russian colleagues agrees with the findings of the first analysis of Neanderthal DNA in 1997.

That study of DNA, taken from the first Neanderthal skeleton found in the Feldhofer Cave in Germany in 1856, supports the theory that modern humans replaced Neanderthals.

Little diversity

According to Dr Goodwin, the DNA sequence from the infant was very similar to the specimen from the Feldhofer Cave, proving that there was little diversity among Neanderthals.

"If they had been very diverse at the DNA level, they could have encompassed modern humans. The fact that these two Neanderthals are closely related and not related to modern humans implies that they don't have the diversity to encompass a modern human gene pool," said Dr Goodwin.

DNA comparisons also showed that different ethnic groups do not have any links to Neanderthals.

In a commentary on the research in Nature, Matthias Hoss, of the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research, said the two studies provide the most reliable proof so far of the authenticity of ancient DNA sequences.

The similar features of the two samples "argues against the idea that modern Europeans are at least partly of Neanderthal origin," he said.

EFFECTS OF INBREEDING

The negative health effects caused by inbreeding are due to the expression of rare, recessive deleterious genes that are inherited from common ancestors or a single shared ancestor. Studies on population in which inbreeding is common have shown increased levels of mortality and morbidity due to a variety of genetic defects. However, inbreeding can also result in the production of perfectly healthy offspring (Bittles 1991).

Study of European Royal Families

Inbreeding was very common among the royal families of Europe, and it has been linked as the cause of the widespread number of cases of hemophilia in the families. The presence of hemophilia in the royalty of Europe started with Queen Victoria of England. Victoria is thought to be the original carrier for the recessive X-linked hemophilia gene, which lead to over twenty members of royal families inheriting the disease in just over 100 years. The disease was spread throughout Europe, because Queen Victoria's children and grandchildren married into many different royal houses in Europe to create political alliances. Females can only been carriers for the rare blood clotting disease if one of there X chromosomes contains the deleterious recessive allele. Moreover, males inherit the disease if there X chromosome carries the gene for hemophilia.

Hemophilia spreads rapidly through the British royal house for several generations, and inbreeding in the family was seen as a major cause of the deleterious recessive allele's frequently through the lines of British royalty. Moreover, the disease was also spread into the royal houses of Russia and Spain by descendants of Queen Victoria. Victoria gave birth to three children with the hemophilia allele; Leopold, Alice, and Beatrice. Alice then gave birth to two female carriers and one male hemophiliac. One of the carrier daughters was Alexandra, also known as Alix. Alix was married to Nicholas the Czar of Russia in 1894. Alix then had tremendous pressure on her to produce a male heir. She finally gave birth to a male, Alexis, but he had hemophilia. This lead to political unrest in Russia, and the royal family was executed by a firing squad during the Russian Revolution.

Hemophilia was also spread into the Spanish royal family when Victoria Eugenie, a hemophilia carrier and daughter of Beatrice, married Alfonso XIII, the king of Spain. The marriage was arranged to try to bring Spain and England closer together. This attempt did not work when Beatrice gave birth to two sons with hemophilia. This event led to increase anti-British feeling in Spain, because many believed that the Spanish monarchy's blood line was polluted by this British Princess.

The events in Russia and Spain along with an increase in British hemophiliacs led to political unrest and instability. Many people believe these cases of inbreeding and hemophilia to be a contributing cause to World War I. Moreover, a mystery surrounds the originator of the hemophilia gene in England. No ancestor of Queen Victoria showed any evidence of hemophilia, so several theories arose on the gene's origin. One theory is that Victoria was the victim of a mutation that could have been due to years of inbreeding in British royalty. Another interesting theory is that Victoria's mother had an affair because of the intense pressure of producing an heir, and the Edward Duke of Kent was not Victoria's biological father (Stevens 1991).

Study on Japanese Children after WWII

Shortly after the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in World War II there was an increase in the number of consanguineous marriages in the areas surrounding Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The most common union was seen to be inbreeding at the first-cousin level. The study was set up to study some of the possible effects of inbreeding. The five effects of inbreeding looked at in this study was: the fertility of the marriages, the mortality of the offspring, the morbidity of the offspring, the reproductive performance of the offspring, and the characteristics of the offspring.

In the study it was seen that inbreeding did not have an adverse effect on the fertility of the marriages, but there were some significant increases seen on childhood mortality in the first year of life. Inbreeding also increased morbidity in the study. There were significant increases in levels of handicapped offspring associated with inbreeding. Inbreeding was associated with a 37.5% increase in offspring with one or two major handicaps, while it also caused a 24.1% increase in offspring with one or two minor defects. Moreover, inbreeding caused an increase of 31.7% in hearing impairments. Development also seemed to be affected by inbreeding. Children of consanguineous marriages were significantly older than the control group when they first walked and talked.

The study did not only show harmful effects of inbreeding in Japan. School performance, which is a vital part for betterment in their culture, showed no significant change with inbreeding. In fact, intelligence seemed to be more influenced by socioeconomic class. Furthermore, inbreeding also seemed to be beneficial when examining some aspects of health. Offspring from the inbreeding group showed a 14.3% decrease in allergies and a 23.9% decrease in nephritis, a rare genetic disorder that causes inflammation of the kidneys (Schull 1965).

Study on an Amish Settlement

The Old Order Amish tend to have high levels of inbreeding, because they are a highly traditional agricultural and religious group that is very isolated from outside populations. These high levels of inbreeding are seen in a settlement in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Moreover, this group is a good study group because they come from similar backgrounds and socioeconomic class. They also keep very detailed genealogical records. These records date back to the 1700s and show a family history for up to twelve generations.

Inbreeding in the Lancaster settlement is thought to be a major cause of infant mortality due to genetic defects. One of these deleterious recessive genetic disorders that led to increased infant mortality is Ellis-van Creveld disease. Ellis-van Creveld is a disease associated with dwarfism in the extremities and a malformation in the heart's atrium. These genetic problems have been seen to be the reported cause for almost all of the deaths of children under the age of one in the Lancaster settlement. Therefore, it was seen that inbreeding increased the likelihood of early childhood deaths in the Lancaster Amish settlement. In fact, the higher the level of inbreeding coefficients involved in the marriage, the greater the chances of cases of childhood mortality. This study shows that inbreeding can pose significant health threats by increasing mortality and morbidity in offspring (Dorsten 1999).

Study on the Hutterites

The Hutterites are a small group of Anabaptists that fled Europe and Russia and settled in what is now the Dakotas and Canada to escape from religious persecution. The Hutterites settled on communal farms, which isolated them from outside populations. Their isolation along with their beliefs leads to a highly inbred population. Moreover, the Hutterites are a good population to study because, like the Amish, they keep very detailed genealogical records. The Hutterites are also among the most fertile populations that commonly practice inbreeding. Furthermore, in studies concerning the Hutterites the confounding effects of socioeconomic class are not a factor, because they are relatively uniform in this population's communal lifestyle. One such study wanted to investigate some of the effects of inbreeding on the fertility of adult women.

Little is known about the effects of inbreeding on offspring's fertility, so this study was done to answer some of these questions. There were several measurements used to detect any adverse changes in fertility. Inbreeding coefficients, measurements of birth intervals, and family size were all measured. The offspring of the Hutterite women showed that the intervals between births decreased as levels of inbreeding increased. These intervals not only increased as inbreeding levels increased, they also increased with each generation of Hutterite women. Therefore, the deleterious effects of inbreeding can be tracked through each generation. These significantly longer interbirth intervals were due to lower conception rates or higher losses in embryonic stages of pregnancy. Moreover, this also caused large declines in family size. In fact, average family size shrunk from above nine from 1901 to 1920 to five from 1941 to 1960. This showed a decrease in two family members per generation in the Hutterite population. This study has shown that deleterious recessive alleles received from inbreeding can lower the fertility rates of adult woman (Ober 1999).

So unless we are all the product of genetic inbreeding.. and as such genetically messed up.. there is no way in Hades that the entire population come from 2 people.

In attempts to scientifically explain this phenomena

How can you "scientifically explain" things for which there is no empirical evidence? Rhetorical question by the way.

Nice. Graphs and statistics sure make it LOOK good...but there's no actual evidence that these people existed, much less lived the long lives claimed.
First problem - unsupported assumptions which actually contradict large amounts of evidence. Show me just ONE verified instance of a human living past...let's be extreme - 150 years?

Ironic that he apparently doesn't understand the subject very well, and has used the word "hyperbolic".

Since we have no idea what the actual atmospheric pressure could have been,

Actually, we do.

Another not-so-subtle disclaimer that he actually has no evidence

A lot more than two questions remain, he's just skipping the ones which destroy his hypothesis, and he hopes no-one is bright enough to catch on

This man is NO scientist.

As for that anecdote about the sceptic. Fitman, really? You're serious? Stop trying to make us look stupid

As for the issue of incest--I have read good apologetics for such but will be hard-pressed to find it right now.

as "christian" I didn't believe in a vengeful god.... I don't NEED to be afraid to be a moral person.. and that is where a lot of (especially fundamental and literalist) christians get it wrong.

The Christian faith stands on the foundation that Its writers spoke Truth, instructed to do so by God, regarding all things of God. If you refuse to accept more than 6 Books in both Testaments, you qualify as rejecting the Whole as truth, including Christ, Who confirmed this event. IMHO

~Many believe that if even one word in the Bible is untrue, it proves It to be false and should be dismissed.

Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.
One Plus One Equals Billions

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.
Impact of the Flood

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

From two people, created about 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could easily have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion.

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.

This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion.

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?” This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.

Dr. Monty White is now a young-earth creationist; however, as a young Christian, he believed in theistic evolution. Since 2000, he has been the CEO of Answers in Genesis—UK.


Footnotes

1. www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldpop.gif Back
2. www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html Back
3. White, A. J. Monty, How Old Is the Earth? Evangelical Press, p. 22, 1985.

What growth rate is needed to get six billion people since the Flood?

It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

Of course, population growth has not been constant. There is reasonably good evidence that growth has been slow at times—such as in the Middle Ages in Europe. However, data from the Bible (Genesis 10,11) shows that the population grew quite quickly in the years immediately after the Flood. Shem had five sons, Ham had four, and Japheth had seven. If we assume that they had the same number of daughters, then they averaged 10.7 children per couple. In the next generation, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total. That is an average of 8.1 per couple. These figures are consisent with God’s command to ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ (Genesis 9:1).

Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10–24), with an average of 31 years,7 so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time).8 This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.9

If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2 this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood.
Australian Aborigines — cultural traditions connect to Noah

In addition to population figures, there is much other evidence against the supposed long ages of Aboriginal occupation of Australia—the observed rapid deterioration of supposedly ancient paintings, for example.15

Furthermore, many Aboriginal tribes have stories, long predating their contact with Christian missionaries, of a global Flood, sometimes with startling similarities to the Bible’s account, but with sufficient differences to show that they were not recently incorporated into their folklore following contacts with missionaries.15 It is stretching credulity to suggest that these stories have been maintained by word-of-mouth for 40 to 60 thousand years, or that they were invented and just by chance have these incredible similarities to the Bible account.

The Aboriginal population and their stories are much more in line with their having been a nomadic/‘gypsy’ people who found themselves in Australia relatively recently—certainly after the Biblical Flood.
A remarkable coincidence?

The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?

Hardly. The figures agree because the real history of the world is recorded in the Bible.
What if people had been around for one million years?

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

If these are false characters or false events-- then the whole of the Bible can NOT be acceptable in any way, shape, or form.

You win.....a dancing banana. In honour of the ridiculous "proof" by Kirk Cameron.

Black-white fallacy is nonsense as we ALL KNOW what color the majority of Bible pages run aye....

But c14 is only one of MANY forms of radiometric dating used to determine the ages of things. And bad news for those young-earth folks...there are several types of radiometric dating which DO INDEED allow you to date the age of rocks.

The presupposition of long ages is an icon and foundational to the evolutionary model. Nearly every textbook and media journal teaches that the earth is billions of years old.

Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, ancient enough for all species to have been formed through evolution.1

The earth is now regarded as between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old.2

The primary dating method scientists use for determining the age of the earth is radioisotope dating. Proponents of evolution publicize radioisotope dating as a reliable and consistent method for obtaining absolute ages of rocks and the age of the earth. This apparent consistency in textbooks and the media has convinced many Christians to accept an old earth (4.6 billion years old).
What Is Radioisotope Dating?

Radioisotope dating (also referred to as radiometric dating) is the process of estimating the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements. There are certain kinds of atoms in nature that are unstable and spontaneously change (decay) into other kinds of atoms. For example, uranium will radioactively decay through a series of steps until it becomes the stable element lead. Likewise, potassium decays into the element argon. The original element is referred to as the parent element (in these cases uranium and potassium), and the end result is called the daughter element (lead and argon).
The Importance of Radioisotope Dating

The straightforward reading of Scripture reveals that the days of creation (Genesis 1) were literal days and that the earth is just thousands of years old and not billions. There appears to be a fundamental conflict between the Bible and the reported ages given by radioisotope dating. Since God is the Creator of all things (including science), and His Word is true (“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth,” John 17:17), the true age of the earth must agree with His Word. However, rather than accept the biblical account of creation, many Christians have accepted the radioisotope dates of billions of years and attempted to fit long ages into the Bible. The implications of doing this are profound and affect many parts of the Bible.
How Radioisotope Dating Works

Radioisotope dating is commonly used to date igneous rocks. These are rocks which form when hot, molten material cools and solidifies. Types of igneous rocks include granite and basalt (lava). Sedimentary rocks, which contain most of the world’s fossils, are not commonly used in radioisotope dating. These types of rocks are comprised of particles from many preexisting rocks which were transported (mostly by water) and redeposited somewhere else. Types of sedimentary rocks include sandstone, shale, and limestone.
Uranium to lead decay sequence
Uranium-238
Thorium-234
Protactinium-234
Uranium-234
Thorium-230
Radium-226
Radon-222
Polonium-218
Lead-214
Bismuth-214
Polonium-214
Lead-210
Bismuth-210
Polonium-210
Lead-206 (stable)

Uranium-238 (238U) is an isotope of uranium. Isotopes are varieties of an element that have the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons within the nucleus. For example, carbon-14 (14C) is a particular isotope. All carbon atoms have 6 protons but can vary in the number of neutrons. 12C has 6 protons and 6 neutrons in its nucleus. 13C has 6 protons and 7 neutrons. 14C has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Extra neutrons often lead to instability, or radioactivity. Likewise, all isotopes (varieties) of uranium have 92 protons. 238U has 92 protons and 146 neutrons. It is unstable and will radioactively decay first into 234Th (thorium-234) and finally into 206Pb (lead-206). Sometimes a radioactive decay will cause an atom to lose 2 protons and 2 neutrons (called alpha decay). For example, the decay of 238U into 234Th is an alpha decay process. In this case the atomic mass changes (238 to 234). Atomic mass is the heaviness of an atom when compared to hydrogen, which is assigned the value of one. Another type of decay is called beta decay. In beta decay, either an electron is lost and a neutron is converted into a proton (beta minus decay) or an electron is added and a proton is converted into a neutron (beta plus decay). In beta decay the total atomic mass does not change significantly. The decay of 234Th into 234Pa (protactinium-234) is an example of beta decay.

The radioisotope dating clock starts when a rock cools. During the molten state it is assumed that the intense heat will force any gaseous daughter elements like argon to escape. Once the rock cools it is assumed that no more atoms can escape and any daughter element found in a rock will be the result of radioactive decay. The dating process then requires measuring how much daughter element is in a rock sample and knowing the decay rate (i.e., how long it takes the parent element to decay into the daughter element—uranium into lead or potassium into argon). The decay rate is measured in terms of half-life. Half-life is defined as the length of time it takes half of the remaining atoms of a radioactive parent element to decay. For example, the remaining radioactive parent material will decrease by 1/2 during the passage of each half-life (1?1/2?1/4?1/8?1/16, etc.). Half-lives as measured today are very accurate, even the extremely slow half-lives. That is, billion-year half-lives can be measured statistically in just hours of time. The following table is a sample of different element half-lives.
Parent Daughter Half-life
Polonium-218 Lead-214 3 minutes
Thorium-234 Protactinium-234 24 days
Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5,730 years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.47 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Science and Assumptions

Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

The Hourglass Illustration

Radioisotope dating can be better understood using an illustration with an hourglass. If we walk into a room and observe an hourglass with sand at the top and sand at the bottom, we could calculate how long the hourglass has been running. By estimating how fast the sand is falling and measuring the amount of sand at the bottom, we could calculate how much time has elapsed since the hourglass was turned over. All our calculations could be correct (observational science), but the result could be wrong. This is because we failed to take into account some critical assumptions.

1. Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was first turned over (initial conditions)?
2. Has any sand been added or taken out of the hourglass? (Unlike the open-system nature of a rock, this is not possible for a sealed hourglass.)
3. Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate?

Since we did not observe the initial conditions when the hourglass time started, we must make assumptions. All three of these assumptions can affect our time calculations. If scientists fail to consider each of these three critical assumptions, then radioisotope dating can give incorrect ages.
The Facts

We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.
Isochron Dating

There is another form of dating called isochron dating, which involves analyzing four or more samples from the same rock unit. This form of dating attempts to eliminate one of the assumptions in single-sample radioisotope dating by using ratios and graphs rather than counting atoms present. It does not depend on the initial concentration of the daughter element being zero. The isochron dating technique is thought to be infallible because it supposedly eliminates the assumptions about starting conditions. However, this method has different assumptions about starting conditions and can give incorrect dates.

If single-sample and isochron dating methods are objective and reliable they should agree. However, they frequently do not. When a rock is dated by more than one method it may yield very different ages. For example, the RATE group obtained radioisotope dates from ten different locations. To omit any potential bias, the rock samples were analyzed by several commercial laboratories. In each case, the isochron dates differed substantially from the single-sample radioisotope dates. In some cases the range was more than 500 million years.5 Two conclusions drawn by the RATE group include:

1. The single-sample potassium-argon dates showed a wide variation.
2. A marked variation in ages was found in the isochron method using different parent-daughter analyses.

If different methods yield different ages and there are variations with the same method, how can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth?

In one specific case, Dr. Steve Austin of the RATE group took samples from the Cardenas basalt, which is among the oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formation in the canyon, were analyzed. Using isochron dating methods, an age of 1.07 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.34 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave an age 270 million years older than the oldest rocks!6 Are the dates given in textbooks and journals accurate and objective? When assumptions are taken into consideration and discordant (wide range or unacceptable) dates are not omitted, radioisotope dating often gives inconsistent and inflated ages.
Two Case Studies

The RATE team selected two locations to collect rock samples to conduct multiple radioisotope dating methods. Both sites are understood by geologists to date from the Precambrian time (543–4,600 million years ago). The two sites chosen were the Beartooth Mountains of northwest Wyoming near Yellowstone National Park and the Bass Rapids in the central portion of Arizona’s Grand Canyon. All rock samples (whole rock and separate minerals within the rock) were analyzed using four radioisotope methods. These included the isotopes potassium-argon (K-Ar), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), and lead-lead (Pb-Pb). In order to avoid any bias, the dating procedures were contracted out to commercial laboratories located in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Ontario, Canada.

In order to have a level of confidence in dating, different radioisotope methods used to date a rock sample should closely coincide in age. When this occurs, the sample ages are said to be concordant. In contrast, if multiple results for a rock disagree with each other in age they are said to be discordant.
Beartooth Mountains Sample Results

Geologists believe the Bearthooth Mountains rock unit to contain some of the oldest rocks in the United States, with an estimated age of 2,790 million years. The following table summarizes the RATE results.
Dating Isotopes Millions of Years Type of Data (whole rock or separate mineral within the rock)
Potassium-Argon
1,520
2,011
2,403
2,620

Quartz-plagioclase mineral
Whole rock
Biotite mineral
Hornblende mineral
Rubidium-Strontium
2,515
2,790

5 minerals
Previously published result based on 30 whole rock samples (1982)
Samarium-Neodymium 2,886 4 minerals
Lead-Lead 2,689 5 minerals

The results show a significant scatter in the ages for the various minerals and also between the isotope methods. In some cases, the whole rock age is greater than the age of the minerals, and for others, the reverse occurs. The potassium-argon mineral results vary between 1,520 and 2,620 million years (a difference of 1,100 million years).
Bass Rapids Sill Sample Results

The 11 Grand Canyon rock samples were also dated commercially using the most advanced radioisotope technology. The generally accepted age for this formation is 1,070 million years. The RATE results are summarized in the following table.

The RATE results differ considerably from the generally accepted age of 1,070 million years. Especially noteworthy is the whole rock potassiumargon age of 841.5 million years while samarium-neodymium gives 1,379 million years (a difference of 537.5 million years).
Dating Isotopes Millions of Years Type of data (whole rock or separate mineral within the rock)
Potassium-Argon
841.5
665 to 1,053

11 Whole rock samples
Model ages from single whole rocks
Rubidium-Strontium
1,007
1,055
1,060
1,070
1,075

Magnetite mineral grains from 7 rock samples
11 Whole rock
7 Minerals
Previously published age based on 5 whole rock samples (1982)
12 Minerals
Lead-Lead
1,250
1,327

11 Whole rock
6 Minerals
Samarium-Neodymium
1,330
1,336
1,379

8 minerals
Magnetite mineral grains from 7 rock samples
6 minerals
Possible Explanations for the Discordance

There are three possible explanations for the discordant isotope dates.

1. There may be a mixing of isotopes between the volcanic flow and the rock body into which the lava intrudes. There are ways to determine if this has occurred and can be eliminated as a possible explanation.
2. Some of the minerals may have solidified at different times. However, there is no evidence that lava cools and solidifies in the same place at such an incredibly slow pace. Therefore this explanation can be eliminated.
3. The decay rates have been different in the past than they are today. The following section will show that this provides the best explanation for the discordant ages.

New Studies

New studies by the RATE group have provided evidence that radioactive decay supports a young earth. One of their studies involved the amount of helium found in granite rocks. Granite contains tiny zircon crystals, which contain radioactive uranium (238U), which decays into lead (206Pb). During this process, for each atom of 238U decaying into 206Pb, eight helium atoms are formed and migrate out of the zircons and granite rapidly.

Within the zircon7 crystals, any helium atoms generated by nuclear decay in the distant past should have long ago migrated outward and escaped from these crystals. One would expect the helium gas to eventually diffuse upward out of the ground and then disappear into the atmosphere. To everyone’s surprise, however, large amounts of helium have been found trapped inside zircons.8

The decay of 238U into lead is a slow process (half-life of 4.5 billion years). Since helium migrates out of rocks rapidly, there should be very little to no helium remaining in the granite.

Why is so much helium still in the granite? One likely explanation is that sometime in the past the radioactive decay rate was greatly accelerated. The decay rate was accelerated so much that helium was being produced faster than it could have escaped, causing an abundant amount of helium to remain in the granite. The RATE group has gathered evidence that at some time in history nuclear decay was greatly accelerated.

The experiments the RATE project commissioned have clearly confirmed the numerical predictions of our Creation model.... The data and our analysis show that over a billion years worth of nuclear decay has occurred very recently, between 4000 and 8000 years ago.9

The RATE group suggested that this accelerated decay took place during the Creation Week or during the Flood. Accelerated decay of this magnitude would result in immense amounts of heat being generated in rocks. Determining how this heat was dissipated presents a new and exciting opportunity for creation research.
Conclusion

The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with “science” that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support God’s Word.

Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history.10

Footnotes

1. Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Austin, Texas, 1998, 177. Back
2. C. Plummer, D. Carlson, and D. McGeary, Physical Geology, McGraw Hill, New York, 2006, 216. Back
3. L. Vardiman, ed., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005, 420; Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3): 335–343. Back
4. D. DeYoung, Thousands ... Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005, 124–130; Vardiman, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, 406–464. Back
5. DeYoung, Thousands … Not Billions, 124–127, 134–136; Vardiman, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, 410–464. Back
6. DeYoung, Thousands ... Not Billions, 111–119; Vardiman, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, 406–464. Back
7. Zircons are tiny crystals found in granite rock. Back
8. DeYoung, Thousands ... Not Billions, 68. Back
9. R. Humphreys, Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay,” Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol 2, 2005, p. 74. Back
10. DeYoung, Thousands ... Not Billions,

Deep in the eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona, is a stacked sequence of “ancient” basalt lava flows known by geologists as the Cardenas Basalt (Figures 1 and 2). These were once molten lavas that were successively erupted onto the earth’s surface through volcanic vents and fissures and flowed over already deposited layers of siltstones. They quickly hardened into the dense, black rock called basalt (Figure 3). Further thick sediment layers were soon deposited on top of them. The position of the Cardenas Basalt lava flows in the overall succession of rock layers in Grand Canyon can be seen in the generalized geologic “block” diagram of Grand Canyon (Figure 4). This article explores the fallacious assumptions used by most secular geologists who apply a uniformitarian belief system (slow-and-gradual geologic processes) when “dating” the rocks of Grand Canyon.


Figure 1 The stacked sequence of Cardenas Basalt lava flows in eastern Grand Canyon as seen from Desert View.
Determining the Ages of Rocks

Can the exact age of these basalt lavas be determined by their position in the Grand Canyon sequence of rock layers or by physically examining them? No! However, most geologists classify the Cardenas Basalt as Precambrian; that is, it is older than the so-called Cambrian rock layers such as the Tapeats Sandstone and Bright Angel Shale that contain fossils of marine creatures such as trilobites (Figure 4). But the rock itself looks like many other basalts found all around the world (Figure 5). With the application of radioactivity to the dating of rocks, these geologists believe they now have a virtually foolproof method for determining exact ages.

Molten lavas, which successively erupted onto the earth’s surface through volcanic vents and fissures, flowed over already deposited layers of siltstones. They quickly hardened to the dense, black rock called basalt (see fig. 3). Further thick sediment layers were soon deposited on top of them.

Certain “parent” elements such as potassium, rubidium, uranium and samarium are radioactive and change by decay over time (very slowly according to today’s laboratory measurements) into “daughter” elements argon, strontium, lead and neodymium, respectively. This radioactive decay is like the ticking of a clock, except instead of seconds these radioactive-decay “clocks” are said to measure in millions of years. By analyzing these parent and daughter elements in a rock and applying today’s measured rates of radioactive decay, geologists confidently claim they can calculate how long it took the radioactive decay of the parents to produce the measured quantities of daughters. This is then said to be the rock’s exact (or absolute) age.

How Old Are the Cardenas Basalt Lavas?

These radioactive dating methods have been used to calculate an absolute age of 1,103±66 million years for the Cardenas Basalt lavas. (The number after the ± symbol refers to the error margins in the “age” determination so that 1,103±66 million years means that the age is between 1,037 and 1,169 million years.) So it would seem! However, a closer examination of the results from all such studies reveals the fallacies of the radioactive dating methods.

The claimed age of 1,103±66 million years was obtained using the rubidium-strontium isochron method with 10 samples and has been regarded as the best radioactive dating result for any Grand Canyon rock unit. Nevertheless, potassium-argon model “ages” for each of 15 individual Cardenas Basalt samples range from 577±12 to 1,013±37 million years, while the potassium-argon isochron “age” obtained using 14 samples is only 516±30 million years. This is less than half the rubidium-strontium isochron “age” of 1,111±81 million years obtained using 19 samples. It is also less than the claimed Cambrian age of the Tapeats Sandstone that sits on top of, and well above the Cardenas Basalt lavas (Figure 4). Worse still, the samarium-neodymium isochron “age” obtained using 8 samples is 1,588±170 million years—more than three times the potassium-argon isochron “age” of 516±30 million years!

So what is the correct “age” of the Cardenas Basalt lavas?

* (a) 516±30 million years (the potassium-argon isochron age)
* (b) 1,111±81 million years (the rubidium-strontium isochron age)
* (c) 1,588±170 million years (the samarium-neodymium isochron age)
* (d) None of the above

How can we know for sure which is the correct age when there is no independent cross-check?

Figure 4 Geologic “block” diagram of Grand Canyon rock layers showing the Cardenas Basalt lava flows in the tilted Precambrian rock sequence and the recent basalt lavas that flowed down the Canyon walls from volcanic cones on the north rim.
Faster Radioactive Decay?

In any case, could it be that these radioactive clocks have previously ticked at faster rates than they do today? There is much convincing evidence to support this possibility (see Further Reading at end of article). Thus, radioactive decay of samarium was faster than that of rubidium, which was faster than that of potassium. Such accelerated radioactive decay rates would mean that these basalt lavas may instead be only thousands of years old. Certainly the radioactive dating methods simply cannot be trusted.

Of course, those who want the earth to be billions of years old, in order to accommodate their belief in the evolution of the earth and all life on it, insist that these radioactive rock dating methods still give ages of millions of years instead of only the few thousand years required by the strict biblical timescale. However, what ages do these same methods yield when applied to rocks for whose formation there are independent cross-checks?

Figure 5 View of a typical sample of the Cardenas Basalt under the geologic microscope showing its different colored constituent minerals.
Recent Basalt Lava Flows and Their Age

In the western Grand Canyon are some other basalt lava flows (Figure 6). There are up to 160 volcanic cones on the plateau to the north of the Canyon rim out of which these basalt lavas flowed. The eruptions were so recent, occurring after the Grand Canyon formed, that some of these basalt lava flows cascaded like molten waterfalls over the Canyon rim, down the Canyon walls and into the Canyon, where they formed dams that temporarily blocked the flow of the Colorado River (Figures 4 and 7).

It’s even possible the American Indians may have witnessed some of this awesome spectacle.1 Yet, when applying the widely accepted assumptions of secular geologists, these basalt flows yield potassium-argon model ages of around 500,000–1 million years. Worse still, their rubidium-strontium isochron age is 1,143±220 million years! This is identical to the rubidium-strontium isochron age of 1,111±81 million years for the Cardenas Basalt lavas near the bottom of Grand Canyon strata sequence (Figure 4).

The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating

So how can the youngest basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon, whose eruption was possibly witnessed only thousands of years ago, yield the same radioactive rubidium-strontium age of 1.1 billion years as some of the oldest basalt lava flows at the bottom of the Canyon? Answer: The molten rock that produced the young basalt lava flows came from deep inside the earth, from what geologists call the earth’s mantle; so these lavas have inherited this rubidium-strontium composition from their mantle source. That is, their rubidium-strontium composition has nothing to do with their age, but everything to do with their source!

However, the molten rock that produced the “ancient” Cardenas Basalt lavas also came from the same region of the earth’s mantle beneath the Grand Canyon. Therefore, it could be equally argued that the same rubidium-strontium composition of the Cardenas Basalt lavas was also inherited from the same mantle source and thus has nothing to do with their age! Of course, some radioactive decay could have occurred in the mantle source region of both these basalt lavas, but again, such radioactive decay there in the mantle would not provide the basis for calculating any date for when these basalt lavas flowed out onto the earth’s surface.

So whichever way we look at it, these radioactive dating methods which are based on the biased assumptions of secular geologists completely fail to “date” these basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon. How can we be sure radioactive decay has always occurred at the rates we measure today? And how can we know how much radioactive decay occurred in their mantle source before these lavas erupted? If the youngest lavas inherited all of their supposed radioactive decay age, then so could the “ancient” lavas. After all, we know the true age of the young lavas because their eruption was possibly witnessed within human history. Where there is an independent cross-check, these radioactive dating methods fail completely. So because of these fallacies, why should they be trusted to give ages for any rock?

The True Ages of Grand Canyon Basalt Lavas

As for the true ages of these basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon, it is not difficult to determine them when the biblical framework and timescale for the earth’s history are accepted as our absolute authority. The Cardenas Basalt lavas erupted not long before fossil-bearing sedimentary layers were deposited on top of them. So they would appear to have flowed over the pre-Flood ocean floor, perhaps even within a few years of the “fountains of the great deep” breaking up the ocean floor at the beginning of the Flood about 4,500 years ago. (The scriptural description of the pre-Flood world does not preclude lavas flowing quietly onto the pre-Flood ocean floor, just as lavas flow onto the ocean floor unnoticed today by people living across the earth’s land surfaces.) Then because the Grand Canyon was carved out at the very end of the Flood year (or soon thereafter), the basalt lavas that cascaded down the Canyon walls did so after the Flood, and after the American Indians had migrated to the area after having been dispersed from Babel. So the lavas would be fewer than 4,000 years old.

Thus there is no need for Christians to be intimidated by the claimed millions of years ages for rocks using radioactive dating. The Bible’s account of the earth’s history can be trusted absolutely, as testified by the Psalmist: “Thy word is true from the beginning” (Psalm 119:160, KJV).

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Dr. Snelling is a professor at the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California, and has written numerous scientific articles.
Further Reading

* Austin, S.A. (Ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, 1994.
* Austin, S.A., and Snelling, A.A., Discordant potassium-argon model and isochron “ages” for Cardenas Basalt (Middle Proterozoic) and associated diabase of eastern Grand Canyon, Arkansas; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 35–51, 1998.
* DeYoung, D.B., Thousands Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005.
* Snelling, A.A., Isochron discordances and the role of inheritance and mixing of radioisotopes in the mantle and crust; in Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A., and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, Arizona, pp. 393–524, 2005.
* [Web editor's note: Also see AiG's online Get Answers section on radiometric dating.]

Footnotes

1. This is an inference drawn even by conventional geologists and archaeologists due to the dates for the youngest flows being after the dates for when the American Indians arrived in the area. Back

Recommended Resources
Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon
Beautifully illustrated and clearly written, this eye-opening brochure explains the Grand Canyon from a biblical viewpoint.

Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe
Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe
Eminent geologist Dr. Steven Austin explains from a biblical standpoint how Grand Canyon was formed.

Radioisotopes Set
Radioisotopes Set
Buy both volumes together and save!

Grand Canyon: A Different View
Grand Canyon: A Different View

how is it that there are so many different WRITTEN not to mention SPOKEN languages across the world?

PS You still haven't dealt with the whole 'fish' issue yet, nor the fossil record amongst other things.

You get some that basically ensure that 3 out of 4 of your children will inherit AND express said allele, others, 1 in 4 is basically the best you could hope for. This of course is for the simple ONE allele, should there be two involved in the phenotype (of which there generally are MORE), the numbers get even more obscure.

^^^^of course it would be much easier for most of you to believe that such a deluge never occurred and that a vengeful God of wrath doesn't exist. Let's put it this way--it would put many at ease for such to be true wouldn't it? And that no further judgments could ever befall the human race per say.

Now, more personally, could we please actually read and summarise these vast amounts of creationist 'information' before posting? I tire of having to read the large volumes you can so easily insert by pusing ctrl v. Most of us 'sceptics' have the decency to summarise and communicate our arguments in an understandable way, so why don't you do us the same courtesy?

PS You still haven't dealt with the whole 'fish' issue yet, nor the fossil record amongst other things.

Hey you just said what I've been telling christians for decades.

And the next one will be observed and explained by science and not in scriptures.

Nope... I can't buy it. It is probably the absolute easiest Bible story to debunk. I'm not even sure what it's spiritual merit is. I guess just doing what God says even if you think he's cracked.

I know I'd have a hell of a time watching all the people I had grown up with and knew my whole life... children and babies and pregnant mothers! drown in front of me while I floated away. The whole idea makes me nauseous. I'd rather die than see that.

Sorry... it's a no go.

Now the real deal breaker is the bible actually says more then two of every kind was on the ark.
Genesis 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female.
People think two would be tough then try keeping up with that?

By: James D. Dwyer

Revision/Update: June 15, 2007 (+2)

Copyright © 2005 James D. Dwyer
Email: quest@creation-answers.com
Reference: www.creation-answers.com

You may freely copy, or distribute, this material
(Not to be sold)


__________________________________________________




Ancient dates and early calendar terms

The Genesis account of a great flood event encompasses 3 consequetive chapters of the Bible book (Chapters 6-8). This elaborate sketch of the events that occurred in only one single year of early human history is quite unusual in comparison with other ancient narratives.

What makes the flood story of Genesis so unique is that the detail of some specific calendar dates (and related day counts) is given. Ultimately, a rather detailed chronology for the year of the great flood is tabled by the author of Genesis. In presenting this chronology, the author references the following time spans, cycles of days, calendar dates, and calendar terms:

* 7 days (is used in 4 instances)
* 30 days (is implicit--2 instances)
* 40 days and/or 40 nights (is used in 4 instances)
* 150 days (is used in 2 instances)
* 17th day (is used in 2 instances)
* 27th day (is used in 1 instance)
* 'TEN' (is used in 1 instance)
* 'ECHAD' or ' THE ONE' (is used in 2 instances)
* 'RISHON' or 'THE FIRST' (is used in 1 instance)
* '2nd CHODESH' or '2nd RENEWAL' (is used in 2 instances)
* '7th CHODESH' or '7th RENEWAL' (is used in 1 instance)
* '10th CHODESH' or '10th RENEWAL' (is used in 1 instance)
* 120 years
* 600 years
* 600th year
* 601st year

In addition to the flood narrative, the initial chapters of Genesis contain a story about the creation of the 1st man (Adam). While it appears that the very beginning chapter of Genesis may represent a poem, a rather significant genealogy is ultimately given for those persons who lived in the era from Adam to Noah.

When accounting for the creation, and when listing the progeny of Adam, the author of Genesis additionally references the following cycles of days, time spans, and astronomical terms:

* 'RE`SHIYTH' or 'BEGINNING'
* the evening was and the morning was the 'ECHAD' or 'ONE' day
* the evening was and the morning was the 2nd day
* the evening was and the morning was the 3rd day
* the evening was and the morning was the 4th day
* the evening was and the morning was the 5th day
* the evening was and the morning was the 6th day
* the 7th day (is used in 3 instances)
* 'OWTH' or 'SIGNS'
* 'MOW`ED' or 'FIXED TIMES'
* day, days, night, years
* 62 years
* 65 years
* 70 years
* 90 years
* 105 years
* 130 years
* 162 years
* 182 years
* 187 years
* 300 years
* 365 years
* 500 years
* 595 years
* 777 years
* 782 years
* 800 years
* 807 years
* 815 years
* 830 years
* 840 years
* 895 years
* 905 years
* 910 years
* 912 years
* 930 years
* 962 years
* 969 years

Throughout the somewhat elaborate and lengthy chronology set forth in the rare Genesis record appear some rather peculiar calendar terms. Among these are: "the evening was and the morning was"; "40 days and 40 nights"; the celestial signs [owth or oth]; and the fixed times [mow`ed]. Also unique or unusual about the calendar or astronomical system referenced by this author is that the 17th or 27th day appears to be integral for dating certain events.

Other literature produced in the era of the Second Temple has very similar information to that shown in Genesis. The most comprehensive description of the flood (external to Genesis) can be recited from 'The Book of Jubilees'. An account of Noah and the flood is also given in 'Antiquities of the Jews' (by Flavius Josephus). The same flood account also appears in certain scrolls of the Sea Scroll library.

The various calendar dates shown, the corresponding day counts given, and the odd calendar terms used in Genesis make it possible to not only interpret the day and date of the flood but also to recognize that a combinational lunar and solar time track was within the knowledge of the astronomer-priest who wrote the initial chapters. Essentially, it seems very probable that a system of tracking both lunar and solar cycles was used to set down the chronology of Genesis.

Of significance is that the heavenly bodies (Sun, Moon, and stars) are not promoted to be objects worthy of reverence or special worship anywhere in the Genesis narrative. The celestial orbs are rather shown to have been set in the heavens to illuminate the Earth. Day (divided from Night) appears in a sequence ruled by the Sun, and Night appears in a sequence governed by the Moon. The Sun and Moon are ultimately described to generate a time grid that can be cross-referenced to signs, fixed times, and cycles of days and years [= Hebrew: owth, mow`ed, yowm, and shaneh].


An indicated day of the flood

Beginning with "the day that God created man", the author of Genesis was careful to present a genealogy for those patriarchs who came after Adam. A genealogy prior to the year of the flood is shown in the 5th chapter--as follows:


__________________________________

GENESIS CHRONOLOGY
(1656 Years)
__________________________________

Adam to Seth 130 years
Seth to Enos 105 years
Enos to Cainan 90 years
Cainan to Mahalaleel 170 years*
Mahalaleel to Jared 65 years
Jared to Enoch 62 years^
Enoch to Methuselah 65 years
Methuselah to Lamech 187 years
Lamech to Noah 182 years
Noah to the Deluge 600 years
--------------------- ----------
Total Time Span: 1656 years

* - Based on Septuagint version
^ - Based on Samaritan version


The geneological record of Genesis is significant in showing a specific time span (1656 years) from an epoch or beginning (at creation) to the year of the Deluge.

Of additional significance about the genealogy given for the patriarchs is that certain Jewish writers who flourished in the era of the Second Temple appear to have understood that the creation of the 1st man Adam and also the 1st day of the flood were events that both occurred on the (same) day of the vernal equinox.

This early-held belief about the Deluge arriving in sync with the spring season can clearly be recognized from writings attributed to the Jewish philosopher: Philo Judaeus (c. 25 BC - 45 AD). The commencement of the great flood on the first day of spring is manifest from a portion of his second dissertation on the book of Genesis--as follows:

"... the deluge fell on the day of the vernal equinox... the first man who was produced out of the earth was also created at the same season of the year, he whom the divine writer calls Adam... Since, therefore, the first beginning of the generation of our race, after the destruction caused by the deluge, commenced with Noah, men being again sown and procreated, therefore he also is recognised as resembling the first man born of the earth... putting them to shame because he would, unquestionably, never, after he had created the universe... have destroyed all the men who lived on the earth... if it had not been for the preposterous excess of their iniquities." (Questions and Answers on Genesis, Part 2:17).

Knowledge that the Deluge did begin on the first day of spring appears to have likewise been held among a segment of the primal Christians. In example, almost all of the medieval computations for the event of doomsday were made using the vernal equinox as an origin, or as a reference. (For pertinent information about the early Christian expectation of doomsday, refer to the subsequently presented Appendix A).

The composite Hebrew and Christian record does thus rather clearly indicate that the ancients believed Adam was created right on the day of the vernal equinox. After a time span of 1656 tropical years, the great flood was believed to have begun on this SAME DAY of the year cycle (on the first day of the spring season).

As is further shown below, a respective day and date for the event of the Deluge can further be verified from the day position of a 40-day cycle (noted in Genesis when the flood first began). The day counts given for this respective epoch then comprise rather convincing evidence that the creation of Adam, as well as the flood, would have been understood among astronomer-priests as occurring in correspondence with the day of the vernal equinox.


__________________________________________

CHRONOLOGY OF THE DELUGE
Equinox Alignments
__________________________________________

1st Day of Adam 1st Day of Flood
------------------ ------------------
1st day of spring 1st day of spring

__________________________________________


In summary to the above, a specific day and year for the flood event can be recognized from portions of early-written text. An epoch for the great flood is indicated right on the day of the vernal equinox and 1656 tropical years from "the day" of the vernal equinox when Adam was created.

An indicated time track of 40 days

The cited day and date for the commencement of the flood event (in the spring season of the year) is very much in agreement with the Genesis record.

A specific chronology of days and years can be recognized from those portions of the Genesis record that have detail of a calendar count that spanned 40 days. This count is significant in the regard that--beginning with the first FULL DAY after the creation of Adam--the number of days across 1656 tropical years to the commencement of the flood (604840 days) can EXACTLY be divided into segments of 40 days (15121 cycles).

Thus, the author (or authors) of the Genesis record may have understood/interpreted cycles of 40 days in a specific order, or in a certain chronological sequence.

In substantiation of a hypothesis that the ancients held knowledge of 40 days--as a cyclical count--it seems to be rather significant that the limits of each passing tropical year can closely be determined by simply time tracking 40 days (in an unbroken loop). In fact, a perfect annual scribe can be achieved by time tracking this cycle in association with a 9-year cycle.

The cited calendar count of 40 days--prevalently referred to by early Hebrew writers--was almost surely used by ancient astronomers to augment an effective meter of the tropical year. The revolution of each tropical year can effectively be measured and metered out (on average) by simply keeping track of the renewal of 40 days in a loop cycle. For pertinent information concerning ancient astronomers and their indicated time track of a 9-year cycle, refer to the following online publication: 'The Significance of 40 Days'.

The possibility that early astronomers did interpret '40 days' relative to a cyclical count can be recited from various portions of Second-Temple literature. For example, the count of 40 days in a cycle can be recited from 'The Book of Jubilees'--as follows:

"... In the 1st week was Adam created... [His wife] in the 2nd week... And after Adam had completed 40 days... we brought him into the garden of Eden to till and keep it, but his wife they brought in on the 80th day... " (Jubilees 3: 8-10).

The cited quote is significant in the regard that primal priest-astronomers appear to have interpreted a calendar count of 40 days as commencing right on the 1st day of human history. Essentially, the 1st day of a running cycle (40 days) was interpreted in association with the day when the 1st man (Adam) was created.

The Genesis record likewise shows the commencement day of the great flood in association with a cyclical count of 40 days--as follows:

... [In the] 2nd renewal, the 17th day of the renewal, the SAME DAY were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights... " [Genesis 7:11].

On the basis of the day counts given, it can be deduced that the Genesis narrative agrees with other portions of period literature. For example, the first man (Adam) can be recited to have been created on the day of the vernal equinox (1 day prior to a 40 day count). In addition, the Deluge is shown to have commenced on the (same) day of the vernal equinox (on day 1 of a 40 day count). The Genesis record thus is recognizably the same, or similar, to other ancient accounts. [Note that the number of days across 1656 tropical years (from equinox-to-equinox) is exactly divisible into segments of 40 days.]

The indicated span of days from first full day in the life Adam to the day of the vernal equinox (after 1656 tropical years) is inherently equal to 604840 days. Because 60480 days can exactly be divided into cycles of 40 days then the cited day counts and calendar terms given for the creation of Adam, and for the day of the flood, do possibly stem from some common early-written source.

The references made by the author (or authors) of Genesis to a 40-day cycle are additionally significant in the regard that this respective time track exactly dovetails with a calendar count of 9 tropical years. A calendar interface can ultimately be recognized from the Genesis account of the flood because the given span of 1656 years can exactly be divided into calendar segments of 9 years each (184 complete cycles).

The indicated knowledge and use of an accurate calendar among the ancients is remarkable in the regard that a cycle of 9 years inherently times out together with a cycle of 40 days in a time span equal to 1656 tropical years. Again, more information about a calendar count of 9 years is contained in the following online publication: 'The Significance of 40 Days'.

Knowledge of a calendar count of 40 days in a loop cycle can additionally be detected amid the Genesis record of the Deluge. This respective count is shown relative to the commencement day of the flood--as cited. A count of 40 days is again shown after several more months in that same year cycle--as follows:

... [On the beginning day]... the rain was upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights... [The waters increased and then began to decrease until the 10th renewal]... and in the TEN on the ONE [= echad] to the renewal, were the tops of the mountains seen. And it came to pass at the end of 40 days... a raven... [and] a dove [were sent forth] to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove... returned... for the waters were on the face of the whole earth... " [Genesis 7:11, 8: 5-9].

Because a count of 40 days is referenced at the beginning of the flood and again in the 10th renewal of the same year then it seems clear that the author (or authors) of Genesis might have held knowledge of 40 days as a calendar count.

An ancient Jewish writer (Philo Judaeus) made reference to the cited (Genesis) description of a 40-day cycle--as follows:

"... the overflow of the deluge took place for forty days... [thereafter] a hope of RENEWAL took place at intervals of forty days... " (Questions and Answers on Genesis, Part 2:33).

The count of 40 days as perhaps a cyclical count can also be recited from the book of Exodus--where it is shown that Moses was in the mount for 40 days and 40 nights (refer to Chapter 24: 10-18). The calendar term "40 days and 40 nights" is again recorded in the book of Deuteronomy, where Moses wrote:

"And I stayed in the mount ... to the 1st day, 40 days and 40 nights... " (refer to Chapter 10:10).

This passage shows "the 1st day" as immediately following 40 days and 40 nights. (Note that the Hebrew language usage of "rishown yowm"--or the beginning day--tends to indicate the track of a cyclical or a chronological count of 40 days).

Primal astronomer-priests thus appear to have understood 40 days as a cyclical count. It is here significant that Adam was believed to have been created right on the day of the vernal equinox in association with day 1 and year 1 of a calendar count of 40 days. The day of the flood appears to have likewise been understood to have commenced right on the day of the vernal equinox and in correspondence with day 1 and year 1 of the respective calendar count. Of additional significance is that a specific interval of days (604840 days) can be recognized from the content of those priestly records that pertain to the creation of Adam and to the epoch of the flood.

A specific number of days can be recognized between "the day that God created man" and "the day of the deluge" in the regard that 1656 years (counted from equinox to equinox) is inherently equal to 604840 days. It is furthermore manifest that a cycle of 40 days does inherently return into conjunction with a span of 9 tropical years according to a long-cycle count of 604840 days. A given conclusion from the duplicate Hebrew record then is that the Earth was in the same orbital position around the annual transit of the Sun at both the beginning and also at the end of the cited span of time (at the turn of the vernal equinox).


The flood and the Moon's phases

The day of the flood can additionally be related to a chronology of lunar months... and to a specific new phase of the Moon's synodic return.

On the basis of the Genesis record, a Moon chronology appears to have began some 6 days prior to "the day that God created man". (Note that Adam wasn't believed to have been created until day 6 of creation week).

Assuming then that early astronomer-priests did interpret the Moon; in symbol; to have stood with its 1st day on the 1st day of the 1st week then the flood event would have likewise been interpreted to have occurred in coincidence with a SAME (or an identical) new phase of the Moon.

Note that 1656 years, or 604841 days, plus 5 more days totals 604846 days. In terms of cycles of the lunar month, a span of 604846 days inherently encompasses 20482 lunar molads. Essentially, if counted in association with the day of an initial lunar month, a count of 604846 days inherently ends in correspondence with the first day of a lunar month.

Because this span of days can so exactly be accounted for in cycles of the lunar month (29.53059 days per lunar month) then it can be recognized that primal priests interpreted the epoch of the flood in correspondence with the very 1st day of the lunar-month cycle (the day after the molad).

Genesis chronology then tends to show that the Temple priesthood was cautious to record or keep track of the event of each passing lunar month. Remarkable is that an overlay can be recognized between the lunar-month cycle and the chronology shown for the flood event.

The time track of a 360-day cycle

The early use of some kind of a solar calendar is also apparent from the record of Genesis. References to a solar calendar can especially be detected from the chronological content of the 7th chapter.

In the 7th chapter, a 150-day span is listed in correspondence with a run of 5 calendar months. (The respective span of 150 days is shown to begin with the 17th day of the 2nd month and end with the 17th day of the 7th month). It is very clear from these two day dates that a month cycle of exactly 30 days was being referenced by the author.

The interpretation that a calendar of 30-day months was within the knowledge of the author of Genesis is thus predicated upon those references to a time span of 150 days. Of significance is that instances of this time span (150 days) actually appear two times--once in the 7th chapter and again in the 8th chapter--as follows:

"[7th chapter] And the waters prevailed, and were increased... for 150 days... [8th chapter] And the waters returned... 150 days..."

The 1st instance of this time span is clearly used in reference to a period when the waters were prevailing. (A 2nd instance of 150 days could possibly refer to a subsequent period when the waters were receding).

The cited Genesis references to a 30-day count rather clearly reflect that the author was knowledgeable with an extant solar calendar. It here seems to be significant that a calendar predicated upon this time count appears to have been rather widely used by early astronomers throughout the Middle East. An example of a calendar based upon a cyclical count of 30 days can be recited from certain clay tablets engraved in the Kultepe region of ancient Assyria. A calendar consisting of nothing more than 30-day cycles can also be recited from historical accounts pertaining to the early Persians.

A peculiar method of tracking the renewal of 30 days can be recited from the writings of Biruni (a medieval astrologer/astronomer who lived in Iran). In 'al-Athar al-baqiya', Biruni reported upon an ancient method of reckoning 360 days. The year was counted in correspondence with always 360 days and each month was counted always in correspondence with 30 days. An intercalery month was inserted in each 6th year, and two months were inserted into each 120th year--refer to Sachau's edition of 'al-Athar al-baqiya', page 11. (For additional verification of this peculiar 120-year count, refer to 'Old Iranian Calendars', by S.H. Taqizadeh.)

Based upon the composite chronology shown for the flood event, it can more firmly be established that the author (or authors) of Genesis was probably referring to a time track that consisted of nothing more that a cyclical count of 30 days.

Knowledge of a cycle of 30 days on the part of the Genesis author can especially be recognized from a tally of the days between the 1st day of creation week and the 1st day of the flood (a calendar day count of 604847 days). This respective calendar count of days can be correlated to the 17th day of a running count of 30-day cycles--as follows:


_____________________________________

A 30-DAY CYCLE IN THE GENESIS RECORD
_____________________________________

initial epoch = 0
1680 cycles of 360 days = 604800 days
1 month of 30 days = 30 days
partial month = 17 days
------------------------ -----------

2nd month and 17th day = 604847 days *

_____________________________________

* -- 604847 as a count of calendar
days from the initial epoch.


A segmented count of 30-day cycles--as diagrammed above--reveals that the number of days from the 1st day of creation week to the 1st day of the flood can be correlated to a segmented count of 360 days. (Note that 12 months of 30 days is equal to 360 days). Based upon the cited 12-month (360 day) segmentation, the 1st day of the flood would inherently have commenced 1 month and 17 days inline with a segmented count of 12 months (360 days). Essentially, the flood is indicated to have began on the 17th day of the 2nd month according to a segmented count of 360-day cycles. (This day and date--derived by counting 30 day cycles--exactly agrees with the Genesis record).

The priesthood is then indicated to have time tracked both a lunar month (29.53 days) and also a solar month (30 days). It is here significant that both the lunar month and the solar month appear to have been interpreted as uniquely aligned together at the epoch of creation. Essentially, primal priest-astronomers appear to have understood that on the 1st day of creation week the 1st day of the lunar month did also correspond with the 1st day of the solar month.

This alignment of both month cycles on the 1st day of creation week seems to explain more of why the term "the evening was and the morning was" is frequently referenced in the 1st chapter. This peculiar term is shown relative to each day of the initial 6 days of creation--as follows:

1. the evening was and the morning was the 'ONE' day
2. the evening was and the morning was the 2nd day
3. the evening was and the morning was the 3rd day
4. the evening was and the morning was the 4th day
5. the evening was and the morning was the 5th day
6. the evening was and the morning was the 6th day

The indicated Genesis referral to a 360-day time count can perhaps further be recognized from the notation of a time span of 120 years--as is shown in the 6th chapter. [Note that ancient Persians are indicated to have time tracked a running cycle of 30 days in reference to a long cycle of 120 years--as cited above.]

The Genesis referrals to a cycle of 30 days may mirror the early time track of time stations. A time station attributed to the Sun appears to have routinely been tracked by astronomer-priests throughout the era of the Temple. The indicated time track of a solar station (every 30 days) perhaps explains more of why the author of Genesis did refer to this particular time cycle. (For pertinent information about the priestly track of time stations, refer to 'Tracking the Day-of-the-Sun'.

Significance of the week cycle

The lives of certain among the patriarchs from Adam to Noah can also be recognized in terms of cycles of the solar month as well as in terms of cycles of the lunar month.

It is here significant that the initial chapters of Genesis--written early in Temple Era--reflect a regard among members of the priesthood for the cycle of the lunar quarter or the lunar week.

Note: There are 4 distinct quarter phases of the Moon: 1.New phase; 2. First-quarter phase; 3. Full phase; and 4. Third-quarter phase. The quarter phases are easy to recognize on the basis of observation. At the new phase the Moon is dark and appears to be completely invisible; at full phase, the Moon is fully-illuminated and is round-shaped; and at the first quarter and at the third quarter, the Moon is half illuminated and is distinctly divided into half-parts (half-light and half-dark, or the reverse).

Phases of the Moon

For the purposes of presenting a clear analysis, the lunar quarter (which completes in 7.38 days) will hereafter be referred to as a 'lunar week'.

What is peculiar about the cycle of the lunar week is that the priests appear to have tracked or accounted for the unit of the lunar week in multiples of seven (or by sevens). Essentially, a tally or count of 7 lunar weeks (a pentecontad cycle) was perceived to be succeeded by a subsequent cycle of 7 lunar weeks (the next pentecontad cycle). This unique cyclical count (7 lunar weeks) appears to have been endlessly performed. The cited cycle of 7 lunar weeks was probably tracked by primal astronomers for religious purposes and also to properly regulate the annual harvest. For pertinent information about the ancient track of 7 lunar weeks, refer to the following online publications:

* Tracking the Day-of-the-Sun
* Time Portals or Annual Gates
* The Moon as a Time Meter
* Is There a Case for Created Time?
* The Jubilee Time Cycle
* Chronology of Jubilees

A regard for tracking pentecontads among the Temple priests can especially be detected from Genesis chronology leading up to the day of the flood.

As previously has been cited, the 1st day of creation week appears to have been interpreted in correspondence with the symbolic 1st day of the lunar month. The 1st day of the flood; by default; would likewise have been interpreted in coincidence with the 1st day of the lunar month.

Because the time span prior to the day of the flood can exactly be represented in units of the lunar month, this respective time span inherently would have been understood in units of the lunar week (81928 lunar weeks).

It is here significant that the number of lunar weeks between the 1st day of creation week and the 1st day of the flood is inherently divisible by seven. The indicated division of this time span in segments of 7 lunar weeks then points to the possibility that the priests also interpreted flood chronology in terms of the pentecontad cycle.

Note that the time span between the 1st day of creation week and the 1st day of the flood event can inherently be represented in units of 7 lunar weeks (11704 pentecontads). What is most remarkable is that this respective number of pentecontad cycles (11704 cycles) is yet again divisible by seven.

Subsequent spans of 7 lunar weeks (other pentecontad boundaries) can be detected from the portion of Genesis chronology that is shown after the initial day of the flood.

The mention of a time cycle of 150 days in the 7th chapter, and again in the 8th chapter, may originally have been understood in terms of the pentecontad cycle. [Note that a span of 3 pentecontads can be associated with a cycle of 150 days.]

The clearest example of a 7 weeks boundary subsequent to the 1st day of the flood can be recited from portions of the 8th chapter--as follows:

"And it came to pass... [in the following year] in the first [= ri`shown], on the one [= echad] to the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. And in the 2nd renewal, on the 27th day of the month, was the earth dried. And God spake unto Noah, saying, Go forth... " [Genesis 8: 13-16].

This portion of text indicates that--due to effects of the great flood--land journey did not begin again until after one full year had elapsed. It then appears that travel did begin again on the 27th day of the 2nd renewal (or month).

It here seems to be significant that this respective day date did inherently come exactly 370 days [= 50 lunar weeks] from the 1st day of the flood. [Note a span of 370 days days is inherent from a calendar count that extends from the 17th day of the 2nd month to the 27th day of the 2nd month of the next year. Essentially 12 cycles of 30 days each plus 10 more days is equal to a span of 370 days. This time span--370 days--is also precisely equal to 50 lunar weeks plus 1 day].

The 49th and 50th lunar weekends that came after the commencement of the flood were probably understood to mark unusual or very unique epochs. For example, the cited time span of 81928 lunar weeks that marked the start of the flood can inherently be divided by the square of seven (as shown). However, the time span of 81977 lunar weeks--marking the end of the 49th lunar week--can inherently be divided by the cube of seven!

The 50th lunar weekend that came after the start of the flood [= the 26th day of the 2nd month in the next year] then would surely have been understood to mark a significant event in terms of lunar chronology.

A priestly regard for luni-based Sabbaths is probably the reason why land travel was not described to begin again until the 27th day of the 2nd month. (The Genesis author seemingly understood that land journey would not have been permitted until after the 50th lunar week was out).

The Genesis record then points to the remarkable possibility that astronomer-priests in the era of the First Temple were keen to interpret the 1st day of creation week as the 1st day of a lunar-week unit. From this initial lunar week, a time sequence consisting of pentecontad cycles appears to have been interpreted prior to the 1st day of the flood.

The day of the great flood appears to have been understood by the priesthood as a day that did correspond with the renewal of a time cycle of 7 lunar weeks. Likewise, the duration of the flood appears to have been understood in terms of the pentecontad cycle. An analysis of Genesis chronology indicates that the flood lasted for an incredible duration of 7 pentecontads. Land travel did not commence again until the 27th day of the 2nd month--when the 50th lunar week was over.


Earth and Moon conjunction

It seems pertinent to here note that Earth's rotational rate inherently conjoins with the same orbital phase of the Moon--every 49 synodic periods. Essentially, the length of 49 lunar months is also equal to the length of 1447 day units. (Note that the length of 7 sets of 7 lunar months, or 49 months, is exactly divisible by the length of the 24-hour day).

What is then additionally remarkable concerning the cited priest's record of a 1st day at the week of creation and a 1st day at the flood event is that the rotation of the Earth can be recognized to have been identically conjoined (or aligned) with the orbit of the Moon on both of these occasions.

Note that the 1st man (Adam) was interpreted to have been created on the 6th day of creation week. Commencing with the 1st FULL DAY after the creation of Adam, the priest's record indicates a calendar count of 604840 days to the 1st day of the flood (as previously has been shown). Remarkable about the priestly record is that from the 1st day of creation week to the 1st day of the flood event is a time span that inherently is divisible by the length of 49 synodic periods (418 cycles). This respective span of time is also inherently divisible by a cycle of 1447 days (418 cycles) For pertinent information about a time cycle of 49 months, refer to the following online publication: 'Interrelated Time Design'.

Thus, it seems to be significant that the priests surely held knowledge of a cycle of 49 Moons (or also 1447 rotations of the Earth). This knowledge appears to clearly be mirrored in the Genesis record of a 1st day of creation week and a subsequent 1st day of a flood event.


____________________________________________

CHRONOLOGY OF THE DELUGE
Earth and Moon Alignments *
____________________________________________

1st Day of 1st Week 1st Day of Flood
--------------------- ---------------------
1st of 49-month cycle 1st of 49-month cycle

____________________________________________

* -- The spin of the Earth and the synodic
orbit of the Moon do both conjoin or
align together every 49 lunar months.


The diagram shows that Earth's rotation was identically aligned with the synodic period of the Moon on the 1st day of creation and again at the equinox on the day of the flood.

An authentic record?

The fact that the Genesis record spans a lengthy time span of 1656 years (604841 days) and yet appears to be correct in its description of the alignment of the day of the flood with the two cited months (one lunar, and one solar) is quite remarkable. The additional description of the day of the flood aligning with yet another day cycle (that of 40 days) and with a seasonal epoch (at the equinox) can be interpreted as pretty amazing.

The Genesis record thus reflects that the priests might have held unusual--even advanced--knowledge of the spin and orbital rates. Essentially, an accurate method of tracking the spin and orbital cycles would have been required to correctly predict that--after a number of days across a time span of over 1.5 millennia--the orbit of the Moon would come again into alignment with the epoch of the vernal equinox!

The accurate Genesis record of lunisolar cycles timing out together on one specific day (the day of the flood) points to the clear possibility that the Genesis account could be authentic. (The record is at least authentic in terms of time cycles generated by the Earth and Moon). The authenticity of the Genesis story in this regard tends to at least indicate that advanced knowledge of astronomy must have been held by the primal priesthood.

The Temple priests appear to have been in possession of a literal set of records pertaining to a week of creation and also to a flood event--as cited. Unfortunately, the Genesis source doesn't fully explain which season of the year the great flood occurred in. Certain writings attributed to the patriarch Enoch are however explicit in showing that the vernal equinox was understood as the beginning of the year cycle. Writings attributed to Philo Judaeus are also explicit in stating that "the deluge fell on the day of the vernal equinox... ". On the other hand, some literature produced in the era of the late Second Temple indicates that the creation epoch and the flood event were interpreted to have begun in the fall season of the year.

In spite of the disparate information about the seasonal interface, the presumed priest's record of an initial epoch can more definitively be reconstructed on the basis of the stated lunisolar months. (Note that a chronology for the cited solar month of 30 days can possibly be tabled on the basis of 1st century literature).

One problem in reconstructing Genesis chronology concerns pentecontad dating. The problem here is that--while records from the era of the Temple do indicate that the cycle of lunar week was once celebrated among the priests--any indication as to which one of the weeks was celebrated as the 7th week is almost nonexistent.


Other flood stories

According to Eastern mythology, the races of mankind have all been descended from a certain ancestor who survived a great flood event.

Of particular interest concerning some versions of this story is that great lights (multiple Suns) became visible in the day sky during the occasion of the deluge. This account of the appearing of bright lights has some merit in the regard that modern astronomers actually have observed a distant nova star growing very bright for a duration that lasted for several months.

If a similar nova star were to develop right here in our immediate galaxy (the Milky Way) then the resulting brightness would predictably be so bright as to be visible from the Earth--even during the daytime. This respective phenomenon would probably be viewable from day-to-day for over a period of several weeks.

The ancient legend of the appearing of the cited great lights then points to the possibility that radiation from a nearby nova might have contributed to, or even caused, the mythological great flood.

You sir...seem intent on making history fit the bible,rather than having the bible fit history.

(The record is at least authentic in terms of time cycles generated by the Earth and Moon). The authenticity of the Genesis story in this regard tends to at least indicate that advanced knowledge of astronomy must have been held by the primal priesthood.

Jesus spoke of a literal Noah's Flood, Adam and Eve, Jonah, and yes--six days of creation. If these are false characters or false events-- then the whole of the Bible can NOT be acceptable in any way, shape, or form

NONE of those civilization's records what would have been a civilization-ending flood.
Nor are there extensive gaps in their historical records that would account for the total destruction of all their cities and the rebuilding and re-population efforts that recovery from this would entail.

This fact alone would make it highly unlikely that worldwide flood occurred,destroyed ALL civilizations on Earth and that all of these same civilizations then rebuilt themselves from a group family members who "survived" this alleged event.