₦airaland Forum

Enigma:
,

Right.
Nothing to contribute to the subject.

OLAADEGBU:
We may not find the originals but we have over 20,000 copies of the original.

We don't have the original autograph.
Why did you say we do?

Could you cite your source for that figure of 20,000 copies, please?
When were those  copies made?

And about baraminology- it seems the originater of the term is backing off on it in light of the newest discoveries - especially in respect of of the chimpanzee genome.

Glad to get a reply from you!
Sorry it isn't about the historical reality of the Kings David and Soloman!

Enigma:
Thanks, and oh I do indeed know what the OP is supposed to be about; shame the OP stands on falsehood and deception.

Plagiarism is a very serious subject. The case of the opening poster falls into the deliberate deception category.

I've read similar opinions elsewhere.
Who hasn't?
I notice you didn't disprove them, though.

I wonder if you are quite so sensitive to plagarism when it's done by someone who conforms to your worldview?

Enigma:
But then it also matters what you do with the information and I say this for a particular reason i.e. my experience with you on another thread where you wrongly accuse some writers (including of material you found yourself) almost of deception whereas you were the one who chose to be dogmatic rather than objective about the arguments concerning the authorship of 2 Peter.

Why do you bring up the contested works of 2 Peter here?
Can't you keep to a topic?
We've discussed  2Peter on another thread and if you want to continue, do so on the pertinent thread, instead of muddling the subjects together!
I think it was be a courtesy to the Nairaland readership, don't you?

Enigma:
Second, what one can learn, in appropriate circumstances, is not limited to information alone; equally if not in fact more important is how to think, how to think objectively, how to think properly, how to think clearly.

What does this have to do with the subject of King David?
Is there some reason not to learn about the historical evidence of King David?

Enigma:
Ah ha, wunderbar! If Socrates never wrote a word, how do we know what his teachings actually were in original form?

Or have his "teachings" been "corrupted" by those whose writings point to them (remember another of your sweeping statements that the Bible has been "corrupted"?

Of course I remember my 'sweeping' statement.
And I stand by it.
What do we know about Socrates?
Almost nothing.
His pupil, Plato, is an historical personage and I daresay a certain idealisation of his beloved professor very likely comes into play.
So.
Why bring up Socrates in a discussion of King David?

Enigma:
I am happy to leave those who are interested or those who have special or revelation knowledge of the subject to get on with it. I will watch and read happily and contribute if I have any useful thing to add whether directly or for clarification.

Well, thus far you've not added anything useful to the subject- it would be great if you did!

^^^^
God as a fashion designer?
Here's a video where the deity gives his views on fashion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Clm6nlWxzc

I was interested to see you bring up baraminilogy here.
I'll read up on the subject, as my understanding of it is pretty superficial.

OLAADEGBU:
The Bible is substantially the same as when it was originally written. The alleged "inaccuracies and contradictions" are due to mistranslations or misunderstandings of the original manuscript.

I don't doubt many misunderstandings about the bible are caused by mistranslations!
About the original manuscript-
Where is it?
Where can it be consulted?

^^^
I couldn't agree with you more.

Deep Sight-

Deep Sight:
I will be mildly surprised if you do not recognize that I commented on your comments which were directly directed at the OP.

I will be just slightly more than mildly surprised if you also did not see my comments on the OP.

You are constantly taking discussions out of their area!
Speculation about first causes may interest you, as is your right, of course.

But please keep in mind that such a discusssion is way beyond the scope of the OP, where the journalist is making a mystery of simple natural proceses.
Such as hair growth, the rotation of the Earth and the circadian cycle.

There is no point in asking people who don't understand eclipses and thunder are not signs of divine wrath to consider first causes.
I think you're putting the horse before the cart.

Social and family pressures aren't easy to cope with when it comes to changing your eating habits.
I thnk the best thing to do is to give the people you care about love and affection.
And attention.

Just don't talk about food.
When they talk about food, smile and agree.

Anyway,
log for Friday
water:
2.2 litres

exercise:
2 20 minute brisk walks.

food:
medium salad
150 grammes no fat fresh cheese.
50 grammes fresh pineapple
50 grammes fresh mango

2 slices pumpernickel bread
50 grammmes low fat Maasdamer cheese
1 glass good red wine.

Enigma:
Ah, here is another thing the evangelical atheists say, in their usual fraudulent manner, which people readily buy. Do they similarly refer to other writings of antiquity as the writings of "uncivilised" people. When did people like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle etc live, work and write?

Good to read your posts, Enigma!
A shame they have nothing to do with the OP, as I was hoping you'd have some insights on the subject.
Remember?
It about historical evidence for the Kings David and Solomon.

Plagarism is a tricky subject.
Sometimes it's about sloppy posting.
Sometimes it's about deliberate deception.

I'd encourage Nairalanders to cite their sources.
It makes for more interesting reading and allows people to investigate for themselves.
To me, any forum's worth is measured in the horizons it opens for me by way of information.

Now for your comments on

When did people like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle etc live, work and write?

Socrates, of course never wrote a word and was condemned to death by the Athenian assembly for teaching youth to disrespect the Greek gods.
Plato, his pupil, traveled extensively and tried, in vain, to educate  Dionysius the Younger, heir to Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse.

That effort is a fascinating story, by the way.
You'll find a decent introduction to it here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/plato/

d. Later Trips to Sicily and Death

The first of Plato’s remaining two Sicilian adventures came after Dionysius I died and his young son, Dionysius II, ascended to the throne. His uncle/brother-in-law Dion persuaded the young tyrant to invite Plato to come to help him become a philosopher-ruler of the sort described in the Republic. Although the philosopher (now in his sixties) was not entirely persuaded of this possibility (Seventh Letter 328b-c), he agreed to go. This trip, like the last one, however, did not go well at all. Within months, the younger Dionysius had Dion sent into exile for sedition (Seventh Letter 329c, Third Letter 316c-d), and Plato became effectively under house arrest as the “personal guest” of the dictator (Seventh Letter 329c-330b).

Plato eventually managed to gain the tyrant’s permission to return to Athens (Seventh Letter 338a), and he and Dion were reunited at the Academy (Plut. Dion 17). Dionysius agreed that “after the war” (Seventh Letter 338a; perhaps the Lucanian War in 365 B.C.E.), he would invite Plato and Dion back to Syracuse (Third Letter 316e-317a, Seventh Letter 338a-b). Dion and Plato stayed in Athens for the next four years (c. 365-361 B.C.E.). Dionysius then summoned Plato, but wished for Dion to wait a while longer. Dion accepted the condition and encouraged Plato to go immediately anyway (Third Letter 317a-b, Seventh Letter 338b-c), but Plato refused the invitation, much to the consternation of both Syracusans (Third Letter 317a, Seventh Letter 338c). Hardly a year had passed, however, before Dionysius sent a ship, with one of Plato’s Pythagorean friends (Archedemus, an associate of Archytas—see Seventh Letter 339a-b and next section) on board begging Plato to return to Syracuse. Partly because of his friend Dion’s enthusiasm for the plan, Plato departed one more time to Syracuse. Once again, however, things in Syracuse were not at all to Plato’s liking. Dionysius once again effectively imprisoned Plato in Syracuse, and the latter was only able to escape again with help from his Tarentine friends ( Seventh Letter 350a-b).

Dion subsequently gathered an army of mercenaries and invaded his own homeland. But his success was short-lived: he was assassinated and Sicily was reduced to chaos. Plato, perhaps now completely disgusted with politics, returned to his beloved Academy, where he lived out the last thirteen years of his life.

Aristotle was, as you know, a great influence on Western philosophy.
Wikipedia has a good overview on him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

As a curiosity, Aristotle, at the end of his long life, was also accused of not honouring the gods!

Anyway, enough of this digression about Greek philosophers- how about more on the subject of the OP?

^^^Emotional eating.
Such a simple phrase to express so much!

And eating to 'please' others!

I loved reading about your power walks, babs, and hope you keep up with them.


Yesterday was a restaurant day- eating out is challenging for weight control.

Log for Thursady
Water-
1.5 litres

exercise:
45 minute brisk walk

food-
small salad
serving spoon of mixed veg.

1/2 a runny cheese (Camembert type)
with toast and violet jelly Delicious, but,

Let's go back to the OP, please.

IT is an incontrovertible fact that Professor Wole Soyinka is reverred in Nigeria and indeed globally. As the first African to be awarded the highly coveted Nobel prize in Literature, our cerebral Professor of Literature is, indeed, a pride to the black race.

Aside from being a literary giant, Prof. Soyinka is also a celebrated social critic, being a thorn in the flesh of successive governments in Nigeria. As the founder of the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), in Nigeria, Soyinka’s contribution to the development of the country is, indeed, legendary.

But I must say with all due respect that the Nobel laureate goofed recently when he was responding to a question bordering on why he remained an unrepretant atheist on a popular television talkshow Moments with Mo, designed to celebrate his 77th birthday.

The presenter of the programme, Mo’ Abudu had asked Prof. Soyinka why he does not believe in the existence of God, in spite of the fact that he was raised by Christian parents.

To my utter dismay, the Nobel Laureate turned logic on the head and gave an answer which left this writer wondering whether I had heard him right.

Although I might not be able to quote him verbatim, Professor Soyinka had replied thus. “The reason why I don’t believe in God is simple. I simply cannot imagine that somebody (emphasis mine) will be responsible for the action of billions of people. I think everybody should be held responsible for his actions and inaction.”

That I was taken aback by his response was to say the least. How on earth could Professor Soyinka give such an absymally poor answer? However, since Professor Soyinka has stirred the hornets’ nest, I will like him to answer the following questions: Who is responsible for the phenomenon of sleeping and wakefulness? What about the mystery of day and night; who is in control?

As simple as this may sound, can the Professor explain the process of hair growth on his head? Who created him or even if he is a believer in the evolution school of thought, who created that creature that he evolved from? Who created all the wonderful things we see around us - the mountains, valleys, oceans seas etc. What about the phenomenon of birth and death?

http://tribune.com.ng/index.php/opinion/28087-soyinka-posers-for-an-atheist-at-77

The writer of the article asks about the 'mystery' of day and night.
Whether hair growth can be explained.
'Who' is 'responsible' for sleeping and wakefulness.

The writer is calling a mystery natural events they don't understand, much as primitive people think eclipses are sign's of divine wrath.
You could compare it to people who think remote controls for their televisions are 'magic'.

OLAADEGBU:
, Especially the original transmission of the autographs. ,

I see the OP has abandoned the OP- that science confirms the bible.

We're now discussing whether the bible confirms the bible.
So be it.

Could you tell us about those autographs, OLAADEGBU?

debosky:
Research into helium release rates from 'pre-cambrian rocks' do not agree with radioisotopic ages. If the rocks were as old as radioisotope dating suggested, the Helium would have been long gone.

This is a YEC meme that was debunked long ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

OLAADEGBU:
, All that matters is that God was the first Person to perform an anaesthetic surgery and where women came from. ,

Well, I don't think you can get much more ignorant than that.
I'm most impressed.

Deep Sight:
^ I hear you. I do sense that she is not an atheist, so I understand her comments in context. However it still remains a concern for me that many people fob off theistic questions on the formation of the world by addressing the formative process and not looking to that which should be signal - namely - the cause of the formative process.

What does that comment have to do with the OP?
I addressed the OP.
Why don't you?

log for Wednesday

water:
1.9 litres

exercise:
45 minute brisk walk

food:
small salad
salmon steak en papillote
50 grammes Brussel sprouts

50 grammes crude almonds
1 glass good red wine

[quote author=aloy/emeka link=topic=759178.msg9141676#msg9141676 date=1315954253][size=14pt]Soyinka: Posers for an atheist at 77[/size]


Written by Muda Oyeniran
Tuesday, 13 September 2011


IT is an incontrovertible fact that Professor Wole Soyinka is reverred in Nigeria and indeed globally. As the first African to be awarded the highly coveted Nobel prize in Literature, our cerebral Professor of Literature is, indeed, a pride to the black race,
Although I might not be able to quote him verbatim, Professor Soyinka had replied thus. “The reason why I don’t believe in God is simple. I simply cannot imagine that somebody (emphasis mine) will be responsible for the action of billions of people. I think everybody should be held responsible for his actions and inaction.”

That I was taken aback by his response was to say the least. How on earth could Professor Soyinka give such an absymally poor answer? However, since Professor Soyinka has stirred the hornets’ nest, I will like him to answer the following questions: Who is responsible for the phenomenon of sleeping and wakefulness? What about the mystery of day and night; who is in control?

As simple as this may sound, can the Professor explain the process of hair growth on his head? Who created him or even if he is a believer in the evolution school of thought, who created that creature that he evolved from? Who created all the wonderful things we see around us -  the mountains, valleys, oceans seas etc. What about the phenomenon of birth and death?

http://tribune.com.ng/index.php/opinion/28087-soyinka-posers-for-an-atheist-at-77[/quote]Well, the first thing that struck me was that the writer of this editorial even  more space to their own musings, which read like some preliminary notes for a sermon, than  even naming  Professor Wole Soyinka's literary works. After all, they were the reason he was awarded the Nobel prize, weren't they?

Let's go to Muda Oyeniran's burning questions.

1-Who is responsible for the phenomenon of sleeping and wakefulness?

Not who, but what.
It's called the circadian cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm

2-What about the mystery of day and night; who is in control?

Is the writer aware the Earth spins on its axis?
No mystery there.
Here's a youtube video that explains it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pej15xWLqSw

3-can the Professor explain the process of hair growth on his head?

To understand the 'growth' of hair, here's a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_hair_growth

4-Who created him or even if he is a believer in the evolution school of thought, who created that creature that he evolved from?

What a question.
Why does the writer suppose Professor Wole Soyinka was created by anyone other than his parents?
For an overview of human reproduction:
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/

As for the second part of the question, well that depends on your religious point of view, doesn't it?
Here's an excellent variet of source material on the subject of creation myths
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

5-Who created all the wonderful things we see around us -  the mountains, valleys, oceans seas etc.

Not who, but what.
Tectonic plates, anyone?
http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_4.asp

6- What about the phenomenon of birth and death?

Um.
What about it?
Birth and death happens all that that live, from uni-cellular life forms on up.

My question for Muda Oyeniran would be:
What books have you read by Professor Wole Soyinka?

I've gone quiet but not for anything else but a heavy workschedule.

Log Tuesday
water:
2.1 litres

exercise:
nil

food:
2 slices pumpernickel bread with
50 grammes low fat cheese

2 tomatos, diced
1 tablespoon olive oil
oregano and salt
150 grammes lo fat cottage cheese.

100 ml skim milk
1/s glass good red wine

Oh, what fun!
Another OLAADEGBU thread.
I'll read it all through carefull and get back after work!

OLAADEGBU:
You are wrong. Your master who is busy accusing the brethren day and night you could have employed the use of a censorious spirit to do a better job. If you had read earlier post you could have found out where it was lifted from.

And you are wrong.
Everyt ime you quote some one else, you should cite them.
You can't expect people to be constantly scrolling up to find out where you lift material from.
It gives the idea you're trying appropriate someone else's work.
Do you undertand that?

Now.
I see you're avoiding the very reasonable question you're being asked here.
Is the bible to be taken 100% literally or not?

Thanks, debosky.

debosky:
I don't think that per se - I'm simply saying there are other potential explanations.

Another potential explanation is a different rate of isotope creation in the past, due to cosmic ray interactions in the upper atmosphere. The calibrations used for carbon dating at present are based on limited information about the rates of C-14 creation in the past. At best they can account for continental differences.

Unlike Ola, I can come up with potential explanations myself without resorting to copy and paste all over the place.

This idea came from my head, although others may have devised similar hypotheses by themselves.

I went around to three sites which advocate those ideas.
If you like, I'll link them.
The thing is, the readio-carbon dating system is pretty well confirmed by other sources, in particular the continuous tree ring record.
And like everything under the sun, the techniques develop over time.
Many of the objections raised by YECs to radio-carbon dating have been answered over the last few years.

As for Jericho, it's a fascinating story. I'd start with Wiki, because it's pretty comprehensive, if you want to learn more and then go to BAR.
Radio-carbon dating came into question over the dating of the fall of Jericho, curiosly enough.

And while O's plagarisation is pretty scandalous, I think that ideas and perceptions have to contrasted with and measured against reality.
Like our perception of a geo-centric solar system and contrasted to the reality of a helio-centric one.
This is why the scientific method relies on peer-review. And publication.


Look what happened with that 'artefact' they claimed was Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat!

OLAADEGBU:
These are some scientists who know what they are talking about.

Dr. James Simpson, born in 1811, was responsible for the discovery of chloroform's anaesthetic qualities, leading to its medical use worldwide.  He also laid a solid foundation for gynaecology and predicted the discovery of the X-ray.  Dr. Simpson was president of the Royal Medical Society and Royal Physician to the Queen, the highest medical position of his day.  , etc, ][/size]

I see OLAADEGBU is up to his old tricks of copying other people's work and then not giving them credit for it.
This post is taken from
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0027_Scientific.html

debosky- why do you think this?

debosky:
, it is not inconceivable that, for some yet unexplained reason, there was faster isotope decay in the past (i.e a couple of thousand years ago) than is currently experienced.

If the above postulation were true, conclusions based on a 'fixed' rate of isotope decay and extrapolated to determine the age of objects or fossils will be clearly flawed.

Again, without being an 'expert' in this field, if the 'dating' of these extinctions is based on carbon dating techniques and if the methodology is flawed by assuming today's decay rates applied in the past, then the dating can be wrong.

This sounds rather like fantasy, to tell the truth.
Could you tell us where you got these ideas?
I'd like to learn more about why someone would speculate that isotopes decayed at a different rate 3,000 years ago.

^^^^More argument by cartoon tactics!

Here's a video for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9P09Sj4-Xs&feature=relmfu

debosky:
Don't get too pedantic - the import of the post is that neither the 'old earth' protagonists or the 'new earth' advocates can provide a deterministic answer as to when the earth was formed.

if you're off by one year or 100 million years, you're still off.

The devil's in the details?

Science is still learning about the earth's age and so of course cannot provide a 'deterministic answer'.
It can, however, rule out things like a Universal Flood 6,000 years ago.
It can tell us the dinosaurs became extinct (with the two exceptions I've posted up- the crocs and the birds) 66 million years ago.
It tells us Jericho was inhabited 11,000 years ago.

Yet more personal abuse from poor old frosbel!

frosbel:
You must be having a bad day today 

Do you refer to the menstrual cycle here?

frosbel:
You miss the point. If you work in the professional environment, there is a saying that goes like this , ' why reinvent the wheel '. For example , If I read an article that proves accurate and factual on a specfic topic, of course I wll post it here for nairalanders to read , digest and debate.

Who has time to start a write up of 10 pages from scratch, some of us have real jobs you know   

Where have you seen a 10 page post at Nairaland?

frosbel:
You keep getting new sources on a daily basis, many of them suspect and nonacademic.

Of I use different sources- that's part of any investigation.

frosbel:
If you read history, you will understand that the catholic bible was NOT USED for the Kings James.

Wrong again.

frosbel:
I suspect you are a student, and it really concerns me that your university will allow their students use wikipedia for factual research.

Who said they did?
I wonder why you choose to ignore my repeated comment- I use wiki here because it is an excellent source for the general reader.

And how about getting back to the OP?

^^^ I have to agree with you there!
How can we know what actually happened without being able to contact the hospital itself?

Deep Sight:
Well you will recall that I had indicated that the previous thread on the existence of David or Solomon would actually have no pith, and certainly little business in the Religion Section, if not for the unstated possibility of discreditting a faith. This is about the fourth time I am repeating this to you, and it seems that you have not taken cognisance of the import of this.

I've addressed this point several times.
The location of the thread had nothing to do with me, as you'll understand.
I think it's a subject you should take up with the OP, rather than a contributer to that particular thread.

Deep Sight:
There are two things. The originator of that thread (Ancel1) must have had at least some direction towards discretting one or more faiths by the information he presented therein. This is something that he has confirmed via his posts on this thread (which posts I am yet to address, but will do so shortly). Contrarily, it is my view that these are not sufficient grounds to discredit any faith. Hence my example re: Sidtharta Guatama, the Buddha.

Again, that's something to take up with the OP, not a contributer to that thread.
Do you have a problem with that?


[quote author=Deep Sight link=topic=756494.msg9128910#msg9128910 date=1315821103Secondly, there are different types of atheists. I have described them previously thus -

My concern is with reference to the first definition. There are persons who are declared atheists only on account of the absurdity or falsity of religion. I think that that is a lazy approach. [quote][/quote]And?

^^^
Yes, of course I did.
Here:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=754485.msg9117288#msg9117288

The OP is lifted entirely but without any recognition of the fact from a source I cited in that thread.
Or was I the only poster to note that.

Care to address[b] this[/b] thread's topic?

Deep Sight, your question was:

Quote from: Deep Sight on Yesterday at 06:22:43 PM
I still do not understand how the non-existence of David, Solomon or even Jesus could rationally lead to atheism. Can you enlighten me on that thought-line please?

Who said it did?

You have to go to a doctor for that sort of testing.

Are you saying the woman was discharged the same day she had a C-section?
Could you post up the name of of the clinic, please?

frosbel:
I always in my posts state links as everyone else is well aware. If I missed this on 1 or 2 posts , well that's life, I am not as perfect as you are.

So keep on your merry go round with your so called scientific prove that the bible is not accurate.

If we live for the here and now , we are no better than animals, insects and any kind of beast.

What does this answer have to do  with the OP?

debosky:
^^ A lot of opinions in that post above, potentially true but just as potentially false.

No one knows definitively when the earth was created - those insisting it was exactly 6,000 years ago are as wrong as those insisting it was exactly 200 million years ago.

I'm not saying the current methodologies are infallible, but it is a bit disingenuous to point out the inaccuracies in them without pointing out the accurate results that have been produced using these same sources time and time again. Geologists use these same dating methodologies to determine oil and gas deposits for example.

Some methods suggest a young earth, some suggest an old earth - the crux is that we don't know.

To state that the bible tells us the age of the earth is a clear misinterpretation in my view we just don't have the fidelity of information to make any such claim.

I think there's a strawman here, although perhaps it's inadvertant.
Who claims the earth was formed ' exactly 200 million years ago'?

This is turning into an intersting thread, thanks to those who have contributed to it.
Deep sight-

Deep Sight:
Anyone who cares can access a galaxy of information at the touch of a button. The problem is not hat people do not have access to information. The problem rather is that people fear information because they imagine that it might corrupt their faith or belief systems. This is a mindset that I find regrettable.

My point as well.
More information, less opinions.

Deep Sight:
I still do not understand how the non-existence of David, Solomon or even Jesus could rationally lead to atheism. Can you enlighten me on that thought-line please?

I don't understand why you think I'm an atheist.

frosbel:
Ah okay you are a pluralist, which is another name for confusion .

Surely logic and reason will tell you that having a thousand religions means that there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere.

Surely they can't all be right.

Dancing to the tune of all and sundry shows you stand for nothing which in my opinion is quite a state to be in.

Regarding radicalism we all agree that violent religion is the problem, but true religion in itself is not a bad thing and obviously by religion I am talking about true Christianity.

Stop confusing yourself , try and be humble and learn and stop increasing in ignorance in your quest for a higher academic status.

Have you heard that saying in the bible, 'professing to be wise , they became fools ' ?

I wondered how long it would take frosbel to follow me here.
frosbel, why is it so difficult for you to understand people have the right not to agree with you?
You haven't a clue what my academic status is- I'm not sure why it interests you.
Please stay on the topic of the thread.

frosbel:
^^^


For one, I do not need science to prove the bible , though exhaustive materials have been written by christian scientists and former atheists to affirm that it does.

Keep on with your copy and paste science.

Many of us here are scientists by way of tertiary education and personal hobby, but not foolish enough to try to disprove God's word or book out of sheer ignorance or should we say arrogance.

I have studied evolutionary principles, genetic science , geography with some aspect of geology, archaeology etc , and I see absolutely nothing to make me change my belief that the bible is 1000% accurate.

If you do , it is rather unfortunate.

Why unfortunate?
No religious dogma can oblige me to deny the facts.
Such as the total lack of evidence for the Flood.
Or that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.
After all, scholar have dated Jericho to 9,000 BCE.
That makes Jericho the oldest continually inhabited city in the world.

Frosbel, your replies only show how it irks you you've been show to be one of those posters who post up material of others as if it were your own.
It's amusing to see you call me a cut and paste scientist when you yourself say you don't read my posts!
I quote rather than plagarise.
A shame you can't say the same!