# Its coming together slowly



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 13, 2005)

You guys know that I was having problems reconciling the secular timeline with the Biblical timeline, of which the secular timeline has such dates as 5000 b.c, whereas the Biblical Timeline goes up to around 4000 b.c.

The problems get compounded with me because of all the civilizations being uncovered and the trying to fit the civilization into a chronological time period.

Well here is my musings.
1. The study of History from a Biblical perspective must be divided into two categories to avoid confusion. These two categories are PreNoahic Civilizations and PostNoahic civilizations. One mistake I was making was assuming that all civilizations being uncovered were PostNoahic.

I was looking as the population projections which took into accounted the long years of the PreNoahic people, and these population projections came out moderately to 9 billion people.

Now if the max was 9 billion then it follows that many civilizations were developed concurrently. We have Cain leaving and building a city and Lamech. Therefore assumptions of stone age, bronze age etc must be thrown out of the window. The technology in each city will vary according to their pioneering spirit. While computers are a good thing in America, it is probably a magic machinery in Somalia. That does not mean that we should assume that there was a computer age and a non computer age, hence somalia not being in the computer age thus relegating it to the 1800's. This is the problem I was running into.

2. If a civilization seems very ancient, it is highly possible that it was from the PreNoahic time, and the carbon dating of such civilizations take into account the major disruption of the flood. i.e time was never constant. Someone can age quickly and reflect an older age, while they are young, and someone cal reflect a younger age eventhough they are old.

[Edited on 4-13-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 13, 2005)

> Finding the roots of modern humans
> DNA study may reveal who we are, where we came from
> By Marsha Walton
> CNN
> ...



take for the example the above.

We know that there are two major migrational events from the Bible.
1. After Adam got kicked out of the Garden, humans multiplied and spread over the face of the earth.

2. After the flood, there was a second scattering and migration.

3. These guys will be thrown into a state of confusion since they will be chronicling multiple overlapping migrational patterns, and they will try erroneously to constrain it into a chronology.

The problem that will eventually arise that may seem to conflict with religion from this article is that they will find 2 distinct sets of human genetics.
1. The PreNoahic genes (Which came from a multitude of sources, Cain, Seth, Lamech, Jared etc. I bet scientists will say that these genes likely came from some other type of humans who has minimal relationship or no relationship with modern humans)

2. The PostNoahic genes, of which all came directly from Noah. (This will be deemed the ancestors of Modern Man.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 13, 2005)

> Dr Spencer Wells, Harvard evolutionary geneticist:
> There is more genetic diversity in any single African village than in the whole world outside Africa, which proves that the world's entire non-African population must be descended from a relatively small sub-set of Africans. There isn't as much non African diversity because there wasn't much genetic material to begin with. But Africans are descended from a far larger population, providing greater genetic diversity. - South Africa Sunday Times.



Take for example the above. Using the table of Nations, we see that Ham's descendents populated Africa and early Palestine, and were initially the most populous and strong of nations. Africans are multidiverse from the Ethiopians, Ancient Libyans, Yoruba and Asante tribes of West Coast. Coupling this together with the fact that the Canaanites and the Jebusites who were descendents of Ham, lived in the Middleeast shows how diverse this family group of Ham were.

What is interesting of the above assumptions from the article, is that they article believes that all descended from one source (Africans: quite similar to all descended from Noah), and Non Africans (Biblical, NonHamitic) were from a small subset of Africans (the original in terms of Noah).

But what will explain the above more, is the extent of the flood and the confounding of the languages.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 13, 2005)

the concurrence of civilizations. If the world truly looked like this, then this can explain the various civilization being developed around the world, and the lack of necessitity in boat building, hence the mocking of Noah.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 13, 2005)

this seems to explain quite well the carvings on the Mayan structures with people riding Dinosaurs.








[Edited on 4-13-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 13, 2005)

Conclusion, if Pangea existed, the flood was both global and local.


----------



## sastark (Apr 13, 2005)

Keon,

Thanks for posting all that.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 13, 2005)

no problem sastark.

check out these dinosaur figurines found in Mexico. It is highly likely these these figurines were made by the PreNoahic civilizations, and not the PostNoahic civilizaton.










[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 13, 2005)

I think it is unthinkable that the Mayans were sculpting mythical creatures that somehow coincide in appearance to dinosaur.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 14, 2005)

Your getting me excited with all this stuff

I love devling into ancient history. You know off the top of my head I rember somewhere(not here) of discussion to there ebing ancinet astronauts. 

Now obviouselly we dont know for sure unless otherwise proven. But my theory on technological advancment in the antedilluvian time period is this.

1. Men live longer and were able to invent and test things longer. Ie.. modern man only gets around 30-40 years max on technological adavancment. Cause he has to spend time first hand learning basics, history of a certain technology, and then update himself on the current progress, plus first hand experience in that field. In Noahs time beofre the flood men lived for hundreds of years therfore expanding the technological advancement from 30-40 years to 300-600 years thats alot of time. 

2. Though not directly spoken of but alluded too in canon, but in Jewish tradition fallen angels cam down and taugh men things he 'wasnt' supposed to know like "them charms 2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. " (enoch ch7 vs2-3 slavonic text)

3. Also the weather was drastically different in that time period compared with the period afterwards. 

Just my thoughts....

Blade


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 14, 2005)

http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html

underwater pyrimiads of japan.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 14, 2005)

I like the following from the website

*These discoveries show quite clearly that, during the last Ice Age, civilisation flourished on what were then the coastal areas of the many parts of the world which, despite glaciations further north, still enjoyed a very pleasant, temperate climate. These ancient settlements are proving to have been much more advanced urban cities than current models of prehistory are prepared to acknowledge, but their existence is just as real as the fact that they were obviously flooded during the abrupt end of the last Ice Age, at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary. *

I will go out on a limb and say that this settlement was obviously a PreNoahic civilization.

I would even go so far as saying that the Flood, had such catastrophic effects that it made things appear older than they actually are. 

Once again, using the population estimates that there were approximately 9 billion people at the time of the flood, it is obvious and reasonable to see that pyramids in Japan, pyramids in egypt, pyramids in mexico, olmec structures in America etc could have been constructed.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 14, 2005)

Good thinking guys. It's always good to question the presuppositions of "modern" scientists. With the Bible in hand, we can make alot of sense of the same data they stumble over and it all points back to the glory of God, both in the fossilized testimony of His judgment, and the loving testimonies of grace in our history. How he confounds the wise....


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 14, 2005)

Puritansailor, its amazing when God opens your eyes, using the very thing that deceives unbelievers into more unbelief.

Now tackling a method for interpreting the fossil record I think we have to assume.

1. That animals began getting extinct soon after the fall due to the population growth of humans. It is only natural that the animals humans hunted and killed the most, necessarily must become extinct the quickest.

2. In addition to forced extinction by humans, there is the natural extinction which comes about from encorachment of habitats.

3. Then there is the obliteration that came as a result of the flood.

All the above three will be reflected in the fossil record, this is why the evolutionists are at lost for explaining it outright, since the fossil record is not uniform.

The next set of fossil records will be due to

1. Post Noahic extinction from the PostNoahic increase in animal population at the hands of humans.

2. Natural extinction due to the inability of certain animals to adapt to the new weather patterns of the world, plus encroachment.

When evaluating the fossil records all of the above must be taken into account, so as to reflect it accurately, since it is a testimony to Creation in relation to the fall of man and the flood.


Anyway, what is scary about this is the great possibility of there being Americans before the native Americans hehehehehe. Man I can't wait until the Lord comes so I can get a clearer picture.



The above explains why dinosaurs could have been prevalent during the PreNoahic world and not the PostNoahic world. Heck only Job is mentioned as knowing anything remotely looking like a Dinosaur, and it is not by chance all human civilizations have mythologies with dinosaurs being prevalent, but without having actual living dinosaurs.

Chances are the Dinosaurs seemed to be the animal getting all the attention in being killed. Heck, one dinosaur looks like it could feed a family for 5 years. I think these were the first of the large animals to get moved off the shelf, since they had the largest surplus of meat (bigger than the mammoth), as well as being potentially more threatening.

So the logic goes, let us kill that which threaten us the most, and feeds us the longest.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 14, 2005)

I would also add to your reasons for extinction the massive global climate changes post-Flood. Some animals couldn't hack it in the new world.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 14, 2005)

to both 

Also about antartica the hub of the ancient world? Just might be.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 14, 2005)

Loch Nessie is a dinosaur!?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 15, 2005)

> Dinosaur Eggs Offer Clues on Reproduction
> 
> Thu Apr 14, 8:13 PM ET Science - AP
> 
> ...



Ok, here these guys have found a dinosaur egg and they are forcing it into the evolutionary model. now talk about being scientific. These guys assume that because a Dinosaur lays eggs similar to that of a crocodile and birds, then it necessitates that Dinosaurs evolved from crocodile like creatures and into birds.

These guys totally ruled out the most reasonable option that the Dinosaur reproductive cycle was the reproductive cycle that was best suited for the dinosaur without any association to evolution into birds.

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 15, 2005)




----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 21, 2005)

http://www.mokelembembe.com/

slippery, ever here of this guy?

Blade


----------



## clevipearce (Apr 26, 2005)

Nice artwork on that guys site. Reminds me a lot of "The Land Before Time."


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 26, 2005)




----------



## Anton Bruckner (May 4, 2005)

The Japan Times 
May 12, 2001 
DNA evidence backs up 'out-of-Africa' human origin theory
WASHINGTON (Reuters) Genetic research unveiled Thursday provides compelling support for the theory that anatomically modern humans rose *out of Africa in the past 100,000 years and swept aside populations of prehistoric man, with no interbreeding. *
A team of Chinese and American geneticists obtained blood samples from more than 12,000 men from across East Asia and examined characteristic DNA sequences called markers on the Y chromosome (the male chromosome). 

The Y chromosome is considered one of the most powerful molecular tools for tracing human evolutionary history because it remains unchanged over eons when passed from father to son. 

The researchers found that every one of the men could trace his ancestry to forefathers who lived in Africa over the past 35,000 to 89,000 years. They also found absolutely no genetic evidence that modern people, Homo sapiens, mated with archaic humans, Homo erectus, that already lived in Asia, having migrated from Africa about 1 million years ago. 

The findings, appearing in the journal Science, appeared to confirm the so-called out-of-Africa theory that modern people originated in Africa about 100,000 years ago and then migrated outward, replacing Homo erectus around the globe. 

"Our work not only provided the evidence that supports the out-of-Africa theory, but also showed that such a replacement is complete," human population geneticist Li Jin of Fudan University in Shanghai and the University of Texas in Houston, who led the study, said. 

Li added that the absence of any genetic signature from archaic humans in the huge sample of men studied meant there was no support for the idea that Homo sapiens mated and produced babies with Homo erectus. 

Asked about any evidence of interbreeding, Li said: "Zilch. None. Nada." 

Some dissident scientists have expressed the view that people living today descended from several indigenous archaic human populations in the Old World, such as the Neanderthals who resided in Europe or so-called Java man or Peking man in Asia. This theory is called multiregionalism. 

But the evidence is mounting against this view. Several studies have shown that modern human mitochondrial DNA, passed down by the mother, is of African origin. And when scientists sequenced the DNA from the mitochondria, tiny structures within a cell but outside the nucleus that contain genes, of a Neanderthal four years ago, they found it was vastly different from that seen in people today. 

"The genetic evidence implies a recent common origin of our species. The Y chromosome really makes that argument bulletproof," Stanford University molecular biologist Peter Underhill, a study coauthor, said in an interview. 

Li said the researchers devised a simple way to make the out-of-Africa theory a testable hypothesis. He said the team wanted to answer the question of whether there was any trace of Y chromosomes of non-African origin in East Asia, where Homo erectus and Homo sapiens fossils have been found in abundance. 

The researchers screened 12,127 genetic samples from men in 163 populations from different regions in Asia - in such places as Iran, China, New Guinea and Siberia - for three specific Y chromosome mutations that are derived from a single earlier mutation seen in African populations. 

All of them carried one of the three mutations, suggesting that archaic humans did not contribute to the origin of modern man. "All these people trace their roots back to a common ancestor who lived in Africa maybe 100,000 years ago," Underhill said.




Hope I am not reading too much into this but I think I mentioned the 2 distinct groups of humans. One directly from Noah and his 3 sons, and the others directly from Adam and all his children.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 19, 2005)

yeah but even though adam and eve are our original parents noah's sons(and wives) are our parents. 

So their are three distinct groups descendants from Shem, Ham, and Japeth.

which are we from I dont know 

Blade


----------

