Ark encounter

[Kurieuo]

Of course I can. Actually you never asked any such question. Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus between about half a million and a million years ago, probably in the Rift Valley in Africa. If you want to look for a flood which wiped out almost all of them, you could do worse than try 700000 years ago, in Tanzania.

700k years? 500,000 years ago isn't talking anatomically similar modern humans i.e., us, homo sapiens sapiens which arrived on the scene in much more recent times. Let alone more complex spiritual expression being found back around 40k years. If you'd like to go by a developed agriculture, then I suppose we might have around a 12k flood.

[hughfarey]

Of course I can. Actually you never asked any such question. Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus between about half a million and a million years ago, probably in the Rift Valley in Africa. If you want to look for a flood which wiped out almost all of them, you could do worse than try 700000 years ago, in Tanzania.

700k years? 500,000 years ago isn't talking anatomically similar modern humans i.e., us, homo sapiens sapiens which arrived on the scene in much more recent times. Let alone more complex spiritual expression being found back around 40k years. If you'd like to go by a developed agriculture, then I suppose we might have around a 12k flood.

Fair enough. If people weren't really people until anatomically modern humans - about 200000 years ago, then you could just about wipe them all out by a flood in the Rift Valley then. However, by 40000 years ago, people had spread out across the world, and no local flood could have destroyed them all. If that was the point at which humans achieved souls (what else do you mean by 'complex spiritual expression'?) then you imply that native Australians and Americans don't have souls. Interesting.

But of course you don't mean that at all. It's not really clear what you do mean. Are you sure you've thought it all through?

If the flood was only 12000 years ago, then most of the population of the earth had nothing to do with it, and were not involved with any relationship with God until the time of Christ. This is deeply theologically unsound.

If a flood wiped out all mankind, then it was well before agriculture had developed at all.

Oh, and, the boat thing. No human had the technology to build any kind of floating container more than 100m long before about 10000BC, and probably much later. If God did it by a miracle, then that's fine, but desperately trying to reconcile human history and the story of Noah's ark is doomed to failure, I fear

[RickD]

So Hugh,

What is the biblical story of the flood to you?

Is it just a story to convey truth?

[hughfarey]

So Hugh, What is the biblical story of the flood to you? Is it just a story to convey truth?

The essence of the story is the development of the relationship between God and mankind, and as such, applies to all mankind. It may well be based on a historical antecedent, but the details of that antecedent are trivial, in my opinion.

[Kurieuo]

Of course I can. Actually you never asked any such question. Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus between about half a million and a million years ago, probably in the Rift Valley in Africa. If you want to look for a flood which wiped out almost all of them, you could do worse than try 700000 years ago, in Tanzania.

700k years? 500,000 years ago isn't talking anatomically similar modern humans i.e., us, homo sapiens sapiens which arrived on the scene in much more recent times. Let alone more complex spiritual expression being found back around 40k years. If you'd like to go by a developed agriculture, then I suppose we might have around a 12k flood.

Fair enough. If people weren't really people until anatomically modern humans - about 200000 years ago, then you could just about wipe them all out by a flood in the Rift Valley then. However, by 40000 years ago, people had spread out across the world, and no local flood could have destroyed them all. If that was the point at which humans achieved souls (what else do you mean by 'complex spiritual expression'?) then you imply that native Australians and Americans don't have souls. Interesting.

But of course you don't mean that at all. It's not really clear what you do mean. Are you sure you've thought it all through?

If the flood was only 12000 years ago, then most of the population of the earth had nothing to do with it, and were not involved with any relationship with God until the time of Christ. This is deeply theologically unsound.

Fair enough? You jest, surely nothing I've said is fair enough to you.

Are you at all perplexed by the fact anatomically similar humans to us, appear to have existed as far back as about 130k years ago (according to current best estimates (though you opt for 200k which I guess you base upon "Mito Eve"). Nonetheless, we sparingly find paintings and other forms of spiritual expression, not until 40k years ago does there appear to be more complex expression.

Perhaps, we have incomplete data, that is a possibility. But, the way the data stands, well it perplexes me. For there seems to be detachment if you will, between the physical evolution of homo sapiens and the spiritual evolution. Like the physical beings existed long before a spiritual enlightenment of sort when homo sapiens sapiens began expressing themselves more fully. I have no idea how to square such, but I've learnt in life, to accept matters as they are and understand not all will be known to us.

Are you familiar with BioLogos though? I'm sure you've heard their name, and I don't support their beliefs. Nonetheless, they have an interesting article: How could humans have evolved and still be created in the "Image of God"?. In it they write:

• We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order. ....
  
  If the image of God refers to our spiritual capacities, God could still have used the natural process of evolution to create our bodies and human abilities. God could have used a miraculous process to create our spiritual capacities, or used some combination of natural processes and divine revelation to develop these capacities. Either way, God is the creator of our whole selves, including both our physical and spiritual aspects.

In essence, the idea is that we have anatomically similar humans walking around, but God imparted the imago dei at a later point. This could be at around 40k years ago, or perhaps it was progressive too; hominids becoming more and more spiritual. This is what the data seems to suggest, although perhaps we just have better access to spiritual expressions of ornaments, paintings, music and the like that a more recent; previous ages being largely destroyed and ruined.

Consider for example, art and music: "By 40,000 years ago, humans were creating musical instruments and two- and three-dimensional images of the world around them. By 17,000 years ago, they had developed all the major representational techniques including painting, drawing, engraving, sculpture, ceramics, and stenciling. Working on stone, ivory, antler, and occasionally clay, they created imaginative and highly complex works of art."

Then, you know, an agricultural bloom of sorts starts happening, around 12,000 years ago. It seems to be at this point, so the data appears to tell us, that at this time is when we start realising we can manipulate our environment for harvesting food and the like.

So then, I'm perplexed. I can't be sure when we humans really came to be. The data seems inconsistent, not what I'd expect, and yet, nor does it seem to fit in with a natural physical evolutionary scenario if indeed anatomically similar === spiritual expression and intelligence.

For me then, timings are up in the air. Regardless of physicality, the data seems to reflect spiritual expression came into its own more fully around 40k. At least that's what I read and hear from science and discovery. Is that the tipping point, when we have fully self-aware and a higher creative consciousness that we associate with ourselves? Perhaps. Maybe it was earlier, perhaps it was later.

If a flood happened to all or most of humanity, then the one thing I'm sure of is that the flood wasn't global. So then, humanity must have been gathered together, and this is why many distinct cultures often have similar flood myths of supernatural flavour. They all unite back to a time when their ancestors were affected by such a tragic event. But, when did the cultures share ancestors? It seems a fuller spiritual expression associated with humanity is to me a reasonable hypothesis. So then, I'm taking a hypothetical guess at best when I say 40-50k.

You know, perhaps we became more fully aware and started to transcend nature to make it conform to our lives rather than the other way around at about the 12k mark. Perhaps it was 17,000 years ago when we see a more heightened spiritual awakening (i.e., "all the major representational techniques including painting, drawing, engraving, sculpture, ceramics, and stenciling. Working on stone, ivory, antler, and occasionally clay, they created imaginative and highly complex works of art.").

There is something I'm quite certain of, based upon what I've kept re-iterating, but no response has been forthcoming. The many stories found across various cultures share similarities in details I find significant. Many are insignificant, but then there are a number that show significance. It seems to me, however you place it, there was a major flood event that impacted common ancestors between many people that since diversified over the earth.

Now, if we don't agree 100% with a strictly literal reading of Scripture, possibly just a whole lot of humans were killed and it is simply being wrapped up in the "all". Kind of like, when the media says in a manner of speak, say of some national day of remembrance, "All of Australia/America/England/[insert country] remembers those who died fighting..." In actuality, it's just a manner of speaking. So perhaps we equally be less literal so-far-as Scripture is concerned in relation to the "all" being affected. That is, perhaps some groups of humans here and there sruvived, straggler groups if you will had travelled out of the region of Mesopotamia or the like, so were not affected while by and far the majority of humanity was.

Perhaps some even did escape the very dramatic flood event to higher ground, while the majority of humanity was killed. Now, as a manner of speak, one might say "all of humanity was affected" because of the scale, and indeed, such would nonetheless be true in a sense. Of course this isn't strictly aligning with the Bible, but the essence is still there that a dramatic flood event did impact upon humanity and wiped most out. I'm just placing options on the table, in light of all these flood myths.

As for Australian aborigines, they have their own mythical flood stories where the land and humanity were greatly affected:

• Aboriginal myths often tell of a big flood, with local variations. The Worrorra people in western Australia describe an enormous flood that destroyed the previous landscape. It was caused by ancestral figures called the wandjina, who then spread throughout the land, establishing a new society. Other groups say the flood was brought by a great serpent that still exists in deep pools of water or off the coast. (http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Ar-Be/A ... ology.html)

If a flood wiped out all mankind, then it was well before agriculture had developed at all.

Oh, and, the boat thing. No human had the technology to build any kind of floating container more than 100m long before about 10000BC, and probably much later. If God did it by a miracle, then that's fine, but desperately trying to reconcile human history and the story of Noah's ark is doomed to failure, I fear

I think you didn't get my previous post re: boats, floats and the like. You do know who in the story apparently gave the dimensions and instructed in the manner the ark should be built? Of course, we can eliminate God from the story altogether. Perhaps we might even eliminate God from Christ too, and frame him as merely a man, a wise good man, but man nonetheless. Thoughts then on Christ?

[DBowling]

Some thoughts on the Flood date after a couple of years deep-diving the topic.
An examination of Genesis 4 is what led me to depart from Hugh Ross (who I respect greatly) and discount any flood date that occurs prior to 10,000 BC.

According to Genesis 4, mankind was engaged in the following activities before the flood:
- building cities (Gen 4:17)
- dwelling in tents and domesticating livestock (Genesis 4:20)
- playing the lyre and pipe (Genesis 4:21)
- forging bronze and iron (Genesis 4:22)

Here is a list of some key human activities that first occur after the beginning of the Neolithic era which began around 10,000 BC
- 10,000-8,700 BC – Mesopotamia – Introduction of Agriculture
- 8,700-6,800 BC – Mesopotamia – Domestication of Animals
- 7,090 BC – Jarmo – One of the oldest agricultural communities in the world in Northern Iraq
- 5,600 BC – Black Sea Deluge
- 5,400 BC – Eridu founded – Oldest city in the world
- 4,500 BC – Uruk (Enoch) founded

When I compared the human behaviors in Genesis 4 with the above dates for key human developments, I became convinced that if the events of Genesis 4 did in fact occur before the flood, then the flood had to have occurred sometime after 10,000 BC at the very earliest, and most likely sometime after 5,000 BC.

Further comparisons of the Biblical record and Mesopotamian history appear to converge at a common date of around 3,000 BC for the flood.

The most significant problem I have with Hugh Ross's date for the flood is it is inconsistent with the Genesis 4 description of human activities that occurred prior to the flood.

In Christ

[hughfarey]

Fair enough? You jest, surely nothing I've said is fair enough to you.

Not at all. As I said, I'm willing to discuss the evidence with anyone, when did Homo sapiens evolve, when did he disperse from Africa, when did the domestication of beasts or the cultivation of plants begin and so on. But if someone falls back on "I think God did it", then who I am to quarrel? God could have created the whole universe, with all its history, last week for all I know, and if anyone believes that, their position is scientifically unassailable. You seemed to be postulating a) a local flood which b) killed all men and c) involved sufficient technology for someone to build a ship - no, I beg your pardon, a floating container - 150m long and 25m wide. Scientifically this is wholly untenable, and I refuse any scientist's right to hold such an opinion. But if you say, God managed to collect everyone in one place, God designed the ark and God gave Noah the skills to make it, then that's fine; I cannot deny you your conviction and wish you well. I just don't think God behaves like that.

Are you at all perplexed by the fact anatomically similar humans to us, appear to have existed as far back as about 130k years ago (according to current best estimates (though you opt for 200k which I guess you base upon "Mito Eve"). Nonetheless, we sparingly find paintings and other forms of spiritual expression, not until 40k years ago does there appear to be more complex expression.

Evolution occurs over very long periods of time, and the development of the various aspects, physical and mental, of Homo sapiens sapiens no doubt did the same. It is probably still going on.

Perhaps, we have incomplete data, that is a possibility. But, the way the data stands, well it perplexes me. For there seems to be detachment if you will, between the physical evolution of homo sapiens and the spiritual evolution. Like the physical beings existed long before a spiritual enlightenment of sort when homo sapiens sapiens began expressing themselves more fully. I have no idea how to square such, but I've learnt in life, to accept matters as they are and understand not all will be known to us.

There is no need to be perplexed that different aspects of the mental development of humans occurred over a long period of time. It is entirely what we would expect from evolution.

Are you familiar with BioLogos though?

Not as familiar as I'd like to be, but they seem very sensible.

So then, I'm perplexed. I can't be sure when we humans really came to be. The data seems inconsistent, not what I'd expect, and yet, nor does it seem to fit in with a natural physical evolutionary scenario if indeed anatomically similar === spiritual expression and intelligence.

No need to be perplexed at all. Anatomy does not necessarily reflect culture.

If a flood happened to all or most of humanity, then the one thing I'm sure of is that the flood wasn't global. So then, humanity must have been gathered together, and this is why many distinct cultures often have similar flood myths of supernatural flavour. They all unite back to a time when their ancestors were affected by such a tragic event. But, when did the cultures share ancestors? It seems a fuller spiritual expression associated with humanity is to me a reasonable hypothesis. So then, I'm taking a hypothetical guess at best when I say 40-50k.

No, you've drifted off into the scientifically untenable. Humanity certainly was not gathered together in any sense at that time.

You know, perhaps we became more fully aware and started to transcend nature to make it conform to our lives rather than the other way around at about the 12k mark. Perhaps it was 17,000 years ago when we see a more heightened spiritual awakening (i.e., "all the major representational techniques including painting, drawing, engraving, sculpture, ceramics, and stenciling. Working on stone, ivory, antler, and occasionally clay, they created imaginative and highly complex works of art.").

Again, you need to be very careful here. North America and Australia were populated well before 17000 years ago. If you claim that the 'imago dei' was given to a small group of people (who were shortly afterwards almost destroyed by the flood), then you deny it to native Africans, Americans and Australians. I know you don't really think that non-whites don't have souls, but the logic of your attempt to account scientifically for the death of all men in a single flood leads inexorably in that direction.

There is something I'm quite certain of, based upon what I've kept re-iterating, but no response has been forthcoming. The many stories found across various cultures share similarities in details I find significant. Many are insignificant, but then there are a number that show significance. It seems to me, however you place it, there was a major flood event that impacted common ancestors between many people that since diversified over the earth.

I disagree. Floods have a universal similarity, and the stories surrounding them are likely to be similar too, even if they derive from quite different occurrences.

Now, if we don't agree 100% with a strictly literal reading of Scripture, possibly just a whole lot of humans were killed and it is simply being wrapped up in the "all". ... Perhaps some even did escape the very dramatic flood event to higher ground, while the majority of humanity was killed. Now, as a manner of speak, one might say "all of humanity was affected" because of the scale, and indeed, such would nonetheless be true in a sense. Of course this isn't strictly aligning with the Bible, but the essence is still there that a dramatic flood event did impact upon humanity and wiped most out. I'm just placing options on the table, in light of all these flood myths.

No. I think this is weakening the point of the Bible story for the sake of some scientific credibility. Better to abandon the historic truth and stick to the theological truth.

I think you didn't get my previous post re: boats, floats and the like.

I did get it, but didn't think a lot of it. The story is quite specific as to what was built, and sort of floating container thing just doesn't suit.

You do know who in the story apparently gave the dimensions and instructed in the manner the ark should be built? Of course, we can eliminate God from the story altogether. Perhaps we might even eliminate God from Christ too, and frame him as merely a man, a wise good man, but man nonetheless. Thoughts then on Christ?

If you choose to eliminate God from the unfolding of his creation, then who am I to stop you? Christ could indeed be interpreted as exclusively human, and I dare say many do, but that is to fail to appreciate the richness of God's involvement in creation. Thoughts on Christ? You could try reading the Catholic Creed. That's my position to a T.

[abelcainsbrother]

It has been awhile since I looked into it but I think science may be finding evidence for Noah's flood even though they are trying to prove something else.But if a person takes the time to look into the science behind global warming science detects a catastrophic event that happened about 4,000 years ago.The only thing though it it does not have to do with water but a drought that happened.Perhaps the evidence for a global flood is the fact of world wide dust that shows a world drought.Could it be a world wide drought that happened after Noah's flood that is the evidence we have?It is not water but dust.

[Philip]

No. I think this is weakening the point of the Bible story for the sake of some scientific credibility. Better to abandon the historic truth and stick to the theological truth.

That is, if you think the historic truth is different from the accurate understanding of the theological truth. The reality is, you either believe Scripture is true - which means also means it is also HISTORICALLY true as well - or you don't. The question needs to be: Is the passage meant to be factual/historical, scientific, or symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical - or some combination - and do we have an accurate understanding it of its intentions and its historical/cultural/religious/spiritual /specific event or subject's context? So often, around here, Christians relentlessly debate Biblically described miraculous events, but within the passages debated, the miraculous components were only used to show God's deeper truths. In Scripture, the miracles are never the point, not ultimately, anyway.

[Kurieuo]

Some thoughts on the Flood date after a couple of years deep-diving the topic.
An examination of Genesis 4 is what led me to depart from Hugh Ross (who I respect greatly) and discount any flood date that occurs prior to 10,000 BC.

According to Genesis 4, mankind was engaged in the following activities before the flood:
- building cities (Gen 4:17)
- dwelling in tents and domesticating livestock (Genesis 4:20)
- playing the lyre and pipe (Genesis 4:21)
- forging bronze and iron (Genesis 4:22)

Here is a list of some key human activities that first occur after the beginning of the Neolithic era which began around 10,000 BC
- 10,000-8,700 BC – Mesopotamia – Introduction of Agriculture
- 8,700-6,800 BC – Mesopotamia – Domestication of Animals
- 7,090 BC – Jarmo – One of the oldest agricultural communities in the world in Northern Iraq
- 5,600 BC – Black Sea Deluge
- 5,400 BC – Eridu founded – Oldest city in the world
- 4,500 BC – Uruk (Enoch) founded

When I compared the human behaviors in Genesis 4 with the above dates for key human developments, I became convinced that if the events of Genesis 4 did in fact occur before the flood, then the flood had to have occurred sometime after 10,000 BC at the very earliest, and most likely sometime after 5,000 BC.

Further comparisons of the Biblical record and Mesopotamian history appear to converge at a common date of around 3,000 BC for the flood.

The most significant problem I have with Hugh Ross's date for the flood is it is inconsistent with the Genesis 4 description of human activities that occurred prior to the flood.

In Christ

Thanks DBowling,

Since you are a fellow Day-Ager and someone who seems to have matured beyond RTB, I'd be interested to know if you have additional thoughts in regard to how all of humanity could have been involved in the flood given we appear to have spread out much earlier in time than 10,000 years (as Hugh has correctly pointed out here).

Nonetheless we have over 300 cultures around the world who report major floods with various similarities. Some argue this away by saying floods are common, but so too are fires, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions; the similar elements in the flood stories with often supernatural elements, and the number, persuade me a real flood disaster affecting a lot of humanity altogether at some point in time did occur.

Furthermore, we have the story itself that presents itself as historical fact. The fact we have such a story itself counts as evidence for that story, or else why there would be nothing. To explain why the story was developed, one must come up with an ulterior motive, and I find the ulterior motives many historical-critical scholars put forward as rather lacking in explanatory power and being too much looked at through a modern lens of secularism which denies God's existence and interaction as real possibilities. I see no reason for this, provided one has logical ground for affirming God's existence.

To top it off, we have Christ Himself embracing the story of Noah and the flood as truth in Luke 17:27. I think sometimes that "Natural" theologians, like you (Hugh) evidently take pride in being, often don't coherently think through the full soteriological ramifications of dropping this truth in Scripture and that truth. Let me lay out an argument here for you:

• 1) If Christ is God, then Christ cannot lie or be mistaken.
  2) Christ accepted the historical reality of Noah and the flood, and as God he could not be mistaken about such.
  3) Noah and the flood did not really happen, therefore Christ was mistaken and is not God.

The price of dropping this story is too steep given Christ accepted it. For if Christ is not God, we're still in our sins. Then indeed, Christ probably wasn't risen from the dead as was claimed, any faith in the Roman Catholic Church is worthless being founded upon lies, we're all still in our sins and our hope in Christ is a most pitiful affair. (1 Cor 15:16-19)

Now all that said, for critical thinking purposes, some Christians may not understand this, but I'm willing to drop the Bible as canon and treat such as just a historical source under more historical-critical methods. With that let me qualify that after doing so, we're left with puzzle pieces and perhaps ones that may not be reconciled with each other; I tip my hat to Scripture (like you seem to your church Hugh).

Coming then back to you DBowling, an issue I see is with the timing which Hugh has wanted to poke holes in at every turn, but then nothing is ever neat and there's nothing wrong with postulating and thinking things through. I feel Hugh thought when I said I believe the flood happened 40-50k years ago, he thought this to be a strong adamant belief of mine. It's just a period that I see is most fitting if we believe the flood affected every single person alive who was human like us.

Given creativity we associate with us humans is found in other areas of the world (outside of Mesopotamia), for example Aboriginal art dated to around 40,000 years ago. If we give 50,000 thousand years, then perhaps we're within an error-corrective range when a full spiritually endowed humanity is finally all collected together such that the flood can affect all humanity in one location.

Note, I'd be willing to consider the belief and accept Biologos' position that what we call anatomically modern humans older than 50k years ago or so, did not actually possess our same higher-level consciousness and spirituality. Something like God imparted the imago dei within what physically represented human beings at a certain time, and then having selected "us" as His image bearers, made all other homo species extinct. Hence we have Neanderthals and Flores man and perhaps others, who co-existed with us modern humans, all fading out of existence while we lived on. Perhaps this fuller spiritual endowment, that we associate with the imago dei (or others just call a higher level of intelligence and spirituality in us humans) according to evidence can be pushed to around 15,000 years ago -- and now we're within much more comfortable shot of timings in Scripture surrounding humanity. Especially if we factor in gaps can exist in genealogies.

I see there are no easy answers here, for anyone. The fact that higher spiritual expressions comes long after we have anatomically similar humans (i.e., physically identical to us), would appear to be something that must be accounted for in anyone's view of human origins. If humans 50k years ago are really physically the same as humans 150k years ago, then why did it take creative expression so long to come in. Crocodiles have been around millions of years, and they're still just a big reptilian lizards, aren't trying to draw pictures, create tools, cultivate and the like. As I say, there seems to be no easy answers for anyone here. It seems our spiritual side came in much later, somewhat independently from our physical anatomy (which I think argues powerfully against Physicalism). So then, I would consider Biologos' position that perhaps we do have physically the same humans walking around much earlier, and yet they're only endowed or specially created with this higher spirituality and full consciousness we associate with us humans today much further down the line.

DBowling, what do you say of those human activities found to have existed much earlier than 10k years ago in other parts of the world? How could humanity be gathered together, in one location to have been affected by a flood 5,000-10,000 BC, if 40,000 years ago human beings (Aborigines) were already in Australia? Or are these particulars things you just haven't tried to factor in? I'm quite interested in your thinking since you come from similar Day-Age background to myself.

[abelcainsbrother]

Here look at this and see if you notice two bottles necks science has detected? Keep in mind that scientists do not consider the bible and they look at everything through an evolution perspective.They interpret the evidence in accordance with evolution.But I see two bottle necks science has detected.And it has to do with Adam being created about 10,000 years ago - hunter gatherers and then Noah's flood about 4,000 years ago.All humans today would be descendants of Noah. Now sure they claim only the male population dropped but they detect two bottlenecks that line up with biblical timelines. Of course though it might depend on your creation interpretation though,but it fits with mine. I simply claim all life before this life had to do with the former world until it perished and it has nothing to do with this world then when God made this world God created Adam and Eve about 10,000 years ago and then Noah's flood happened about 4,000 years ago.Keep things simple - Occam's Razor. Remember 6-10,000 years ago. Anyway here it is.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-decline-ma ... lture.html

[hughfarey]

That's very interesting, abelcainsbrother, and not something I'd seen before. You'll have noticed that the widespread reduction in reproductive males in different communities is not attributed to the lack of males as such, but only to their reproductive success, which the authors endeavour to explain by the dominance of a small elite, as a result of the geographic and economic stability of early agricultural societies. If so, then it demonstrates a complete lack of widespread natural disasters, such as floods, which would tend to break up a coherent society into little groups.

[hughfarey]

The reality is, you either believe Scripture is true - which means also means it is also HISTORICALLY true as well - or you don't.

No. That is a false dichotomy, which if maintained leads to continuous reductio ab absurdam conclusions which severely weaken the authority of scripture without contributing to the understanding of science at all.

The question needs to be: Is the passage meant to be factual/historical, scientific, or symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical - or some combination - and do we have an accurate understanding it of its intentions and its historical/cultural/religious/spiritual /specific event or subject's context?

That's much better, and seems, fortunately, to be the exact opposite of what you said just above.

[abelcainsbrother]

That's very interesting, abelcainsbrother, and not something I'd seen before. You'll have noticed that the widespread reduction in reproductive males in different communities is not attributed to the lack of males as such, but only to their reproductive success, which the authors endeavour to explain by the dominance of a small elite, as a result of the geographic and economic stability of early agricultural societies. If so, then it demonstrates a complete lack of widespread natural disasters, such as floods, which would tend to break up a coherent society into little groups.

It is just one piece of the puzzle so to speak.I already know where the 4000 year dating comes from and it has to do with global warming science and a world wide drought,this tells me it is about population reduction.Which is what bottlenecks mean,a reduction in the population.And of course they are looking at it from and evolution perspective and always keep at least some life alive so that it can evolve.They have because of this overlooked that the evidence tells of two different worlds with a gap in between them which is why we see different kinds of life for both worlds,of course though in some cases the same life was in both worlds like roaches and silverfish,etc.

But all things have not gone on continually for billions of years like scientists think and they only think it has because of evolution.The evidence does not tell us all things have gone on continually for billions of years,instead it tells us we once had very different kinds of life in the former world until it died and the former world perished,then a gap and then this world with different kinds of life in it.By looking at a dinosaur for example it does not tell you it evolved into a bird,it tells you this kind of life once lived in a much different world than this world we now live in.

[hughfarey]

It is just one piece of the puzzle so to speak.I already know where the 4000 year dating comes from and it has to do with global warming science and a world wide drought,this tells me it is about population reduction.

I dare say it does. However, that is not what the article you mention says, which is specifically that there was an increase in population, couple to a decrease in male genetic diversity.

Which is what bottlenecks mean,a reduction in the population.

Not in this case, no.

They have because of this overlooked that the evidence tells of two different worlds with a gap in between them which is why we see different kinds of life for both worlds ...

If this means anything, then it is incorrect.

But all things have not gone on continually for billions of years like scientists think and they only think it has because of evolution.The evidence does not tell us all things have gone on continually for billions of years,instead it tells us we once had very different kinds of life in the former world until it died and the former world perished,then a gap and then this world with different kinds of life in it.

No. The evidence is unequivocally in favour of continuous evolution.

By looking at a dinosaur for example it does not tell you it evolved into a bird,it tells you this kind of life once lived in a much different world than this world we now live in.

No, again. Looking at a dinosaur does not tell you that it evolved into a bird, since it predates birds, but looking at a bird most certainly tells you that it evolved from a dinosaur.