Your timeline reads like a good chronology of events but I can't see your reasoning for anything up until the Ark comes to rest on Ararat. Everything after that is well supported by archealogical evidence (Babel, Moses, the Exodus, Abraham, etc.). Many of the cities in the Bible have been re-discovered. But all that other stuff seems like a fabricated story made up to squeeze everything else (99.9% of Earth's history) into a 2000 year window. Not to beat the proverbial dead horse but...
Bristlecone pine trees growing in the United States have been dated to 4900 years old. This means they started to grow in 2900 BC. So using our timeline we would not expect them to survive the flood at 3537 BC, we would also not expect them to survive the great tsunomis caused by the continents dividing in 3006 BC
bold assumption that these extant bristlecones were the first (and also current!) generation after some flood. Bristlecone cones cannot survive immersion in salt water. How do you know that the oldest tree was the first tree? There were bristlecones exiting before the bristlecones we see today and more before those and so on. Just because they happen to be 4900 years old doesn't lend support to the story, it is simply convenient for it. And how did these 4900 year old trees survive these ice ages you say happened post-flood (bristlecones are arid, warm climate trees)?
We would expect to see evidence of the flood on the earth. This we do see.
there is zero evidence for a global flood. Saying this is oversimplifying what we actually see. You see all the layers in a strata and say "it was all laid down at once by a Flood". This may be the most parsimonious explanation, but few things in this world take the simplest explanation to explain. If you look closer, you will see that the order and procession of faunas. There are unconformities and intrusions, some worn down, twisted, covered again, and the top layers laid flat in an order that can only be sequential over time. There are layers indicating volcanic activity, covered by layers of sedimentary rock, that could not have been deposited within days of each other. you have a layer indicating a meteorite impact, even craters themselves buried in the strata. This could not have come along in the timescale of a year-long Flood! Erosion and sedimentation rates, as well as plate tectonics, aren't even close to fast enough to do this worldwide unless the whole world was a raging flow. And forget about anything surviving if this was the case.
The earth prior to the fall did not have predators and the ground watered the plants.
Evidence? We have plenty of earlyfossils that were adapted for carnivory. The earliest heterotrophs fed on each other. Since you believe it was all around (but not able to fossilize), then explain how an organism adapted for carnivory can eat plants? And what process made it suddenly eat animals? A tiger can't switch to hervivory on a whim and an elephant can't suddenly take meat. There needs to be some morphological, physiological, and behaviorial change.
It did not rain and a mist was everywhere. One did not have to work to produce a crop of food. The whole earth was a garden and food basket.
Evidence? Mist is a form of precipitation... It is fine, suspended particles of liquid water. What force is preventing this from condensing into rain? And if there is some "anti-condensation" law, how does the mist form from vapor? And what experimentation has been done to show that mist and groundwater can support a rainforest? The Amazon, African, and island rainforests all have high annual rainfalls to support their plant life, in addition to the mist. How does mist water the plant because mist usually just coats the stems and leaves, and does not saturate the soil.
And people were able to survive off the land because we were in small numbers and we were harvesting well under the level of sustainability. If we had a few thousand on Earth today, we would be sustainable too.
Desease and natural evil like falling off a cliff and dying could not occur. Man was created eternal. All of creation probably did not have the law of thermodynamics operating. This would mean that things did not decay and age as they do now.
this is speculation with a capital S! Evidence for any of this? Nothing on Earth or in the Universe could funtion if the laws of thermodynamics were "shut off". How would systems operate? No gravity!? So people walking to a cliff could not fall? People could not collect food ( it is killing)? What about all of the fossils that show clear aging? Saying we didn't have any fossils at this time is only a convenient excuse for not being able to explain it.
The seas were smaller. In fact we can see evidence of water erosion on the sea floor around major rivers. This means the sea level was much lower than today and the rivers cut valleys in the exposed rock.
yes, this is true. Drowned river valleys are formed because rising sea level engulfs old river valleys. The procession of a coastline takes tens of thousands to millions of years. And the sea level has been HIGHER as well in the past. The area I live now is built on top of old barrier islands that existed when sea levels were higher. So this phenomemon doesn't lend itself as evidence for your position.
Now some of you may have a hard time with this because science says the laws are part of nature. That is not true. What science reports is what they see
science reports what it sees, YEC's report what they see. Both are prone to the same human error, the scientist in the experiment and the creationist is the interpretation of the Bible. And there is no evidence that the laws were ever turned off! Scientists can't mis-interpret something that doesn't exist.
From 5793 BC to the flood in 3537 BC we would not expect many fossils because it did not rain so having an animal buried after it died would not occur. The only item that some of us believe is preflood is the Sphinx in Egypt. There is some evidence that it was in the flood.
Evidence? Because we see fossils in some of the oldest Pre-Cambrian rock... where does this "pre-flood" layer begin exactly? The Sphinx has not been covered by anything but moving sand. The desert had completely buried it by the time it was re-discovered and excavated. The features of the statue are all consistent with wind erosion. There were also many civilizations besides Egypt that trace their lineages back around 6-10K BC, if not much more. Did they not exist? And if they did, then why didnt the flood bury their artifacts under meters of flood deposits? Where are these pre-flood civilzations in Pre-Cambrian rock? In Cambrian rock? In any pre-Holocene rock?
According to our timeline with orbital years and atomic years the Cambrian period occurred at the time of the flood. That would make sense that fossils would be found after the flood when many creatures were buried. So the so called Cambrian explosion of life was nothing more than some animals that already were populating the earth got themselves buried. Sometimes the simplest explaination is the right one.
or the most convenient... see above for why this is impossible. And I guess only primitive marine invertebrates were able to be fossilized in this Cambrian rock? I guess God wanted them to die by complexity?
After the flood, Noah's ark came to rest on Mount Ararat in the mountains of Iran. The ark has not been found although some people have said they have seen it. It may be in plain sight but we may not be allowed to see it. In a similar way the Garden of Eden may still be on the earth but we cannot see it.
[/quote]
and finally, my good friend the ark. There are huge piles of problems for the global flood story but that's another thread. Maybe the ark broke down and rotted? Maybe all of this crazy stuff that happened post flood destroyed it. Why are people expecting this thing to be on the top of Ararat? It could just as easily been erased in 3000BC. If the ark is in the same place today as it was back then, that is proof right there that the Earth has been uniformitarian since this Flood (local or global).
I know these rambling usually end up going nowhere and I'm not changing anyone's mind on these things. I just find it ridiculous that you could possibly attack macroevolution for "having no evidence", and yet post these wild scenarios that have no basis in factual data and say "it's reasonable". I don't see the logic... I really don't. And the assumption that the superficial, simplest explanation is always right is a fallacy. most things in this world, as you know, are far more complex than the simplest explanation.
