50,000 year old forest found, Gulf of Mexico:

Originally posted by RJHinds
The impacts must have been more frequent in the past, therefore there was nothing unusual to write about and writing material was a little more scarce in those days.

The instructor

Who is talking about writing? There are aborigine tales in Australia that still recall the flooding that caused the great barrier reef, at the end of the ice age 20,000 years ago, about 10,000 years ago the sea level had risen to what we see today and before that time there were no corals in Australia, at least not the huge extent we see today but the great coral reef was 100% due to the flooding of the coast of Australia and the Ab's were there 20,000 years ago and earlier and SAW the flooding firsthand and there are still tales of what happened back that far in the past.

So in the same way, there are ZERO folk tales of flashes on the moon. There are accounts by those trappist monks from 1300 where they saw ONE flash and they wrote about it and maybe a few you could count on one hand in the rest of the world. Remember, folks have been looking into the sky as long as the have been folks with our modern brains to look and see and anything unusual like a comet would have large consequences culturally and a constant moon interrupted by a huge flash would have been noticed by those early people and they did not see them for the most part. Therefore it is safe to say there have been VERY few hits on the moon in our times, that is to say, within the last 10,000 years, therefore the hits had to come way before that time. A time that predates your supposed deluded date of the age of the Earth.

Your story just does not hold up to the most casual scrutiny. Another case where you desperately want humans NOT to use the intelligence they were born with. You think we are the crown of creation, the best thing ever created on Earth but you would make it illegal for us to actually USE that intelligence when it comes to asinine stories like the Earth being 6000 years old.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The impacts must have been more frequent in the past, therefore there was nothing unusual to write about and writing material was a little more scarce in those days.

The instructor

Proto-writing is older than 4000B.C.. Writing, in the sense of a representation of syllables first emerged approximately 2,600 B.C.. They would have had no way of recording the events except as part of oral folk law.

During the late heavy bombardment era lots of comets struck the inner planets. This is why the earth has water. The sheer amount of junk hitting the earth would have wiped out anything alive. The amount of decay products around indicate that if all the radio-disintegrations that science thinks happened over the last 4 or so billion years happened in the last 6,000 the landscape would have been electric blue due to the ionization of air molecules. Your argument must be false because we'd all be dead.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Who is talking about writing? There are aborigine tales in Australia that still recall the flooding that caused the great barrier reef, at the end of the ice age 20,000 years ago, about 10,000 years ago the sea level had risen to what we see today and before that time there were no corals in Australia, at least not the huge extent we see today but the grea lly USE that intelligence when it comes to asinine stories like the Earth being 6000 years old.

I think you got him there. There surely SHOULD be tales spoken of massive flashes of light on the moon if he is right or at least tales that could plausibly originated from that by people that misinterpreted what they saw.
And not just flashes of light on the moon! -each of the bigger impacts will throw a massive volume of vaporized rock into space with escape velocity that would then condense into micro-rocks in space and many billions of these would fall into the Earths atmosphere causing a truly spectacular but mainly harmless fireworks display -and this just hours after the spectacular moon-flash. It is difficult to imagine why nobody either noticed all of this or wasn't the slightest bit interested or puzzled or carious about all of this so they never talked about it much!

Originally posted by sonhouse
Who is talking about writing? There are aborigine tales in Australia that still recall the flooding that caused the great barrier reef, at the end of the ice age 20,000 years ago, about 10,000 years ago the sea level had risen to what we see today and before that time there were no corals in Australia, at least not the huge extent we see today but the grea ...[text shortened]... lly USE that intelligence when it comes to asinine stories like the Earth being 6000 years old.

The end of the ice age 20,000 years ago? There you go with those made-up bull crap dates again. How can I believe such nonesense and take you serious?

The Instructor

Originally posted by DeepThought
Proto-writing is older than 4000B.C.. Writing, in the sense of a representation of syllables first emerged approximately 2,600 B.C.. They would have had no way of recording the events except as part of oral folk law.

During the late heavy bombardment era lots of comets struck the inner planets. This is why the earth has water. The sheer amount of ...[text shortened]... due to the ionization of air molecules. Your argument must be false because we'd all be dead.

The Holy Bible tells me why the earth has water. God made it covered in water. We are not hit with a bunk of space junk today and speculating about the distant past that no one could possibly know is bull crap to me.
The fact we are alive proves your idea is false not mine.

The instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
Who is talking about writing? There are aborigine tales in Australia that still recall the flooding that caused the great barrier reef, at the end of the ice age 20,000 years ago, about 10,000 years ago the sea level had risen to what we see today and before that time there were no corals in Australia, at least not the huge extent we see today but the grea ...[text shortened]... AW the flooding firsthand and there are still tales of what happened back that far in the past.

I don't believe you. What evidence do you have that any modern tale is related to that particular event?

I must also agree with DeepThought that records of large quantities of meteors hitting the moon would not make sense, as there should have been a greater number hitting the earth unless they were specially targeted.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't believe you. What evidence do you have that any modern tale is related to that particular event?

I must also agree with DeepThought that records of large quantities of meteors hitting the moon would not make sense, as there should have been a greater number hitting the earth unless they were specially targeted.

Here is one Aborigine tale, taken from a creationist site:

a u s t r a l i a

An Aboriginal account

A western Australian Aboriginal tribe kept a story of a flood that they possessed before they came into any contact with missionaries. This is expressed in the words from an old Wunambal tribal member, Mickie Bungunie, who said, "This is an old time story told by the earliest, profoundly knowledgeable elders."

"Ngadja, the Supreme Being, then instructed Gajara, saying, 'If you want to live, take your wife, your sons, and your sons' wives, and get a double raft. Because of the Dumbi affair, I intend to drown every one. I am about to send rain and a sea flood.' 'Put on the raft long-lasting foods that may be stored.' he told him.'" The legend then goes on to describe various Aboriginal foods and various Australian animals Gajara gathered and put on the raft. "Gajara gathered his sons as the crew, and his own wife and his sons' wives together." After this, Ngadja sent rain clouds, and every living thing in the earth perished, except for Gajara and those who were on the raft with him. Gajara then sent a cuckoo and some birds from the raft. The cuckoo did not return, because it had found some land. After the flood subsided they killed the kangaroo that had been with them on the raft, and Gajara's wife put it in the earthen oven with the other food she was cooking. The smoke rose to the sky, and Ngadja smelled it, and he was pleased. Then Ngadja put a rainbow in the sky to hold back the rain. "Our people [the Aborigines] understand the significance of it. When we see the rainbow we say, 'there will not be any more abnormally heavy rain'"

- See more at: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=5033#sthash.PDpTeDNB.dpuf

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is one Aborigine tale, taken from a creationist site:

And you believe what you read on creationist sites? Wow. It seems RJ is rubbing off on you.
So, what makes you think this tale is 20,000 years old?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you believe what you read on creationist sites? Wow. It seems RJ is rubbing off on you.
So, what makes you think this tale is 20,000 years old?

You do know that sonhouse doesn't believe nor claim the explicit aboriginal account to be the literal truth in every detail word-for-word -right? (just checking)

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible tells me why the earth has water. God made it covered in water. We are not hit with a bunk of space junk today and speculating about the distant past that no one could possibly know is bull crap to me.
The fact we are alive proves your idea is false not mine.

The instructor

A young earth is inconsistent with the data we have. You are like O'Brien claiming that the law of gravity is subordinate to party doctrine.

Originally posted by humy
I think you got him there. There surely SHOULD be tales spoken of massive flashes of light on the moon if he is right or at least tales that could plausibly originated from that by people that misinterpreted what they saw.
And not just flashes of light on the moon! -each of the bigger impacts will throw a massive volume of vaporized rock into space with escap ...[text shortened]... test bit interested or puzzled or carious about all of this so they never talked about it much!

That is because all your speculating didn't happen.

The Instructor

Originally posted by DeepThought
A young earth is inconsistent with the data we have. You are like O'Brien claiming that the law of gravity is subordinate to party doctrine.

I don't know what data you are talking about, but apparently you have some misunderstanding.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy
You do know that sonhouse doesn't believe nor claim the explicit aboriginal account to be the literal truth in every detail word-for-word -right? (just checking)

Of course. It is not clear what he thinks about it. I personally think there is a good chance much of it was made up by creationists, and I am very sure it is not 20,000 years old. Floods are common worldwide and so are stories about them, there is simply no reason to try to link them to specific geological events, and this particular story looks to me to have been 'adjusted' to look like the Noah's ark story most likely by a creationist, but possibly even by an aborigine familiar with the Noah's ark story.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is because all your speculating didn't happen.

The Instructor

If those impacts on the moon didn't happen then, then how can you have young-Earth without there probably being stories passed down through the generations indicating some spectacular events on the moon with bright flashes followed by spectacular display of shooting stars in the sky?

Originally posted by humy
If those impacts on the moon didn't happen then, then how can you have young-Earth without there probably being stories passed down through the generations indicating some spectacular events on the moon with bright flashes followed by spectacular display of shooting stars in the sky?

Didn't you know that it never rained before the flood and that much of the water we see today was in the form of permanent cloud cover?
Besides, since there was a bottleneck of human population at noah, only a limited number of stories could get through. Even the Noah story need not have been passed down as it was probably dictated to some writer at a later date.

Besides, those impact craters might be something altogether different, after all, nobody has ever seen one being formed. Its all just based on assumptions.

Its funny, but I think RJ would happily go with the first part of my post, but would not agree with the 'not really craters' hypothesis despite the fact that it fits very well with his previous claims.