I would have liked to discuss your views in person. I am finding myself more interested in YEC theses, and I will be perusing your site.

Here is a direct answer to your question. Genesis and Other Scriptures

Sal

PS
Great seeing you at the last to Discovery Institute events.

Are you a YEC?

Thank you!!! I posted a discussion of it at YoungCosmos.

More proof of the great flood…

You might be interested in reading Bill Cooper’s book, “After the Flood,” which is online here.

From the back cover of my 1995 copy:

The author lays out astonishing evidence showing how the earliest Europeans recorded their descent from Noah through Japheth in meticulously kept records, knew all about Creation and the Flood, and had encounters with creatures we would call dinosaurs. These records of other nations lend chapters 10 and 11 of Genesis a degree of accuracy that sets them apart from all other historical documents of the ancient world.

When conditions are good for radiometric dating (generally in rocks without a fossil in sight!) modern, independent methods can control and correct for diffusion and contamination and provide results so close together, so often, it is hard to see how they can all be invalid (except if you start playing around with fundamental constants like Setterfield et al., who tacitly accept the technique but modify the time scale). I started out as a YEC sceptic of this stuff years ago, but I’ve worked with people involved with this, and they are very careful, conservative scientists with no agenda.

I welcome your views on this. If you have links to criticisms of the YEC RATE group, I would be very much appreciative.

I tend to accept dates that can have a paper trail (i.e. we can start from today, and work an uninterrupted time line to the earliest records). I am suspicious of “dates” fixed out of the air.

I was a Darwinist, turned Old Earth Creationist (I’m still 15% OEC provisionally). It would be an interesting scholarly study to trace back uninterrupted paper trails of human history. I would suppose the 10,000 year number will continue to indicate something very special and extra-ordinary happened at that time.

We can think of how slowly languages change. It seems, like the Cambrian Explosion, there was also a language explosion, and only micro evolution, not macro-evolution of languages. Ah, the subject of another inquiry!

…Our Stone Age ancestors were certainly smart enough to have traversed a nautical obstacle course such as the Lombok Strait, Bednarik contended in the April Cambridge Archaeological Journal. Findings by researchers working in Asia and Africa suggest that rock art, decorative beads, engraved stones, and hunting spears all originated at least several hundred thousand years before the appearance of H. sapiens. Such accomplishments would require that individuals speak to one another and assign abstract meanings to various objects and symbols, in Bednarik’s opinion.

…

Only watercraft navigators and especially hardy, swimming creatures reached the island in the thick of the Stone Age, Morwood says. Dating of stone-tool-bearing sediment indicates that H. erectus occupied the island 840,000 years ago, in his view. At that time, fossil discoveries show that rodents and now-extinct elephants also lived there. Modern versions of these animals are renowned as long-distance swimmers.

“[Stone Age] seafaring appears to have been possible,” says anthropologist Tim Bromage of Hunter College, City University of New York. Southeast Asian bamboo that grows in stalks as thick as 12 inches across provides a versatile material for building rafts with the aid of simple stone tools, he notes.

…

The next phase of Bednarik’s rafting experiments has moved to Europe. Proposals that H. erectus intentionally traveled to Mediterranean islands and entered Europe from Africa via the Strait of Gibraltar have attracted considerable controversy (SN: 1/4/97, p. 12).

[Another opinion]

A small number of H. erectus individuals may accidentally have reached Flores, perhaps by floating on mats of vegetation, in Davidson’s opinion.

[Comment on "armchair archaelogists"]

For now, academic squabbling worries Bednarik far less than the challenge of navigating a raft through the Strait of Gibraltar’s strenuous currents. “Armchair archaeologists, who think that sea crossings are a piece of cake, really ought to try doing this on drifting vegetation,” he says.

http://www.sciencenews.org/art.....8/bob8.asp

No problem, and I agree with you here. I do not question the age of the Earth, and many things like the age of Cambrian layers.

But I have plenty of doubts about dating of human fossils. Pre-suppositions drive evolution science – this is admitted by quite a number of distinguished evolutionists themselves.

And evolutionary pre-suppositions will decide whether the evolutionist will use carbon dating or potassium/argon dating, for example. And that alone is sufficient to decide whether something is less or more than 30,000 – 60,000 years old.

Now, how do you explain Homo erectus (or related early human species) ending up in Java, Bali,Flores,Timor, Australia, etc.?

They said Homo erectus must be carried there in the seas by floating mat of vegetation. Is that believable?

Or the alternative? That is, Homo erectus built rafts for fishing purpose, and then develop rafts to cross the seas?

See here for the map of Indonesian islands.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedic.....IA_map.jpg

See here for experimental efforts to ascertain the minimum requirements for Stone Age people to cross Indonesian seas – based on the theory that Stone Age people really built sea-navigation capable rafts.

The minimum requirements should serve to prove or disprove that Homo erectus could be carried across the seas by floating vegetation.

http://www.sciencenews.org/art.....8/bob8.asp

The reason radiometric dating is not a panacea for dating fossils is because fossils are generally found in sedimentary rocks, and radiometric dating requires ingneous rocks, especially crystals like zircon. You can have very new sedimentary rock containing very old crystals. The radiometric date might be completely valid, and tell you exactly the age of the zircon, but nothing at all about the age of the sedimentary rock in which it is found. This is no fault of the radiometric method.

When conditions are good for radiometric dating (generally in rocks without a fossil in sight!) modern, independent methods can control and correct for diffusion and contamination and provide results so close together, so often, it is hard to see how they can all be invalid (except if you start playing around with fundamental constants like Setterfield et al., who tacitly accept the technique but modify the time scale). I started out as a YEC sceptic of this stuff years ago, but I’ve worked with people involved with this, and they are very careful, conservative scientists with no agenda.

Writing off an entire method because of a few bad practictioners, or a few bad data points, is not a good way to conduct science, no matter what the subject.

The fossil record is not a record incremental change, but of saltations (which Darwinists are desperate to deny and explain away). I’ve described this as biological epiphany (as though biology had a sudden awakening or insight, and something completely new came about in one fell swoop, such as bird-like flight).

Since the fossil record is a consistent record of sudden transition to something new and fundamentally different, wouldn’t it be consistent with the evidence and bio-historical track record that humanity, as we think of it today, appeared suddenly on the scene, saltationally, just like other major innovations?