There is a very close correlation between the two lists (if one excludes Adam and Noah in the Bible), the flood is mentioned, and the kings all have long life-spans, providing strong evidence that the Sumerians recognized the history recorded in the Bible as fact. The Sumerian King List is remarkably similar to the biblical genealogy in Genesis 5.Even secular historians accept this and call Sumer the "cradle of civilization".
There are royal genealogies in Europe that trace their family lines back to Noah. Noah, his sons, and his further descendants mentioned in the Bible are found and named in numerous cultures and there is much extra-biblical evidence for their existence, showing that they were real people who made a real impact.Creation legends also exist, but once again, the biblical account is superior. While critics like to say the biblical flood account is descended from other stories, in reality, it is the other way around, as the biblical flood account is far superior to any flood legend in multiple ways. Over 270 cultures have flood legends that distinctly resemble the biblical flood account.the lens through which they see the world) that evolution is true, that the Earth is old, and that humans were originally dumb and became more intelligent as time went on. While adherents to a belief in an old earth claim of artifacts existing further back than 4,000 B.C., those people come to their conclusions due to their presuppositions (i.e. and certainly younger than 4,000 B.C., the approximate date of origin of the Earth, based on a straightforward reading of the Bible. The oldest direct evidence of life-written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc.-is no older than about 3,000 B.C.Atheists are also motivated, and biased, by the fact that their evolutionist theories require the world to (implausibly) be billions of years old.Īlthough frequently cited by Old Earth supporters against a young earth, revised and well-supported Egyptian chronology actually provides strong evidence in favor of a young Earth. The motivation for atheists to insist on falsely asserting an old Earth is to pull students away from God's immediate presence and to turn them away from Jesus Christ. Further arguments can be found in the article arguments for a recent creation Much additional scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and the universe, and the biblical creation organization Creation Ministries International published articles entitled 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe and How old is the earth? both of which summarize some of the evidence for a young age of the earth. In other words, the Earth must be young with a likelihood of 99.9%. If each of the following 64 counterexamples to an Old Earth were to have merely a 10% chance of being valid, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only one-tenth of 1%. Most of the "evidence" for an Old Earth is based on claims that lack falsifiability, such as radiometric dating, and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law. It takes only one counterexample to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity ( Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age." see: Recession of the moon from the earth It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. "Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year.
0 kommentar(er)
