100th Post!
Answers In Genesis has a website that offers some answers to questions that have been posted regarding Flood & Creation. The article below is The Mystery of Ancient Man. If that doesn’t help, try searcing the site. Or you can also use the contact option to ask a specific question.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/ancient.asp

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 5/15/2009 19:43 pm

A bulldog can whip a skunk, but its just not worth it. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;” (Titus 3:10)

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/15/2009 18:19 pm

When people resort to insults they have lost the argument.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/15/2009 17:53 pm

RE: 96

“God is light” you mental midget. (1John 1:5)

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/15/2009 17:50 pm

Re post 94 by Jason: Since there was no electricity yet, light could only come from the sun or some other star. But, according to the Bible, all stars were created after the trees and the grass. So this is clearly false.

I am glad you recognize that the light from stars take more than 6,000 years to reach us. Millions of years, actually. So it follows that the stars were created millions of years ago. How do you reconcile this with Genesis? Do you think that the fourth “day” of creation actually lasted millions of years?

Re Post 95 by Jayant. Jayant, you said “no amount of archeologiacl evdences can move me from my faith in the Bible as the sure word of God.” This means that your arguments are not bona fide. You have stated that you will dismiss archaeological, scientific, and all evidence no matter how reliable and factual they might be.

Instead you seem to take solace from legends that are similar to the Bible. So does that make the Bible just another source of legends? Does it mean that there were several other “Noahs” around the world besides the one of the Bible? That several other families in Hawaii and elsewhere were also spared by God? What do these legends mean to you and why are they more believable than science?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/15/2009 17:47 pm

Reference post # 94 by Charles:

There are many dismilarities between the Biblical record and the Hawiian legends. Some of the names of their gods are given in their tribal language. (although the name Nu-u resemble the name of Noah. It is therefore unlikely that missionaries who got the tradtions form the local tribes could have fabricated the stories. What they have done at the most is the comparision of the the biblical record and the traditions of local tribes. Many things that have come down to us is by way of oral traditions.Since the great flood was so sweeping that it might not have left anything for the excavations by the archeologists to provide some evidence for the scientists. One can not rule all these possibilities.

I have made mention of the possibilites of pre-Adamite race. This is also believed by Islam, I think. Archeology has so far not found any remains of human race that are earlier than say 5,000 + years. Well, they do show that that the age of the rocks, tress etc are older than that. You have cited the example of the Stonehenge Structure, where the age of the stoene used may be more, but not necessarily of the structure made out of such stones. One can not rule out possibilities of all such things. In that case, to say that the record of Genesis is ridiculous os not correct. What I try to say that the archeological evidences are subject to other possibilities and need not be taken as final.

I belong to a Church of local evangelical assemblies whose founder was late Brother Bakht Singh, a convert from Sikhism. He was once asked, “Do you believe that the fish swallowed Jonah?” He answered,” I do believe that;” and added, “And had the Bible even said that Jonah swollowed the fish, I would have believed that too!” I too am one such fool for my God, and no amount of archeologiacl evdences can move me from my faith in the Bible as the sure word of God.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/15/2009 08:47 am

Trees, plants, etc. were created prior to the sun but not prior to light. In fact, light was created before the luminaries. As you well know, after only 6,000 years, the light from distant stars would still not have reached us, otherwise.

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/14/2009 23:28 pm

True, the methods used to determine the dates of fossils are far from precise. But they usually give a good indication. More often than not newer methods give fossils and rocks an even older date. So when scientists estimate a date at 40,000 to 60,000 years old one can rest assured that it is either close to that age or older.

The Hawiian legends are interesting, but apparently they were written in the 19th century after missionaries had gone there and preached the Bible. We find the same thing in Australia and other places. It is easy to see how traditional stories and new teachings can get mixed. For example I also read about a legend that says it was a fire that killed everyone in Hawaii before it was repopulated. So it seems that the new Christians of Hawaii conveniently merged the two stories into one.

I do not hasten to state that the Bible is false. In my opinion many accouts in the Bible are true or likely to be true, while many others - especially in Genesis and Exodus - are highly unlikely or doubtful. I have only used the word “false” in a few instances where it is obvious, like for example having the trees and the grass created prior to the creation of the sun.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 5/14/2009 16:06 pm

Further comments on post# 91 by charles:

There is what is called a gap theory. The earth was void and without form-in a state of utter chaos. God, who creates by the power of His word, would not create something that is full of chaos. It is therefore thought that there was a pre-Adamite race which was destroyed and then man was created. But this is after all a theory. Again, the cabon method used to determine the dates of fossils/rocks etc is not agreed upon by all the scientists equally.

We have to confess our ignorance about many things. Jason has now pointed out the Hawiian legends of Nu-u! This goes to suggest that there are traditions of a great flood that has affected even outside Asia. There were reports of fossils of fishes found on the Mt. Himalaya. Could it be becuase of the great flood when the highest moutanins were submerged?

As for the exodus route, the excavations seems to have been carried out all in a disputed places. I have also visited Mount Sinai and the St.Catherine Monastary in Sinai Peninsula. This site was also determined by St. Helena, mother of Constinople and the Church has traditionally accepted the site as of Mt. Sinai. This seems to be have been done without taking into account the Biblical record. Now it is suggested that the site of Mt. Sinai is not in Sinai peninsula, but in Saudi Arabia and evidences to that effect are also given, and it is consistant with the biblical record. How can the archeology find anything if they try to to find in the wrong place! I am therefor not inclined to accept finality of anything on the basis of archeology. This does not however mean that I don’t altogether believe in the benefits of the archeology. so even with the vast knowledge available at the click of our mouse, we have to confess our ingnorance of many things and should not hasten to say that the Bible is false.

I have just pointed out the refernece from the Bible that the divisions of the earth took place in the days of Peleg, after the food. The incidence was so remarkable that the son was named Peleg9 division and a reference to the incidence is made in the ancient record of the geneology.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 5/14/2009 13:00 pm

For evidence outside Asia of great flood, google Hawaiian legend of Nu-u.

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/13/2009 22:12 pm