User blog comment:SouthWriter/No Supernatural Intervention/@comment-72.174.36.122-20110217030335

If you are one who does the classic TL;DR I suggest you just read the end.

"Bofriu, who created "Primitive Europe" which equates "white Europeans" with a stunted Neanderthal cross-breed in an old-

earth world history, offers the following objections to the admittedly young-earth history of NSI (divisions added by me)"

First things first. If you even bothered to spend two seconds at my Primitive Europe timeline, I made it perfectly clear

that I'm not writing about Europe from a racist perspective. I'm not even writing about Europeans being a cross-breed with

Homo neanderthalensis, I actually state that "They are not biologically or mentally different from the White Europeans in our

time-line". Besides that point though, what if I was equating White Europeans with H. neanderthalensis?  In the timeline I

say that "civilized" humans from Primitive Europe see White Europeans as equivelent to H. neanderthalensis. I'm writing about

people who equate White Europeans with H. neanderthalensis, but I don't. There are CHRISTIAN scientists in OTL who do this

by the way.(Answers In Genesis) On another topic I'm merely proposing what would happen if Europe had never developed

empires, while the rest of the world had. This would probably lead to a view of Europeans similar to European's early veiws

of Aboriginal Australians or Native Americans. Which weren't very positive. Consider this, if you were writing a book about

the United States in the 1780's, and your main character was white, and he was discussing Native Americans, he PROBABLY

should be a bit racist. Now would this mean you were racist? No it wouldn't. Going on the book you wrote alone, there would

be no way to tell. You would be just writing about a time when many people were ignorent, just like I'm writing about a time

when many people are ignorent.

"First, "non-neutral" is a poor term, why not just use a term like bias or prejudiced. I simply have a different world-view

that you."

I'm sorry I'm not gramattically perfect. Let's take a look at a quote from a bit later on in your rebuttal (for lack of a

better word) "his just as biased worldview." So you don't want me judging your world view, but you go around bashing me for

my world view (which you don't know). Seems pretty hypocritical in my opinion.

"You hold the present as the key to the past and thus assume an evolutionary history of the world. I hold that things changed

drastically in the past, both leaving a lasting mark in the way things are now and changing the very nature of things over a

the course of human history. If the Bible is true, then humans and other animals were created perfect, and took quite some

time to degenerate. That is what the Bible portrays, so we that is what I presented."

I'm not very educated in religious text so I'll accept that someone would be able to live 500 years. You might want to put

that somewhere in your timeline, for people like me who don't have as much knowledge about religious text. I was assuming

(for the purposes of your time-line) that god created man just as he is and left him in eden. I see now that I was wrong.

I'm also a bit confused about what perfect means though. Does it mean a longer time for the decay of our bodies? Better

looking bodies? Greater "intelligence"? Perfect personalities? All four? I think you should really specify what the limitis

of this perfection are. If you just say perfection, it can be percieved to mean anything.

"Actually, all this happened in the space of less than 2,000 years with people that started out near perfect and lived much

longer, giving them time to develop things to past what we have in the past 1,000 years with much shorter lives and mutation

degenerated brains. This is not "impossible" starting from the presupposition that the Bible is true and the theories of

mankind are flawed and contradictory."

Notice how I said "at most 3,500 years". Okay for this I'll once again be accepting everything you have said so far. From

what I can see you're saying that humans from this time-line lived to around 500 years old. Using this be can assume that

the life expantancy was around 7 times greater then than it is now. From this we can assume that humans were 7 times more

perfect (as far as I understand "perfect"). Shouldn't this then mean that humans would be able to advance their technology 7 times as fast too? If we assume this than humans wouldn't have advanced just 6,000 years in a mere 2,000 years, they would have advanced 14,000 years. This would place their technological advancements around the year 10,000 A.C.E. Those humans would have long ago developed machines which could fly. They also would have most likely had colonies on Mars and even more likely the Moon. A flood of 370 days (Wiki Answers : How long did Noah's flood last) would be easily escapable. By 10,000 A.C.E. most humans might not even live on the earth. This death of humans could be caused by supernatural intervention and so could the destruction of their artifacts,but without supernatural intervention though, it would be impossible.

"You obviously have not read any of the creationist material dealing extensively with the flood models. The Bible speaks

clearly of the "fountains of the deep" and of the mountains rising after the flood. Assuming long ages for earth formations

has been shown by very competent scientists to be far less plausible than rapid formations due to catastrophism."

I wasn't even mentioning how the Earth reformed after the flood. I was stating that the flood as you describe it in your

timeline would be impossible. It would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a rupture in the ocean floor to cause the continents on modern day earth to sink into the ocean without supernatural intervension. You make no mention of an altered structure of the earth, so I'm assuming that there is no altered structure of the earth.

"Again, you assume far to much based on the world today. The six individuals that would populate the earth after the flood

represented not an isolated family but at least four separate gene pools."

So are you taking the bible literally or saying that its contents only represent different events i.e. it didn't happen

EXACTLY that way?

"Modern genetic studies have shown that mankind indeed came from one male (Noah) and three female (the daughter-in-laws)."

I don't wish to discuss this issue due to having to take a religious stance which I don't care to do.

"There is less evidence for a fourth line of MdNA pointing to a possibility of Noah's wife having more children. This is

exactly what the Bible's account would predict."

Actually if Noah did have more children then this would be better for your argument, so I'll agree with you. Noah didn't

have any more children.

"Population studies clearly demostrate that today's population could not stretch back a supposed 100,000 years or whatever,

but only at most 5,000 years or so."

I never opposed humanity being 5,000 +/- 1,000 years old. This issue unoviodably deals with relgion too so, I'm not going to take a stance on this issue, because I don't want to discuss or take a specific stance on religion.

"The wide-spread extinction was anticipated in the taking in of the animals into the ark (or fortress, as NSI has it). The

food was also in storage as seed and dried foods enough for the duration. In NSI, Noah would have had to make a lucky guess,

but it is far from impossible. The "hostile environment" they would step into was a world devoid of hostile animal life, and

soil freshly irrigated and trees that had already germinated from floating seed in the days since the ark came to rest. Using

seed stored in the ark, a vinyard was planted early on. Other plants were probably planted even sooner as they continued to

live off the stores in the ark."

I'm willing to accept that 10,000 A.C.E. technology would be able to produce all the requirements for the continuation of all

of earth's species of plant, animal, bacteria, fungi, and protist. I'm also willing to accept that if Noah was smart he would've realized that he would have to bring seeds to repopulate the planet. I have no problems with an ark

or a fortress. I admitt I was wrong.

"I can assume you meant to say that "the article is NOT arranged in an appropriate structure" rather that "is aranged ..."

However, you do not make your point very well. The home page "The History of the World" may be inappropriately named, but it

provides links to the time line as it unfolds. It was a work in progress when Pitakang nominated it, and I had only recently

even gave it much thought beyond the first few pages. It was my hope that others would offer suggestions and even articles.

One such article, on the Renaissance coming early, was submitted and is posted. I have not had time to tie everything to the

portal page, but enough is there to be able to find the bulk of the articles. Based on that, I would agree, the organization

needs work."

Once again I don't have perfect grammar (and neither do you). I still stand by what I said, and what you haven't disputed;

that I found many problems just by looking in one section of your homepage. I also checked and only found 3 links on your

homepage to other pages in your timeline, whereas when I checked the category section of your timeline I saw 7 pages. This

means that half of your pages (not including the portal) aren't linked to from your portal page. I also find it very redundant that you have a history of the world page and a timeline page, when you can discuss the same things on each. I also find it very unrealistic that there's a Roman Empire in this time-line. If god never intervened there would probably be no Roman Empire. The world would be an incredibly different place, because humanity was affected from its creation. Atleast due to the Chaos Theory.

"As I have said elsewhere, this "featured" status was not my idea, but I will not sit by and have one editor trash my worldview as "implaussible" based on his just as biased worldview."

When I first found the article I thought it had a bias toward Christianity, and I still think it does. I had never looked at the other articles as having a bias toward atheism though. When I posted my objection I saw it as one of the only featured nominees with a religious bias. I do now see it from a different perspective though. It would be a good idea to remove religious neutrality as a requirement for a featured time-line. I don't believe I ever stated my worldview, you'd be surprized. I never did mean to trash your worldview, I just felt that the time-line wasn't neutral. Due to the requirement I still feel that this time-line isn't neutral and shouldn't be featured, but neither should any time-line as long as that requirement stands.

"The worldview from which the article is presented is based simply on taking a source document as the truth. The conclusions from there on are based on an assumed divergence from that truth that radically changes parts of history while leaving nary a ripple on others. It is, as all other alternate histories, based on known facts and interperlated. So, no, I reject the "Not Neutral" accusation, even if this is never considered worthy of "recognition." The score, as I see it is one foul ball, not a "strike out.""

I'm not going to restate what I said above, but I am going to say I'm not one to judge, and I never ment to. A time-line should be regarded as the same despite being based on Athiesm, Christianity, Islam, Animism, etc. Religion shouldn't be a factor in deciding to feature a timeline. I retract my statement saying that this time-line shouldn't be featured. and propose that this timeline be looked at again for featured status. I'm not saying I support or reject it, I'm just saying alot of the members of this community judge it unfairly because it's based on Christianity. I will immidately remove any comment I made about this time-line's featured status. I plan for this to be the last time I ever discuss it.

Sources: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/206.asp http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Category:No_Supernatural_Intervention http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Primitive_Europe_or%3A_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_Being_Colonized http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_did_Noah's_flood_last http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond