Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago

the young's literal translation: King James Version: contemporary english version: might I ask what version/translation of the bible do you use? Not saying you are wrong, what version do you believe is the most accurate?

Jar I pity you. that was just making sure my sentence was read correctly by ignorant folks and just to pick on you Jar. It was not in response to anything you said. Once I said "Now the Nephilim post" I was no longer speaking directly to you Jar. Sorry I should have probably used a different post for people who can't follow a conversation. If you read the next sentence Jar: this was the only reason I said that. Again, Jar this was not to you. I appologize for confusing your cluttered brain. Jar, wisdom and knowledge are opposite to the point that the more wisdom you have; the less knowledge you have. The more knowledge you have; the less wisdom you have. The more you learn what other people thought; the less you actually think. Knowledge, is for people who can't think for themselves. So Jarhead, I mean Jar, you might need to stick with knowledge; I choose wisdom. I lead people; you follow people like me(I didn't say you follow me just people like me). My bible tells me that all things are possible to him that believes. So once again, you are wrong. Now once one person actually flies; he'll write a theory, it'll become law. And people like you will buy it and speak of what great knowledge you have. Who is really greater, the one who thinks, or the one who follows the thinkers directions? A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. Jar how do you know this? Did you actually know Noah? Lack of evidence does not prove or dis prove anything. If someone builds you a house; you never meet him, does this now mean your house was built by no one? And if you have to ask how this relates you are an idiot with too much knowledge. We find/learn new things everyday. No one having proof that there was a flood is not a fact proving there was no flood moron. Also Jar, don't knock the bible until you study it(not just read it once). The bible says God told Noah exactly how to build the ark. Everyone else laughed at him building the Ark. So they probably didn't have ship building experience. God has everything you need. I can introduce you to him. I mean we know, from science/knowledge that something killed the dinosaurs. The bible says there was a great flood. Is it that hard, with wisdom not knowledge, to think that these events are linked? Futhermore; knowledge can't help you with the flood because to Truly know is to be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight or experience. Did you live in that time? No one on this site, including myself, knows anything about the flood. The only thing we can do is choose to believe what we read about the flood. The oldest and maybe only source of information on that is the bible. And if you say there are other sources of information; then Jar lied. If the only proof of the flood is the bible, then you have to be a moron not to believe it. What other proof is there? The bible(which is an historical document) is a sign/proof/evidence, but you won't see it that way.

to which b b replied:

quote:

---

A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. Jar how do you know this?

---

I know that because I have looked at the evidence.An event such as the flood myth from the Bible would leave certain specific evidences. We can look at the world and see if those indicators are present. If they are, then it supplies some support for the hypothesis that there was such an event. If the indicators are not present then it refutes the hypothesis.When we look at the world we find that NONE of the indicators are present. So the hypothesis is refuted. No, that isn't hard at all. But it is simply wrong.First off, if everything died during one event, one that lasted less than two years, then we should find samples of everything living at the time mixed up together. But that is NOT what is found when the real world is examined. Instead, what we find is that fossils are sorted by species. They are not sorted by density, or size but by species. In addition we find continuous transitions, species live, evolve, new species come about, they live, they evolve and the record continues.There are layers all over the earth where NO flowering plants are found. Then, slightly higher we find flowering plants introduced.There are layers all over the earth where the record shows that grasses did not exist. In such layers grasses are simply never found. No impressions, no pollen, nothing. Higher up we find grass has evolved.We NEVER find primates in layers where there are dinosaurs.If there had been a flood that killed off the dinosaurs we should find layers that have remains of all the critters and plants, all jumbled up together. And that should be what we find everywhere we look on earth.We don't find that.A flood such as described in the Bible would leave other evidence. For example, it would have created the genetic bottleneck of all time. Geneticists can see makers that show bottlenecks in many species. BUT, they do not all point to a single point in time. Had the flood happened, the marker for the flood event would be a big RED flag that would stand out as an anomaly in EVERY living species and even in those no longer living that we examined.The marker is simply not found.The flood, if it happened, would have left a marker in the cores of corals.It is not there.The flood, if it happened would have left a marker in the ice cores.It is not there.The flood, if it happened, would have left a marker in the geological column.It is not there. More nonsense from the Christian Cult of Ignorance.The other proof is the world we live in. We can examine things and determine past events from them. For example, the simple fact that you exist today proves that you really did have a father and mother. I do not need to know your mother or father to know they existed. You exist. At the current time we do not have the technology to clone an individual therefore I can state with a very high probability that you had a father and mother.Of course we can know about things like the Biblical Flood. Such an event would have left evidence. So far no one has been able to provide any evidence of such an event that stands up to examination.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar this is where your arrogant attitude shows. A fact is something that can be proven. In order to prove ANYTHING you need evidence.Right or wrong? Right. I'll go slow for you Jar.If evidence must be present to prove anything; then without any evidence, as you so boldly stated, you prove Nothing, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Zero.That should have cleared up proof, unless you just want to be right; which I will let you get the last word after this.Now Jarhead, I mean Jar(sorry lol), to know something you had to experience it. If you look at evidence and prove something; you still don't know, for sure.No one here lived in those days and without evidence no one can prove anything one way or the other. Stop trying to be right unless you have Noah's autograph.We are discussing ideas and theories, Nobody here "KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT A D!@# FLOOD!!!! This includes you Jar.This also includes myself Jarhead. I am simply stating what I believe could have happened. You should state what you believe could have happened and not try to attack my beliefs. You don't know s@$%.By the way Jar, how many "cores of coral," "ice cores," or "geological columns" did you personally examine; or are you just arguing with me over second hand info?If you are prepairing your answer to this question Jar, YOU ARE A MORON. Because regardless of your answer, which is probably 0 for all three, you still don't know sh.. about the flood.The most you can do is believe something. So don't knock my beliefs and I'll let you believe what ever stupid bable you choose to. Whether Science or Religion, Man or God, you can not know; but only believe.Any disagreements with my beliefs should be taken up with God. I will not be discussing this foolishness any more. F@$% you Jar. Goodbye.

You posts are starting to rub up against the forum guidelines. Be respectful of other posters and answer their point with evidence and reasoning of your own.Jar has been giving you evidence it is time you responded in an intellectually honest fashion.Continuing to be disrespectful and answering in the manner that you have will earn you a short (first anyway) suspension.

Once again, let me try to explain.I can know with a high degree of certainty that you had parents. I do not need to know or have met your parents.We can make statements about the past with very high degree of confidence. But we do have evidence. As I pointed out in Message 33, there is absolute overwhelming evidence that there has never been a world-wide flood.We can say, with a very high degree of confidence, that based on geological, historical, biological, genetic, archaeological, physics, engineering, and astronomical evidence that there has not been a world-wide flood on earth. Sorry but there is no more evidence that Noah existed than there is for the flood myth. I have examined photographs of all, and personally hands on examined a coral core.But one of the nice things about science, unlike religion, is that findings are replicated and verified. It is NOT based on a belief but instead based on the weight of evidence as examined by a broad spectrum of individuals.As I have said, you are of course welcome to your beliefs, but trying to assert nonsense like there was a Biblical Flood is simply an act of ignorance and an attempt to pass and impose that ignorance on the next generation.It is a denial of the God given capability of critical thought, an act of hubris and to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.AbE:I forgot to address the question of the geological column. I have been lucky enough during my life to have been able to inspect many, many of them. I have seen old mountains, roots of mountains and the young mountains. I have been able to see how mountains are worn away, and experience them being built. Edited by jar, : as usual, appalin spallinEdited by jar, : add part on geology

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would disagree. God didn't say, "Let there be light and it was so". God said, "Let there be light". Someone else said "And it was so." The fact is that there is no indication here that light was created instantly. Such a view is read into the passage, but it isn't in there. So, one can place a time separation quite easily into that grammatical difference.But with Genesis 2, when God creates Adam, he then brings the animals to him, and that has to be within a short time frame. So, the Genesis 1 has the possiblity of gaps and Genesis 2 doesn't.Second indication comes from Jewish views of Genesis. This is from Ramban:"In either case it would have been proper for him to write at
the beginning of the book of Genesis: 'And G-d spoke to Moses all
these words, saying,' The reason it was written anonymously
[without the above introductory phrase] is that Moses our teacher
did not write the Torah in the first person like the prophets who
did mention themselves." Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary on the
Torah, Trans. by Dr. Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo
Publishing House, 1971), p. 8"The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely,
the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world,
and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher."
Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary on the Torah, Trans. by Dr.
Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), p. 8Ramban cites Shabbath 88b which is part of the Babylonian Talmud.
It says:"R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses ascended on high, the
ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He,
'Sovereign of the Universe! What business has one born of woman
amongst us?' 'He has come to receive the Torah,' answered He to
them. Said they to Him, 'That secret treasure, which has been
hidden by Thee for nine hundred and seventy-four generations
before the world was created." http://www.come-and-
hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_88.html#PARTbWhat we see above is that the Jews viewed the Torah as being pre-temporal, and Genesis 1:1 indicates this grammatically, according to these ancient rabbis. Not according to the Talmud and at least some of the Jewish rabbis. True, but there is a great conundrum that few want to face--the quadralemma.If God is able or willing to communicate reality to us, then he is GodIf God is unable but willing to communicate reality to us, then he is impotent.If God is able but unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is evilIf God is both unable and unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is not God.There are no other positions to lay out for the 2 verbs, able and willing. This is a variation on the Epicurian argument for atheism and it explains why God must transmit historicity to us. If he doesn't, then either we can't depend upon him because he is impotent, we cant trust him because he isn't righteous, or we can't worship him because he isn't god. L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics is also a creation of Man and certainly we don't think it is a great Map.A question, what does inspiriation mean, when it can't have any impact upon the message? What does inspiriation mean when the message is not true? If there is no reality in the Biblical account but one holds at the same time that it is inspired, then it makes the Bible inspired fiction--which Gone with the Wind might be, but we don't worship that.My contention is that to treat the Bible as you are doing, makes it neither worth reading, nor the God described therein worth worshipping. We will agree that what is claimed to be the straight forward reading is observationally false and makes the Bible false as grandpa's teeth. But declaring the Bible to be factually false by fiat, also makes the Bible false. I prefer the interpretation I have developed because God can inspire real history, which is really there in the account, but ignored by both old earth christian and YEC. Evolution can be found in Genesis 1--so can the expansion of the universe. I will. There does need to be a third way, neither YEC nor allegorical/accommodational which maintains some reality to the Scriptural account. That is in part what the Pathway Papers are about. I have lots of friends who prefer to disbelieve the stories in the Bible. What I can never figure out is why they don't just conclude that the Bible is false and move on. What benefit is there in believing that a theological road map is false, but should be followed anyway? Agreed, but the Bible doesn't teach a worldwide flood. This comes from the Hebrew. Which is why I move the flood way back in time and have it a local/ regional affair so that the animals might not show such bottleneck and the bottleneck experienced by humans is so long ago that most of the effects are gone. Not true. Hominids crossed bodies of water to get to Flores. The currents would have been such that they would have been taken perpendicular to the line connecting the islands if they didn't have some sailing skill. That is what drift wood or rafts would do. Consider this from 840,000 years ago."Even at times of low sea level, when Sumatra, Java and
Bali were connected to mainland Southeast Asia, at least two
sea crossings were required to reach Flores. The first of
these deep-water barriers, between the islands of Bali and
Lombok, is about 25 km wide and constitutes a major
biogeographical boundary, the Wallace Line. Prior to human
intervention, only animals capable of crossing substantial
water barriers by swimming, flying or rafting on flotsam
were able to establish populations on Flores (e.g.
elephants, rats). In fact, the impoverished nature of the
fauna on the island in the Early and Middle Pleistocene
rules out the possibility of temporary landbridges from
continental Southeast Asia. The presence of hominids on
Flores in the Early Pleistocene therefore provides the
oldest inferred date for human maritime technology anywhere
in the world. Elsewhere, dates for such capabilities are
much more recent. These findings indicate that the
intelligence and technological capabilities of H. erectus
may have been seriously underestimated. An accumulating
body of evidence from elsewhere supports this conclusion
(e.g. Thieme 1997).
"The complex logistic organization needed for people to
build water-craft capable of transporting a biologically and
socially viable group across significant water barriers,
also implies that people had language. Previously the
organizational and linguistic capacity required for sea
voyaging was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans
and to have only appeared in the late Pleistocene. It now
seems that humans had this capacity 840,000 years ago." M.
J. Morwood et al, "Archaeological and Palaeontological
Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of
Fieldwork 1997-1998," Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p.
285,286 If there is no real truth in the story, how do we know that the lessons should be listened to? If there is no reality in Scripture, then I would see no reason to give my life to the ideas contained in it.

Jar may have pointed out evidence, but he was the first to call me childish, and silly.
My attacks were only in defense. With respect, someone should have stepped in then and told him something about that and that would have ended that.Also I believe(agree) that there is no evidence of the flood. There is no physical evidence of anything the bible says really. To truly discuss creation vs evolution(or any aspect of it including the flood), the evolutionist must support his argument with facts while the creationist must rely on beliefs. The "theory" of evolution and science is derived from facts and laws and such; the "theory" of creation and religion is derived from belief in the bible and God. To truly discuss/debate creation vs evolution; the Evolutionist must respect ideas and belief in the bible. Likewise; the creationist must respect facts(which I do).
But it does anger me a little that on every post an Evolutionist is calling a creationist's idea or belief foolish, ignorant, or childish. He stated science facts and beliefs; I stated bible facts and beliefs. Why did he have to call mine "silly, childish, mental masturbation?"
I believe the facts. I believe the facts support the bible in it's original form (which I can't read until I learn Hebrew and Greek. I believe if a creationist and an evolutionist team up, the two could figure this whole thing out. But in order to achieve this both would have to respect the other.I appologize for how intense it got.

b-b wrote: Well, one can plan a building, a book, or anything in any order one wants. So, if it is preplanning, then the chronological mis-order we see in Gen 1, loses its problematical nature.Secondly, It is merely assumption that everything was created instantly. The grammar wouldn't actually indicated it. As I said in my reply to Jar, God didn't say "Let there be light and it was so." He said, "Let there be light". Moses wrote the "and it was so". Moses was a long time after the light was created, so all we really know is that somewhere between the God speaking and Moses writing, light was formed. But the Bible simply doesn't say WHEN it was created. And that gives us freedom then to interpret the Bible in a straightforward manner without being forced to a 6-literal day creation.

To Adminemooseus. Thanks for the kind welcome. I like the red spotted coat you wear. I just figured out some of the dbcodes, and will learn others if I stick around. As I said, I have far too many frays in which I find myself.

If he called you silly or childish then he is in violation of forum guidelines. I don't recall where he did.If he called your ideas silly or childish then he is expected (and you can call him to do so) to back up that. If he is able to then the ideas are indeed silly or childish.Which is it? Do you need him to back up what he says more?You are in a science forum. Just like those creationist who pretend to want to do science you have to play by the rules. That involves producing evidence. Jar suggests that there is evidence against things that some creationists believe. If his evidence is reasonable and not countered then for those creationists to continue to believe in those things is indeed childish and silly.If you wish to defend those creationists because they believe things in spite of reason and evidence then you are simply agreeing that their ideas are not creation "science"; do not belong in our schools and are indeed silly.If you don't like the rather challenging requirments of the scientific approach then you are invited to stay in the faith and belief areas of this site. It is very common for creationists who start wanting to show the validity of creation "science" to rile against the challenges that actually being scientific presents. They usually retire very quickly.

I agree with you on this. That was very wise.

-Glenn,Do you believe the hominids of five million years ago could have built the biblically-described ark?-

Maybe next time I get way up North where you live we could get together for a coffee or beer. I certainly would find it a most enjoyable experience.On the first point. Yes, there have always been some who try to make the stories fit reality. I just don't see the point.It looks like we are pretty much in agreement that there has not been a world-wide flood.The question is then on why we should even care if the story is in the Bible is a distorted version of some local flood or if we should push it back into the far distant past.Again, since we know that the story is certainly not true as told, why try to make it fit anyway?I do see very good reasons for both of the stories being included, and for purely theological reasons. Absolutely true. But I do not worship the Bible. I worship GOD.Tales do not have to be true to be important or inspired. Which God described therein? There are many.GOD is not the somewhat bumbling tinkerer seen the the second creation myth. Nor is GOD the aloof, distant, transcendent God seen in the younger tale found in Genesis 1. GOD is not IN the Bible. What the Bible shows is mens attempts over time to paint a picture, caricatures of GOD. But if you are going to do that, what is the point. Again, just because a Map doesn't show the latest changes in the highway system it is not useless. Just as with a road map you test the Theological map against reality.And about Flores, lets hold off for awhile on any assumptions based on that. We still are at the very early stages of learning there.But if we do reduce the flood to what might have been possible on flotsam we again have gutted the story. What is worth saving?IMHO the moral, the lessons are what are worth saving. Why? If the lessons are useful, if they teach us how to live this life, why would we not follow the ideas in it?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I will leave the science forums in that case. As I stated before, I agree that creation can not be looked at as a science because there simply is no proof. But the site is called Creation vs Evolution; how can you debate this in separate rooms? If you look at the bible as an historical document, it can be considered a whole lot of fact. If not then it's pointless. The only people that will discuss anything is Evolutionists.By the way, are the rules of the faith and belief section "no facts?" If not then it should be. I have countered that. Lack of evidence is not evidence that anything is definitely not true. Before Columbus, there was no evidence that the earth was round. I think Columbus was wise and everyone who relied on what was proven was childish. So he has no evidence. Also if I call you childish I mean you think like a child. There really is no difference. Later. Evolutionist always have to get the last words.