Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 12:32 AM
26 online now:
DrJones*, edge, PaulK (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,782 Year: 6,819/19,786 Month: 1,360/1,581 Week: 182/393 Day: 5/110 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 278 of 372 (510918)
06-04-2009 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 4:44 PM


Worldwide flood -- not
If you had a worldwide flood during late historic times, there will be evidence of that flood. And if it was worldwide, that evidence will be worldwide, including in your back yard.

Now here in the US, archaeologists have been poking holes in the ground for nearly two centuries, and we haven't found evidence of that flood. (Geologists have been looking even longer; they gave up by about 1830.)

If you would have us believe in this purported flood, you have to explain why thousands of archaeologists around the country, working in tens of thousands of sites, have failed to find any evidence.

What we find instead is evidence of continuity across the date ascribed to this flood, about 4,350 years ago. We see continuity of human populations, fauna and flora, sedimentation and the like.

That continuity is evidence that there was no flood at that time, in spite of what creationists believe.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 4:44 PM Lysimachus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 2:18 AM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 283 of 372 (510960)
06-05-2009 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Peg
06-05-2009 2:18 AM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
how long would you expect the 'continuity' to be interrupted if there was such a flood?

And what evidence are you using to claim that nothing has interrupted the life of humans and animals in the past 4,000 odd years?


When a series is broken it has to start over, in this case from the outside. The length of time doesn't matter.

If the flood you are hoping for occurred, the Native American populations I study would have been eliminated, only to be replaced by Noah's relatives and descendants. That destruction and replacement did not occur--rather, we have continuity through time of Native American genotypes and cultures.

Same for fauna and flora. Sediment layers are not interrupted at that time over continental areas by a discontinuity.

This is solid evidence that there was no flood about 4,350 years ago. (That and the fact that geologists have showed the same thing.)

And the evidence? Just one example: we have Native American mtDNA from a couple of sites in excess of 10,000 years of age and the same haplotypes occur among living individuals. That's what I mean by continuity. (And those mtDNA types are different from what is found in the Middle East.)

No global flood about 4,350 year ago, sorry.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 2:18 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 5:45 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 299 of 372 (510998)
06-05-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Peg
06-05-2009 8:24 AM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
what i mean by it is that sediment layers are not always consistent so using sediment layers as a proof of anything is flawed.
one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.

So what im questioning is how sediment layers can be used so affirmatively when they are not always consistent. Would you use a calculator which occasionally produced an incorrect answer?


Peg, you're talking about geological layers. I'm talking about sediments--soils--or dirt.

Geological layers are generally millions of years old, or much older. I'm talking about the soils under your feet, being anywhere from a few years old to tens of thousands of years old.

The biblical scholars have agreed upon an age of about 4,350 years ago for the purported flood, why would we be looking in rocks millions of years old for evidence? If we are looking for an event that occurred 4,350 years ago, we need to look in soils about 4,350 years old for the evidence. That's basic archaeology 101.

And the soil layers don't have to be consistent, as each area will have different topography and hydrology--but the effects of a global flood certainly would have to be worldwide and that means it should be found just about everywhere you look, and those effects would override any local differences. But we don't find that evidence.

Face it, in spite of all of your wild guess "what ifs" you have presented no credible evidence supporting a flood. Your stubborn "is so" doesn't make it so.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 8:24 AM Peg has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 307 of 372 (511064)
06-06-2009 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Peg
06-05-2009 11:29 PM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
Even though the fragments Richard Leakey found were dated to 2.5 million years old, the skull was the same shape as modern man.

Is this your professional opinion or are you getting this from some creationist website?

If the latter, please cite your source.

I studied fossil man through the Ph.D. exams, and I am not aware of any skull 2.5 million years old that has the same shape as modern man. I would opine that you are being lied to by creationists who are 1) anti-science, 2) willfully and sullenly ignorant of science, and 3) pushing their religious beliefs in the guise of science in spite of a huge mountain of scientific evidence that contradicts those beliefs.

If this is incorrect, please correct me.

And lets get back to the flood--the topic of this thread.

By the way, from your previous posts I realize that you are confusing sediments and geological formations. One is soil (dirt), the other is rock.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 11:29 PM Peg has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 313 of 372 (511071)
06-06-2009 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Peg
06-06-2009 12:30 AM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
I can't get anything out of that link.

Please just tell me what skull you're talking about.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Peg, posted 06-06-2009 12:30 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2009 12:54 AM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 324 of 372 (511082)
06-06-2009 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Dr Adequate
06-06-2009 12:54 AM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
Homo rudolfensis???

From Wiki:

In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looks very ape-like and the cranial capacity based on the new construction is downsized from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cm. Bromage said his teams reconstruction includes biological principles not known at the time of the skulls discovery, which state that a mammals eyes, ears and mouth must be in precise relationships relative to one another.

1470 doesn't look at all like modern man! The original reconstruction didn't and it sounds like the recent one looks even less like modern man.

526 cm ?

Kids are born with a cranial capacity almost that size, and chimps aren't far behind. That's about Australopithecine size!

No way that will resemble modern man--I don't care what some creationist website says.

But to tie this to the thread subject, some creationists think that all of the various Homo species evolved from modern man (Adam & Eve) following the fall or the flood or the tower of Babel. What a joke! That's the type of evolution they deny happened being proposed several hundred times faster and in reverse!

Edited by Coyote, : word change


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2009 12:54 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by NosyNed, posted 06-06-2009 1:41 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 341 of 372 (511283)
06-08-2009 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by TruthIsNeverTooHorrible
06-08-2009 6:07 PM


Welcome
Welcome.

But posting gibberish is frowned upon.

Please try again and maybe we'll see if there is anything to your argument.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by TruthIsNeverTooHorrible, posted 06-08-2009 6:07 PM TruthIsNeverTooHorrible has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2009 11:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 361 of 372 (511780)
06-11-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by RAZD
06-11-2009 7:16 PM


Re: hypothesis and validated theory: geological colum and the law of superposition
Yeah, but "What if... (fill in random creationist nonsense here)"

There, see! I've just invalidated everything you wrote in that long post.

/creationist mode

(As an aside: I have a bumper sticker that says "Archaeologists Assume Superposition" -- I get some strange looks!)

Off-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2009 7:16 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Taz, posted 06-11-2009 9:43 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 368 by roxrkool, posted 06-11-2009 10:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 366 of 372 (511791)
06-11-2009 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Taz
06-11-2009 9:43 PM


Brief off topic
Coyote writes:

I have a bumper sticker that says "Archaeologists Assume Superposition" -- I get some strange looks


I don't get it.

Some folks have dirty minds.

Off-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Taz, posted 06-11-2009 9:43 PM Taz has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 369 of 372 (511796)
06-11-2009 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Peg
06-11-2009 10:12 PM


Re: Entire column
NosyNed writes:

Why does it matter? How likely is it that it would?

how likely is it that it would not?


Here we see the difference between science and creation "science" in a nutshell.

Science spends decades or centuries exploring the world, gathering data, and proposing hypotheses to explain that data. The successful hypotheses gradually become accepted as theories because of their rigorous support and ability to make successful predictions.

Creation "scientists," operating from a religious belief, can't accept the findings of science and so propose various "What ifs..."

Now those "What ifs..." don't come with any supporting evidence, aren't subject to testing or verification by creation "scientists," and don't even have to form a cohesive body of supposition. Most often the "What ifs..." disagree with each other and are contradicted by the preponderance of scientific evidence.

But that's OK! We're doing creation "science" now, not real science.

All they have to do as creation "scientists" is raise sufficient doubt in the minds of their co-religionists and prospective converts so that they mistrust the scientific method and its findings. That is the ultimate goal of creation "science" -- the destruction of the scientific method and of real science, and its replacement by creation "science" -- in actuality religious dogma based on scripture and the bible. That creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science doesn't trouble them in the least.

Peg's comment seems to fit quite nicely into this category. It does not present any evidence or logical argument. It is strictly a "What if..." But in this case this is a elementary schoolyard "What if..." that amounts to nothing more than "Is not!"

In the stunted world of creation "science" this is considered a killer rebuttal, carrying the field and winning the day.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Peg, posted 06-11-2009 10:12 PM Peg has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019