Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 1 of 320 (564947)
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


I would like to see a topic created discussing the possible evidence for a global flood. This was starting to get discussed here when another member suggested it would be better put in a separate topic.
I'd like to discuss ancient flood legends worldwide, the process of fossilization as possible support for a global catastrophe, and recent scientific discoveries showing that mass extinctions of marine life occurred at a global level and that there is indeed more water in the earth's core than has been historically believed.
Other subjects might include the mixing of fossil deposits by strata, deposition rates and natural mummification, and evidence of instantaneous fossilization (such as large numbers of fish preserved with flesh outlines or starfish that died hovering over clams en masse).
It might also delve into the question of whether there is evidence for microevolution as opposed to macroevolution, and thus whether there is support for fewer animals on the ark. After all, if the 'parent species' Darwin pondered as an alternative to all species having a common ancestor (On the Origin of Species, Ch. 1, pg. 17), were to exist in fact, then it would not only explain why there are such problems with finding an orderly progression of transitional forms (another problem queried by Darwin in the book), but provide basis for needing fewer animals on the ark, providing additional plausibility to the theory. It might also focus on Pangaea and whether a global flood would provide insight into the breaking up of the supercontinent and subsequent continental drift.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : detail on possible subjects
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : elaboration

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2010 9:10 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 6 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 9:29 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 7 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-14-2010 9:37 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 9:53 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2010 8:36 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 10:24 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2010 1:10 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 85 by Bikerman, posted 08-14-2010 2:25 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 86 by Bikerman, posted 08-14-2010 3:35 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 87 by Bikerman, posted 08-14-2010 8:32 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 2 of 320 (564949)
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


I will also support relocation of my comments, numbers 321, 323, 326, 329, 330, and 332, from the previously mentioned thread to help create the new one. While my original post dealt with the thread topic, later ones veered off course, regrettably.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : providing post numbers
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : typo

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 06-14-2010 8:49 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 9 of 320 (565040)
06-14-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
06-14-2010 9:37 AM


quote:
Firstly, you'll have to name them if you want to claim them. Bear in mind, though, that in ancient times people would have had no knowledge of the whole world (in fact, little knowledge of anything more than a few miles from where they lived), so what might have appeared to be a major flood to them, would have been insignificant on a global scale.
A list of flood legends that might get brought up can be seen here. As seen from my post 321, I focus a lot on Native American flood legends and primary creation myths as found at firstpeople.us. I'd begun mentioning some, and was only up to the B's.
quote:
Nobody who accepts macroevolution would say that there is no such things as microevolution. Macroevolution is the result of many many instances of microevolution. Nobody claims macroevolution occurs in 1 step. And there is no science or logic that dictates why there has to be any finite limit to a series of microevolutionary changes.
Very true. The problem occurs though when it's assumed that Creationists, because they deny macroevolution, also deny microevolution, and thus that they have no solution to needing room for many animals on the ark. Rather, the alternative believed there is that macroevolution doesn't exist, and that micrevolution actually occurs much faster than is commonly believed. Some scientific examples of this would be the conclusion that humans are forcing evolutionary changes in animals 300% faster, or that toxic toads evolved so much faster than ecologists believed they could that they overran Australia, adapting longer legs and heat resistance within decades, and ultimately led to a 'Toad Day Out' movement to kill the toads by nationally hunting them down and paying bounties.
At any rate, microevolution would mean far fewer animals needed on the ark, since after all Genesis merely said '2 of each kind' (which by Darwinian terms would be called 'parent species').
quote:
Since Darwin wrote his book 150 years ago, we have found many more fossils providing a much more complete progression of evolution on a macro scale. And the study of genetics (which Darwin obviously knew nothing about) has completely backed up the theory of macroevolution and a common ancestor for all living species.
And yet as is being discussed here at message 268, not only were there a number of prodigious mistakes or outright falsifications of missing links, but recently newly proclaimed missing links like Homo Floresiensis or the Laotian Rock Rat/'rat-squirrel' have been found incompatible, or else pre-existing missing links have been disqualified (e.g. via the discovery that Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis lived at the same time), or the discovery of Ardipithecus Ramidus, aka 'Ardi', showing that we bore no resemblance to modern apes and walked upright before Lucy - thus casting some doubts about the applicability of Lucy, the alleged missing link...
As for genetics, I question whether it shows a lineage to parent species or a single species. After all, if the alternate theory posed by Darwin were correct, we would be mistakenly gobbling up evidence pointing to parent species and claiming it in the name of a single ancestor. This would make it more difficult to dethrone the wrong theory, even though the evidence in actuality pointed to its competitor.
quote:
That's utterly ludicrous. Continents don't drift on the water. The way continental drift works has been thoroughly investigated and is shown in basic school textbooks.
Yet as the process is described here:
* Earthquakes and floods were first hypothesized as the forces which caused the breaking up of Pangaea in the 16th century.
* In the Wegener section volcanic activity is mentioned as a possible culprit to the initial breakup.
* It's now known there are 2 kinds of crust, oceanic and continental, with both resulting on a deeper fluid mantle. Thus, a breakup of the 'fountains of the deep' (and possible volcanic activity) as described in Genesis could presumably lead to the kind of tear on such crust that might simultaneously erode the foundations of the continents. While we may not be talking about drift pertaining to the above-crust water bodies, what about below the crust?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-14-2010 9:37 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by anglagard, posted 06-14-2010 10:49 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 32 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-15-2010 5:19 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 10 of 320 (565054)
06-14-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Kitsune
06-14-2010 9:29 AM


Re: Fishy theories
quote:
What I don't get is where this claim is going next. If you've got animal prints in dry sand dunes, then when your Biblical deluge comes along it's simply going to obliterate the tracks and stir everything up hugely. I would then have to assume that since your source thinks the tracks were made by creatures running away from the flood (I can't comment on the uphill patterns since I personally don't have any evidence one way or the other), he/she must be thinking that the tracks were made in the already-lithified sandstone underneath. (?)
You raise a VERY good point, one I hadn't considered. Even in wet sand, assuming it's raining at the time, the tracks get made... but then what? You're right, all that rain at the time is going to wash them away. They would have to get covered by another substance, like a mudslide or something. But where would the mud come from? Presumably it's all sand in the area, and like the authors point out, it would have to be another substance.
About the only way I can see it working is if it was a flood built up with mud and debris that washed over the area immediately as they were running. Then the footprints might still be there and covered with a mess of other material... but ultimately, I have no idea what the authors were thinking. Trying to sort through that one will take me some thought.
quote:
One more thing: they are not "footprints," as your source calls them. The tracks were made by arthropods (think spiders and crustaceans). There are no skeletal fossils. Since the age of the sandstone is about 260 million years, this is not surprising -- no humans, camels or dinosaurs were crossing that desert.
You will, however, also find fossilised worm burrows in the sandstone . . . and preserved raindrop impressions.
I looked into this, and found this page by talkorigins on the subject, which mentions "possible loping, running, and galloping gaits" as well as the arthropods you mention. Therefore, I would assume it's more than just spiders and crustaceans, but also land animals as well. I may be wrong, just that it seems that way.
Again, you've raised some very good points, and are making me think. I had not noticed that before, and makes me further consider what must've happened. Interested in discussing this further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 9:29 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 2:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 11 of 320 (565056)
06-14-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
06-14-2010 9:53 AM


Re: Back to the basics
The supposed global flood is placed at about 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.
I for one am not sold on a strict 4,350 year date for the flood. As pointed out by the Scofield reference notes for Genesis 11:10:
quote:
11:10 begat. The Hebrew word rendered "begat" does not mean became the father of but often means became an ancestor of; and the Biblical word "son," though often indicating an immediate child, may also be the equivalent of our English word "descendant." Thus, Mt. 1:1 calls Jesus Christ "the son of David, the son of Abraham." See also Mt. 22:42. The genealogy in Mt. 1:8 says that Joram begot Uzziah, thus omitting three links: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, all kinds of Judah whose names would have been known to every Jew. Also compare Ezra 7:3 with 1 Chr. 6:7-11. In view of all these facts we see that Gen. 11:10 means that, when Shem was 100 years old, his wife bore a child who was either Arphaxad or an ancestor of Arphaxad. Many links in the chain of ancestry may have been left unmentioned. after the flood. Scripture does not provide data by which the date of the flood can be discovered. (See notes on Gen. 1:1; 5:3.)
One of the first things I learned in studying archaeology -- if you want to find a 10,000 year old site, look in 10,000 year old dirt.
Now, if we want to find evidence of a global flood about 4,350 years old, we simply find dirt of that age and see what it tells us.
Bear with me - I am curious what procedures are used to determine what decides that dirt is 10,000 years old as opposed to 10 million years old. After all, if the procedure is inaccurate, then the argument stops there, as this deals with dating and a timeline. Again, it's recognized animals went through a mass extinction, and that a large portion of marine life was wiped out due to an underwater volcanic eruption.
Therefore, the Bible should at least be considered to have its facts right since it did describe an event fitting such description. Therefore, I would like to further examine the dating methodologies to understand whether they are as concrete as is believed in providing such vast ages. It seems this is what it comes down to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 9:53 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 2:31 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 16 of 320 (565073)
06-14-2010 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
06-14-2010 2:31 PM


Re: Back to the basics
quote:
If you want to be taken seriously you can't have a date for the supposed global flood bouncing around anywhere between 4,000 and 500 million and more years ago depending on what is convenient for your argument at the moment.
Biblical scholars place the date somewhere close to 4,350 years ago, so if you disagree you need to pick a date. Once you pick a date we can examine the relevant soils and see what they tell us.
I would 'guess' around 10,000 years. From a Biblical standpoint, anything over 50,000 years as an age for the earth seems unlikely, genealogical omissions notwithstanding.
quote:
If you want to learn the age of a soil, you go to an expert--either an archaeologist or more likely, if no cultural materials are present, to a geomorphologist. They can figure those things out pretty easily. And don't bother trying to "what if" their results away.
This may sound harsh, but you are bringing red herrings and "what ifs" to the discussion and trying to substitute them for evidence. They are not. An example: "What if the moon is made of green cheese?" "It's not." "I know, but 'what if' it is?" See, no evidence, just an attempt to cast doubt a scientific argument. That's what you are doing with the mass extinction, volcano, and other issues. They have nothing to do with the subject. They are red herrings designed to throw the discussion off track and make you feel your beliefs have withstood scientific scrutiny.
The difference is that we have pictures of the moon. We can go up and test it at any given time. Problem solved.
Whereas with dating methodologies, they've been riddled with holes, and you have to practice a specific discipline to even partake in the dating itself. As such, I suspect many proponents of evolution have never tried the dating themselves, or even understand fully how it works. They are merely taking the word of a scientist just because he's a scientist, and not doing any research or original thought for themselves.
Catastrophism is now a recognized fact. Lyell and Uniformitarianism are no longer accepted as the sole end-all, be-all. Therefore, it is no stretch to consider that such catastrophes may well have changed the climate and atmosphere - the same climate and atmosphere that must of necessity have remained constant with regard to variables like carbon 14 upon which carbon dating and dendrochronology rely.
Furthermore, it's been proven that problems arise with the dating when variables like volcanic ash are introduced, or when the dating tries to go beyond a certain length (10,000 years, 100,000 years, whatever a given expert has set it at it seems).
Unlike with the moon, you don't have a physical object you can go up and test. You're relying on a methodology, a process, which is in turn based entirely on a theory which in turn is based on the personal philosophies of one man... who could be wrong. Furthermore, that methodology of dating has had predecessors, other methodologies, that have been abandoned in favor of newer supposedly 'infallible' methods. Why have they, in recent years, moved on to dendrochronology from all the past dating methods?
Because it sure looks like the Creationists and others knocking holes in each successive dating theory forced them to look for new methods. Do you realize how recent some of these dating methods are? They haven't even undergone a critical analysis yet and stood the test of time, and yet those who question them like me are considered to be on a par with questioning whether the moon is made of green cheese?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 2:31 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 4:47 PM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 19 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 5:12 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 18 of 320 (565077)
06-14-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
06-14-2010 4:47 PM


Re: Back to the basics
quote:
There is no evidence for a global flood at 10,000 years either. I have only worked a couple of sites of that age myself, but my colleagues have studied a lot more. No evidence of a global flood. Sorry.
Do you want to keep guessing ages? Or are you willing to accept that there was no global flood?
Again, there is evidence that a huge extinction event occurred which wiped out 95% of all marine life and at least 70% of land life. There is also evidence of an underwater volcanic eruption that was responsible. We now recognize there is enough water beneath the earth to account for a global flood, previously a contention against the possibility. We also have flood legends worldwide with remarkable similarities. I refuse to abandon this as a possibility merely over a difference in dates, when again, the methodology for those dates has not yet been fully examined.
quote:
As for dating, from your paragraphs it appears that you don't know enough yet to discuss the issue. If you could study some of the methods, using real science rather than creationist websites, we could have a better discussion. You have too many concepts mixed together.
I get that with carbon dating it's dating the half-lives of carbon, and with dendrochronology is comparing tree rings to determine age. However, I also see noticeable assumptions made in both cases. You're assuming the decay rate of half lives is the same. Why? And you're assuming the rate of tree ring growth is constant. Why?
If there are worldwide catastrophes wreaking havoc on the environment, is it possible they could affect atmospheric levels of carbon? Or even affect the decay rate itself? Furthermore, we know the erosive effects of water and lava. If you have a global flood with volcanic activity, what effect might that have on decay rate of matter and carbon 14?
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 4:47 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 5:20 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2010 5:22 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2010 7:58 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 20 of 320 (565080)
06-14-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kitsune
06-14-2010 5:12 PM


Re: Back to the basics
quote:
Also, you might want to bear in mind that some of the people talking here are the ones who actually go out in the field and find evidence themselves. Coyote is an archaeologist. You come on here knowing very little about what you're saying, and essentially telling him he's wrong. Maybe it's worth listening to what he says about lack of evidence for a flood-?
I only differ on points I hear no alternate explanation for. Whatever his scientific background, he has yet to refute my points about legends from around the world or weaknesses of dating methods.
I try to reason things through for myself, and not merely accept the word of a pastor or archaeologist or politician. Qualifications are nice, but ultimately it comes down to the reasoning for me, where does the logic lead?
We all place our trust in something, but I have learned by now that people will let you down, consistently. Better to trust elsewhere, and evaluate on a case by case basis.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 5:12 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 5:30 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 33 by Drosophilla, posted 06-15-2010 8:16 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024