Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 76 of 320 (574078)
08-13-2010 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
08-13-2010 9:54 PM


Little or no evidence there
Buz, there isn't much at all for flood evidence (potential or otherwise) in your message.
Ron Wyatt, who laid claim to discovering the ark site in Turkey also discovered in the region some thirteen or so large stones with holes, (one in the end of each elongated stone) in them which he described as ballast stones to keep the ark boyant and stable. Some of those stones, according to Wyatt, have ancient inscriptions in the relating to eight people and a boat etc. These were believed to have been inscribed by local dwellers of the region, subsequent to the flood.
Ark evidence would contribute to support for the flood having happened, but we should see much more evidence than just that. Anyway, any evidence of the ark you do have would be worthy of a new topic. Why don't you start one. And include something to back up those Wyatt claims.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 08-13-2010 9:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 320 (574082)
08-13-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
08-13-2010 9:54 PM


Re: Flood Legends
We know for a fact that the Biblical Flood never happened and you have been given absolute refutation about the Biblical Flood.
Why are you mentioning about Ron Wyatt (someone that is known to have misrepresented facts and faked data) even after the subject of the Biblical Flood has been proven to be false?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 08-13-2010 9:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2010 8:54 AM jar has replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 78 of 320 (574083)
08-13-2010 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
08-13-2010 9:54 PM


Re: Flood Legends
Well, if you are a creationist then I presume you can put a date on the flood? I'll settle for a rough figure give or take a few centuries. Surely that must be possible, since creationists claim to be able to date the earth from the bible....
In fact AiG boffins have done it and find that the date is 2304 BC +/- 11 years. *
Timeline for the Flood | Answers in Genesis
So now we know where to look in the geological record and we can also calculate the population dynamics needed to repopulate the world & the animal migration patterns needed to get marsupials over to Australia.
The only thing missing is the date of the miracle needed to 'vanish' all the water, the miracles needed to reprogram the periodic table to give false datings to the host of archaelogical evidence for other cultures at that date, the miracles needed to construct and replace the DNA of the 8 people so that they could produce the currently observed genetic evidence and hide the genetic convergence at that date, and about another couple of thousand assorted miracles to cover climate, axial tilt, orbital peturbation and other little details.
Sounds promising....
*We really should congratulate the team for that astounding level of accuracy. Cynics might say they pulled a figure from their ass and took away the number they first thought of, but credit where credit is due.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 08-13-2010 9:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2010 11:07 PM Bikerman has replied
 Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2010 9:56 PM Bikerman has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 79 of 320 (574084)
08-13-2010 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 10:54 PM


Re: Flood Legends
Well, if you are a creationist then I presume you can put a date on the flood? I'll settle for a rough figure give or take a few centuries.
The date centers around about 4,350 years ago.
Unless creationists get pinned down and then it ranges to the Cambrian explosion (550 million years ago) and beyond.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 10:54 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 11:17 PM Coyote has not replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 80 of 320 (574085)
08-13-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Coyote
08-13-2010 11:07 PM


Re: Flood Legends
But surely the article I referenced must be correct? It is written by someone with Dr in front of their name and they know how to express error bars and statistical certainty measures. Thus:
quote:
I believe it does this so clearly that no doubt should remain either about the timing or the nature of this judgment by God upon this earth.
What more could one ask?
He also knows how to produce cumulative error calculations:
quote:
If we add up the figures mentioned between Shem’s 100th year (Gen. 11:10) and Abraham (Gen. 11:26) we get 350 years. Since 9 names are mentioned it is 350 years +/- 9 (9 margins of error of up to 1 year each).
Impeccable. Any suggestion that this is not the correct methodology must surely fall in light of this master-class? I mean to say, why bother using hard maths with square roots and square powers when it can be done like this without such fuss?
Surely the good Doctor has finally nailed it??
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2010 11:07 PM Coyote has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 81 of 320 (574086)
08-13-2010 11:35 PM


For whatever it might be worth, a replay of message 1
Jzyehoshua , in message 1, writes:
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.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Bikerman, posted 08-14-2010 12:23 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 84 by Bikerman, posted 08-14-2010 1:44 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 82 of 320 (574094)
08-14-2010 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Adminnemooseus
08-13-2010 11:35 PM


Re: For whatever it might be worth, a replay of message 1
I guess that was saying get back on point Bikerman?
Sorry to stray, but it is hard to resist.
The trouble is that the OP is so wide - so many questions in one.
OK, taking it sequentially, I'll do the first.
quote:
I'd like to discuss ancient flood legends worldwide
Global Flood Myths:
(dates are the dates of the record containing the myth, not the proposed date of the flood)
earliest recorded is the Sumerian Eridu Genesis myth (17th century BCE)
Next in order of date would be The Gilgamesh Sumerian myth (7th century BCE)
Next would be the Jewish/Hebrew Genesis myth (5th-6th century BCE)
Next would be the Chinese Book of history flood myth (circa 500 BCE)
Then the Indian Matsya myth (circa 300 CE)
Those are the main ones, I think, though there are quite a few more recorded.
Edited by Bikerman, : Added sources/citations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-13-2010 11:35 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Bikerman, posted 08-14-2010 12:50 AM Bikerman has not replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 83 of 320 (574100)
08-14-2010 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Bikerman
08-14-2010 12:23 AM


Re: For whatever it might be worth, a replay of message 1
quote:
recent scientific discoveries showing that mass extinctions of marine life occurred at a global level
There are 5 according to the research:
1. Cretaceous—Tertiary extinction event - 70 to 65 Mill yrs ago. Probable causes - Asteroid Impact/Volcanic activity
This is the one that did for the dinosaurs. Marine extinction varied quite a lot by species and location. Roughly 10% of bony fish and 20% of cartilaginous fish (sharks, rays, and skates) went extinct, but all the ammonites went and a good proportion of the planktons.
2. Triassic—Jurassic extinction event - 205 Mill yrs ago. Probable cause unknown
This is a toughie. There was a lack of speciation underway in the seas rather than an increase in extinctions. Not much known about this one.
3. Permian—Triassic extinction event - 251 Mill yrs ago. Probable causes - Impact event/Increased volcanism/Global warming
This is the real Biggie! 95% of marine species go extinct here
4. Late Devonian extinction - 360-375 Mill yrs ago. Probable causes - increased volcanism, Global cooling, possible impact event.
This was probably several events over several million years.
Brachiopods, reef building organisms and Trilobytes went almost completely extinct.
5. Ordovician—Silurian extinction event - 440-450 Mill yrs ago. Probable causes - continental drift into South Pole causing global drop in temp, increased glaciation and reduction in sea level.
This is the 2nd biggest extinction known. About 65% of marine life went extinct.
Sources :
Extinction event - Wikipedia
Just a moment...
Edited by Bikerman, : Addition of sources/citations
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : Correction of bad link
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : Spelling mistake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Bikerman, posted 08-14-2010 12:23 AM Bikerman has not replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 84 of 320 (574107)
08-14-2010 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Adminnemooseus
08-13-2010 11:35 PM


Re: For whatever it might be worth, a replay of message 1
quote:
the process of fossilization as possible support for a global catastrophe
Depends what you mean. If you mean as support for global exitinction events millions of years ago then yes - much of the evidence does indeed come from fossils. If you mean evidence for some imaginary flood a few thousand years ago then no - there is no evidence for such a global flood and not enough time for fossils to form in any case (unless particular and very rare circumstances prevail).
I suggest the following links might be the most suitable explanations for someone of your apparent level of science knowledge.
Fossil Formation: A Pictorial Tour of Premineralization
What is a fossil and how do they form? | Discovering Fossils
Fossilization, How Do Fossils Form
If you want some possible origins for the Genesis (and other) flood myth then I have taken the trouble to reformat and quickly typeset an excellent paper by a Hungarian academic - Vlas Gyrgy
It is a scientific paper, so you will need to concentrate when reading it, but the language used is not overly technical and it should be within reach of anyone with reasonable english.
http://bikerman.co.uk/flood.html
Finally, there is another possible souce for the Genesis story :
National Geographic - 404
PS - sorry Adminnemooseus, I replied to you instead of the OP. I don't know if you can change the link? Otherwise it should be obvious I hope...
Edited by Bikerman, : To add PS after replying to wrong person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-13-2010 11:35 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 85 of 320 (574108)
08-14-2010 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


quote:
and that there is indeed more water in the earth's core than has been historically believed.
Ermm...well first you need to understand the terms. The core is the bit in the middle of the earth. It is in two parts - a solid metal core and a liquid metal surround (the inner and outer core). There is no water at all here - the pressure and temperature are way too extreme.
Next is the mantle. Here it gets interesting. The short answer is that we don't know exactly how much water there is in the mantle since it is way too deep to get to. But we do know there is a lot and it is possible that there could be about 5-10 times as much water as there is in all the seas and rivers on the surface.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...7_0307_waterworld.html
We can actually see some water in the mantle using seismograph data. This shows a region of water about the size of the Arctic ocean.
http://www.physorg.com/news90171847.html
Now, before you get too exited, there are a few things to remember.
a) This is a 'could be' not an 'is' - what we call an hypothesis, not a solid theory. The fact that there is a fair amount of water (at least the volume of the Arctic ocean) can be said to be theory since we have some good evidence for that, but the Japanese paper is more speculative and is hypothesis.
b) If there is a great volume of water in the mantle much of it will have been carried there by subduction (ie when one of the earth's techtonic plates goes under another and is forced down). This does not happen quickly - it takes hundreds, even thousands of millions of years.
c) This was predicted some time ago but it is only recently that we have got some fairly solid data to back-up the predictions.
http://ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html
So in summary -
  • There is more water in the mantle that was believed early last century.
  • So far we know that there is as much water, at least, as scientists predicted in the mid-late 1900s.
  • Currently scientists are predicting that there may be much more to come - up to 10 times the total surface water.
Now I know fine well that many creationists will take this as evidence for the Noah Flood (they already have)*, despite my explanation that this was carried down by subduction over billions of years. I want you to think about the fact that you asked a proper scientific question and got an honest scientically accurate answer, with no shilly-shallying or deception. Now examine your fellow believers with the same lense and see if they measure up.
* Where did all the water come from? - creation.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:35 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 86 of 320 (574113)
08-14-2010 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


quote:
Other subjects might include the mixing of fossil deposits by strata
This should be the most fertile area for creationists to attack. Evolutionary theory can be falsified/refuted by finding one single fossil in the wrong geological layer - that is how science works - and creationists have sought, over the years, to claim that they have found such examples. They haven't. Not a one.
What they have found, and this is no news to geologists, are many examples of upright fossils, which they call polystrate fossils. These are trees which have been rapidly covered with one or more layers of sediment, normally from a volcanic eruption but also possibly from rapid subsidence (particularly on coastal plains) causing a rapid build-up of sediment, or a river changing course and depositing large amounts of silt/sediment.
So what you get is a tree, or a number of trees which are partially buried in sediment. Normally this kills them, though there are some examples where the tree has survived the initial burying and has put on fresh growth. The tree is held upright by the sediment and is then either gradually buried in new layers of sediment over the next hundreds or even thousands of years, or buried by another eruption quite quickly. Then, much later, erosion may reveal the tree(s) and they poke through several strata, depending on the rate of the original sedimentation and the subsequent events before the tree was completely buried.
This is fairly rare but there are many good examples around the world. Yellowstone park, Bear Valley in Pennsylvania, Mount St Helens in Washington State and Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines all contain excellent examples of volcanic 'polystrate' fossils.
Louisianna contains some examples of deltaic 'polystrate' fossil trees that were buried when the Mississippi was diverted into the Atchafalaya River in the 1800s.
There is nothing new here, of course, and the reason behind this type of fossil was worked out in the 1800s by geologists such as John William Dawson (1868).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
Finally, are there other (non tree) examples of fossils which appear to be in the wrong stratum? No, and if creationists ever find one then I'll seriously consider becoming a creationist.
Evolution predicts that fossils will be found in distinct layers (strata) and that such strata will date to the same period for the same fossil nomatter where it is found (they are and they do). It predicts that there will be temporal progression of fossils in lineages (there is). It predicts that we should see both examples of punctuated evolution - rapid change from one species to another, and examples of phyletic gradualism - slow and gradual change from one to another (we do). It also predicts that we should be able to trace existing creatures back, through the fossil record and showing links to older, different animals (we can).
Creationism (flood hypothesis) predicts that fossils should all appear in a similar stratum formed during the 40 days of the deluge (they don't). It predicts that sorting will be by some force, such as the rate of sinking according to mass/density (it isn't). It predicts that any such sorting must be imperfect since a mixing period of only 40 days globally makes this a certainty (it isn't - it is perfect). It also predicts that there will be no correlation between fossil age and surrounding rock - clearly if fossils were created by Noah's flood, there is no reason that lower layers of fossils should consistently end up sandwiched between rocks with old dates (there is a clear and absolutely consistent correlation).
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:35 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 87 of 320 (574133)
08-14-2010 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


Finally, to finish covering all the points:
quote:
evidence of instantaneous fossilization (such as large numbers of fish preserved with flesh outlines or starfish that died hovering over clams en masse).
Firstly you have to be clear about what fossilisation means and the simple fact is that it is used in a variety of ways which all mean different things.
Now, to the meat of the point. A quick trawl reveals all sorts of creationist claims about instant fossils - all very silly indeed. I couldn't find a starfish hovering over clams 'en masse' or the dish preserved with flesh outlines. Perhaps you can cite a source for these stories?
Natural mummification is real and has happened, rarely. We have some good examples, like Otzi the Iceman and the Tarim mummies
Obviously each requires special conditions - sometimes salinity, sometimes dessication, sometimes lack of ambient oxygen. This is all well documented. So what, exactly, is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:35 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 88 of 320 (574134)
08-14-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
08-13-2010 10:46 PM


Re: Flood Legends
Jar writes:
Why are you mentioning about Ron Wyatt (someone that is known to have misrepresented facts and faked data) even after the subject of the Biblical Flood has been proven to be false?
Jar, I will not be responding due to Adminemooseous's message, submitted a half hour before yours that the Wyatt data is for another topic?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 10:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 08-14-2010 10:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 89 of 320 (574142)
08-14-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
08-13-2010 9:54 PM


Re: Flood Legends
On the other hand, bear in mind that IF indeed there was this Biblical flood, there was allegedly only 8 people, all surviving witnesses of the event.
If at any time in history - and certainly just a few thousand years ago - there were only 8 surviving members of our species, this would be clearly seen in our genetic record.
And we would have a totally convincing back up, because we would see the same pattern in the genetic record of all other species.
As it happens, we see no such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 08-13-2010 9:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 320 (574146)
08-14-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Buzsaw
08-14-2010 8:54 AM


Re: Flood Legends
So reply to the evidence based on what you did leave in your post.
If the either of the Bible Flood stories was true then every living thing today is descended from those survivors. There would be a genetic bottle neck signature in EVERY living critter today that all point to the exact same time in history, a really recent event.
That signature is not there.
The Biblical account of the Flood is absolutely and completely refuted.
The Biblical Flood did not happen. Period.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2010 8:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Bikerman, posted 08-14-2010 11:15 AM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024