Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 151 of 320 (631475)
09-01-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by jar
08-31-2011 9:14 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
RE-If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.-
That sounds like a reasonable enough expectation. But don't go putting all your eggs into one basket my friend. The problem is that there is something wrong that needs to be addressed. During the mathematical process of evaluating the genetic markers in any population and extrapolating backwards to the date of the original parent group, they cannot account in the equation the great grandparent effect. What I mean by that is that in current calculations they use current time estimates for a "generation" and don't consider the fact that the life span in animals and people exiting the Ark were much longer than they are today. That means that several generations would have co-existed within a single procreation time frame and the genes from great great grandpa would be introduced back into the equation many times over. This would screw up the calculations dramatically and make it virtually impossible to accurately predict when any given species population actually "bottle necked."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 08-31-2011 9:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 09-01-2011 9:40 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2011 11:22 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 152 of 320 (631476)
09-01-2011 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Panda
08-31-2011 9:22 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
These surface imprints are common? Well, so are floods.
You have provided an argument that areas of land are often flooded.
I doubt anyone would argue against that.
My understanding is that it's because in normal flooding conditions like today, there is no rapid burial with a source of gentle blanketing sediments all mixed with cementing agents, without which trace fossils cannot be preserved. Ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sediment. For example ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud.
Multiple layers of ripples, and the variations observed in their alignments between the layers indicates they were laid down by sediment laying currents of varying strength and therefore producing the variation in particle sizes between layers that we observe. The typical local flood events just don't produce these kinds of features.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Panda, posted 08-31-2011 9:22 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 8:36 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2011 11:14 AM Just being real has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 153 of 320 (631478)
09-01-2011 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Just being real
08-31-2011 9:02 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Hi JBR,
Would I be correct in guessing that your source material is The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth: Past, Present, and Future by John Morrris? Some of the text is available through Google Books, and some of your points parallel Morris's pretty closely. For example, from the book about the Coconino layer:
John Morris writes:
Now we know from observation that water generally moves much more rapidly on the surface than it does at depth. In order for water at a 100-foot depth to move at three to five feet per second, it must be moving at a much greater velocity on the surface.
Actually, at a depth of 100 feet in the open ocean, sustained water velocities of three feet per second have never been observed. Clearly, it would take a storm of unprecedented magnitude. Such a catastrophe is far beyond that which most uniformitarians dare to consider.
And from your message:
Just being real writes:
Calculations of the amount of water volume needed to create the Coconino with its undulates (sand dunes) would require water at 100 foot depth, moving at a speed of three to five feet per second. Water moving at that speed and depth has never been observed, not even at open sea. Which means it would take an unprecedented storm of great magnitude to create the Coconino sandstone layers.
From the book about polystrate fossils:
Morris writes:
Multiple polystrate fossils are found protruding up through several limestone layers each.
And from your message:
Just being real writes:
Seventh, consider the existence of polystrate fossils in coal beds for example, which are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old. But this conclusion falls apart by the hundreds of polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers)
If any point in Morris's book is grist for the mill in this thread then this could be a very long discussion, so perhaps we could narrow the focus. What do you feel is the most significant evidence for a global flood four or five thousand years ago?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2011 9:02 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 8:57 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 154 of 320 (631485)
09-01-2011 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Just being real
09-01-2011 7:06 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Just being real writes:
...there is no rapid burial with a source of gentle blanketing sediments all mixed with cementing agents, without which trace fossils cannot be preserved.
This appears to be taken from http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction6.html
quote:
Today, without rapid burial and a source of gentle blanketing sediments all mixed with cementing agents, trace fossils cannot be preserved.
If this is a claim that local flooding is not rapid enough and doesn't contain the required sediment then I can find no evidence to support this claim.
.
.
Just being real writes:
Ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sediment. For example ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud.
This appears to be taken from http://creation.com/hundreds-of-jellyfish-fossils
quote:
Also, ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sedimentin this case, the ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud.
I can find no evidence to support this claim.
.
.
Just being real writes:
Multiple layers of ripples, and the variations observed in their alignments between the layers indicates they were laid down by sediment laying currents of varying strength and therefore producing the variation in particle sizes between layers that we observe.
This appears to be taken from http://creation.com/hundreds-of-jellyfish-fossils
quote:
The multiple layers of ripples (and the variation in their alignment/orientation between layers) reflect their having been laid down by sediment-laden currents of varying strength (thus the variation in particle sizes between layers).
This is unconnected to whether a flood was global or not.
.
.
Just being real writes:
The typical local flood events just don't produce these kinds of features.
I see no evidence to support this conclusion.
If you could provide some evidence to back up these claims I would be very interested.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 7:06 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 5:58 PM Panda has not replied
 Message 172 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 8:57 PM Panda has replied

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


Message 155 of 320 (631490)
09-01-2011 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 10:59 PM


Re: CORRECT COMPREHENSION OF TEXTS EXPOSES THE CHEATERS.
Irrelevant. I even quoted the relevant verses.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 10:59 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


(1)
Message 156 of 320 (631492)
09-01-2011 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Just being real
09-01-2011 7:05 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Bullshit.
The age of folk or how long they lived is totally irrelevant to the genetic marker. It does not matter how long folk lived although there is absolute proof that all the animals lived just about as long as they do today going back way before Adam's time.
The Magical Mystery Biblical Flood was not very long ago. We're not talking about a bottleneck that happened long long ago, the flood was damn near yesterday in geological and biological terms.
In addition, if you want to pretend that animals and humans lived longer, that only reduces the number of generations going back to the supposed Biblical Flood.
Your nonsense would simply make the genetic marker even more obvious.
The fact is, the marker is not seen.
The Biblical Flood is refuted.
It really is that simple.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 7:05 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 8:58 PM jar has replied

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


(1)
Message 157 of 320 (631496)
09-01-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by IamJoseph
09-01-2011 6:43 AM


Dating the "flood"
You never cited anything. The fulcrum verse was left out and not confronted, which was pointed out - and you have not retracted.
The closest I can figure this "fulcrum verse" you're talking about is the date given the "global flood." I stated that biblical scholars center around a date of 4,350 years ago. Here is my basis for that statement:
The date of the global flood is given variously as:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
2500 BC -- nwcreation.net
Once again this shows we are dealing with recent times, with sediments not geological formations, and with bones, not rocks or fossils. Our information will come more from archaeology than geology.
And you have yet to address any of the points in my original post, above.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 6:43 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 09-01-2011 10:22 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 162 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 5:54 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 158 of 320 (631497)
09-01-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Coyote
09-01-2011 10:15 AM


Re: Dating the "flood"
His assertion is even sillier. He is claiming that a local flood can leave the Ark on a mountain.
I would love to see the explanation for that. Maybe magic water that settles higher on one side than the other.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2011 10:15 AM Coyote has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 159 of 320 (631500)
09-01-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Just being real
09-01-2011 7:06 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
My understanding is that it's because in normal flooding conditions like today, there is no rapid burial with a source of gentle blanketing sediments all mixed with cementing agents, without which trace fossils cannot be preserved. Ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sediment. For example ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud.
Multiple layers of ripples, and the variations observed in their alignments between the layers indicates they were laid down by sediment laying currents of varying strength and therefore producing the variation in particle sizes between layers that we observe. The typical local flood events just don't produce these kinds of features.
I don't know which rocks you're discussing here, but the pattern of sedimentation you're describing sounds like flaser deposits, which can be observed forming today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 7:06 AM Just being real has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 320 (631503)
09-01-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Just being real
09-01-2011 7:05 AM


Bottlenecks
That sounds like a reasonable enough expectation. But don't go putting all your eggs into one basket my friend. The problem is that there is something wrong that needs to be addressed. During the mathematical process of evaluating the genetic markers in any population and extrapolating backwards to the date of the original parent group, they cannot account in the equation the great grandparent effect. What I mean by that is that in current calculations they use current time estimates for a "generation" and don't consider the fact that the life span in animals and people exiting the Ark were much longer than they are today. That means that several generations would have co-existed within a single procreation time frame and the genes from great great grandpa would be introduced back into the equation many times over. This would screw up the calculations dramatically and make it virtually impossible to accurately predict when any given species population actually "bottle necked."
But the effect you're describing, if it existed, would, if anything, decrease genetic diversity. This means that if it threw off the calculations, it would do so by making the bottlenecking event, if anything, seem like it was after the flood. Even given your bit of adhoccery, then, we should expect normal methods, not taking your "grandfather effect" into account, to show in each species a bottleneck within the last ~4000 years.
What you need is an unproven ad hoc argument showing that we shouldn't see any bottlenecking at all; whereas your actual unproven ad hoc argument, if it held, would exacerbate the bottlenecks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 7:05 AM Just being real has not replied

Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


(2)
Message 161 of 320 (631522)
09-01-2011 3:21 PM


Legends lead to God?
quote:
I'd like to discuss ancient flood legends worldwide...
Were I attempting to "prove" the worldwide flood, and did so through citing widespread flood legends, I would go to Ovid's Metamorphosis:
quote:
Then he called
The winds and clouds, and bade them storm the earth
With floods of water; and the thing was done.
All landmarks slid beneath the rising waves;
There was no shoreline; all below was sea.
Some few surviving humans were in boats,
Riding above the roofs where once they dwelt,
Or fishing from the tree tops where the birds
Were displaced by strange creatures of the deep.
All but sea-creatures perished presently;
Some drowned; the rest died for the want of food.
quote:
From all the human thousands, and these two
Were kindly folk, and lovers of the gods.
Thus seeing, he dispersed the sullen clouds,
And stopped the rains, so the fair sky once more
Was seen from earth. Then Neptune and his son,
The reedy Triton, sounded on their shells,
To rule the rampant sea, and bade it turn
Back to its ordered bed; and it obeyed,
From east to west. Again, there was a shore
To ocean, and the rivers knew their bounds.
From the subsiding waters, hills emerged.
Then after many days, there was firm soil
And growing trees, with leaves still marked by mud.
Earth was restored, but on it nothing moved
the entirety of Ovid's flood narrative can be read at: THE FLOOD STORY FROM OVID
If I were to set aside all physical evidence for the purposes of discussion, and relied entirely upon the myths and stories passed down through various religions and traditions, I might come to the conclusion that a flood did actually happen.
Which makes sense from the point of view that floods are widespread, can be catastrophic, and through diffusion it makes sense that there would be some overlap in the stories coming from peoples related to each other and from societies that interacted or have some other form of relationship in a given region. Especially when you consider historical flood events that must have had tremendous impacts upon human populations (black sea, expansion of the mediterranean sea, flooding of populated areas in what is now the British channel, etc) and how these narratives might survive and evolve through the centuries in verbal traditions.
What I *don't* understand is how someone can default to the position that these stories are somehow corruptions of the biblical narrative, and not the other way around. Even if we were to accept a world wide flood (purely for the purposes of discussion -- I don't accept it for a moment), why wouldn't the Genesis account be rightfully regarded as a possible corruption of, say, the Etruscan / Latin / etc traditions? Of course this does not mention the likelihood of actual Mesopotamian roots for myth.
The only conclusion I can come to is that, believing the biblical account to be literally true, the defender of the position will warp and generate "evidence" to support their viewpoint while willfully ignoring anything which may lead to a contrary viewpoint. In my mind, those folks are more concerned with worshiping a work of man (the Bible) than any God which may exist.
We can learn a great deal about history through our myths; they can be windows to real events, and studying them can help us understand how our ancestors perceived and dealt with real world events. We use words like "semi-legendary" to describe figures who probably existed, but whose lives have been expanded beyond whatever was real. Noah, or whatever name you come up with, might well represent the real survivor (or survivors) of a catastrophic regional flood, but when you bend history (not to mention the sciences) to fit the brief narrative in a bronze age text, you lose credibility in my mind.
I suppose a valid point is this: even *if* tomorrow we all decided that there was a world wide flood, it would just as much prove the Latin mythos as the Judaeo Christian narrative. The literalist gains nothing from these arguments, and only makes themselves look ignorant, whether in history, geology, or literature.
Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 6:09 PM Wollysaurus has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 162 of 320 (631540)
09-01-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Coyote
09-01-2011 10:15 AM


Re: Dating the "flood"
quote:
The closest I can figure this "fulcrum verse" you're talking about is the date given the "global flood."
No sir! Its not the datings but the text's blatant pointer to what is the most logical conclusion, which I posted numerously: this was 'NOT' a global flood according to the text, nor did it relate to ALL the life forms on earth. Such perverse conclusions have two potential reasons:
1. The mis-rep of the Hebrew by European Christianity, which has made such great errors of being totally lost in translation of other examples: translating 'young maiden' as 'virgin' in Isaiah, and calling the earth 6000 years old! The Hebrew bible cannot in anywise be seen as stupid writings except by the most twisted, stupid views.
2. The agenda of those atheists who reject everything in the NT as having zero credibility in reality and in total contrast of the Hebrew writings, but are too cowardly to address that directly, instead attacking the Hebrew bible.
My responses are not about datings or a flood - another example of twisted views.
quote:
I stated that biblical scholars center around a date of 4,350 years ago. Here is my basis for that statement:
The date of the global flood is given variously as:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
2500 BC -- nwcreation.net
Once again this shows we are dealing with recent times, with sediments not geological formations, and with bones, not rocks or fossils. Our information will come more from archaeology than geology.
And you have yet to address any of the points in my original post, above.
No sir - you have to address your points, not I! The laughable and such large variants of datings only proves the credibility of those you quote: how can anyone even consider their views as having any credibility? Also, a recent dating only exposes the insanity of even conjuring up a global flood scenario. It only affirms my point?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2011 10:15 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 163 of 320 (631541)
09-01-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Panda
09-01-2011 8:36 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
The insanity continues with a determination, exposing both responsas butting heads against a brick wall they cannot see.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 8:36 AM Panda has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 164 of 320 (631546)
09-01-2011 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Wollysaurus
09-01-2011 3:21 PM


Re: Legends lead to God?
LOL! No one wonders how a nation and its writings survived after a "GLOBAL" flood in the same region? No one wonders that something is amiss here? I say, any later reference in ancient writings only affirms this was, as the texts says - a global flood!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Wollysaurus, posted 09-01-2011 3:21 PM Wollysaurus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Wollysaurus, posted 09-01-2011 6:38 PM IamJoseph has replied

Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


Message 165 of 320 (631552)
09-01-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by IamJoseph
09-01-2011 6:09 PM


Re: Legends lead to God?
IamJoseph writes:
LOL! No one wonders how a nation and its writings survived after a "GLOBAL" flood in the same region? No one wonders that something is amiss here? I say, any later reference in ancient writings only affirms this was, as the texts says - a global flood!
That 'logic' just doesn't make sense. You are essentially saying that because the legend exists, it must be true.
Where do you draw the line? If your logic holds, Jupiter, Juno and the rest are real beings, no?
Why is it more logical to you that the solution is a global flood and not catastrophic regional flood(s) giving rise to these stories? Or (banish the thought!) possibly just fiction?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 6:09 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 7:00 PM Wollysaurus 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