Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 56 (9054 total)
118 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Percy (Admin), Phat (5 members, 113 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,235 Year: 5,881/14,102 Month: 29/438 Week: 73/83 Day: 23/6 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 271 of 991 (705809)
09-02-2013 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 5:45 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
es I have admitted this. I cannot prove a total flood of biblical proportions, but there is enough evidence of worldwide flooding to contradict the loose claim that a worldwide flood has been disproven by geology.

There is zero evidence of a world wide flood at any time since the age of men began. You haven't even demonstrated that there was a world wide flood at the P-T boundary.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 5:45 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 4:05 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 991 (705811)
09-02-2013 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 5:56 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I really don't know to if, when, or to what extent God intervened in natural processes. I believe observed geology conforms with what happened.

You don't know if God intervened? So you don't know whether the following statement was made by God?

quote:
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Or this one:

quote:
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

You practice a strange version of Bible inerrancy. The difference between what the Bible states and what you believe certainly dwarfs any of the differences Tangle and I have discussed in what Genesis literally says.

I believe observed geology conforms with what happened.

So does everyone else in this thread.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 5:56 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 820 by mindspawn, posted 10-14-2013 7:36 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 273 of 991 (705814)
09-02-2013 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 6:55 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Granny writes:

Do the studies you refer to mention a worldwide flood?

mindspawn writes:

The answer is YES

This is a lie.

They don't use the word "flood" , using the more applicable term of "transgression".

But not once does this paper refer to a worldwide complete transgression sufficient to cover all the land. It surveys shallow marine environments, but it does not mention any worldwide flood. Indeed, the very fact that they are able to identify and count numerous such shallow marine environs comprehensively disproves any global flood.

quote:
"The end Permian mass extinction has long been related to a severe, first order lowstand of sea level Newell, N.D., 1967. Revolutions in the history of life. Geol. w Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 89, 63–91. based primarily on the widespread absence of latest Permian ammonoid markers, but field x evidence reveals that the interval coincides with a major transgression."

But the beginning of the Triassic sees an even greater marine transgression, as you can see in Fig. 2 of the paper. When exactly did this flood happen? Because if if we take your argument, and it goes right on the P-T boundary, then it seems that God broke his promise not to flood us again.

The extinction at the end-Permian coincides with a MAJOR transgression. This means that there was a major increase in sea levels relative to land.

But still not a global flood. An increase in sea levels doesn't mean that all the land was covered any more than an increase in burglary rates means that every house in the world has been robbed. There are plenty of terrestrial fossils from throughout this period. The continent of Pangea, as massive a landmass as you could hope for, was above water through the P-T boundary. That disproves a global flood.

Science isn't claiming a biblical flood

One thing we agree on there.

, but science is certainly claiming a worldwide flood at the P-T boundary.

No, not in the sense that you are trying to present it. You have misunderstood this paper.

Mutate and Survive

PS; Oh, I nearly forgot! Did you notice that much of the dating in that paper was done by conodont biostratigragphy? A conodont is a fossil, from a fish-like animal. The dates were established using our knowledge of conodont evolution. So the paper you're so proud of finding... is based on evolutionary science. Still keen on it? It uses some radiometric dating as well. I thought you disapproved of that? Or do you only disapprove when it's not telling you something you want to hear?

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 6:55 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 5:22 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 274 of 991 (705815)
09-02-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 8:04 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
mindspawn writes:

I cannot prove the biblical flood.

You really ought to have stopped there.

But you had to spoil it...

As for human remains, the list of anomalies is endless. None of them are taken seriously by the scientific establishment.

Gee, I wonder why.

One or two problems with those articles;

1) They're bollocks.
2) None of them mentions any Permian human fossils.

Without human fossils from the Permian and Triassic, no-one in their right mind is going to treat your little pet theory as anything other than crank nonsense.

You have to understand that we have a very good understanding of the history of evolution, one that is backed up by over a century of research and a great many fossils. Not one of those fossils supports your story. If you want people to believe that there were humans in the Permian, you need to show us some really compelling evidence; human fossils. A few unverifiable claims by internet lunatics is not going to cut it.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 8:04 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 4:40 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1169 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 275 of 991 (705816)
09-02-2013 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 5:07 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
They refute his regression theory in favor of a transgression.

That's what I said in my post.

They claim a highstand (high water levels - ie flooding) rather than Newells "lowstand" approach.

Correct. But they do not claim a worldwide flood. There is a lot of difference between a "transgression" and a worldwide flood.

That article does not support your claims for it.

You are still grasping at straws.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 5:07 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 4:11 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 276 of 991 (705836)
09-02-2013 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Tangle
08-29-2013 3:32 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.

Noah's ark was sat on a mountain, so even though he was dry, he had to wait a while for the bath water to drain out. (Where to?)

I love the idea that anything could grow on land poisoned by salt water.

I love the idea that an olive tree would survive being totally submerged by brackish water for months - it obviously hadn't grown from seed in a few days. Or was this a miracle?

I also love the idea that the entire ecosystem of the globe could be destroyed then spring immediately back to life in a matter of days.

Yep.

These points you make nullify the story as the people during the Middle Ages understood it. It doesn't add up factual when we examine the science evidence.

As a literary critic, giving the author the benefit of the doubt and suspecting that this is an important metaphor because of the nature of the Book where we find, these uncanny correspondences between what the story says and Paleontology we, ourselves, only recently have discovered give a degree of credence Noah and his Ark.

a number of things in the story strangely correspond one-to-one with what we now know to be true.

1) It is uncanny that both Genesis and Genetics explains that everyone living today is related to just one man, a common father, who lived about 40 thousand years ago.

2) The story also agrees in that the three different sources for the population of the whole earth, Ham, Shem, and Japheth corre4sponds directly with the Three Racial Stock Theory that separates our earliest racial differences of Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

3) Just before the "flood" Genesis reports inbreeding between different "kinds" of men, a case of hybridization which we recently confirmed by genetic tests that indicate the people of today carry Neanderthal genes in them.

4) Genesis tells us that Ham, Shem, and Japheth were all born 100,000 to 145,000 years ago, which corre4sponds with the time table science holds for Modern Homo sapiens.

5) Paleontology reports a mass extinction of lower forms of humans took place 40,000 years ago, when Neanderthals and Homo erectus went extinct.
The was the purpose of the flood, to eliminate other types of mankind.

6) Paleontological Theories called "Out -of-Africa" and the "Noah's Ark theory" connect the migration out of Africa, 40,000 years ago, with the sudden population explosion among Modern Homo sapiens and the spread of modern man around the globe and to the mountain tops.

7) There is also the genetic evidence for an "Eve, mother of all men theory," better assumed to refer to Noah's wife, which explains all people today had one common mother who @200,000 years ago.
This evidence compares and corresponds with the Genesis "flood" out of Africa story since the three sons of Noah were born when Noah was 500 years old, but the flood did not come until he was 600 years old.
If we take the liberty of applying "a day is to the lord like a thousand years," as the Bibles says,... 40 days = 40,000 years.

////
Then we have these Paleontologists who are atheists but liked the correspondences enough to use the idea below:

Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews proposes that modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens 200,000-150,000 years ago only in Africa and then some of them migrated into the rest of the Old World replacing all of the Neanderthals and other late archaic Homo sapiens beginning around 100,000 years ago.

If this interpretation of the fossil record is correct, all people today share a relatively modern African ancestry. All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.

From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Tangle, posted 08-29-2013 3:32 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Pressie, posted 09-03-2013 12:58 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 277 of 991 (705839)
09-03-2013 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by kofh2u
09-02-2013 11:04 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
kofh2u writes:

3) Just before the "flood" Genesis reports inbreeding between different "kinds" of men, a case of hybridization which we recently confirmed by genetic tests that indicate the people of today carry Neanderthal genes in them.

As I understand it; sub-Saharan Africans don't carry Neanderthal genes. Interbreeding between some humans and Neanderthals occurred in Eurasia after a group or groups of humans moved out of Africa. How do these tie into what you wrote? Did the Flood miss sub-Saharan Africa as those people without Neanderthal genes also survived ?

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistakes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by kofh2u, posted 09-02-2013 11:04 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2013 1:17 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 991 (705840)
09-03-2013 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Pressie
09-03-2013 12:58 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Did the Flood miss Africa as those people without Neanderthal genes also survived ?

These are on the surface logical questions, but in the world of kofh2u, the ark is the central nervous system of Noah and the Flood is a vision of the evolution of man and animals passing through Noah's mind. See Message 96

You are asking questions about the details of that vision...


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Pressie, posted 09-03-2013 12:58 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 279 of 991 (705844)
09-03-2013 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by NoNukes
09-02-2013 9:32 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
There is zero evidence of a world wide flood at any time since the age of men began. You haven't even demonstrated that there was a world wide flood at the P-T boundary.

Maybe you missed post 233? In post 233 I gave the definition of what a "transgression" is, it means a rise in sea levels that result in flooding. Obviously if sea levels rise, this is not a localised flood. Then I posted a link showing that the end Permian is associated with a major transgression. Emphasis on major. This means a major increase in sea levels. Did you read that link, it describes a major sea level rise that contributed towards the mass extinctions:

http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdf
"The end Permian mass extinction has long been related to a severe, first order lowstand of sea level Newell, N.D., 1967. Revolutions in the history of life. Geol. w Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 89, 63–91. based primarily on the widespread absence of latest Permian ammonoid markers, but field x evidence reveals that the interval coincides with a MAJOR TRANSGRESSION."

Some quotes from that link:
"In this article, we review in greater depth the possible relationship between mass extinctions and sea-level change"

The P-T boundary occurs at the top of the geologic layer that shows sea levels rising:
"The conodont-defined P–Tr boundary occurs within the lower part of the Mazzin Member, TOWARDS THE TOP OF THIS TRANSGRESSIVE SYSTEMS TRACT . Wignall et al., 1996 ."

The greatest extinction event the world has ever known, occurs within the sediment from rising sea levels
"Like the Kathwai Dolomite, the evidence for the end Permian mass extinction occurs within the TRANSGRESSIVE RECORD of the TOH"

pg 221 THIRD ORDER AND HIGHER SEA LEVEL CHANGES:
"Such outcrop-based studies provide crucial information on the relatively high-frequency third order and higher  sea-level changes in the P–Tr interval.

pg 221 The link is claiming short term flooding into the interior of Pangea caused by the sea level rise:
The culmination of the long-term sea-level rise occurred in the Griesbachian when several seaways flooded into the interior of Pangea e.g., in eastern Greenland, western Australia and Madagscar . This inundation was short lived and marine deposition in these areas ceased in the Dienerian.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/...article/pii/003101829390068T
"Facies and faunal analysis from Pakistan and China show that the Permo-Triassic mass extinction of marine invertebrate faunas was associated with a spectacularly rapid Griesbachian transgression which lead to the widespread establishment of deep-water anoxic and dysoxic conditions."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 9:32 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2013 4:45 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 280 of 991 (705845)
09-03-2013 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Coyote
09-02-2013 10:27 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
. But they do not claim a worldwide flood. There is a lot of difference between a "transgression" and a worldwide flood.

That article does not support your claims for it.

You are still grasping at straws.

Please read my previous post. I think you guys should start reading my links.

In addition here is another link that describes a "spectacularly rapid" transgression at the P-T boundary.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...article/pii/003101829390068T
"Facies and faunal analysis from Pakistan and China show that the Permo-Triassic mass extinction of marine invertebrate faunas was associated with a spectacularly rapid Griesbachian transgression which lead to the widespread establishment of deep-water anoxic and dysoxic conditions."

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 09-02-2013 10:27 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 281 of 991 (705846)
09-03-2013 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Granny Magda
09-02-2013 10:23 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Without human fossils from the Permian and Triassic, no-one in their right mind is going to treat your little pet theory as anything other than crank nonsense.

You have only the debatable theory of radiometric dating to support your long periods of time. In a compressed timeframe, the fossil record fits in perfectly with the bible.

If the bible story is true, humans lived to long ages and generations were lengthy compared to today. The populations were therefore small before the flood. Southern latitudes were highly dangerous for fauna, major extinctions were occurring there during the onset of the ice-age, the more likely place for human settlement would have been in the northernmost section of Pangea, please refer to the linked map:
www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n2/images/ngeo1069-f1.jpg

http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdf
"Until recently, the later part of the Permian has been regarded as an interval of protracted crisis . Erwin, 1993 . However, recent work has revealed that the interval encompasses two distinct extinction events Stanley and Yang, 1994 , separated by an interval of radiation and recovery Shen and Shi, 1996 . The first event occurs near the end of the Guadalupian Stage, a level equivalent to the end of the Maokouan Stage in eastern Tethys, and the second better known event occurs at the end of the Permian. Low latitude faunas from carbonate environments were particularly hard hit by the first event; many fusulinids, echinoderms, brachiopods and bryozoans were amongst the victims Jin et al., 1994a There is, as yet, little evidence that the crisis spread to higher latitudes Hallam and Wignall, 1997."

The higher latitudes did not experience the earlier extinction crisis. This "Siberian" area is the most likely habitat of the small population of humans during the turbulent extinction period of the Guadalupian stage (mid-Permian). This entire area was covered by lava during the P-T boundary and under this lava is where you will most likely find evidence of human settlement.

During the Triassic, humans were in Turkey, and had not spread around the world yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Granny Magda, posted 09-02-2013 10:23 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by JonF, posted 09-03-2013 7:37 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 300 by Granny Magda, posted 09-03-2013 10:35 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 282 of 991 (705847)
09-03-2013 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Granny Magda
09-02-2013 10:16 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
But not once does this paper refer to a worldwide complete transgression sufficient to cover all the land. It surveys shallow marine environments, but it does not mention any worldwide flood. Indeed, the very fact that they are able to identify and count numerous such shallow marine environs comprehensively disproves any global flood.

I never said the article supports a "worldwide complete transgression sufficient to cover all the land". Often in this thread there has been the incorrect claim that there are no signs of a worldwide flood in the geologic record. I am refuting this claim. there are signs of worldwide flooding at the P-T boundary. The landscape was flatter then, in the absence of proof of high Permian mountain ranges, its possible that the waters could have covered all the land, science has not disproven that at the P-T boundary.

The article does not only survey shallow marine environments but also points to flooding of vast areas of the interior of Pangea (found in Australia/Madagascar/Greenland)
'The culmination of the long-term sea-level rise occurred in the Griesbachian when several seaways flooded into the interior of Pangea e.g., in eastern Greenland, western Australia and Madagscar . This inundation was short lived and marine deposition in these areas ceased in the Dienerian."

And there is no reason that numerous shallow marine environments contradicts a global flood. Vast shallow pre-flood seas supports the concept that a large portion of pre-flood water was in the Permian ice-caps and glaciation.

PS; Oh, I nearly forgot! Did you notice that much of the dating in that paper was done by conodont biostratigragphy? A conodont is a fossil, from a fish-like animal. The dates were established using our knowledge of conodont evolution. So the paper you're so proud of finding... is based on evolutionary science. Still keen on it? It uses some radiometric dating as well. I thought you disapproved of that? Or do you only disapprove when it's not telling you something you want to hear?

Conodonts became extinct. I don't see your logic that extinctions prove evolution?? Many many species became extinct at the P-T boundary, which reflects a change in the dominant flora/fauna. Those extinctions and changes are accurate boundary markers.

And radiometric dating may be faulty , but it does give an indication of relative dating.

But the beginning of the Triassic sees an even greater marine transgression, as you can see in Fig. 2 of the paper. When exactly did this flood happen? Because if if we take your argument, and it goes right on the P-T boundary, then it seems that God broke his promise not to flood us again.

Granny Magda, the end Permian and the early Triassic are the P-T boundary. This is when you often find the disarticulated late Permian fossils, followed by a sedimentary layer with very few early Triassic fossils.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Granny Magda, posted 09-02-2013 10:16 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 283 of 991 (705851)
09-03-2013 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Tangle
08-29-2013 3:32 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.

Noah's ark was sat on a mountain, so even though he was dry, he had to wait a while for the bath water to drain out. (Where to?)

I love the idea that anything could grow on land poisoned by salt water.

I love the idea that an olive tree would survive being totally submerged by brackish water for months - it obviously hadn't grown from seed in a few days. Or was this a miracle?

I also love the idea that the entire ecosystem of the globe could be destroyed then spring immediately back to life in a matter of days.

Yep.

These points you make nullify the story as the people during the Middle Ages understood it. It doesn't add up factual when we examine the science evidence.

In the capacity of a literary critic, giving the author the benefit of the doubt, and suspecting that this is an important metaphor because of the nature of the Book, we find these uncanny correspondences to support the writing as metaphor.
Then, from such a perspective, the many factual correspondences between what the story says and Paleontology we, ourselves, only recently have discovered give a degree of credence Noah and his Ark.

A number of things in the story strangely correspond one-to-one with what we now know to be true.

1) It is uncanny that both Genesis and Genetics explains that everyone living today is related to just one man, a common father, who lived about 40 thousand years ago.

2) The story also agrees in that the three different sources for the population of the whole earth, Ham, Shem, and Japheth corresponds directly with the Three Racial Stock Theory that separates our earliest racial differences of Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

3) Just before the "flood," Genesis reports an inbreeding between different "kinds" of men, a case of hybridization, which we recently confirmed by genetic tests that indicate the people of today carry Neanderthal genes in them.

4) Genesis tells us that Ham, Shem, and Japheth were all born 100,000 to 145,000 years ago which corresponds with the time table science holds for Modern Homo sapiens. (Adjusting the metaphor to mean 100 years = 100,000 years)

5) Paleontology reports a mass extinction of lower forms of humans took place 40,000 years ago, when Neanderthals and Homo erectus went extinct.
According to Genesis, the was the very purpose of the flood, to eliminate other types of mankind.

6) Paleontological Theories (called "Out -of-Africa" and the "Noah's Ark theory") connect the migration out of Africa, 40,000 years ago, with the sudden population explosion among Modern Homo sapiens and the spread of modern man around the globe and to the mountain tops, as if a flood of not water, but a species.

7) There is also the genetic evidence for an "Eve, mother of all men theory," better assumed to refer to Noah's wife, which explains all people today had one common mother who @200,000 years ago.
This evidence compares and corresponds with the Genesis "flood" out of Africa story since the three sons of Noah were born when Noah was 500 (000) years old, but the flood did not come until he was 600 (000) years old.

If we take the liberty of applying "a day is to the lord like a thousand years," as the Bibles says,... 40 days = 40,000 years.

////
Then, we have these Paleontologists (who are atheists) but liked the correspondences enough to use the idea below:

Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews proposes that modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens 200,000-150,000 years ago only in Africa and then some of them migrated into the rest of the Old World replacing all of the Neanderthals and other late archaic Homo sapiens beginning around 100,000 years ago.

If this interpretation of the fossil record is correct, all people today share a relatively modern African ancestry. All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.

From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Tangle, posted 08-29-2013 3:32 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by kofh2u, posted 09-07-2013 5:16 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 284 of 991 (705852)
09-03-2013 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 4:40 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
You have only the debatable theory of radiometric dating to support your long periods of time.

There is no debate on the validity of radiometric dating. A few kooks have tried unsuccessfully to cast doubt on it.

But, as I pointed out before and you ignored, educated people knew that the Earth was much, much older than a few thousand years long before the discovery of radioactivity. Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 4:40 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 7:58 AM JonF has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 285 of 991 (705853)
09-03-2013 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by JonF
09-03-2013 7:37 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
There is no debate on the validity of radiometric dating. A few kooks have tried unsuccessfully to cast doubt on it.
But, as I pointed out before and you ignored, educated people knew that the Earth was much, much older than a few thousand years long before the discovery of radioactivity. Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.

The ancient Greeks were educated and were always debating with eachother. Having a theory does not prove the theory. I am active in a carbon dating thread and will soon start a thread on radiometric dating as well. Its not set in stone, its just a theory based on current rates of decay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by JonF, posted 09-03-2013 7:37 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2013 10:04 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 294 by jar, posted 09-03-2013 10:09 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 305 by JonF, posted 09-03-2013 11:10 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021