Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
42 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, marc9000, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 37 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,001 Year: 22,037/19,786 Month: 600/1,834 Week: 100/500 Day: 58/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


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

Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


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 yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3 of 320 (564989)
06-14-2010 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


Hi Jzyehoshua!

The ability to move/copy messages between threads does not yet exist at this board, though it is on my list of things to do (unfortunately a long list), but you can click on Peek or Edit for any of your posts and recover as much of them as you like to post here as new messages.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:35 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 4 of 320 (564991)
06-14-2010 8:49 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Potential Evidence for a Global Flood thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 5 of 320 (564994)
06-14-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


Something to think about...
Using the lines of evidence that you have chosen, how would you distinguish between the effects of a single global catastrophe and the cumulative effects of many smaller, localised events ?

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

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 6 of 320 (564998)
06-14-2010 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


Fishy theories
Hi Jzyehoshua,

It seemed a bit late for me to join the previous thread, with all the posts there to read, so I thought I'd dip into some of the posts you cited in your OP. I haven't read them all, but this bit from Message 332 stood out for me:

One more example will be cited, the Coconino footprints. The Permian Coconino sandstone covers parts of northern Arizona. Certain features in the sandstone indicate it was a dune deposit. Derek Ager reports,

"An intriguing feature of the Coconino footprints is that they almost always run uphill on the steeply inclined bedding planes of this dune sandstone."

Why are the animals all running uphill? Why do they not go down? They certainly weren't running from a forest fire in the middle of the desert. Could they have been trying to escape rising flood waters?

(bold my emphasis)

Congratulations for finding a source that agrees that the Coconino sandstone is most probably a dune, or aeolian, layer. Most creationists insist that it had to have been deposited by water (which is problematic for a number of reasons).

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. (?)

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.

This doesn't look to me like potential evidence for a global flood. Your thoughts are welcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:35 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 1:50 PM Kitsune has responded

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3281 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 7 of 320 (564999)
06-14-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


I'd like to discuss ancient flood legends worldwide

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:35 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 1:09 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 08-13-2010 9:54 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 8 of 320 (565003)
06-14-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:35 PM


Back to the basics
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.

All of those questions are nice, but why don't you address one basic problem first.

The supposed global flood is placed at about 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.

Fossils, mass extinctions and all those other things you are citing range from tens of thousands of years to hundreds of millions of years in age.

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.

Archaeologists deal with that time period all the time. I've tested probably over 100 sites of that age myself. We don't see massive erosional and depositional features at that time period that span the globe.

What we see is continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, and deposition, etc. This shows there was no disruption at that time period as would be caused by a global flood.

So please stop with the fossils, geology, mass extinctions, Pangea and all the rest of those unrelated things. The flood was supposed to occur just 4,000+ years ago. Fossils and geology and all the rest are totally irrelevant to this time period.

Can you address this one basic problem?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:35 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 2:05 PM Coyote has responded

Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


(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 responded

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

Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


(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 responded

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

Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


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 responded

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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 12 of 320 (565061)
06-14-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 2:05 PM


Re: Back to the basics
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:

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.

But the soils at 4,350 years ago don't contain evidence of a global flood.

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.

Cut out the mass extinction and underwater volcano nonsense. Those are red herrings and have nothing to do with the subject.

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.

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.

Question dating methods if you want, but go to the proper thread. And bring evidence, not "what ifs" if you want to actually get anywhere.

Now you still need to explain the lack of corroborating evidence for a global flood in sediments about 4,350 years of age, or produce a firm date for the flood so we can see what sediments of that age tell us. No more "what ifs" please.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 2:05 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 06-14-2010 3:05 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 16 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 4:27 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 68 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 9:10 AM Coyote has responded

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 13 of 320 (565062)
06-14-2010 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 1:50 PM


Re: Fishy theories
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.

The problem is that there are no layers of mud and debris in the Coconino sandstone. Just . . . sand dunes.

My idea of what the authors were thinking is not very flattering, but there you go. I think they expect you to believe that a worldwide deluge that included fountains of the deep and whatever else creationists like throw in (i.e. catastrophic volcanoes, runaway plate tectonics) would be capable of preserving animal tracks in sand. And raindrop imprints, and worm burrows, and ripple marks on the dunes (which I forgot to mention) -- all of which do not appear in your source material, strangely.

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.

I had not come across this before when researching, so thank you. The arthropods seem to be mentioned much more frequently than the vertebrate tracks for some reason, but I have managed to find a bit of info about them. Apparently they are believed to be reptilian:

Source

Well-preserved tracks and trails of both vertebrate and invertebrate animals are common on the steep foreset beds in various parts of the Coconino and constitute the only fossils in this formation. The tracks of vertebrates, believed to have been reptiles, include a wide variety of forms. Many of the animals had the size and proportions of small lizards, but others were widebodied with short limbs, and still others walked with long strides and had large feet. More than 20 types of track have been described as distinct species by Gilmore (1926), who also noted the burrows of wormlike creatures and trails probably of insects. These footprints and trails have been found nearly everywhere that the Coconino occurs, but as yet no skeletal remains have been discovered.

I've learned something new -- cool.

I'd also like to say that it's a refreshing change to see a creationist say the following:

You raise a VERY good point, one I hadn't considered.

ultimately, I have no idea what the authors were thinking. Trying to sort through that one will take me some thought.

I looked into this

and found this page by talkorigins

I may be wrong

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.

You seem to be an open-minded, reasonable chap. I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 1:50 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3867
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 14 of 320 (565067)
06-14-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
06-14-2010 2:31 PM


Re: Back to the basics
In lieu of a firm date for a global flood, we could try to find a close correlation of dates for deposits formed by flooding. Since we have witnessed countless local floods throughout history, there is very little reason to doubt the occurance of local floods in prehistory as well. And indeed, we do find geologic evidence of such floods.

Now, creationists have often pointed to such deposits and claimed them to be evidence of their single world-wide flood. However, for that claim to carry any kind of weight, then those deposits must all be the same age. Instead of asking Jzyehoshua to provide a firm date, we should at least ask him for the dates of the geologic deposits that he cites as evidence for the Flood and for him to show that close correlation of dates that would be necessary.

The closest thing to a world-wide flood that I can think of would be the change in sea level at the end of an ice age. From what I had read, at the end of the last one, c. 11,000 BCE, sea level rose about 200 feet, which certainly would have inundated low-lying coastal regions, regions that typically attract human populations. I would be very surprised if such an event had not been noticed and retold in many wide-spread oral traditions.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 3:44 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 15 of 320 (565070)
06-14-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by dwise1
06-14-2010 3:05 PM


Re: Back to the basics
You are correct about the sea level rise since the last ice age. It is probably closer to 400 feet than 200 feet however.

And since most of the world's population lives relatively close to an ocean or sea, it is likely that some traditions may have come from this.

But there still is no evidence for a worldwide flood during historic times. That's why creationists have to equivocate about the evidence, picking and choosing anything that just might help their case, no matter how poorly the different elements fit together. But what's 500 million years one way or the other when you're doing creation "science" eh?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 06-14-2010 3:05 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019