the Native American populations I study would have been eliminated, only to be replaced by Noah's relatives and descendants.That destruction and replacement did not occur--rather, we have continuity through time of Native American genotypes and cultures.
When did they arrive in their native lands?
Same for fauna and flora. Sediment layers are not interrupted at that time over continental areas by a discontinuity.
This is solid evidence that there was no flood about 4,350 years ago. (That and the fact that geologists have showed the same thing.)
And the evidence? Just one example: we have Native American mtDNA from a couple of sites in excess of 10,000 years of age and the same haplotypes occur among living individuals. That's what I mean by continuity. (And those mtDNA types are different from what is found in the Middle East.)
2 things: the sediment layers are not always consistent. In view of inconsistencies, how can sedimentary layers be considered 100% accurate?
and there is evidence that the DNA you are talking about is found in all the people around the earth...not only the North Americans. So all that it tells us is that the native americans and all other nations are related to one another so rather then add weight to your argument, all it does is illustrate that the history we find in Genesis highly credible. If the flood wiped out all people except the 3 sons and daughter in laws of Noah, then you would expect that the Native Americans would also have the same dna...and they do.
I am curious to know what on earth you can mean by this.
what i mean by it is that sediment layers are not always consistent so using sediment layers as a proof of anything is flawed. one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.
So what im questioning is how sediment layers can be used so affirmatively when they are not always consistent. Would you use a calculator which occasionally produced an incorrect answer?
Well, did it ever occur to you or your uncited 'source' that there were different species of the same date 200km away in a different type of sediment because they represent a different environment? Is the world today all desert or all river estuary?
That is an unproved conjecture...yes, they can explain the contradictory evidence that way, but without proof the obvious inconsistency in sedimentary layers remain. And further, if the environment can be so different over the short distance of 200kms, then trying to prove anything with sediment layers is just plain stupid.
there is no place on the earth where a complete record of the rocks is present. Some areas have been getting heavy deposition of sediment for millions of years, and other areas have been getting worn down thru erosion for long periods of time so the geologic column relies heavily on guesswork and hypotheticals rather then anything solid.
Sediment layers are always consistent with the laws of physics, chemistry, and geology. If you can show just one counterexample, then please feel free to elaborate as there would be a Nobel prize waiting.
well the sediments are not consistent in the case of the Omo valley and Lake Rudolph. Even though the fragments Richard Leakey found were dated to 2.5 million years old, the skull was the same shape as modern man. He said that other bone fragments that were found such as the leg specimens were indistinguishable from the same bones of modern men.
but they were still dated to be 2.5 million years old.
What is not consistent is the concept that evolution never occurred in the past or at present, except right after those 'kinds' super-evolved at a super-dooper rate right after any flood when housecats gave birth to lions.
fossils appear suddenly in the geologic record, not gradually as evolutution theorizes. Immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the Cambrian layers carrie an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish, in great variety, already fully developed.
Same goes for plant life....plants with woody stems appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic but not before.
Because it is a fact that the oceans were much lower then they are know as is seen by the river channels that go deep into the ocean.
there are huge land ridges that connect the continents which were at one time above the ocean and are now beneath it
there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level
there are fossil remains of many different animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, together in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously.
There are whole frozen mammoths coming out of the ice right now with undigested food in their stomachs which shows they died suddenly which points to a sudden catastrophic event
Im convinced that this is evidence of a great flood. Call me stupid or whatever, but the fact is that this phenomenon is visible all over the earth and it convinces me that something catastrophic must have happened. Yes, I'm simple I know.
So if having different pigs in different places at the same time is an argument against real geology, why isn't having different pigs in different places an argument against flood geology, which claims that all fossils were laid down at the same time?
the argument has been about the supposed 'consistency' of sedimentary layers in the geologic column
they are obviously not consistent as the pigs show...not only the pig fossils but also the human fossils.
You disagree? So you're saying that the fact that 70% of the earth's surface is covered by water is evidence that the remaining 30% was also covered by water at one time? Why? Is there something about 70% in particular? If water only covered 60% of the earth, would that be sufficient evidence of flooding of the remaining portion? Of is the threshold some other number, maybe 50% or 40%? Or is it the mere presence of any amount of the earth's surface covered by water that provides sufficient evidence of flooding of the rest of it?
if you came upon a city that was covered by 70% water, would you deny that it had been flooded?
Recently we had 1/3 of the state of Queensland covered by water...it was flooded...higher areas were unaffected but lower areas were definately flooded. If the floodwaters remain and I was to visit in 10 years time having never known the place before, i would probably not think it was flooded.
It doesnt mean that its not flooded though. Same goes for the earth. Just because we were not around when the oceans were lower, does not mean that the earth is not flooded now. When the evidence is that the oceans were at one time much lower, then the only logical conclusion is that it must now be flooded.
"Unresolved is the relationship of the new find to Homo Habilis who's bone fragments were found in Olduvial Gorge 500 miles south of Lake Rudolf in a layer 1.75 million years old. The hand bones of this species suggested a dexterity approaching that of modern man and Dr Clarke suspects the new find may be an earlier form of homo habilis. However the brain chamber of this only measured 656 cubic centermeters compared to Mr Leakeys estimate of 800 for the newly peiced together skull"
So how can a 1.75 million year old fossil resemble modern man?