Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago

Thanks for your insight.

Short answer, the position as described by mark Is not really what you are arguing at all, but a chopped up mixture of parts of the argument for and against floods in different areas. The only problem I have is that those earliest hominids were not near the Mediterranean ... much closer to the Red Sea ... at least the ones that have been found. If we can find a hominid fossil in those sediment layers that would be a different story eh?Danakil Depression - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Afar Depression (also called the Danakil Depression or the Afar Triangle) is a geological depression in the Horn of Africa, where it overlaps Eritrea, the Afar Region of Ethiopia, and Djibouti. Afar, especially the Middle Awash, Gona, and Hadar, is well known as one of the cradles of hominids: the first for many fossil hominid discoveries, the second for the worlds oldest stone tools, and the last for Lucy, the fossilized specimen of Australopithecus afarensis.

---

Of course that is only 3.5 to 4.0 million years ago or so.Ardipithecus - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Ardipithecus is a very early hominin genus (subfamily Homininae). Because it shares several traits with the African great apes (genus Pan and genus Gorilla), it is considered by some to be on the chimpanzee rather than human branch, but most consider it a proto-human because of a likeness in teeth with Australopithecus. A. ramidus lived about 4.4 million years ago during the early Pliocene.

​

Two species have been described, Ardipithecus ramidus and Ardipithecus kadabba. The latter was initially described as a subspecies of A. ramidus, but on the basis of teeth recently discovered in Ethiopia has been raised to species rank. A. kadabba is dated to have lived between 5.8 million to 5.2 million years ago.

---

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Amazing hominid haul in Ethiopia

quote:

---

Fossil hunters working in Ethiopia have unearthed the remains of at least nine primitive hominids that are between 4.5 million and 4.3 million years old.

​

The fossils, which were uncovered at As Duma in the north of the country, are mostly teeth and jaw fragments, but also include parts of hands and feet.

​

All finds belong to the same species - Ardipithecus ramidus - which was first described about a decade ago.

​

"It is a very important finding because it does confirm hominids walked upright on two feet definitely 4.5 million years ago," said lead author Sileshi Semaw, of the Craft Stone Age Institute at Indiana University in Bloomington, US.

---

Still in Ethiopia (Not the Med. and not Turkey?), so I have a little problem with the link between them.Enjoy.ps -- type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix one quote box (had qs at beginning, /quote at end) - Oh, the irony, considering what is just above this "edited by" message.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This isn't directed toward Glenn or anyone else in particular...I just wanted to say that while I've played the devil's advocate in my posts on this thread (for reasons I've already explained), that I personally don't rule out the Flood happening because I believe God could have accomplished His intent with a local Flood, and I also believe God could have performed any kind of miracle necessary to accomplish his purposes.If Christians are willing to accept the other miracles of the Bible - some of which also involved water - it isn't a great stretch to believe He could have caused water to run uphill if He chose to do so.In this thread, my argument was against anyone claiming that origin theories MUST be pushed back in history prior to five million years ago because of the Flood. That's it.-

Thanks. I'll just hit some points here. The amerind story is complicated by (1) massive loss of populations due to diseases, (2) isolation of indians on reservations or at least "away" from colonies and settlements (3) classification of anyone with 1/4 indian heritage as indian, with associated racist discrimination against "half-breeds" so that all mixed blood descendants are also concentrated on reservations (or with tribes before reservations.On the other side of it many Americans do have some indian blood as well. I am 1/16th from both sides. Proportions of populations do count in this, but I think you are overstating the population differences at contact between neander and sapiens: it wasn't until near the end that sapiens had swamped the neander populations and not long before neander became extinct.As to the amount of gene flow, the mtDNA evidence shows there was no matrilineal gene flow from neander, that only leave patrilineal, and that can only be determined by comparison of y-chromosomes. Aren't you assuming these "European traits" exist in the neander stock? Is there any evidence for this? Or is it only assumed because suddenly we have different traits in the sapiens lineage and interbreeding explains it?My impression is that these traits originated in the Caucasian area of russia.National GeographicYou'll have to explore the map and click on the gene lines to see the descriptions for the flow of human history based on the genetic information.Click on the time bar at the top to see the different areas of expansion based on genetic data. These show sapiens coming from the east-north-east to the areas where they interacted with neanders, areas that still have "European traits" in the people left behind?Click on the time bar for 45k to 50k and you will see a line marked "K U US" when you hover over it. Click and select "K" then the others.Click on the time bar for 40k to 45k and you will see lines approaching the neander areas.Click on the time bar for 35k ti 40k to see the lineages that interacted with the neanders, the Cro-Magnons. Follow their lineage back and you will see what I mean. See if you can find M207 which predates M173 where they first (possibly) interacted with neanders.Many of these lineages show european traits without interacting with neander areas and the population flow was from them towards the neander areas. Thus I find it problematic to ascribe these features to being caused by hybridization with neander. Interesting but not conclusive. Where are the comparisons with populations where the invaders came from - between africa and europe? Places that have the European traits noted above.I am waiting for y-chromosome comparisons on DNA to see if they show any hints of interbreeding. If they don't then it makes it very unlikely: you need a scenario where only female children of matings of male neander and female sapiens survive.Of course full genetic comparison can rule it out entirely too.Enjoy.ps - if you use

{table data}

it makes the tables come out as they are typed:

Neanderthals------------------29.3
African-Eve-------------------17.8
Skhul/Qafzeh------------------12.4
Early-Upper-Paleolithic-------21.9
Late-Upper-Paleolithic--------19.3
Mesolithic--------------------19.3
Medieval-Hungarians-----------20.2

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Icant wrote: The only way by which one can know if one is correct or incorrect is by comparing the observational implications of an interpretation with actual observations. So, lets look at this claim The re-creation theory would seem to imply that at some point in Earth history, all the previous species died off and new ones were created. There is no evidence of such an event in paleontological history. Here is a list of fish genera through geologic time. Note that the living genera gradually arise, and there is no time that all the old genera die off and new ones arise.youngest period # Fish genera # living genera # extinct genera
Recent---------------3245----------3245-------------0
Pleistocene----------422-----------408-------------14
Pliocene--------------416-----------372-------------44
Miocene---------------496-----------320-----------176
Oligocene-------------321-----------207-----------114
Eocene----------------398-----------157-----------241
Paleocene-------------124------------53-------------71
Cretaceous------------340------------38-----------302
Jurassic----------------146--------------5-----------141
Triassic----------------175--------------0-----------175
Permian----------------86---------------0-------------86
Pennsylvanian--------106-------------0-----------106
Mississippian---------163--------------0-----------163
Devonian--------------524--------------0-----------524
Silurian-----------------57---------------0-------------57
Ordovician--------------5---------------0---------------5
Cambrian---------------1---------------0---------------1So, if you want your Scriptural interpretation to match the observations of geology, then you have failed, and by that criteria, the re-creation view is false.You also wrote: Well, this is false, time was created at the big bang and since that time, there are only 13.7 billion years, approximately. Trillions of years for the age of the universe is ruled out by observational data. It is ruled out by the the observed distance to the most distant objects in the universe. Those objects are only 13.7 billion years away and that is as far as light has had time to travel since the beginning.I don't see why planning is incompatible with omniscience. Jer 29:7Edited by grmorton, : formatting add one comment

---

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

RAZD wrote: No, I do believe that there was a flood, not a global flood, but that is no different than million of Christians who also believe the flood, they just place it in a different time and different place. Sigh, the hominids are not found near the Red Sea. And the possible precursors of hominids are found in both Europe and Africa--in other words, all around the Mediterranean"Another possibility is that euhominoids evolved in
Eurasia, with the African ape and human clade returning
recently to Africa. This would explain the poor fossil
record of African Miocene euhominoids, and the apparent
persistence of Proconsul or Kenyapithecus-like forms at a
few later localities (Hill and Ward, 1988). Griphopithecus
from Slovakia and Turkey may represent the ancestral stock
from which hominoids diverged, again in three major
divisions: hylobatids, Asian great apes, and African apes
and humans. The last group may have further subdivided into
European and African branches, with the more terrestrial
African branch returning to Africa sometime during or after
MN 10, about 9 Ma, when the area was becoming drier
(Steininger and Rogi, 1979; Steininger et al., 1985). There
is no compelling paleogeographic evidence to suggest one of
these views over the other. Connections between Africa and
Eurasia were intermittent throughout the middle and late
Miocene, and appropriate ecological conditions were
apparently available for either of these two scenarios to
have occurred (Steininger etal., 1985)." David R. Begun,
Carol V. Ward, and Michael D. Rose, "Events in Hominoid
Evolution," Function, Phylogeny, and Fossils: Miocene
Hominoid Evolution and Adaptations, ed. By M. D. Rose et al,
(New York: Plenum Press, 1997), p. 389-415, p. 413 Have you looked at my page on the nature of the fossil record? I cited it earlier I believe. The earliest fossil example of any given species is not the first of its kind. Fossilization is vher unilikely when a species is rare or in a limited area. And when a species arises, they are in a limited area and only if that area has something happen which causes fossilization will a fossil form. But then the researcher must look in the right place to find it. Only when a species is widespread does fossilization become more likely. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gaps.htm So, the species you speak of, lived earlier than their earliest found fossil. Indeed, statistically speaking, they lived about 30% longer ago than the earliest example.And the fossils you speak of would be in my view post flood.The problem you have is that you are not taking into account the nature of fossilization and you are making the illogical assumption that the place where the descendants of the flood survivors lived is the same place as the ark's crew started at. My ancestors are from Scotland which is a long way from Houston.So, do you expect to find the descendants of the Titanic survivors still living in the Atlantic Ocean?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed one quote box. The problem was mostly an error carried over from RAZD's message.

---

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

Well Mark, you have claimed that my views are against anthropology. Please explain why Richard Leakey thinks that H. erectus and H. sapiens should be classified as the very same species. I am always disturbed by people whose claims are refuted who then make no acknowledgement of that.

---

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

RAZD wrote: Exactly, and many anthropologists believe that the same thing happened to the Neanderthals. The very last place which anatomically modern man (AMH) inhabited was Europe--they were in Australia earlier. Many think that the strength of the Neanderthals (they were stronger than us) kept the AMH's out of Europe. But, there were never many Neanderthals and their populations collapse. It could easily have been disease that did them in and then the space was open for AMH to move in. And Frayers data shows that many Europeans may have Neanderthal blood, as does the Microcephalin gene. I have to go to work now, but before I fly out tonight I hope to look up the Neanderhtal population estimate. I am not assuming it, Frayers data for pete's sake shows it! Go look again at Frayers data. Show me the data for these traits appearing in the Caucasion region. Give me the skull data. If you can't, then I see no reason to take your impression as a serious objection. Show me that the Nasion index originated with the African invaders. Agreed. My children don't have my mtDNA, but I am still related to them. As I pointed out the Neanderthals were stronger and kept AMH out of Europe for a long time. If they were regularly beating the AMH men, they would do what all conquorers do--take the women for wives and sex slaves. The children thus produced would have AMH mtDNA, but the N's would still be related to any children. Such a view fits the observed facts. But for some reason, people don't want us to be related to the N's so they dont think along these lines. Woah, here now, you are jumping to a massive conclusion. If the scenario of take the wives after beating the wimpy men is correct, you would have the very same mtDNA gene flow. Well, Frayer's article has much more than that, and those who don't want N's to contribute genetics say the same thing as you do. I KNOW that skeletal traits come from our parents and unless you want to postulate massive mutations causing identical heritable changes in DNA merely from moving into Europe, the only rational explanation is interbreeding. I don't have time to post more of Frayer's tables. I am waiting for nuclear NEanderthal genetics. I bet it shows lots of their genes are in us, just like the microcephalin gene! It could just as easily rule it in.Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

---

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

Hey Glenn, do you have a higher quality image you can use for your avatar? Avatars can be any size, they're automatically scaled to fit, but when someone clicks on an avatar then the full size image is displayed in a new browser window. Avatar images can be up to around 140KB.--Percy

I think that we all need to acknowledge something here, though I’m sure many of us already recognize it - and that is the fact that Glen Morton’s idea of a local flood 5 million years ago has at least a tenuous grasp on reality, and actually uses evidence for support. Sure, we can discuss the comparison between this 5 million, Local flood (I’ll call it 5L), as compared to the idea that the Genesis story is simply a fabrication with no basis in reality - in which case 5L may not clearly win.But that’s very different from comparing 5L to the idea that a flood occurred literally as described in Genesis, after the rise of, say, language or such. In that case, 5L is clearly and irrefutably superior, and posts like this:mpb1 wrote: Show that this very question is often considered. Maybe we should be clear about which question we are discussing, since they have very different outcomes wrt 5L. Or start a thread that states which is being discussed?Have a fun day-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Just before I read your note, I tried to upload a higher res picture but it wouldn't take it. The one I have is from Bangkok, the one I am trying to upload was take at 17,000 feet high in Tibet.Oh, I see it did take it. Edited by grmorton, : No reason given.

---

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

Glenn,Someone sent me an interesting article from Newsweek (March 19, 2007 issue), which I uploaded to my site here:
OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomainsIf it shows one thing, it's that there's a lot of mixed information that's being derived from the available evidence - and the conclusions keep changing!If you look at the PREDICTION COMPARISON CHART compiled by Hugh Ross / Reasons to Believe here:
OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains
it becomes even more clear that ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE PROVING ANYTHING CONCLUSIVELY ABOUT ORIGINS.Someone else implied in a post above that this thread is now mixing issues of faith with science, and I agree that they are two totally separate issues.But if science can only take us so far, then as Christians, we can either reject the literalness of the biblical stories, OR we can assume that if science says that something like the Flood would have been IMPOSSIBLE any other way, then it seems safe to assume THAT IF THE STORIES ARE LITERAL, either science will eventually "prove" the stories to be possible, or we'll have to assume God intervened miraculously.-

Well, the Biblical flood tale has been disproven. It is simply false.If God intervened miraculously then the God is Loki, the trickster.If God miraculously performed the flud, then wiped out all traces of it and even went to the trouble of creating additional fake evidence to show that there was never a flud, then it is not possible to trust anything done by that God.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The material you have linked to is not particularly on topic here.However, I would suggest that you open new proposed topics where you give your own interpretation of what the linked sites are about.Remember that you may use the sites as refererence but forum guidelines require you to give your own arguments (even if liberally borrowed from those sources).Many here would enjoy discussing them with you.

Hi jar,What if God flooded that "small world" with a Flood like the one that wiped out New Orleans? Just what if???I doubt there'll be whole lot of evidence around to prove that happened five thousand to five million years from now. Right? So couldn't it have been possible?-