Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 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 replied

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

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 32 of 320 (565160)
06-15-2010 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 1:09 PM


JUC says:
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.
Jzyehoshua says:
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.
Again, I ask you to explain how you think anyone in ancient times was in any position to determine that there had been a global flood. Furthermore, if Noah was the only one to survive the flood, and he lived somewhere around the Near East, how did Native Americans either survive or know about that?
Jzyehoshua says:
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').
Even if for a moment we accept that there was a global flood and an ark, and that Noah saved some space by not taking 2 of every species, and that the species he did take have since microevolved into all the species we have today, NONE of that provides any evidence at all against macroevolution.
Jzyehoshua says
...not only were there a number of prodigious mistakes or outright falsifications of missing links...
Firstly, "missing links" is not a term used by respectable evolutionary biologists these days, because we usually can't know for certain which specific sub-species evolved as part of what was to become a continuous chain to species that are around today, and which were part of a chain that became completely exinct.
Secondly, there have historically been a tiny handful of falsified or over-hyped fossils, compared to thousands and thousands which are considered genuine.
Jzyehoshua says:
...but recently newly proclaimed missing links like Homo Floresiensis...
Home Floresiensis was never proclaimed as a "missing link". It was assumed from the moment it was found that if it is a genuine "dwarf" species, then it clearly became extinct.
Your other comments about Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and Lucy being disqualified "missing links" is again "missing the point". The current theory of evolution includes the understanding that there can exist a number of sub-species and that some of them survive or evolve into species that exist today, and some die out altogether.
Jzyehoshua says:
As for genetics, I question whether it shows a lineage to parent species or a single species.
Well it's my understanding (from reading books by genetic biologists - you know, people who have actually studied this and are experts) that each species' genome is entirely consistent with it being related to all other species, and in a tree that is entirely consistent with the theory of common descent.
Jzyehoshua says:
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.
Again, I ask you, how could anyone in ancient times have been able to view forces of such a scale that they might "erode the foundations of the continents".
Jzyehoshua says:
While we may not be talking about drift pertaining to the above-crust water bodies, what about below the crust?
I thought the flood was supposed to be above the crust, hence the need for a boat. Not sure what you mean here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 1:09 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 40 of 320 (565361)
06-16-2010 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by roxrkool
06-16-2010 9:47 AM


Re: Back to the basics
Drosophilla says:
How does one reason without a base level knowledge to get you off the starting block?
roxrkool says:
I think this is one of the most difficult issues to understand and overcome for the Creationist laity.
This is an interesting subject. I don't necessarily agree that you have to have more than the most basic school education in science to grasp a lot of the principles raised in these discussions.
As a member of the non-Creationist laity, I hope that it is of value for the likes of myself to contribute to some of these dicussions, to show that even if you don't have an in-depth knowledge of science and specific data, you can still understand the principles and logic that make the scientific case so strong and reliable.
I'd be interested to know if scientists on this site appreciate contributions from the likes of myself on these topics, arguing mainly out of reason and common sense (I hope) - or do you prefer it if we steer well clear?!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by roxrkool, posted 06-16-2010 9:47 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 11:15 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2010 12:55 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 44 by Drosophilla, posted 06-16-2010 4:32 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 48 of 320 (565572)
06-18-2010 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Drosophilla
06-16-2010 4:32 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Drosophilla
Thanks to you and the other for replying to my questions.
One last thought for those that disagree....you all have skills in the work area you are engaged in. What would you say if I argued from a total amateur in your work areas, getting every fact wrong or twisted and refused to listen to what you were trying to tell me? Would you think I was a tosser......you'd have every right to think so!
Of course, I understand and share your frustration. However, I don't think that pontificating on subjects one is completely ignorant about, and refusing to listen to expert opinion, is not a charcteristic unique to Creationists. Some of the shit I hear people talking about kinds of stuff, with an absolute certainty they have no right to adopt, is amazing. You should have heard the things my taxi driver said the other night talking about the World Cup. He made some the Yanks on this site sound quite knowledgeable about the game!
Anyway, I think the mistake on these forums is often to allow the topic to be too wide ranging (as in this case). It gives the Creationist too many escape routes. Just when you put them straight on one thing, they say "oh, well, what about ...." and deflect the argument to another area. This goes on and on indefinitely until people lose interest. That's why I'm surprised the OP was accepted in this case. I think we should all work to keep any technical/scientific debates to a very specific topic. It will also help avoid going over the same subjects over and over again.
Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : correction: NOT a characteristic unique to creationists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Drosophilla, posted 06-16-2010 4:32 PM Drosophilla has not replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 89 of 320 (574142)
08-14-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
08-13-2010 9:54 PM


Re: Flood Legends
On the other hand, bear in mind that IF indeed there was this Biblical flood, there was allegedly only 8 people, all surviving witnesses of the event.
If at any time in history - and certainly just a few thousand years ago - there were only 8 surviving members of our species, this would be clearly seen in our genetic record.
And we would have a totally convincing back up, because we would see the same pattern in the genetic record of all other species.
As it happens, we see no such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 08-13-2010 9:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024