|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: I would 'guess' around 10,000 years. From a Biblical standpoint, anything over 50,000 years as an age for the earth seems unlikely, genealogical omissions notwithstanding.
quote: The difference is that we have pictures of the moon. We can go up and test it at any given time. Problem solved. Whereas with dating methodologies, they've been riddled with holes, and you have to practice a specific discipline to even partake in the dating itself. As such, I suspect many proponents of evolution have never tried the dating themselves, or even understand fully how it works. They are merely taking the word of a scientist just because he's a scientist, and not doing any research or original thought for themselves. Catastrophism is now a recognized fact. Lyell and Uniformitarianism are no longer accepted as the sole end-all, be-all. Therefore, it is no stretch to consider that such catastrophes may well have changed the climate and atmosphere - the same climate and atmosphere that must of necessity have remained constant with regard to variables like carbon 14 upon which carbon dating and dendrochronology rely. Furthermore, it's been proven that problems arise with the dating when variables like volcanic ash are introduced, or when the dating tries to go beyond a certain length (10,000 years, 100,000 years, whatever a given expert has set it at it seems). Unlike with the moon, you don't have a physical object you can go up and test. You're relying on a methodology, a process, which is in turn based entirely on a theory which in turn is based on the personal philosophies of one man... who could be wrong. Furthermore, that methodology of dating has had predecessors, other methodologies, that have been abandoned in favor of newer supposedly 'infallible' methods. Why have they, in recent years, moved on to dendrochronology from all the past dating methods? Because it sure looks like the Creationists and others knocking holes in each successive dating theory forced them to look for new methods. Do you realize how recent some of these dating methods are? They haven't even undergone a critical analysis yet and stood the test of time, and yet those who question them like me are considered to be on a par with questioning whether the moon is made of green cheese?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
quote: Again, there is evidence that a huge extinction event occurred which wiped out 95% of all marine life and at least 70% of land life. There is also evidence of an underwater volcanic eruption that was responsible. We now recognize there is enough water beneath the earth to account for a global flood, previously a contention against the possibility. We also have flood legends worldwide with remarkable similarities. I refuse to abandon this as a possibility merely over a difference in dates, when again, the methodology for those dates has not yet been fully examined.
quote: I get that with carbon dating it's dating the half-lives of carbon, and with dendrochronology is comparing tree rings to determine age. However, I also see noticeable assumptions made in both cases. You're assuming the decay rate of half lives is the same. Why? And you're assuming the rate of tree ring growth is constant. Why? If there are worldwide catastrophes wreaking havoc on the environment, is it possible they could affect atmospheric levels of carbon? Or even affect the decay rate itself? Furthermore, we know the erosive effects of water and lava. If you have a global flood with volcanic activity, what effect might that have on decay rate of matter and carbon 14? Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
quote: I only differ on points I hear no alternate explanation for. Whatever his scientific background, he has yet to refute my points about legends from around the world or weaknesses of dating methods. I try to reason things through for myself, and not merely accept the word of a pastor or archaeologist or politician. Qualifications are nice, but ultimately it comes down to the reasoning for me, where does the logic lead? We all place our trust in something, but I have learned by now that people will let you down, consistently. Better to trust elsewhere, and evaluate on a case by case basis. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024