Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
70 online now:
DrJones*, Hyroglyphx, vimesey (3 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,160 Year: 12,908/23,288 Month: 633/1,527 Week: 72/240 Day: 35/4 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Science And The Bible Meet
Coyote
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 201 of 208 (546461)
02-11-2010 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Sky-Writing
02-11-2010 12:15 AM


Why are you smiling?
Second, I depend on Science Journals to support everything the Bible says. "Science News" is my favorite source for spotting research or stories that relate to Origins and Evolution.
I always end up smiling.

Science journals have disproved the belief in a global flood at about 4,350 years ago.

I have evidence from my own archaeological research that disproves that belief.

Why are you smiling?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 12:15 AM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 8:27 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 205 of 208 (546514)
02-11-2010 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Sky-Writing
02-11-2010 8:27 AM


Re: Why are you smiling?
The only possible explanation is that I've not run across that article.
Or series of articles. Of course, this would be a dispassionate conclusion. But it's hard to imagine why anyone would gather the needed data together without having a vested interest in the result.
I look forward seeing your information.

OK, here is the short version of the information I have generated in my own archaeological research.

First, the date given for the global flood by biblical scholars centers on 4,350 years ago. Forget the Cambrian explosion and geological strata--we are dealing with soils, not rocks at that time period.

Those soils are quite common. You probably have soils of that age in your back yard. All we need to do is find a nice soil profile and see what it tells us. Geomorphologists and sedimentologists can read those layers like a book. Many archaeologists can as well.

So, we just need to look in the local soils, identify the time periods, and see if there is a major discontinuity caused by either erosion or massive deposition as would be created by a flood of biblical proportions.

As an added bonus, we can look in archaeological sites. They give us extra materials for dating as the inhabitants left bone and marine shell in the sites, and their fires provided us with a lot of charcoal. Radiocarbon dating can tell us what the ages of those materials are.

In the archaeological sites I've worked with, many hundreds in several states, there is no evidence of a flood at the appointed time. Neither have my colleagues, or the geomorphologists and sedimentologists around the world reported evidence of a global flood at that time.

One additional piece of evidence: both my work and the works of others have produced ancient mtDNA. All you need to do to disprove the global flood is find mtDNA from earlier than 5,000 years ago and match it up in the same area with living descendants. That has been done. If the mtDNA is continuous, rather than being replaced some 4,000 years ago with DNA from Noah's kin, that right there disproves a global flood. I have found such ancient mtDNA in my work, and the oldest case I know of in my local area spans about 10,000 years.

There we have, from just my work, sufficient evidence to disprove the global flood--at the time specified by biblical scholars we have no evidence in the soils for such a flood, and we have continuity of mtDNA across that time period. (We also have continuity of soil layers, fauna and flora, and human cultures pretty much all around the world.)

There are thousands of examples like the ones I have cited. And, there is no credible scientific evidence to the contrary. I'd say you have no reason to be smiling. The global flood as read in the bible is a myth.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 8:27 AM Sky-Writing 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 © 2020