>Glenn you've rather majorly reinterpreted the Scriptures on this point, . . .
First off, I don't deny re-interpreting the scripture. If we must stand by
the interpretatin of previous ages, no one will make progress because we
must then admit that the interpretation is a YEC intepretation which is
what everyone believed 1000 years ago.
>since God's express purpose was to destroy life NOT sink land beneath
>the waves forever. Verse 6:13 says he would destroy the land, but
>wherever Noah landed was underwater for over two months [i.e.
>"destroyed" as per God's statement.] Where was that? The recession of
>flood-waters continued for quite some time after that as well. Where was
>that possible in the Mediterranean? We both know it wasn't evaporation
>that did it, so where did it flow back to?
The empty Mediterranean basin would contain 4/1000s of the earth's
atmosphere. Moving that up out of the basin as it filled, would also cause
air to be displaced laterally away from the basin, kind of like a front.
This would cause rain in a very large area around the basin. Much more than
just the Mediterranean would have recieved rain. The edges of the basin
would also recieve rain and would probably have been flooded. Atmospheric
circulation patters would have changed during the re-filling of the basin.
What I envision is the ark via tidal flow drifting into a large tidal flat
that was also flooded. This would allow the ark to become grounded.
I stood on the shore of the Bohai Bay in Eastern China when the tide was
out. The retaining wall and sea-life showed that the water, at high tide
was abut 9 feet higher than when I was there. As far as the eye could see,
there was nothing but mud. Way out on the horizon was an ocean going
vessel. I asked my hosts if that boat was floating in water. They said it
wasn't. It was stranded waiting for the water to rise. Such a site would
be a perfect place for the ark to become grounded.
Also there would be lots of isostatic land movement as the earth
re-adjusted to the weight of the Mediterranean waters.
>>
>>
>>I am not sure that the ark was as big as the YEC writers beleive. I
>don't
>>think we know the size of the cubit he used.
>
>So Noah was a dwarf? A three foot Australopith?
No, I think Noah was a member of the genus Homo. And there is some
tantalizing evidence that MIGHT mean that Homo existed long before we have
the bones.
"Here is something of an enigma. Excellent evidence of a very modern foot
from the hominid footprints at Laetoli. Excellent evidence of hominid but
not fully modern feet from the Afar bones. Russell Tuttle of the
University of Chicago, a leading expert on hominoid gaits and limbs, finds
that all aspects of the footprints, expecially toe proportions, are
remarkably like modern feet and that the Afar feet are significantly less
modern. He is willing to suggest that the prints were made by a separate
hominid species, otherwise still undiscovered."
"Others have expressed the same doubts that Lucy, or anybody she knew,
could have made the Laetoli prints. And all evidence suggests that the
foot skeleton of australopithecines continued much longer in its unfinished
state ('unfinished' from our point of view). ~William Howells, Getting
Here, (Washington: Compass Press, 1993) p. 79-81
If you would look at the statistical distribution of the first and second
finds of any given fossil in the paleontological record you would realize
that there can be very significant gaps in which NO evidence for the
existence of a given species/genus/family exists. A case in point in 1980
there was no known fossil record of tarsiers. In 1986 a discovery in
Thailand proved the oldest known Tarsier was from the Miocene about 20
million years ago. Then one was found in China in 1993 and it was from
around 50 million years. The fossil record of tarsiers has gaps of 30
million and 20 million years. All I am asking for is a gap of about 3
million years.
Here is the dinosaur data notice a 12 million year gap a 3 million year gap
and then a 225 million year gap:
240 unidentified tracks from France
228 oldest dinosaur fossil from South America
225 my tracks of turkey sized dinosaur Ft. Wingate Fm. New Mexico
200 my track from North Carolina
Once again, all I am asking for is a 3 million year gap from 2.5 myr back
to 5.5 for the oldest member of our genus.
>Maybe, though the Tasmanians might have simplified their kits for
>practical reasons other than techno-loss in a small society.
No other society did this. The tasmanian technology was so simple it was
once compared to chimpanzee technology in an infamous anthropological article.
"Bill McGrew, author of the most comprehensive study of chimpanzee material
culture, firmly believes that chimpanzee tool use is of considerable
complexity. Indeed, in an (in)famous article writte in 1987, he directly
compared the toolkits of chimpanzees to those of Tasmanian Aborigines and
concluded that they were at an equivalent level of complexity. For this
comparison McGrew chose to measure complexity by counting 'technounits',
which is simply an individual component of a tool, whatever material that
component is made from and however it is used. So a hoe used by, say, a
peasant farmer, comprising a shaft, a blade and a binding, has three
technounits, while the suite of computerized robots operated by a modern
car worker has perhaps three million technounits.
"When McGrew measured the technounits in the tools of the Tasmanian
Aborigines and those of the Tanzanian chimpanzees he found that the mean
number of technounits per tool was not substantially different. All
chimpanzee tools and most of the Aboriginal tools were made from a single
component. The most complex Aboriginal tool, a baited hide, had only four
technounits." ~ Steven Mithen, The Prehistory of the Mind, (New York:
Thames and Hudson, 1996), p. 75
>>In my view, this was millions of years after the flood for the reasons
>>outlined above. There can't be such technology without LOTS of people.
>>And 8 people does not constitute a lot of people.
>>
>The problem you have not addressed is the import of the clear meaning of
>Scripture [if we're going to be so literal!] that the people stayed
>together after the Flood, and ultimately built Babel. We're talking
>about a relatively small group that stays coherent over what you see as
>millions of years.
No we are not tallking about a small group that stayed coherent over
millions of years. Mankind or more correctly Homo erectus spread throughout
the entire world with the exception of Australia and the New World.
Wouldn't be a lot of genetic divergence due to this,
>and there's no hint of it from palaeontology - humans spread as soon as
>they appeared. So you'll have to accept a non-universal Babel or say
>they built cities in short order after the Flood. Either scenario raises
>hard questions about the rest of your schema.
I don't hold to a universal Babel and I suspect Babel was late. But then
you don't either so what is the point? That we should throw out the
historicity of scripture? I will admit that I am having some real problems
with some of the arguments from Paul Seeley's excellent book which indicate
that the historicity isn't there. But I will have the courage of my
convictions that truth is truth and if I find the Bible to be a pile of
horsemanure when it comes to being able to describe historical events, I
will become an atheist rather than believe that which I find to be untrue.
Why would one believe a book is a revelation from God when it contains a
silly story of creation, a silly story of a flood, a silly story of Babel,
a silly story of the Exodus (for which there is no evidence) a silly story
about a floating ax head, a silly story about a fish that swallowed man,
two silly stories about the sun moving backwards and a silly story that
women come from the side of man and a silly story about a talking snake and
then beleive it is true? I would find that a silly thing to believe. And
I very well might end up an atheist, but I WONT END UP BELEIVING A BOOK
WITH SILLY STORIES IS THE BEST GOD CAN OFFER MAN. I can write a book with
silly stories.
>Glenn, wake up! Noah went back to farming as soon as the Flood was over.
Noah could have farmed... never mind, I am going to take a break from
internet now. Don't know if I will be back.
>Come one! Your whole argument trips on the words of the Bible!
>Besides the Natufian culture built Jericho, pre the Great Neolithic
>Revolution... can't be as hard as you paint it.
Then try it an prove me wrong. Are you aware that wild wheat loses its
seeds when it is havested? They fall to the ground. It took a long time
before a variety of wheat was developed which would not drop its seeds. In
your experiment try farming with that at the first. You will be picking up
wheat heads off the ground by your fingers. See how easy the pre-Natufian
culture would be. Do you know how to make stone tools? I hope you do,
because you will need them.
>
>>
>>>If your geology friends can't handle a quasi-literal Bible, as Dick
>and
>>>Paul advocate, then how do they respond to your views? Like you I want
>a
>>>Genesis I can defend as history, but I'm not sure that's what we have
>>>been given.
>>
>>The ones I have told it to tell me I fit the facts. They have no
>>geological objection at all. And you haven't heard any on this list
>either,
>>not geological objections. The objections I get are to the antiquity
>of
>>man. But you know, in 1958 the oldest known member of the genus Homo
>was
>>Homo erectus and he dated 500,000 years ago. Today the genus Homo
>extends
>>back to 2.4 myr to Homo rudolfensis. (UR-501) That is a rate of
>discovery
>>that has pushed back mankind back an average of 500 kyr per decade. And
>now
>>the earliest stone tools are dated at 2.6 myr ago. That is halfway
>back to
>>when I say the flood was. And it is statistically likely that even
>earlier
>>examples will be found. Why? Because we never find the very first
>example
>>of any species. Only when the species becomes widespread is it likely
>to be
>>fossilized.
>
>True enough. I just think you're barking up the wrong tree... on saying
>that I would like to be proven wrong and for your Flood scenario to be
>proven true. But I think the time-span is ridiculous. Still the
>ridiculous has a way of being proven true...
Probably not. Both YECs and my scientific friends want a non-historical
Bible. If that is what we have, we don't have much. I must do some
thinking and see what I still believe.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm