Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
And it's so unfortunate for this "theory" that the records we do have, in terms of fossils, sedimentary layers, etc., are not at all consistent with the notion of a worldwide flood.

Oh, but they are. A worldwide flood should leave behind sedimentary layers all over the world with billions of dead things buried in them, and that's exactly what we find.

Actually, these notions are difficult and strange because they're such a clear example of trying to fit any and all evidence, no matter how contradictory, into the same pre-determined notion.

I see no contradictions in the evidence.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Maybe they did. There are fossils on Mt. Everest -- there's no disputing that fact.

True. But absolutely nothing consistent with the idea that they were deposited there relatively recently (within historical times, or certainly after the rise of the first human civilizations, which is what the Biblical account would require). They are, on the other hand, very consistent with the idea that the Himalayas are a relatively young mountain range, rising somewhere around 40 million years ago - well after the development of fairly advanced life (and so fossils from before this period ARE found on Mt. Everest) but long before the arrival of modern mammals and birds (and fossils of those are NOT found on Mt. Everest).

Pretty much every culture has a global flood legend. Not simply a massive flood, but a worldwide flood.

Sorry, but this simply isn't so, although it's a myth that has been pushed by the creation apologists for years. There are a large number of cultures with flood legends, especially those who can trace their roots back to the middle East around 5-6,000 BC, when there IS evidence of a fairly large regional flood. However, there are also a large number of cultures that have no such legend at all. There is none, for instance, in the Japanese culture (and you'd sort of think that an island nation would notice such a thing!), and it's either missing from many Native American cultures or what "flood" legends exist clearly do not speak of a worldwide event. Flooding is a rather common natural occurence, and one that would severely impact primitive cultures, so it's hardly surprising that many cultures have a memory of at least one such disaster in their history. But the accounts vary so widely in their nature, timing, and overall descriptions that to take them as any sort of evidence for a "worldwide" flood is at best wishful thinking on the part of those who already are trying to support that notion.

Ice and snow that resulted from normal precipitation, right? The neighborhood in which I grew up floods everytime it snows and then melts.

Unfortunately for the flood idea, ice is also one of the biggest pieces of evidence against it - specifically, the nature of the South Polar Ice cap, which shows no sign at all of being affected by a "worldwide" flood in a relatively recent time frame, and further appears to have been frozen solid for several millions of years at least.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah
To ex-fundy, bmyers, Natedog, et. al.
I just read a fascinating webpage where an apparently young earth Bible believing Creationist, discusses how Evolution is God'S plan for survival of man and animals in the Post flood world. It requires non evolutionists like me to admit that there is macro- evoltion and some quick transitional forms.
It requires Evolutionists to admit that there was a recent worldwide flood, and that Speciation and macro evolution of a kind has occurred rapidly and in the last several thousand years. It is this kind of thinking that could reconcile theistic evolutionists and Creationists. Old earthers, and young earthers. Give it a read and let me know what you all think.
http://nwcreation.net/evolution_creation.html

I read it, but I'm sorry, I don't find it at all impressive. It is simply yet another attempt to reconcile a growing body of scientific evidence with a frankly impossible notion. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood at all, and the page in question makes the usual array of errors, misunderstandings, and outright misrepresentations of current scientific thought. (Starting right up front with the absurd claim that the only ones promoting the evolutionary model are "atheists".) I also find it extremely curious - and frankly more than a little amusing - that one coming from the creation side of the fence, as this writer does, and so from a background which has traditionally tried to deny evolution from the "not enough time required" argument - is now proposing a ridiculously rapid pace of evolution in order to explain how everything could have recovered since the (recent) flood!

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Oh, but they are. A worldwide flood should leave behind sedimentary layers all over the world with billions of dead things buried in them, and that's exactly what we find.

If all you're going to do is to take that simplistic a stance, then yes, I suppose so. But a little thought will show that it is absurd.

A worldwide flood, occuring over a very short period and at a relatively recent time in history - certainly long after the appearance of both human civilization and modern life forms - should have left:

- A single, consistent (in terms of depth, location among other strata, etc.) layer, of

- remains (not necessarily "fossilized" - you'd be proposing a pretty darn rapid rate of fossilization for that to be the case) of MODERN life forms, AND humans, AND their civilization, all showing evidence of a rapid death at very close to the same time,

- uniformly across the planet (i.e., not that the contents would be uniform, but the evidence would have to have the same sort of appearance everywhere).

Further, since it is proposed that the flood waters "covered the Earth" for a significant period of time (several months at least), we should also see evidence of a massive die-off of either salt- or fresh-water aquatic species (it is very hard to imagine that the "worldwide ocean" represented by the flood water could have sustained BOTH), and further that we should find the remains of MODERN examples of both sort of species (SOME of both would die naturally, anyway, during this time) far inland today. We should, for instance, see the skeletons of whales and sharks and such buried not too far below the topsoil in, say, Kansas.

We don't see any of these things. What we do see IS consistent with some relatively small areas of present-day land at one time being under water, and vice versa (and not necessarily at the same time, either). So again, there is simply no such "fossil evidence" of a worldwide flood at anything remotely like the time suggested.

I see no contradictions in the evidence.

Not surprising, is it?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Some probably did. There's a plenty of water underground.

A lot of it did, and then probably ended up freezing around the poles. There's a lot of ice there.

That's another possibility. There are a lot of deep ocean chasms.

Rather than just using words like "plenty" or "a lot", have you ever thought that these things are not only quantifiable with pretty good accuracy, but have actually already been quantified? Have you ever attempted, for instance, to come up with a total for the amount of free water (including ice and water vapor) available on Earth, say, in cubic kilometers?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
True. But absolutely nothing consistent with the idea that they were deposited there relatively recently (within historical times, or certainly after the rise of the first human civilizations, which is what the Biblical account would require).

I see no inconsistencies. Perhaps you could point some out to us.

They are, on the other hand, very consistent with the idea that the Himalayas are a relatively young mountain range, rising somewhere around 40 million years ago - well after the development of fairly advanced life (and so fossils from before this period ARE found on Mt. Everest)

Clams and things like that, which are exactly the sort of things you'd expect to find if it were once below the ocean.

but long before the arrival of modern mammals and birds (and fossils of those are NOT found on Mt. Everest).

Even by evolutionary standards, mammals and birds existed prior to 40 million years ago. But again, you really wouldn't expect to find them in an area that was once below the ocean.

Sorry, but this simply isn't so, although it's a myth that has been pushed by the creation apologists for years.

It's not a myth. I've checked many of them out for myself. These legends do in fact exist in virtually every ancient culture.

There are a large number of cultures with flood legends, especially those who can trace their roots back to the middle East around 5-6,000 BC, when there IS evidence of a fairly large regional flood. However, there are also a large number of cultures that have no such legend at all. There is none, for instance, in the Japanese culture (and you'd sort of think that an island nation would notice such a thing!),

But there is one in the Chinese culture, which is where most of the Japanese came from to begin with.

and it's either missing from many Native American cultures or what "flood" legends exist clearly do not speak of a worldwide event.

Sorry, but you're wrong again. Many of them are very specific about the flood being worldwide.

Flooding is a rather common natural occurence, and one that would severely impact primitive cultures, so it's hardly surprising that many cultures have a memory of at least one such disaster in their history. But the accounts vary so widely in their nature, timing, and overall descriptions that to take them as any sort of evidence for a "worldwide" flood is at best wishful thinking on the part of those who already are trying to support that notion.

You'd expect the descriptions to vary over thousands of years, although some of them are remarkably close to the Biblical account.

Unfortunately for the flood idea, ice is also one of the biggest pieces of evidence against it - specifically, the nature of the South Polar Ice cap, which shows no sign at all of being affected by a "worldwide" flood in a relatively recent time frame, and further appears to have been frozen solid for several millions of years at least.

The ice caps didn't exist prior to the flood, and there's no evidence that they've been frozen solid for millions of years.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Correction -- the highest peak at the time. I've made no claims that the floodwaters reached around six miles above the current sea level.

This strongly implies that you are arguing both for the appearance of new mountains - or at least the significant increase in height of existing ones - possibly along with an increase in the depth of the ocean, at least in its deepest trenches.

It seems very odd that the Bible would record a flood occuring within historic times, and yet fail to notice the appearance of such huge new features on the Earth's surface or at least such significant changes in old ones. Surely the raising up of a mountain by even a decent fraction of a mile would be viewed as a "miracle" worthy of recording! Why does NO culture on Earth record the appearance of significant new mountains, or changes to the old, unless it's clearly though volcanic action?

It seems odd that you on the one hand wish to have certain sorts of "legends", and certain sorts of other thigns (such as the "fossil" record) admitted into evidence in support of your claims, and yet seemingly would prefer to pretend that contradictory evidence of the exact same sort doesn't exist. Again, does this seem to be more the sign of a researcher looking for the truth (whatever it turns out to be), or someone who is picking and choosing from the evidence in order to shore up a pre-conceived notion?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Even by evolutionary standards, mammals and birds existed prior to 40 million years ago. But again, you really wouldn't expect to find them in an area that was once below the ocean.

Unfortunately, you don't find such things anywhere that you find the older remains. It would be an amazing coincidence if ALL of the areas in which you now claim "fossils on mountaintops" were for any significant time, and at the SAME time, "below the ocean". Even then, THAT circumstance would result in some very specific sorts of evidence that simply isn't found.

It's not a myth. I've checked many of them out for myself. These legends do in fact exist in virtually every ancient culture.

In that case, references, please, that would support this claim (something besides creationist-apologist web sites with similar unsupported claims, please).

But there is one in the Chinese culture, which is where most of the Japanese came from to begin with.

If that were true - that "most of the Japanese" came from a Chinese culture at a time which FOLLOWS the flood - it seems very odd that their culture would retain no record of it. Your timing, though, is seriously off here. While Japanese culture owes a good deal to China (due to influences arriving primarily during the first millenium AD), the ancestors of the modern Japanese people are known to have settled the islands (from the Korean peninsula, not China) at least as far back as 7500 BC (the Jomon culture). Your supposed flood would have to have occured, per creationist timelines, long after this culture was established in the archipelago of Japan. And yet they have no record of such. Further, since they survived through this period (and there is no evidence of Japan having been settled at a later time by any other ethnic group), the very existence of modern-day Japanese is a serious blow to the notion of a "worldwide" flood. This is not, of course, the only example - would you want to discuss others?

Sorry, but you're wrong again. Many of them are very specific about the flood being worldwide.

And many aren't. If it truly was worldwide, we should expect them all to note this. On the other hand, we can easily expect such primitive cultures to record any widespread (from their view) disaster as "worldwide". Remember, "the world" to many of the cultures you speak of, even in relatively recent times as in the later books of the Bible, did not extend significantly beyond the Mediterranean Sea. Similarly limited views of "the world" are seen elsewhere as well.

You'd expect the descriptions to vary over thousands of years, although some of them are remarkably close to the Biblical account.

Funny how we go from "all" to "many" to "some" as the criteria for acceptable evidence get stricter, isn't it?

The ice caps didn't exist prior to the flood, and there's no evidence that they've been frozen solid for millions of years.

No, I don't suppose you are aware of any.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
If all you're going to do is to take that simplistic a stance, then yes, I suppose so. But a little thought will show that it is absurd.

A worldwide flood, occuring over a very short period and at a relatively recent time in history - certainly long after the appearance of both human civilization and modern life forms - should have left:

- A single, consistent (in terms of depth, location among other strata, etc.) layer, of

No, you wouldn't expect to find only one layer.

- remains (not necessarily "fossilized" - you'd be proposing a pretty darn rapid rate of fossilization for that to be the case)

Under the right conditions, fossilization can occur in a matter of months.

of MODERN life forms,

We do find modern life forms in the fossil record.

AND humans,

We do find the occasional human in the fossil record.

AND their civilization,

What should we be looking for? We've found a few artifacts, but that's all that I'm aware of.

all showing evidence of a rapid death at very close to the same time

Most of the fossils I've seen do show evidence of rapid death. They're all twisted and mangled, exactly like you'd expect if they died rapidly in a flood and got buried by sedimentation.

- uniformly across the planet (i.e., not that the contents would be uniform, but the evidence would have to have the same sort of appearance everywhere).

Most of them do have the same sort of appearance everywhere they're found.

Further, since it is proposed that the flood waters "covered the Earth" for a significant period of time (several months at least), we should also see evidence of a massive die-off of either salt- or fresh-water aquatic species (it is very hard to imagine that the "worldwide ocean" represented by the flood water could have sustained BOTH),

Not necessarily. If the oceans were originally fresh water, all that's required is that the survivors gradually adapted to saltwater. The oceans are getting saltier every year.

and further that we should find the remains of MODERN examples of both sort of species (SOME of both would die naturally, anyway, during this time) far inland today. We should, for instance, see the skeletons of whales and sharks and such buried not too far below the topsoil in, say, Kansas.

First of all, sharks are cartilaginous, so you're not going to find too many fossilized shark skeletons. Pretty much all we ever find of them are their teeth. Secondly, we do find the fossils of whales and many other marine creatures inland. Thirdly, free-swimming marine creatures probably suffered the least during the flood.

We don't see any of these things.

You're wrong.

What we do see IS consistent with some relatively small areas of present-day land at one time being under water, and vice versa (and not necessarily at the same time, either). So again, there is simply no such "fossil evidence" of a worldwide flood at anything remotely like the time suggested.

You can't really determine when these creatures died just by the fossil evidence. All you can really determine from a fossil is that the creature died in a flood.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Rather than just using words like "plenty" or "a lot", have you ever thought that these things are not only quantifiable with pretty good accuracy, but have actually already been quantified?

Sure, I just didn't feel like looking it up.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
This strongly implies that you are arguing both for the appearance of new mountains - or at least the significant increase in height of existing ones - possibly along with an increase in the depth of the ocean, at least in its deepest trenches.

Yeah. So?

It seems very odd that the Bible would record a flood occuring within historic times, and yet fail to notice the appearance of such huge new features on the Earth's surface or at least such significant changes in old ones. Surely the raising up of a mountain by even a decent fraction of a mile would be viewed as a "miracle" worthy of recording!

Not if there was nobody around to see it. You've got to remember that everyone that was alive during the flood was on the Ark, and after the flood, it took some time for them to spread out all over the world.

Why does NO culture on Earth record the appearance of significant new mountains, or changes to the old, unless it's clearly though volcanic action?

See above.

It seems odd that you on the one hand wish to have certain sorts of "legends", and certain sorts of other thigns (such as the "fossil" record) admitted into evidence in support of your claims, and yet seemingly would prefer to pretend that contradictory evidence of the exact same sort doesn't exist.

You haven't shown me any yet.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah
We all agree that mountain ranges rise and mountains fall and erode. At least that is what the Evolutionists taught me in college. Just use a little imagination, to admit it is at least theoretically possible given even natural processes for the plates and faults to shift and cause a disaster of a worldwide flood.

Certainly it's possible to conceive of this. But one we do conceive of it, the next step is to describe the event, and see if we can find evidence that is of the sort that would be expected from such a description.

For example, we are talking about raising up mountains and pushing down trenches and such - and moving an awful lot of water around - over a period of time which had to be at most on the order of a year. Further, this occured a relatively short time ago; if we are to accept the creationist model, the Earth itself is only six thousand years or so old, and there had to be sufficient time after that for human civilization to have taken hold and become a widespread and developed as it evidently was in Noah's time. Then there is also the chronology of Genesis to reconcile, particularly the extremely long life-spans of some recorded in Genesis 5; Noah himself, for instance, is said to be 500 years old before having his sons. I didn't bother to total up all the ages in Gen. 5, but it seems reasonable to state that the Flood occured sometime around 2,000-2,500 BC, per this timeline. (I'm sure someone has a more accurate tally of all this, and will point out exactly what Genesis claims as the year.)

Now, we have an event of global proportions, occuring about 4,000 years ago or so, and immediately following it the changes that had to be made in order for it to occur (mountains rising or falling, undersea trenches doing the same, etc.) have to be reversed in very short order - since there is no record following the time right around the flood of any such things continuing to take place. Further, we can quantify the amount of material (rock, water, etc.) that has to be moved within this short period of time, and the energy and work that such activities represent. Now, note that this is NOT about whether or not the amounts of these are reasonable - but once we have figured these amounts of material and energy, we can also estimate what effects their expenditure would have on the world, and what evidence we should expect to see as a result.

If you do this, I think you'll find that it's an interesting exercise in dealing with some truly impressive numbers. But it will also show that these events could not possibly have happened as described and be consistent with the evidence seen today. At which point, the true apologist for such events will invoke divine intervention, and claim that "it was all 'cleaned up' miraculously". And at that, we can only again marvel at the willingness of such people to base their case on physical evidence, only so far as it supports their preconceived notion - after which "physical evidence" apparently becomes untrustworthy!

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack


Not if there was nobody around to see it. You've got to remember that everyone that was alive during the flood was on the Ark, and after the flood, it took some time for them to spread out all over the world.

Unfortunately, the required time frame for the flood occurs WITHIN the period of recorded history for a fairly good number of cultures. And within their records, we don't see any evidence that they all suddenly died off, and then within a short time people (apparently just like those who were there before, no less!) came back and picked up just where their predecessors left off.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No, you wouldn't expect to find only one layer.

Nice assertion. Why not? You're talking about a single event that happened over a very short period of time (by neccessity - there is not enough time in your proposed history for it to take more than a few years at most!).

We do find modern life forms in the fossil record.

But not where you find the old ones. Do try to keep ALL of the requirements straight, please.

Most of the fossils I've seen do show evidence of rapid death. They're all twisted and mangled, exactly like you'd expect if they died rapidly in a flood and got buried by sedimentation.

Death in the wild is rarely due to old age; however, death by being drowned in a flood would result in some very noticeable differences from, say, death by being eaten. I would not expect flood waters to leave teeth marks, for instance...

Not necessarily. If the oceans were originally fresh water, all that's required is that the survivors gradually adapted to saltwater. The oceans are getting saltier every year.

Ah, so now you'll happily bring in yet one more unsupported (and unsupportable) assumption to bolster your claim? That spinning noise you hear is William of Ockham...

First of all, sharks are cartilaginous, so you're not going to find too many fossilized shark skeletons. Pretty much all we ever find of them are their teeth. Secondly, we do find the fossils of whales and many other marine creatures inland. Thirdly, free-swimming marine creatures probably suffered the least during the flood.

Well, given your new "it was all one big happy freshwater lake" notion, that latter MIGHT work - too bad there's absolutely nothing to support THAT idea, either. As far as finding whales, etc., inland, please keep in mind that YOU are proposing something that happened in very recent history, geologically speaking - can you cite even one example of a MODERN whale, say a humpback or orca, being found by some farmer outside of Topeka or some such?

You're wrong.

As easy assertion to make, but apparently you've having considerable difficulty SHOWING it.

You can't really determine when these creatures died just by the fossil evidence. All you can really determine from a fossil is that the creature died in a flood.

If true, that would again be remarkably convenient. Too bad that it isn't true.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Sure, I just didn't feel like looking it up.

I wonder why that might be. Might it be that you're worried about what those numbers might show?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Unfortunately, you don't find such things anywhere that you find the older remains.

How do you know they're older?

It would be an amazing coincidence if ALL of the areas in which you now claim "fossils on mountaintops" were for any significant time, and at the SAME time, "below the ocean".

Why is that?

Even then, THAT circumstance would result in some very specific sorts of evidence that simply isn't found.

Such as? I haven't seen you offer anything yet.

In that case, references, please, that would support this claim (something besides creationist-apologist web sites with similar unsupported claims, please).

Those are the only places that are likely to show this sort of thing. You can try going to a library and checking out books on specific cultures. Creationists have compiled this information and put it altogether in one place. You wouldn't expect anybody else to do that, would you?

If that were true - that "most of the Japanese" came from a Chinese culture at a time which FOLLOWS the flood - it seems very odd that their culture would retain no record of it.

Not really. You can't expect them to retain everything from their parent culture.

Your timing, though, is seriously off here. While Japanese culture owes a good deal to China (due to influences arriving primarily during the first millenium AD), the ancestors of the modern Japanese people are known to have settled the islands (from the Korean peninsula, not China) at least as far back as 7500 BC (the Jomon culture).

And how was this date determined? The Jomon culture had no written language, so you're relying on the interpretations of secular archaeologists.

Your supposed flood would have to have occured, per creationist timelines, long after this culture was established in the archipelago of Japan.

See above.

And yet they have no record of such.

Like I said, the Jomon had no written language. What kind of record would you expect?

Further, since they survived through this period (and there is no evidence of Japan having been settled at a later time by any other ethnic group), the very existence of modern-day Japanese is a serious blow to the notion of a "worldwide" flood.

Not really. Again, see above.

This is not, of course, the only example - would you want to discuss others?

Sure, if you can think of any.

And many aren't.

Do you know of any?

If it truly was worldwide, we should expect them all to note this. On the other hand, we can easily expect such primitive cultures to record any widespread (from their view) disaster as "worldwide". Remember, "the world" to many of the cultures you speak of, even in relatively recent times as in the later books of the Bible, did not extend significantly beyond the Mediterranean Sea. Similarly limited views of "the world" are seen elsewhere as well.

Sounds to me like you're trying to hedge your bets. It's clear that you're shooting from the hip here, without any prior study of this matter.

Funny how we go from "all" to "many" to "some" as the criteria for acceptable evidence get stricter, isn't it?

What are you talking about? I never said they were all remarkably similar to the Biblical account.

No, I don't suppose you are aware of any.

Why don't you show me some then?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Unfortunately, the required time frame for the flood occurs WITHIN the period of recorded history for a fairly good number of cultures. And within their records, we don't see any evidence that they all suddenly died off, and then within a short time people (apparently just like those who were there before, no less!) came back and picked up just where their predecessors left off.

Yeah, but a lot of these cultures had a tendency to exaggerate their histories. For instance, Sumerian king lists name kings that supposedly ruled over a thousand of years in some cases.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Why don't you show me some then?

Well, quite simply because you're rather tiring, no offense intended, in that you give absolutely no reason for anyone to expect that you will actually consider the evidence presented to you. You continue to ignore very serious objections to your notions, claiming that they are either irrelevant or inaccurate primarily because they came from "secular" sources (as if those were somehow less preferable than researchers who quite clearly had a pre-existing doctrinal axe to grind). You are not here to discuss, in the sense of an attempt to exchange ideas with a goal of learning something new. You are, instead, apparently utterly and unchangeably convinced that your particular view of the world is correct; there is no indication that you are open to the possibility that you are in error. So I see very little reason to attempt to continue a discussion with you on this subject.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
I wonder why that might be. Might it be that you're worried about what those numbers might show?

What, for the amount of water in the world? No.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Yeah, but a lot of these cultures had a tendency to exaggerate their histories. For instance, Sumerian king lists name kings that supposedly ruled over a thousand of years in some cases.

You mean just as Genesis 5 exaggerated life-spans? Are you saying that a timeline derived from Genesis is NOT to be taken as literally accurate?