The La Brea Tar Pits as Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

look · #1 13th April 2003, 01:12 AM

In the first two decades of the twentieth century, an enormous amount of fossils was excavated from the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits. Approximately 60 species have been identified, including saber-tooth cat, bear, lion, wolf, camel, bison, and mastodon. Also found were about a dozen human bones, as well as a number of artifacts such as milling stones and bone hairpins. These fossils and artifacts have been dated by scientists to the late Pleistocene or early Recent Period.

The conventional explanation for the abundance and diversity of this fossil material is that successive animal entrapment
episodes had created an ever-growing clutter of bones at the bottom of the tar pools. An unwary herbivore such as a mastodon, for example, might step into a seemingly benign pool of water to get a drink. The herbivore would then become hopelessly ensnared in the sticky tar underneath the watery surface. Its distress cries would draw hungry carnivores, such as wolves, seeking an easy meal. These carnivores would themselves slip and fall into the pool, becoming, like their prey, inescapably mired in the tar. Although this theory is useful for explaining a lot of data, it does contain some serious weaknesses. This booklet uses the catastrophic flood model as an alternative explanation for the deposition of the fossils.

This article is very long, so I posted the conclusion here and the entire article can be read here ;

Conclusions

Prestwich died in 1896. Twelve years later, the fossils of the La Brea Tar Pits became known to the world. Had he lived and read the early reports, he would have recognized patterns similar to what he saw in Europe. The bones were fragmented and packed into an irregular mix with no complete skeletons. The herbivore bones showed few, if any, signs of carnivore teeth impressions. There were even indications of water deposition in the woody debris. With the exception of the petroleum factor, there was nothing in these reports that would have set them apart from his own investigations of bone accumulations in Europe. The only circumstance that might have surprised Prestwich was the implication that the great flood that had swept over Europe had also reached California.

As mentioned in the introduction to this article, the date assigned to the deposition of the bones in the tar pits was late
Pleistocene. Prestwich would have recognized here a correlation with his date of the flooding of Europe, which he believed took place sometime between the end of the Ice Age and the beginning of the Recent Period or 10,000 years ago. In the decades following his death, improved methods of dating by observation of erosion and sedimentation processes required a revision of geologic dates. Velikovsky (1955, pp. 148-164) mentions a number of scientists who went on record stating that the beginning of the post-glacial period should be re-dated to approximately 4000 to 5000 years ago. If these new methods of dating have any validity (and in the author's opinion, they do), then the concurrence of the post-glacial period and the continental flood spoken of by Prestwich line up more with Biblical chronology, which puts Noah's flood at 4300 years ago.

Let us now take the evidence of the tar pits and reconstruct what happened based on a catastrophic flood model. Just as in
Europe, the animals and birds in California were seeking refuge from water that was rising higher and higher. They would have been attracted to the Santa Monica Mountains, which rises to an elevation of about 1200 feet above the plain. As the water climbed up the sides of the mountain, the last remaining land surface continued to shrink. Under such circumstances, the stronger and larger creatures would have kept back the weaker ones. It was a survival of the fittest with the wolves and saber- tooth cats fighting for preeminence on the ground, and the eagles fighting for preeminence in the trees.

Just as the carnivores were predominant on the mountain of Santenay, so they were predominant on the mountains of Santa
Monica. Meanwhile, turkeys and a variety of other small birds and animals were finding refuge in hollows and cavities that were inaccessible to the larger animals. It is quite probable that the great herds of herbivores had drowned earlier on the plain below. Where the bones went is a matter of conjecture, yet it is possible that they might have been buried under the water-borne sand and clay which now forms the alluvial plain at the foot of the mountains.

After the last animals and birds on top of the ridge had perished, their floating carcasses became a temporary breeding
habitat for insects. Blowflies went into exposed cavities to lay their eggs. As the carcasses decayed and fell apart, their remains were scattered over the underwater mountains and plains below. At last the waters subsided, and wave action proceeded to smash the bones on re-emerging land formations. At the same time, disturbances within the earth allowed natural gas and oil to seep up and create underwater blowholes. Some of the blowholes became receptacles of the water- driven bones. After the land had at last dried out, flowing oil covered the bone-laden ground with a lake of pitch. When the lake dried out, it formed a protective matrix that preserved the bones both within and below the asphalt crust.

The evidence of water catastrophism at the La Brea Tar Pits dovetails with Prestwich's hypothesis regarding the
submergence and re-emergence of Western Europe. While he was gathering his data, he became intrigued with the way the evidence was confirming the Genesis account of the universal flood. He then proceeded to see how far the evidence went. When he journeyed as far as the coastlines of the Mediterranean Sea, he still had not found its limits. As a careful geologist, he stayed within the bounds of the evidence observed and would only commit himself to the idea of a continental flood. However, by applying the insights of his research to the phenomenon of the La Brea Tar Pits, we get a broader picture of the worldwide effects of the Genesis flood.

JohnR7 · #2 13th April 2003, 01:39 AM

The La Brea Tar Pits as Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Can you show me any evidence from the Bible that the flood was a world wide flood and not just a local one?

Gracchus · #3 13th April 2003, 01:49 AM

Let's see, the flood was 4300 years ago. That would mean it was about 2300 B.C.E..

http://din-timelines.com/bce2999-2300_timeline.shtml

Dang clever, those Chinese, Egyptians and Sumerians and all that lot. And astoundingly unflappable. Ran around for the better part of a year, breathing through snorkels (or did they have scuba?), writing history with water proof paint and ink, (under water mind you!) and never mentioned that flood, which must by creationist accounts have been a real sockdollager.

gentu · #4 13th April 2003, 01:52 AM

It's rather strange that the dinosaurs missed out on this race for higher ground. Velociraptors can run pretty fast. I wonder why only animals that didn't go extinct 64 million years ago got to participate in this fun.

Pete Harcoff · #5 13th April 2003, 02:16 AM

I find it amazing that there was supposedly no current during the rising of the flood waters. I mean, with the "fountains of the deep" opening up and all this extra water being dumped onto the surface of the Earth, you've got to figure that would cause some kind of disturbance.

Arikay · #6 13th April 2003, 02:28 AM

Yep flood theories are fun.

Either, enough water was dumped on the earth to fill the ocean over 3 times, but there was no current.

Or, some how the mountains were created later, without killing things or creating current.

Really the only way to explain it is "God Did it" and then its no longer science.

Today at 10:16 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #5

I find it amazing that there was supposedly no current during the rising of the flood waters. I mean, with the "fountains of the deep" opening up and all this extra water being dumped onto the surface of the Earth, you've got to figure that would cause some kind of disturbance.

ikester7579 · #7 13th April 2003, 05:00 AM

I suggest instead of reposting all the information on the flood, Yall can go here to the post Arikay did. It's quite interesting.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/37629.html

look · #8 14th April 2003, 12:32 AM

Today at 12:39 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #2

Can you show me any evidence from the Bible that the flood was a world wide flood and not just a local one?

Hello John, I’m sorry I haven’t gotten around to this sooner. I’ve been putting a lot of research into these debates and I’m getting tired of the scoffers not even trying to see that their views has competition with other equally valid arguments. Anyway, this has been burning me out because I’m engaging in debates with little understanding of the actual subject. Admittedly, I’m learning a great deal and it only serves to cement what I already knew in my heart.

To answer your request of scripture regarding the question of whether the flood was world wide or a local flood, I believe it would be best to look at several scriptures and observe the greek words the translators are translating to the English word, world.

Look at the word, world in the famous verse;

John 3: 16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The word, world which occurs four times in these verses is from the Greek word Kosmos, it has the Strong’s # 2889;

Strong's Ref. # 2889 Romanized kosmos Pronounced kos'-mos probably from the base of GSN2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):KJV--adorning, world.

Look at Matthew 24:21. For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Again, the word, world is Kosmos, the same word as used in John 3:16. You can get the sense of the meaning of the use of the word, world in these verses.

Seeing that Kosmos means “world and it’s inhabitants” in the sense of “the whole world”, Let’s look at something Peter said about the world that perished in the flood. It is found in 2 Peter 3: 6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Again the word, world is the word Kosmos, which is Strong’s #2889. It’s the same word that means, “the world and it’s inhabitants”.

Here is another verse you can look at, it’s;

1 John 2:15. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Again, the word, Kosmos, shows up six times in these passages. The sense of the use of this word remains constant and now with a little meditation, the Holy Spirit will confirm the scripture to you. The key to understanding that the flood was worldwide is 2 Peter3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

John, I hope you have a Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Concordance and Dictionary, that way, you can look it up for yourself. It really is a valuable research tool for digging into the linguistic meaning of the words used in the King James.

The Peace which passes all understanding be upon you and yours...

JohnR7 · #9 14th April 2003, 06:15 AM

Yesterday at 11:32 PM look said this in Post #8 

Strong's Ref. # 2889 Romanized kosmos Pronounced kos'-mos probably from the base of GSN2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):KJV--adorning, world.

According to strongs the use of the word "world" can be "in a wide or narrow sense". So just because it has a wide sense in one passage, does not mean it can not be used in a narrow sense in another passage. 

The key to understanding that the flood was worldwide is 2 Peter3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

What does Peter mean when he says: "The world that then was"? Back up to verse 5 sense that is a part of this passage. There you see the word "ge" uses for earth. A word that clearly does not mean the whole earth, but just a part of it. A land that people dwelled in at the time.

Noah we are told was less than 10 generations from Adam. If you study the charts, Noah's father (Lamech) was 53 years old, when Adam died. So there is a good chance that Noah's father knew Adam. Also, Adam's son Seth, would have been alive for the first 143 years of Lamech's life. Noah's father died about 3 years before the flood. But he was around for most of the 100 plus years that Noah and his family spent building the ark.

So just how big was the world back then at that time? A lot less than the 6 billon people we have in the world now. Maybe there were 10 million people alive at that time. There are cities today with quite a bit more than 10 million people in them. So really about all your going to be able to populate in 10 generations is maybe a good sized country.

If God covered the whole earth with water, then that would be going back to the third day of creation. That is a bit radical to think that God would start all over again, just to deal with 10 generations of people.

look · #10 16th April 2003, 01:08 AM

Yesterday at 05:15 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #9 What does Peter mean when he says: "The world that then was"? Back up to verse 5 sense that is a part of this passage. There you see the word "ge" uses for earth. A word that clearly does not mean the whole earth, but just a part of it. A land that people dwelled in at the time.

John, I understand where you are coming from, however there are some important verses to look at. This is just one verse that use the Greek word “Ge” in the context that reinforces the 2 Peter 3:5-7 ...”Being overflowed with Water...”.

Revelation 21

1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Then, we have The Word using the Kosmos right after creation.

Romans 1: 20. For the invisible things of him from the ‘creation of the world” are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

From what I can see, in 2 Peter 3:5-7, the whole world was the context of the passage, just as there is a "new earth" found in Revelation 21:1. I don't think God is going to renew only a part of the earth and I also don't think there was enough water in the Mediterranean Sea along with the Black Sea to keep the ark afloat for 371 days with all of that water running out to the oceans (which would have carried the ark out to sea with it.) Another thing to consider is, if the Med and the Black Seas did drain into the region, then the Atlantic Ocean would not have been able to rush in fast enough to continually replace the depleted levels needed to keep the ark afloat for 371 days.

I’m not going to say anymore about this, the Lord has told me, “Let everything be confirmed by two or three...”, I have no wish to argue with you, my brother. It really is not foundational with your walk with God.

Peace on you and yours, from Jesus...