The ice age and the flood

[Huram Abi]

Alan Templeton, also of Washington University, reported that a computer-based analysis of 10 different human DNA sequences indicates that there has been interbreeding between people living in Asia, Europe, and Africa for at least 600,000 years.


So my generalhrust on this is to get science people to agree with you, that what the bible says nseems true, whether they see things thru their Science or you stick with medieval ideas.

If your first paragraph verifies scripture, then chapter and verse, please.

 

[dad]

They also found as transistional species too, which has been one of your issues with the ToE, right?


It was a partial skeleton of a 15-16 year old male Homo sapiens who lived about 30,000 years ago. He had a mix of old and new anatomical features. The skull had characteristics of both modern and archaic Homo sapiens.
This could be explained as the result of interbreeding with Neanderthals according to Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis.

Alan Templeton, also of Washington University, reported that a computer-based analysis of 10 different human DNA sequences indicates that there has been interbreeding between people living in Asia, Europe, and Africa for at least 600,000 years

.

So my general thrust on this is to get science people to agree with you, that what the bible says nseems true, whether they see things thru their Science or you stick with medieval ideas.

The bible pre dates medieval.

As for Homo erectus, either it was Ham's kids or apes I guess. Post flood I wager. Living over a few centuries, and with the continents still joined at first, naturally they could make it anywhere in Africa. If it was people, then it coulld make sense that the ones finally dying and fossilizing would be pretty far south!

 

[cupid dave]

If your first paragraph verifies scripture, then chapter and verse, please.

Gen. 6:4 There were giants,...
(i.e.; Homo Erectus, two species one through Methuselah and another through Methusael),

...in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God,

(i.e.; the link in the chain to Modern Homos, the Methusaelian line of ascent, or the Homo erectus species),

...came in unto the daughters of men,...

(i.e.; Lamech's Homo antecessors daughters),

...and they bare...

(i.e.; Neanderthal)

...children to them, the same became mighty men...

(i.e.; hybrids preceeding the advent of Modern Homo Sapiens)

....which were of old, men of renown.

 

[Huram Abi]

That's what I thought you'd say.

Sorry, even if the context was what you say, it doesn't mean that the bible is verified by "Alan Templeton, also of Washington University, reported that a computer-based analysis of 10 different human DNA sequences indicates that there has been interbreeding between people living in Asia, Europe, and Africa for at least 600,000 years"

 

[SkyWriting]

There was no global flood. That's not opinion. It's fact.

If it's not a repeatable experiment, then it's not even scientific.
Steps of the Scientific Method
Much less a fact.

Ridiculous. There are no "founts of the deep". No place for oceans of water to come up from.

So you argue that something that is "broken up" doesn't exist? Well duhhh.

But what if there was any remaining bodies of water?

Michael E. Wysession

Huge ‘Ocean’Discovered Inside Earth « CRISISBOOM

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If it's not a repeatable experiment, then it's not even scientific.
Steps of the Scientific Method
Much less a fact.

Except the flood wasn't an experiment. It is, however, a testable hypothesis. And while it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e. a global flood never happened), none of the features predicted by a global flood hypothesis (that aren't explainable by other, observed, processes) can be found. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that a global flood never occurred.

So you argue that something that is "broken up" doesn't exist? Well duhhh.

But what if there was any remaining bodies of water?

Michael E. Wysession

Huge ‘Ocean’Discovered Inside Earth « CRISISBOOM

You do know that they're not talking about a literal body of water, right? It's just hydrous mineral phases. What's more, the water in those minerals is not left over from your "founts of the deep," but is instead water leached out of subducting oceanic crust (i.e. bits of ocean water that were trapped and carried down by plate tectonics). In other words, it's surface water.

 

[dad]

Except the flood wasn't an experiment. It is, however, a testable hypothesis. And while it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e. a global flood never happened), none of the features predicted by a global flood hypothesis (that aren't explainable by other, observed, processes) can be found. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that a global flood never occurred.

The KT layer. That is no better explained by your beliefs than the flood is it?



The flood is a good possible explanation for the ice age, and since science doesn't know the causes, it is not testable.

"The cause of ice ages remains controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial/interglacial periods within an ice age."
What caused the Ice Age


Now as for how the water was abated, the bible mentions a 'great wind' blowing. If the wind came from the fountains of the deep, or from space, and was real cold, quickly freezing water, I suppose that would help lower the flood waters.


"If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte[bless and do not curse]d.
There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The KT layer. That is no better explained by your beliefs than the flood is it?

I don't know anything about a K-T "layer." There's the K-T boundary, which is simply the boundary between the Cretaceous period and the Tertiary period. And since it's a creation of science, it is quite well-explained.

 

[dad]

I don't know anything about a K-T "layer." There's the K-T boundary, which is simply the boundary between the Cretaceous period and the Tertiary period. And since it's a creation of science, it is quite well-explained.

False. It is a creation of forces that existed long before science did. It is also a layer, often of sediments. Your 'explanations' notwithstanding, it also happens to contain material found in space and deep under the earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

Except the flood wasn't an experiment. It is, however, a testable hypothesis. And while it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e. a global flood never happened), none of the features predicted by a global flood hypothesis (that aren't explainable by other, observed, processes) can be found. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that a global flood never occurred.

I disagree. I don't know when the flood occurred, or have any details on how much water, came from what sources.
If you think you know when the flood occurred, it because you are accepting some church big mucky-mucks opinion.
I have no predictions about "the features" because I don't know the conditions before, after, or time frame.
Knowing the exact time is crucial to looking for any "features" if I knew what to look for.

And if I knew what to look for, it would have to be based on patterns caused by natural events.
But that's not what I'm looking for is it? And I don't know when it happened even if I did know what to look for.

So what your really saying is that people looking for "features" normally caused by natural events,
are searching for theses features, in a time frame that they don't know is correct.

It's reasonable to state that
they won't find what they don't know
they are looking for in the wrong time frame.

You do know that they're not talking about a literal body of water, right? It's just hydrous mineral phases. What's more, the water in those minerals is not left over from your "founts of the deep," but is instead water leached out of subducting oceanic crust (i.e. bits of ocean water that were trapped and carried down by plate tectonics). In other words, it's surface water.

I know what the article reads. I also know that Sci-Fi can be written in any way that seems to fit the facts. I was in Sci-Fi Club in Jr. High. You start with some confirmable facts and then weave your story around those facts in a convincing way. Thanks to that training, I never believed the early evolution stories as anything other than fiction. The best ones don't try to recreate history.

 

[cupid dave]

The use of the word "flood" in the Bible refers to sudden amassings of multitudes of people.

This metaphor is a perfect analogy for the sudden rush of Modern Homo sapiens out of Africa into all the corners of the earth even to the highest hills and mountains, everywhere under heaven.


That, 40 thousand years ago, this population explosion not only happened, and concurrently, all other kinds of men disappeared in an Extinction, is so very coincidental if not the actual meaning of Genesis.

Then, recent genetic tests tell us that indeed, all men alive today evidence in their Y-chromosome that they had one ancient common father, who lived 40,000 years ago,... very coincidentally again the same story of a Noah.

And as we all know, the Psalms tell us that a day to the lord could mean 1ooo years, which gives us the authroity to make the connection between 40 "days" and 40,000 years.

Whether you are a hard lined fundamentalist or a anti-church science mind bible smasher, the simiarity in the Science and Genesis ought temper these kinds of debate.


(And my previous statement, that says that interbreeding noted in the same story, Gen 6:4, has also been confirmed by computer based analysis and other genetic tests concerning our recessive Neanderthal genes).

 

[AV1611VET]

The use of the word "flood" in the Bible refers to sudden amassings of multitudes of people.

This metaphor is a perfect analogy for the sudden rush of Modern Homo sapiens out of Africa into all the corners of the earth even to the highest hills and mountains, everywhere under heaven.

It rained Homos for 40 days and 40 nights, did it?

 

[Huram Abi]

It rained Homos for 40 days and 40 nights, did it?

 

[Huram Abi]

The use of the word "flood" in the Bible refers to sudden amassings of multitudes of people.

This metaphor is a perfect analogy for the sudden rush of Modern Homo sapiens out of Africa into all the corners of the earth even to the highest hills and mountains, everywhere under heaven.


Then, recent genetic tests tell us that indeed, all men alive today evidence in their Y-chromosome that they had one ancient common father, who lived 40,000 years ago,... very coincidentally again the same story of a Noah.

And as we all know, the Psalms tell us that a day to the lord could mean 1ooo years, which gives us the authroity to make the connection between 40 "days" and 40,000 years.



(And my previous statement, that says that interbreeding noted in the same story, Gen 6:4, has also been confirmed by computer based analysis and other genetic tests concerning our recessive Neanderthal genes).

No. None of it.

 

[cupid dave]

It rained Homos for 40 days and 40 nights, did it?

... so some bibles say...

Genesis 7 (Amplified Bible)
17The flood [that is, the downpour of rain] was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased and bore up the ark, and it was lifted [high] above the land.

 

[Jazer]

The flood is a good possible explanation for the ice age,

Noah's flood was around 4,000 years ago. The ice age ended around 12,000 years ago. There was a LOT of flooding at the end of the Ice Age because the Ocean level went up quite a bit at the time.

 

[dad]

Noah's flood was around 4,000 years ago. The ice age ended around 12,000 years ago. There was a LOT of flooding at the end of the Ice Age because the Ocean level went up quite a bit at the time.

No, actually. Your dates are wrong. However, if there was some evidence of flooding after the ice age, we could look at that. Not sure how it would matter though.

 

[SkyWriting]

Noah's flood was around 4,000 years ago. The ice age ended around 12,000 years ago. There was a LOT of flooding at the end of the Ice Age because the Ocean level went up quite a bit at the time.

We really have no idea on the Great Flood, but can come up with some varied evidence on the ice ages. Close examination of the Ice Core reports does not increase ones confidence level a whole lot though. For me, they point out the vast amount of speculation necessary for any interpretation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/finalrpt/gripfinl.txt

And that's from working with physical evidence. Flood dating requires interpreting genealogies and estimating if they are for a person or a family or some of each.

 

[SkyWriting]

The use of the word "flood" in the Bible refers to sudden amassings of multitudes of people.

But when you combine "flood" with rain and rainbows and boats it helps to clear up any hallucinations.

 

[Huram Abi]

But when you combine "flood" with rain and rainbows and boats it helps to clear up any hallucinations.

And ravens, doves and olive leaves