Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Many argue against there being any evidence of a global flood over 4,000 years ago.
Despite that evidence being presented, they insists that no evidence has been given.
For those who have not already seen that evidence, I would like to inform you that while it can be found in many places on the internet, there are a couple of papers, which are available to the public.
Many argue against there being any evidence of a global flood over 4,000 years ago.
Despite that evidence being presented, they insists that no evidence has been given.
For those who have not already seen that evidence, I would like to inform you that while it can be found in many places on the internet, there are a couple of papers, which are available to the public.
It is a scientific fact that all water on Earth did not originate from the Earth.
It is a scientific fact that when water arrives on Earth, it falls as precipitation. (rain/snow)
It is a scientific fact that the Earth is 80% water.
Therefore, we can easily conclude that there was a flood.
Especially when we know where water comes from. (space)
Not when it arrives from space. Water for precipitation evaporated from the lakes, streams, oceans, and land of the Earth. It's called the "water cycle."
Not when it arrives from space. Water for precipitation evaporated from the lakes, streams, oceans, and land of the Earth. It's called the "water cycle."
The Grand Canyon of the Colorado is a major sign of long term erosion during slow uplift of the Colorado Plateau. It does not resemble a flood channel at all.
Many argue against there being any evidence of a global flood over 4,000 years ago.
Despite that evidence being presented, they insists that no evidence has been given.
For those who have not already seen that evidence, I would like to inform you that while it can be found in many places on the internet, there are a couple of papers, which are available to the public.
I went through the article and found zero geological evidence of a global flood in the article. It's length prevented full reading, but I did take the time to scan every page and did a lot of searches. There were lots of "could of" and "perhaps" sorts of things as well as lots of pages attempting to date the flood.. But I found absolutely no physical geological evidence presented of a global Noah type of flood.
I can't access the full paper (not signing up to that website), so let's discuss this part
"sudden extinction of mammoths (some were found with food undigested..."
I have some questions:
When did mammoths go extinct? If this date is later that that of the proposed Biblical Deluge, will you consider the flood story debunked?
Was this extinction "sudden"? If the extinction was not sudden, will you consider the flood story debunked?
What is the evidence of the causes of the extinction of mammoths? If this evidence does not support a global flood, will you consider the flood story debunked?
How does the discovery of mammoth corpses with undigested food point to a global flood? Are other candidate explanations, not requiring a supernatural event, more plausible?
Couldn't read article even after fixing the URL. "Water bullets"? Did someone just make up a poetic term for comets?
The description of Noah's flood does not match comets.
OK.
The Grand Canyon of the Colorado is a major sign of long term erosion during slow uplift of the Colorado Plateau. It does not resemble a flood channel at all.
The flood was an inter stellar flood which not only hit Earth, but Mars and the Moon as well.
I cited 2 sources from which the water could come from.
neither of them are "comets"
The article said water jets into space which meant we could of hit a stream that caused it to rain 150 days and nights.
Water enters the system as rain or snow.
Is why Antarctica is covered in fresh water and is how glaciers form in mountains.
The flood was an inter stellar flood which not only hit Earth, but Mars and the Moon as well. View attachment 355844
I cited 2 sources from which the water could come from.
neither of them are "comets"
The article said water jets into space which meant we could of hit a stream that caused it to rain 150 days and nights. View attachment 355845
Water enters the system as rain or snow.
Is why Antarctica is covered in fresh water and is how glaciers form in mountains. View attachment 355846
Let's recap, because I want to be clear.
I believe that the world was flooded via an interstellar deluge coming from a new star or a water cloud.
I believe this for many reasons. One being that all water on Earth is actually alien to Earth.
Mars and the Moon both show signs of flooding and soaking. There are fresh glaciers where it doesn't rain. Most fossils are found intact and compressed quick (flood)..empty canyons.. etc...
It is moot arguing that there wasn't a flood when there is just so much evidence that there was.
Noah was around, from four men came the four races.
I went through the article and found zero geological evidence of a global flood in the article. It's length prevented full reading, but I did take the time to scan every page and did a lot of searches.
I see a lot of that in science papers.
Do you see them as well?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Is there a particular point you were making here?
Why may I ask, are you only interested in physical geological evidence?
Physical geological evidence would not confirm or deny the global flood.
It will only lead to further debate, because that is only one piece of evidence which is interpreted by various geologists in different ways.
If however, you just want to see the physical geological evidence, when searching through the papers, you have to scroll down to make sure the pages show up first, before searching... and then be patient.
I'll help you a bit, because based on the behavior of a couple posters in the other thread, I think this is important to mention. Biblical explanations [which is what I was doing, only to be insulted, disrespected, and judged as being dishonest, and trying to fool people, especially by one identifying themselves as Christian] are usually rejected by the scientific community for the following reasons:
Positions and claims of creationists are incompatible with the advances of modern science, which proves that the Bible is not a book of science. Affix the label of scientist to creationism label is a real intellectual imposture and scientists need to inform the general public (...) The rejection of creationism from the scientific community is therefore a movement of liberation to archaic ideas and unsuited to the modern world, ideas are also a literal interpretation of Scripture rejected by the majority of believers (...) What to malicious attacks against science? Further research, whatever happens. To disseminate the results of numerous scholarly articles and popular mass market, accompanying documentary films and lectures. Using new communication technologies such as the Internet, among others. Maintain and develop education often compromised data science and its specific methods. This must be especially true mechanisms of evolution. Indeed, ignorance is an ally of literalists and revisionist (...) If such a flood had existed, geological evidence would be multiple. However, there is nothing (...) Firstly, geologists showed that marine transgression (rising of the sea level) in Lower Mesopotamia, a few hundred kilometres of the city flooded Ur, the capital of the Sumerians, about 5000 BCE (...) The floods mentioned in other mythologies could transmit the memory of the devastating effects of the rapidly melting ice of the last glaciation. Indeed, the latter has caused around the world, giant floods of streams, rivers and lakes, recorded by the geological record near the glacier, whose thickness can exceed 2000 meters. But it was not a universal flood.Positions and claims of creationists are incompatible with the advances of modern science, which proves that the Bible is not a book of science. Affix the label of scientist to creationism label is a real intellectual imposture and scientists need to inform the general public (...) The rejection of creationism from the scientific community is therefore a movement of liberation to archaic ideas and unsuited to the modern world, ideas are also a literal interpretation of Scripture rejected by the majority of believers (...) What to malicious attacks against science? Further research, whatever happens. To disseminate the results of numerous scholarly articles and popular mass market, accompanying documentary films and lectures. Using new communication technologies such as the Internet, among others. Maintain and develop education often compromised data science and its specific methods. This must be especially true mechanisms of evolution. Indeed, ignorance is an ally of literalists and revisionist (...) If such a flood had existed, geological evidence would be multiple. However, there is nothing (...) Firstly, geologists showed that marine transgression (rising of the sea level) in Lower Mesopotamia, a few hundred kilometres of the city flooded Ur, the capital of the Sumerians, about 5000 BCE (...) The floods mentioned in other mythologies could transmit the memory of the devastating effects of the rapidly melting ice of the last glaciation. Indeed, the latter has caused around the world, giant floods of streams, rivers and lakes, recorded by the geological record near the glacier, whose thickness can exceed 2000 meters. But it was not a universal flood.
The so- called flood deception is explained through a surprising reasoning: since the geological record proves the existence of generalized giant floods then there was no universal flood (where is the logic?)! Similarly, thousands of entirely frozen mammoths found in Siberia are explained as follows: The death of mammoths can often be related to surface melting, in summer, permafrost, frozen ground in surface over thirty meters in Siberia. Their bodies then sink into the mud, where they cannot escape because of their weight (page 360). How can we imagine some herds of thousands of mammoths advancing calmly on the Siberian permafrost, disappearing gradually by getting bogged down in the mud? Such a scenario does not seem credible unless supposing a mammoth congenital stupidity. The sudden disappearance of many animal species as well as moving erratic blocks would fit better with the biblical explanation of the Flood.
In the 19 th century, many scientists came to favour erratics as evidence for the end of the last glacial maximum (ice age) 10,000 years ago, rather than a flood. Geologists have suggested that landslides or rockfalls initially dropped the rocks on top of glacial ice (some of them are traced for more than 3,000 km!) 3 . The glaciers continued to move, carrying the rocks with them. When the ice melted, the erratics were left in their present locations. In fact erratics only prove that a large part of the earth was under water about 10,000 years ago. If the existence of this fact is not disputed its dating is still very problematic and even contradictory. For example, the erratic block called Le Gros Caillou in Croix-Rousse (Lyon, France) shows that the dating of glaciers is based on speculation and varies according to the authors 4 . In his ‘Geology of Lyon’, Roman (1926) attributes the Gros Caillou to the Mindel glacial period. David (1967) estimated that in the Lyon region, würmian glaciers (70,000-20,000) spread more than those of Mindel (480,000- 430,000) or Riss (180,000-100,000). The regional geological guide of G. Demarcq (1973) attributes this glacier to Würm III period around -35,000. As the closest outcrops of this type of land are located in Haute Maurienne and Tarentaise, more than 175 km from Lyon this erratic block would have been moved by glaciers 5 during Riss toward -140,000. That (provisional) conclusion is doubly hypothetical because the reconstruction of ancient glaciers is mainly based on the movement of moraines (rock debris) and erratic blocks (which could also be explained by a worldwide flood) and even if one accepts this hypothesis there is no evidence that glaciers reached less than 20 kilometres from Lyon 6 . As the dating of rocks derived from the original interpretation it relies on measures of the 14 C/ 12 C ratio in carbon (or oxygen 18 O/ 16 O) of elements contained in the strata in which are housed moraines and erratic blocks. Contrary to what one might think 14 C dating provides results even more surprising and often contradictory. The extinction of mammoths, woolly rhinoceros, steppe bison, giant deer, the caves lion, caves bear, caves hyena, to speak only of the larger species, is linked to the end of the last glaciation toward -10,000. That mass extinction of many species is difficult to explain 7 and even paradoxical because the global warming from -10,000 should have promoted the growth of vegetation needed for feeding these prehistoric animals. Furthermore, such climate changes were nothing new; numerous very similar warming episodes had occurred previously within the ice age of the last several million years without producing comparable megafaunal extinctions, so why should the last climate change have played a decisive role? In addition, the time and duration of that extinction cannot be dated. Most paleontologists located it about -10,000 8 but some mammoths were still alive about -1700 9 ! The extinction of mammoths would have been spread over thousands of years. This new hypothesis has two problems: the cause of the extinction becomes incomprehensible and graveyards of mammoths show that these animals likely died suddenly. For example, a “cemetery” of about 156 mammoths was discovered 10 (between 1970 and 1980) on the banks of the river Berelekh (Siberia). Despite the fact that many mammoths died in the same place gives the impression of a simultaneous death due to catastrophe such as a flash flood, a tusk from the base of the bone layer gave a date of 14,000 years ago, while scraps of skin and ligament from another spot were dated to 16,300 years ago 11 . Some mammoths were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously, not over a long period of time. As we can see all these data are contradictory. Is the biblical explanation better?
The sudden disappearance of many animal species as well as moving erratic blocks would fit better with the biblical explanation of the Flood.
The earth's crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km and 160 km thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometres in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 per cent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth's crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressure alone was equal to "2 tons per square inch", sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly 13 . Not only a universal flood would better explain the sudden and simultaneous disappearance of many animal species, but it would solve the following two enigmas:
During the last glaciation the sea level would have decreased by at least 140 m 14 (up to 170 m) 15 . The rise is currently explained by the melting of glaciers 16 , but it does not seem that these variations of the sea level (so important) occurred during the previous glaciations.
The concentration of 14 C during the last glaciation was much lower than at present 17 , this fact has been highlighted by dendrochronology (measure of age by the rings of a tree). Scientists suppose that the long-term variation correlates with fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field strength (the geomagnetic moment). The geomagnetic moment affects 14 C production because cosmic rays are charged particles and are therefore deflected by a magnetic field. If the magnetic moment is high, more cosmic rays are deflected away from the earth and production of 14 C will fall; if low, the production rises. This explanation is contradicted by measurements of changes in the geomagnetic field. Sorry. You'll have to read on from page 8, since it's too much to actually copy paste here.
I hope that helped somewhat.
Just bare in mind that I am no geologist, and I do not believe that any physical geological evidence presented can prove, or disprove a global flood. Why?
The claim that "geologists don't see evidence for a global flood in the rock record" is false, because some geologists do not represent all geologists.
The mistake some people make is to think that the scientists that say what they agree with are the correct scientists, but those who say otherwise, are incorrect.
That can work both ways, actually.
I hope though that I have helped you a bit, in finding what you are looking for.
I can't access the full paper (not signing up to that website), so let's discuss this part
"sudden extinction of mammoths (some were found with food undigested..."
I have some questions:
When did mammoths go extinct? If this date is later that that of the proposed Biblical Deluge, will you consider the flood story debunked?
Was this extinction "sudden"? If the extinction was not sudden, will you consider the flood story debunked?
What is the evidence of the causes of the extinction of mammoths? If this evidence does not support a global flood, will you consider the flood story debunked?
How does the discovery of mammoth corpses with undigested food point to a global flood? Are other candidate explanations, not requiring a supernatural event, more plausible?
There are many creatures found in the fossil record who were in the process of eating and even giving birth - all instantly killed and rapidly fossilized.
There is no reason to, since extinction is not always due to catastrophic events.
Animals go extinct all the time, whether it be by poaching, or other means.
But in a now published rebuttal paper, University of Cincinnati assistant professor Joshua Miller and co-author Carl Simpson at the University of Colorado Boulder argue that the environmental DNA used to establish the updated timeline is more complex than previously recognized.
Source : When Did Mammoths Go Extinct?
Evidently, no one knows when, or if imo, mammoths went extinct.
Are mammoths extinct?
I am not sure they are. In fact, I believe many animals believed to be extinct, are not. Just like Coelacanths.
The various ideas on the cause of extinction of mammoths, come from scientist, so you will have to ask them, and then decide if you believe what they tell you.
I don't believe they know, and science is limited, when it comes to knowing everything.
No, because "this evidence", is not factual, because scientist believe that they somehow have the ability to know whatever they want to know.
I am actually very disturbed that people put so much faith is "science", to the point they are willing to believe every idea that blows their direction.
If the wind blows it North, they grab it and run with it. When it blows South, they grab that and run with it.
This disturbs me, because when it turns out that the idea, belief... whatever one calls it, is contradicted, no one (when I say no one, I do not mean scientist who actually don't come on forums and behave like they are gods that fell from heaven. Note please, I am not saying this about you... unless of course it is fitting) says, "Well this was wrong, and so, we had better stop behaving like we know everything, or can know everything, and we are always right." They continue, the next day behaving as if everything that "science" says, is true, and those who question it, are anti-science.
Yes, that is truly disturbing to me.
Can I ask you, how do you feel about the fact that when you use google, and ask a question about say... mammoth, you get like four or more different answers that contradict... all coming from scientist?
Would you want a person like me, to believe one of those ideas, and discard what I believe, just because it is in the Bible?
For example...
October 20, 2021 Humans did not cause woolly mammoths to go extinct -- climate change did
New DNA research shows the world got too wet for the giant animals to survive
Humans did not cause woolly mammoths to go extinct -- climate change did. For five million years, woolly mammoths roamed the earth until they vanished for good nearly 4,000 years ago
Jun 27, 2024 The last woolly mammoths offer new clues to why the species went extinct
The last population of woolly mammoths did not go extinct 4,000 years ago from inbreeding, a new analysis shows.
An analysis of 21 mammoth genomes suggests that inbreeding wasn't actually the cause of the behemoth's demise
Researchers had long thought that inbreeding caused a genetic meltdown in the last mammoth population, but a new ancient DNA analysis says otherwise.
The last woolly mammoths lived on a small island for thousands of years after their tusked relatives went extinct on the mainland. The shaggy beasts had found their way to Wrangel Island, a 93-mile-long spit of land off the coast of Siberia, around 10,000 years ago—what remained of a species that had once spread across much of the Northern Hemisphere. But these mammoths didn’t make it either. Around 4,000 years ago, the very last woolly mammoths perished and forever relegated the species to extinction.
No one knows for sure why the Wrangel Island mammoths ultimately vanished. Recent genetic analyses, however, indicate that the severe contraction of the mammoth population around this time left the beasts genetically vulnerable in a rapidly-changing world. Mutations the mammoths accrued through inbreeding likely didn’t kill them, but were instead a contributing factor to an extinction that played out over thousands of years.
Can you tell me why I should accept the interpretations of scientist, on things that cannot be verified with certainty? When did Mammoth go extinct?
A unique challenge for environmental DNA (eDNA)-based palaeoecological reconstructions and extinction estimates is that organisms can contribute DNA to sediments long after their death. Recently, Wang et al.1 discovered mammoth eDNA in sediments that are between approximately 4.6 and 7 thousand years (kyr) younger than the most recent mammoth fossils in North America and Eurasia, which they interpreted as mammoths surviving on both continents into the Middle Holocene epoch. Here we present an alternative explanation for these offsets: the slow decomposition of mammoth tissues on cold Arctic landscapes is responsible for the release of DNA into sediments for thousands of years after mammoths went extinct. eDNA records are important palaeobiological archives, but the mixing of undatable DNA from long-dead organisms into younger sediments complicates the interpretation of eDNA, particularly from cold and high-latitude systems.
Do you think they will ever find an accurate answer that is 99.9% reliable, and why?
What reasons do you have for not believing the Bible is reliable?
If the mammoths all went extinct around 4,000 years ago, and they died from a sudden catastrophe, so sudden they did not have time to chew and swallow the food in their mouth, and there was a global flood around that same period, what would that be strong evidence of?
If you were investigating this phenomenon, what would be your conclusion?
Would you consider the global flood, a likely explanation. or would you dismiss it entirely?
I understand that there are persons who do not believe in the "supernatural", and this probably is behind your phrase "not requiring a supernatural event".
Why is that more plausible?
The reason I would conclude the flood is the conclusion most accurate, is because of the other evidence I have.
The Bible has proved true, and reliable, when it comes to history.
The Bible has other supporting evidence for the account of the flood being a real historical event.
In the article - The Great Flood: More Than a Myth?, Author James Perloff analyzed over 200 flood myths and found that 95 percent mention a global flood. In 70 percent, a boat serves as the sanctuary, and in over half, the survivors end up on a mountain [source: Apologetics Press] Legends of the Flood - Apologetics Press
That's okay. I understand. I do the same sometimes.
There is no reason to, since extinction is not always due to catastrophic events.
Animals go extinct all the time, whether it be by poaching, or other means.
But in a now published rebuttal paper, University of Cincinnati assistant professor Joshua Miller and co-author Carl Simpson at the University of Colorado Boulder argue that the environmental DNA used to establish the updated timeline is more complex than previously recognized.
Source : When Did Mammoths Go Extinct?
Evidently, no one knows when, or if imo, mammoths went extinct.
Are mammoths extinct?
I am not sure they are. In fact, I believe many animals believed to be extinct, are not. Just like Coelacanths.
The various ideas on the cause of extinction of mammoths, come from scientist, so you will have to ask them, and then decide if you believe what they tell you.
I don't believe they know, and science is limited, when it comes to knowing everything.
No, because "this evidence", is not factual, because scientist believe that they somehow have the ability to know whatever they want to know.
I am actually very disturbed that people put so much faith is "science", to the point they are willing to believe every idea that blows their direction.
If the wind blows it North, they grab it and run with it. When it blows South, they grab that and run with it.
This disturbs me, because when it turns out that the idea, belief... whatever one calls it, is contradicted, no one (when I say no one, I do not mean scientist who actually don't come on forums and behave like they are gods that fell from heaven. Note please, I am not saying this about you... unless of course it is fitting) says, "Well this was wrong, and so, we had better stop behaving like we know everything, or can know everything, and we are always right." They continue, the next day behaving as if everything that "science" says, is true, and those who question it, are anti-science.
Yes, that is truly disturbing to me.
Can I ask you, how do you feel about the fact that when you use google, and ask a question about say... mammoth, you get like four or more different answers that contradict... all coming from scientist?
Would you want a person like me, to believe one of those ideas, and discard what I believe, just because it is in the Bible?
For example...
October 20, 2021 Humans did not cause woolly mammoths to go extinct -- climate change did
New DNA research shows the world got too wet for the giant animals to survive
Humans did not cause woolly mammoths to go extinct -- climate change did. For five million years, woolly mammoths roamed the earth until they vanished for good nearly 4,000 years ago
Jun 27, 2024 The last woolly mammoths offer new clues to why the species went extinct
The last population of woolly mammoths did not go extinct 4,000 years ago from inbreeding, a new analysis shows.
An analysis of 21 mammoth genomes suggests that inbreeding wasn't actually the cause of the behemoth's demise
Researchers had long thought that inbreeding caused a genetic meltdown in the last mammoth population, but a new ancient DNA analysis says otherwise.
The last woolly mammoths lived on a small island for thousands of years after their tusked relatives went extinct on the mainland. The shaggy beasts had found their way to Wrangel Island, a 93-mile-long spit of land off the coast of Siberia, around 10,000 years ago—what remained of a species that had once spread across much of the Northern Hemisphere. But these mammoths didn’t make it either. Around 4,000 years ago, the very last woolly mammoths perished and forever relegated the species to extinction.
No one knows for sure why the Wrangel Island mammoths ultimately vanished. Recent genetic analyses, however, indicate that the severe contraction of the mammoth population around this time left the beasts genetically vulnerable in a rapidly-changing world. Mutations the mammoths accrued through inbreeding likely didn’t kill them, but were instead a contributing factor to an extinction that played out over thousands of years.
Can you tell me why I should accept the interpretations of scientist, on things that cannot be verified with certainty? When did Mammoth go extinct?
A unique challenge for environmental DNA (eDNA)-based palaeoecological reconstructions and extinction estimates is that organisms can contribute DNA to sediments long after their death. Recently, Wang et al.1 discovered mammoth eDNA in sediments that are between approximately 4.6 and 7 thousand years (kyr) younger than the most recent mammoth fossils in North America and Eurasia, which they interpreted as mammoths surviving on both continents into the Middle Holocene epoch. Here we present an alternative explanation for these offsets: the slow decomposition of mammoth tissues on cold Arctic landscapes is responsible for the release of DNA into sediments for thousands of years after mammoths went extinct. eDNA records are important palaeobiological archives, but the mixing of undatable DNA from long-dead organisms into younger sediments complicates the interpretation of eDNA, particularly from cold and high-latitude systems.
Do you think they will ever find an accurate answer that is 99.9% reliable, and why?
What reasons do you have for not believing the Bible is reliable?
If the mammoths all went extinct around 4,000 years ago, and they died from a sudden catastrophe, so sudden they did not have time to chew and swallow the food in their mouth, and there was a global flood around that same period, what would that be strong evidence of?
If you were investigating this phenomenon, what would be your conclusion?
Would you consider the global flood, a likely explanation. or would you dismiss it entirely?
I understand that there are persons who do not believe in the "supernatural", and this probably is behind your phrase "not requiring a supernatural event".
Why is that more plausible?
The reason I would conclude the flood is the conclusion most accurate, is because of the other evidence I have.
The Bible has proved true, and reliable, when it comes to history.
The Bible has other supporting evidence for the account of the flood being a real historical event.
In the article - The Great Flood: More Than a Myth?, Author James Perloff analyzed over 200 flood myths and found that 95 percent mention a global flood. In 70 percent, a boat serves as the sanctuary, and in over half, the survivors end up on a mountain [source: Apologetics Press] Legends of the Flood - Apologetics Press
There is a record of a people - known as the Jaredites - who had fled from the devastations at the Tower of Babel and were led by the hand of the Lord to the North American continent.
These people eventually built their own civilizations there and it is mentioned that they domesticated various animals including "elephants and cureloms and cumoms" which were especially useful to Man.
No idea what a "curelom" or "cumon" were - but the idea of elephants existing in the North American continent along with human beings sometime after the Flood is interesting.
An abridgement of their history is recorded in the Book of Ether found in the Book of Mormon.
1. There is no such thing as "the four races". "Race" is not biological meaningful in humans. Even beyond the idea of distinct biological races, there is no single way to break humanity into "races". You can make "race" groupings, but you might get 7 or 3 or 4. No matter how many "races" you break humanity into there will always be fuzzy edges between them and groups that contribute to genetic flow across the boundaries.
2. Even if you take the Noah story seriously, there are not 4 men. Noah is only listed as the father of the other 3, not as founding a group by himself. The largest source of genetic distinction between the descendants of Noah is the three wives of the sons of Noah. And that distinction assumes that the descended "tribes/nations" kept to themselves genetically. (IE, Noah's grandsons married their sisters rather than their first cousins.)
3. There is no evidence in this historical, archeological, or genetic record for humanity being descended from one family of boat people.
Before I consider the flood parts I must deal with this:
1. There is no such thing as "the four races". "Race" is not biological meaningful in humans. Even beyond the idea of distinct biological races, there is no single way to break humanity into "races". You can make "race" groupings, but you might get 7 or 3 or 4. No matter how many "races" you break humanity into there will always be fuzzy edges between them and groups that contribute to genetic flow across the boundaries.
2. Even if you take the Noah story seriously, there are not 4 men. Noah is only listed as the father of the other 3, not as founding a group by himself. The largest source of genetic distinction between the descendants of Noah is the three wives of the sons of Noah. And that distinction assumes that the descended "tribes/nations" kept to themselves genetically. (IE, Noah's grandsons married their sisters rather than their first cousins.)
3. There is no evidence in this historical, archeological, or genetic record for humanity being descended from one family of boat people.
Belief is one thing. What is the evidence? When did this interstellar deluge happen? What form did it take? How much water fell to Earth? (The whole of the ocean? More than current ocean, but some went away? Just a small fraction current ocean?
How long did it take to fall to Earth? (ie, what was the duration of the event?)
We know of evidence of water on Mars (some of the ice cap is water) and more water in the past. Where do you get the notion that there was water on the Moon, let alone a flood?
There are many floods and certainly many dead things were trapped in the debris of floods. That doesn't make them global in nature. Many, many fossils are *clearly* not formed in flooded environments.
