The order of fossils in the geological column

[janxharris]

Luke 3
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josek, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,d the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,e
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

All myth?

 

[AV1611VET]

... then cleaned up all the evidence afterwards?

Love that word choice!

When I was a kid, mom was always after us, when we spilled milk, to clean it up.

I can still hear her today:

"Kids! Clean up that evidence!"

Solid aurum!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Luke 3
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

. . .

All myth?

Pretty much, although that would be an oversimplification.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Love that word choice!

When I was a kid, mom was always after us, when we spilled milk, to clean it up.

I can still hear her today:

"Kids! Clean up that evidence!"

Solid aurum!

So who's the mommy who told God to clean up His mess?

Oh, right -- you.

 

[AV1611VET]

So who's the mommy who told God to clean up His mess?

Oh, right -- you.

And here's my buddy ... right on cue ... Mr. Gottahavthelastwordin.

No matter how childish it is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And here's my buddy ... right on cue ... Mr. Gottahavthelastwordin.

No matter how childish it is.

Hey, you got the last word in with God -- hard to top that act.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Luke 3
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
... snip ...
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

All myth?

Yes, most likely.

Here's another list of people. All myth?

"After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years."
Alulim: 8 sars (28,800 years) - Between 35th and 30th century BC
Alalngar: 10 sars (36,000 years)

"Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira."
En-men-lu-ana: 12 sars (43,200 years)
En-men-gal-ana: 8 sars (28,800 years)
Dumuzid, the Shepherd: 10 sars (36,000 years)

"Then Bad-tibira fell and the kingship was taken to Larag."
En-sipad-zid-ana: 8 sars (28,800 years)

"Then Larag fell and the kingship was taken to Zimbir."
En-men-dur-ana: 5 sars and 5 ners (21,000 years)

"Then Zimbir fell and the kingship was taken to Shuruppag."
Ubara-Tutu: 5sars and 1 ner (18,600 years)

"Then the flood swept over."

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If so it would be unlikely they were prepared for a year long voyage. You can't eat trade goods. Also, with all that rain they would probably be in port. I also don't think they would be boarding ships that were being washed inland. I think there would be mass chaos and confusion at that point.

Anyway they all drowned, according to the story.

You can if your trade goods are food. And why couldn't people load more food when they got word of the approaching Flood? The video you linked of Morecambe bay is hardly the sort of thing that could suddenly overwhelm the entire population of the world without anybody doing anything about it. Why would people run around panicking as the water slowly rose a foot or two every couple minutes?

I know the story says they all drowned. That's rather the point; it seems very implausible that the very gentle Flood you describe could have drowned everyone on the planet. No one had a boat with supplies on it anywhere in the world. No one thought to sail their boats inward with the rising water and salvage food as they went. It was raining all this time so drinking water wouldn't be a problem. And presumably they knew how to fish too. The point is that the near 100% fatality recorded in the Bible is at odds with the gentle event you invoke to explain why there's no geologic evidence for the Flood.

ETA: See my post below this one for links to shipwreck victims who survived extensive periods at sea with little to no supplies or preparation They survived exactly how I describe above; they drank rain and caught fish.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

In fairness, at that time, shipping was IIRC limited to small coastal traders. None of the contemporary ships would have been large enough to carry consumables enough for the crew to survive a year afloat. Most wouldn't have survived the open ocean conditions that a global flood implies, either. We're not talking the MV Maersk or the USS Constellation here.

Of course, this doesn't remotely address the bazillion other difficulties with the ark story, but "why was there no other shipping to survive" does seem to have a reasonable answer, in the greater context of the story.

I'm not saying that all or even very many seafaring populations should have survived, but some should have given the gentle nature of the Flood OWG envisions (did you see the video of Morecambe Bay he linked?). These guys survived 10 months at sea in a 29 foot boat by eating sea birds and fish and Poon Lim survived 133 days at sea on an 8 foot raft drinking rainwater and catching fish, so it seems very implausible that Noah's family were the only humans to survive. If shipwreck victims can survive that long, why no one on the entire planet but Noah's family? Remember that this is in the context of OWG's gentle Flood, not the traditionally chaotic version.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Do you not realize that the Ark was not designed to "sail"? It was designed to withstand huge waves and not capsize. It was designed to float only. Any other vessel would have went down.

Why would a historical narrative have a boat designed to engineer specifics to be able to withstand a flood and huge waves if it was just a myth? Lucky coincidence?

These points are in the context of OWG's version of the Flood which is very gentle indeed. Did you watch the video he linked for you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You can if your trade goods are food. And why couldn't people load more food when they got word of the approaching Flood? The video you linked of Morecambe bay is hardly the sort of thing that could suddenly overwhelm the entire population of the world without anybody doing anything about it. Why would people run around panicking as the water slowly rose a foot or two every couple minutes?

I know the story says they all drowned. That's rather the point; it seems very implausible that the very gentle Flood you describe could have drowned everyone on the planet. No one had a boat with supplies on it anywhere in the world. No one thought to sail their boats inward with the rising water and salvage food as they went. It was raining all this time so drinking water wouldn't be a problem. And presumably they knew how to fish too. The point is that the near 100% fatality recorded in the Bible is at odds with the gentle event you invoke to explain why there's no geologic evidence for the Flood.

ETA: See my post below this one for links to shipwreck victims who survived extensive periods at sea with little to no supplies or preparation They survived exactly how I describe above; they drank rain and caught fish.

You don't think people would panic even at slowly rising water? Even slowly rising water, like the tides, would leave little time to prepare anything, especially if it hits after dark. Imagine the panic if the water continued to rise in this video (You have to watch the whole thing, sorry). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wS6O1qFWoE&feature=player_detailpage

It wasn't raining all time, just forty days and nights. That leaves nearly eleven months without fresh water. Many may have survived for a time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

These points are in the context of OWG's version of the Flood which is very gentle indeed. Did you watch the video he linked for you?

The ark wasn't located with existing boats, which would have been located at or near the seashore, or along inland watercourses. These navigable watercourses would have suffered violent tidal 'bores' as the incoming water was compressed and accelerated, quickly destroying the boats. The ark would have been located on the plain, out of reach of these violent surges. Imagine a tidal bore like this, but one that keeps strengthening.

Seven Ghosts Ep2 - The "Bono" - Amazing Tidal Bore Surfing - YouTube

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You don't think people would panic even at slowly rising water? Even slowly rising water, like the tides, would leave little time to prepare anything, especially if it hits after dark. Imagine the panic if the water continued to rise in this video (You have to watch the whole thing, sorry). Blackpool - Fast Tide - YouTube

It wasn't raining all time, just forty days and nights. That leaves nearly eleven months without fresh water. Many may have survived for a time.

But seafarers would have fresh water already on board which could be supplemented by 40 straight days of rain. That's a lot of fresh water. All that flooding in Alabama resulted from three days of rain. 40 days would furnish you with a lot of fresh water. Plus you're assuming that after forty days it never rained again and ignoring the fact that survivors have often survived by drinking blood in addition to rainwater. Did you read the wiki article on Poon Lim? He survived 133 days at sea on an 8 foot raft with almost no supplies and no preparation. With that in mind, you are trying to convince me that not a single other person or group of people in the entire world was able to survive the gradual, gentle Flood you describe? Fishing and trapping birds is a common theme in shipwreck accounts, so food would not likely have been an issue (something you seem to accept as you did not contest this point).

I suspect people would be alarmed, but I don't think they would completely lose their [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and forget that they had boats. Again, I'm not saying that survival should have been common, but it is just not plausible that all but eight people in the entire world were able to survive your gentle Flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But seafarers would have fresh water already on board which could be supplemented by 40 straight days of rain. That's a lot of fresh water. All that flooding in Alabama resulted from three days of rain. 40 days would furnish you with a lot of fresh water. Plus you're assuming that after forty days it never rained again and ignoring the fact that survivors have often survived by drinking blood in addition to rainwater. Did you read the wiki article on Poon Lim? He survived 133 days at sea on an 8 foot raft with almost no supplies and no preparation. With that in mind, you are trying to convince me that not a single other person or group of people in the entire world was able to survive the gradual, gentle Flood you describe? Fishing and trapping birds is a common theme in shipwreck accounts, so food would not likely have been an issue (something you seem to accept as you did not contest this point).

I suspect people would be alarmed, but I don't think they would completely lose their [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and forget that they had boats. Again, I'm not saying that survival should have been common, but it is just not plausible that all but eight people in the entire world were able to survive your gentle Flood.

See my post #432.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The ark wasn't located with existing boats, which would have been located at or near the seashore, or along inland watercourses. These navigable watercourses would have suffered violent tidal 'bores' as the incoming water was compressed and accelerated, quickly destroying the boats. The ark would have been located on the plain, out of reach of these violent surges. Imagine a tidal bore like this, but one that keeps strengthening.

Seven Ghosts Ep2 - The "Bono" - Amazing Tidal Bore Surfing - YouTube

First, tidal bores don't address the fact that the earth has a very great deal of coastline which would not be subject to tidal bores, a fact which your post glosses over. Second, I find it hard to believe that seafaring ships would all founder in waves that people can surf without loss of life and limb.

But even if we agreed that tidal bores would wreck all the vessels in inland water ways, what happened to all the ships on the coast all around the world? Remember than Poon Lim survived for 133 days on an 8 foot raft with no preparation whatsoever and almost no supplies.

And the post in which you referred me to this post doesn't address the points I made. I'll repost them for your convenience:

"But seafarers would have fresh water already on board which could be supplemented by 40 straight days of rain. That's a lot of fresh water. All that flooding in Alabama resulted from three days of rain. 40 days would furnish you with a lot of fresh water. Plus you're assuming that after forty days it never rained again and ignoring the fact that survivors have often survived by drinking blood in addition to rainwater. Did you read the wiki article on Poon Lim? He survived 133 days at sea on an 8 foot raft with almost no supplies and no preparation. With that in mind, you are trying to convince me that not a single other person or group of people in the entire world was able to survive the gradual, gentle Flood you describe? Fishing and trapping birds is a common theme in shipwreck accounts, so food would not likely have been an issue (something you seem to accept as you did not contest this point).

I suspect people would be alarmed, but I don't think they would completely lose their [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and forget that they had boats. Again, I'm not saying that survival should have been common, but it is just not plausible that all but eight people in the entire world were able to survive your gentle Flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

First, tidal bores don't address the fact that the earth has a very great deal of coastline which would not be subject to tidal bores, a fact which your post glosses over. Second, I find it hard to believe that seafaring ships would all founder in waves that people can surf without loss of life and limb.

But even if we agreed that tidal bores would wreck all the vessels in inland water ways, what happened to all the ships on the coast all around the world? Remember than Poon Lim survived for 133 days on an 8 foot raft with no preparation whatsoever and almost no supplies.

And the post in which you referred me to this post doesn't address the points I made. I'll repost them for your convenience:

"But seafarers would have fresh water already on board which could be supplemented by 40 straight days of rain. That's a lot of fresh water. All that flooding in Alabama resulted from three days of rain. 40 days would furnish you with a lot of fresh water. Plus you're assuming that after forty days it never rained again and ignoring the fact that survivors have often survived by drinking blood in addition to rainwater. Did you read the wiki article on Poon Lim? He survived 133 days at sea on an 8 foot raft with almost no supplies and no preparation. With that in mind, you are trying to convince me that not a single other person or group of people in the entire world was able to survive the gradual, gentle Flood you describe? Fishing and trapping birds is a common theme in shipwreck accounts, so food would not likely have been an issue (something you seem to accept as you did not contest this point).

I suspect people would be alarmed, but I don't think they would completely lose their [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and forget that they had boats. Again, I'm not saying that survival should have been common, but it is just not plausible that all but eight people in the entire world were able to survive your gentle Flood.

I cannot visualize anyone preparing their boats for a year long voyage in the middle of an unexpected 40 day rainstorm. I'm thinking they would be dealing with lowland flooding and swollen rivers that may have already washed their boats away days before the main floods came in from the sea.

My assumptions take place within the context of the story, where only the eight survived. I cannot entertain the notion that there were other survivors just because the flood wasn't a giant global tsunami.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I cannot visualize anyone preparing their boats for a year long voyage in the middle of an unexpected 40 day rainstorm. I'm thinking they would be dealing with lowland flooding and swollen rivers that may have already washed their boats away days before the main floods came in from the sea.

My assumptions take place within the context of the story, where only the eight survived. I cannot entertain the notion that there were other survivors just because the flood wasn't a giant global tsunami.

You cannot entertain the notion? Why not? If other people have survived against the odds before, why couldn't they then? These people weren't prepared, but they survived anyways. Why don't you just say what you mean, that god wouldn't have allowed it, and end it there, hmm?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I cannot visualize anyone preparing their boats for a year long voyage in the middle of an unexpected 40 day rainstorm. I'm thinking they would be dealing with lowland flooding and swollen rivers that may have already washed their boats away days before the main floods came in from the sea.

My assumptions take place within the context of the story, where only the eight survived. I cannot entertain the notion that there were other survivors just because the flood wasn't a giant global tsunami.

Again you didn't address the points I made. Again I refer you to the story of Poon Lim who manged to survive 133 days at sea on an 8 foot raft with no preparation and almost no supplies. 40 straight days of rain is a lot of fresh water and catching fish and birds for food is pretty common (Poon Lim managed it with a hook made of wire from his flashlight). So clearly people need not have been laying in for a year long voyage in order to survive for quite a long time. He was completely unprepared and survived for 133 days. Yet you're trying to convince me that not one single other person in the entire world manged to survive.

Declaring that you can't, because of your faith in the Bible, accept that there were no other survivors doesn't serve as a counterargument. I'm saying your version of the Flood is not consistent with the near 100% fatality the bible claims. Saying that's what must have happened doesn't resolve the inconsistencies. If you find it impossible to reconcile your view of the Flood with near 100% mortality around the world, then you need to rethink your view of the Flood. You are reluctant to do this however because you already accept that there is no geological evidence for the Flood as traditionally envisioned. You're in a bit of a pickle here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Again you didn't address the points I made. Again I refer you to the story of Poon Lim who manged to survive 133 days at sea on an 8 foot raft with no preparation and almost no supplies. 40 straight days of rain is a lot of fresh water and catching fish and birds for food is pretty common (Poon Lim managed it with a hook made of wire from his flashlight). So clearly people need not have been laying in for a year long voyage in order to survive for quite a long time. He was completely unprepared and survived for 133 days. Yet you're trying to convince me that not one single other person in the entire world manged to survive.

Declaring that you can't, because of your faith in the Bible, accept that there were no other survivors doesn't serve as a counterargument. I'm saying your version of the Flood is not consistent with the near 100% fatality the bible claims. Saying that's what must have happened doesn't resolve the inconsistencies. If you find it impossible to reconcile your view of the Flood with near 100% mortality around the world, then you need to rethink your view of the Flood. You are reluctant to do this however because you already accept that there is no geological evidence for the Flood as traditionally envisioned. You're in a bit of a pickle here.

What is interesting is that, just because of the number of people and the number of boats, some people would have been on stockpiled boats when the flood started. Some people would have been super lucky and had some decent supplies, not for a year long flood, but for a month maybe.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

What is interesting is that, just because of the number of people and the number of boats, some people would have been on stockpiled boats when the flood started. Some people would have been super lucky and had some decent supplies, not for a year long flood, but for a month maybe.

Exactly. And they could easily have supplemented their supplies by fishing and catching birds. Poon Lim managed it on an eight foot raft with fishooks made from flashlight wires. If this guy could survive 133 days on a raft with no preparation and almost no supplies, it is absurd to claim that nowhere in the world was anybody else able to survive the gentle Flood OWG describes.