Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > The "real" Noah's Ark.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 _Justin_Time_
Joined: 10/2/2006
Msg: 126
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.Page 6 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Well who is to say that even though it was gradual, that there couldn't have been glaciers that were melting (really large ones) that caused tidal waves. This would result for some people that it was a quick flood.

Also I don't think its wise to follow word for word of the bible. There are other myths like upnapishtin and the sumerian/babylonian epics that talk about the same flood of noah.

They give similar results but different numbers.
 Humanespresso
Joined: 11/19/2007
Msg: 127
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 1:20:25 AM
Well, far as I understand it, tidal waves/tsunamis arise from tectonic plate movement. When the bottom of the ocean suddenly drops 10m or so in certain parts due to a fracture or other sudden movement. It's this sudden displacement of large amounts of water that cause a massive wave to move outwards, and ultimately, break near land.

Glaciers melt very slowly, from the outside ends, gradually receding backwards. So, unless a geologist can prove otherwise, I'm fairly sure that this wouldn't cause a tidal wave at all...
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 128
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:06:58 AM
From your provided link http://www.ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html I like this quote:

Water. Vast amounts of the stuff. In fact, more than 400 kilometers inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times.

A clear rebuttal of the argument that there isn't enough water on this planet for Noah's flood.



There have also been several soft coral reefs, complex structures with fully developed and very large polyps that exist completely without the need for light near Norway. These are most certainly corals, and exist in water over a kilometre in depth in water much cooler than hard, scleractinian corals can tolerate. So, unless there is any evidence to the contrary that these corals on those seamounts are indeed of the scleractinian variety, I'm very much reluctant to believe what this man has to say.


The fact that this type of coral exists does not mean it was what was found and scientists therefore would not be considering these sites an anomaly. References to drowned reefs due to rapid sea level increases are not hard to find on Google. Combined with the geological evidence it seems to indicate that the author may not be as far off the mark as some would like to believe.
 Humanespresso
Joined: 11/19/2007
Msg: 129
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:20:31 AM
Although there is enough water on this planet for such to have occurred, I do believe that someone else has done the maths here, and stated that enough water to cover whole mountains would push the atmosphere off the earth.

The presence of water in the lower crust does not necessarily mean that any of it would make it to the surface in large amounts at any time, let alone all at once. In fact, you might be surprised how much is in our atmosphere. Moreover, should it have actually flooded to the biblical extent, and according to the article, the sea floor 'bowed' to allow for the extra water depth. He cites a photograph showing the sea floor as being deeper near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Now, if it were a global flood, that sort of 'bowing' would be present throughout all ocean floors. In fact, as far as I know, no one has ever found evidence of the continental shelf being stretched and distorted due to massive pressures from above? Any steep declines relatively close to land are what are called 'continental shelves', really the result of how tectonic plates are formed (thicker 'terrestrial' bits, and thinner oceanic bottoms).

I'm well aware that there is plentiful evidence of drowned reefs. However, the most recent of these would be about 18, 000 years old, at the end of the Pleistocene glaciation. There are not any that I've heard of that are less than that age in over one kilometre of water. Coral being what it is, also fossilises quite readily, and retains its structure for quite some time, so there's nothing to say that the coral found over New England/Bermuda way was not far older than Noah's time.

Had I actually been able to locate full copies, or even abstracts of those two referenced papers, I could've given this a better treatment. However, such as it was, neither paper was available to the public.

I might also re-iterate that the statement about the unlikelihood of all that crustal water gushing forth at once such as in Noah's global flood was put there by the very scientists interviewed about the phenomenon. To discourage literalists from using their research for their means, I suspect.
 jrbogie
Joined: 8/31/2007
Msg: 130
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:20:36 AM

Well who is to say that even though it was gradual, that there couldn't have been glaciers that were melting (really large ones) that caused tidal waves. This would result for some people that it was a quick flood.


You are correct, who's to say that didn't happen like you suggest? And yet you say that the bible version is correct. So back atcha. Who's to say?
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 131
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 8:44:45 AM

Although there is enough water on this planet for such to have occurred, I do believe that someone else has done the maths here, and stated that enough water to cover whole mountains would push the atmosphere off the earth.


Likely not all of it but certainly the possibility that some did which would explain the drop in atmospheric pressure post flood as he talks about in this page: http://www.kjvbible.org/windows_of_heaven.html


Now, if it were a global flood, that sort of 'bowing' would be present throughout all ocean floors

Only if there was water under the whole ocean floor which was displaced. Only a fraction of the total of the water that the the Earth is predicted to contain would be required for Noah's Flood. The study of the Earth's interior and the ocean floors have only been recently started to reveal some of their secrets as we develop the technology to explore those depths.


so there's nothing to say that the coral found over New England/Bermuda way was not far older than Noah's time.


Perhaps, but it also says that it possibly is from Noah's time.


I might also re-iterate that the statement about the unlikelihood of all that crustal water gushing forth at once such as in Noah's global flood was put there by the very scientists interviewed about the phenomenon. To discourage literalists from using their research for their means, I suspect.


If it is truly as you suspect then it lends support to the fact that they do not have any hard evidence that it didn't gush forth all at once.
 Stonestongue
Joined: 5/18/2006
Msg: 132
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 9:49:42 AM
Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream;
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily;
Life is but a dream.

What does that make the boat?

Just screwin' around... What if the Arc is just the Earth?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 133
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 11:43:22 AM
Let's check THIS out, shall we?

Likely not all of it but certainly the possibility that some did which would explain the drop in atmospheric pressure post flood as he talks about in this page: http://www.kjvbible.org/windows_of_heaven.html


FROM that site:


The life spans drop sharply immediately following and during the 101 year interval between the flood event and the significant post-flood event in the days of Peleg. It then slowly levels out to a less steep decline in the days of the Patriarchs of Israel.


In attempts to scientifically explain this phenomena

How can you "scientifically explain" things for which there is no empirical evidence? Rhetorical question by the way.


An analysis of the graphs reveal that Noah, who was born 600 years before the flood

Nice. Graphs and statistics sure make it LOOK good...but there's no actual evidence that these people existed, much less lived the long lives claimed.
First problem - unsupported assumptions which actually contradict large amounts of evidence. Show me just ONE verified instance of a human living past...let's be extreme - 150 years?

But the existence of C14 in organics dating from the times of Adam, and even before him, ruled out cosmic radiation

Interesting. The author accepts C14 dating...from the "times of Adam". C14 dating and related techniques show that man existed long, long, LOOOONG before Adam was supposed to have appeared.
He has just accepted a method which scientifically proves his very first premise wrong.


I considered the possibility that, perhaps, the atmosphere of the Earth back in those days may have filtered out some other form of solar radiation. This could have been part of the answer, but did not seem to be enough by itself

Not enough by itself? Of course not. There's no evidence of an appreciable change in the sun's emissions. There's evidence of atmospheric composition going back millions of years [acceptance of the dating notwithstanding, the composition is still measureable], and the sun's emissions can be and are measured both from the Earth at varying altitudes and latitudes, AND from space.
Not only is it not enough by itself, it's in fact just another completely unsupported assumption. He's inventing fanciful explanations which have no actual basis in reality.


In fact, in researching the subject there appears to be a wide range of medical benefits from living in a pressurized environment. It almost seems to be something that should be natural. So why isn't the world like that, today, if such conditions are so naturally beneficial?

Very odd premise. It sounds like he's assuming that the "natural" world automatically produces conditions which are "best". I suspect the residents of Pompei would have disagreed with that notion!


Perhaps, before the flood, it was the natural order of things.

Again, an unsupported hypothesis which begins without evidence...and will lead to an even more unsupported conclusion...


Note: A comprehensive study of Hyperbolic oxygen therapy and benefits are outside the immediate scope of this essay

Meaning, it sounds good to the reader, but he is probably fully aware that the actual evidence doesn't show the potential for a significant increase in life span. Ironic that he apparently doesn't understand the subject very well, and has used the word "hyperbolic".


We can assume that the ratio of the various gases in the atmosphere back then was similar to today (i.e. nitrogen 78.1%, oxygen 20.9%, argon 0.9%, carbon dioxide 0.035%, water vapor, and other gases), else the difference in chemical composition would show up in the polar Ice Core measurements.

Remember that I commented on radiation and atmospheric composition? The author backs me up AGAIN, and undercuts a previous argument. He accepts an identical atmosphere, while also suggesting it somehow was different in the past. He's not only picking and choosing what evidence to accept and reject, he's doing so from one paragraph to the next, alternately discarding and accepting the same evidence!


What is needed is an antediluvian atmospheric model that, unlike their "water canopy" assumption, does not violate the laws of physics, and can explain why the Earth's atmosphere became reduced in volume.

I like this one. One young Earth creationist debunking the quack "science" of other YECs. Thank you for adding one more refute to earlier arguments!


Since we have no idea what the actual atmospheric pressure could have been,

Actually, we do. The author obviously accepts the laws of physics. He accepts C14 dating, which is an aspect of physics and chemistry, AND he accepts that past atmospheric composition was measureable and essentially identical to now, and he accepts the methods of obtaining those measurements. Math and physics let us reliably measure the mass of the Earth and determine its gravitation, and let use likewise reliable measure the amount and composition of the atmosphere.
So, we have good reason to believe the atmospheric pressure was NOT significantly different. With his statement of "we have no idea", he's fairly truthfully saying that he has no evidence of his hypothesis. He's hoping you'll be fooled by his wording. He's not an idiot - it worked!


This factor, combined with the HBO effect, could have been the difference that allowed antediluvian mankind to reach the great ages declared in the Bible. The full verdict is still out on this matter.

Another not-so-subtle disclaimer that he actually has no evidence, and can't actually provide any which doesn't contradict him.


Leaving behind this aspect of the Great Flood we need to address two remaining issues

Two issues? HA! Was this salty rain which would kill every land snail, slug, earthworm, and amphibian on the planet? Or was it fresh rain that killed every coral, sea slug, marine mollusc, starfish, urchin, most marine fish...? A lot more than two questions remain, he's just skipping the ones which destroy his hypothesis, and he hopes no-one is bright enough to catch on. Either that, or he's just not that bright himself.


When the fountains (geysers) began on the Earth, creating the world-wide cloud cover and heavy rains at the start of the flood sequence, the heat energy from the geysers would have traveled upward as a column as the rain waters condensed from the steam.


The critics are incorrect in arguing that the heat from the geysers would fry everything on the surface of the Earth, for a couple of reasons: First, heated air rises and most of the heat from the geysers would be dissipated high above the Earth's surface, radiant heat (infra-red) from the ascending mix would not travel far horizontally, because of the heavy precipitation falling below the cloud cover. In addition, that cloud cover would act as a shield from heat in the regions above the cloud cover.

Except that the main source of heat is actually from the rain FALLING. Which is everywhere. And, incidentally, the rise in sea level, and the heat, would remove all ice caps on the planet. Ice caps which the very same author has just cited for their use to measure atmospheric gases in the past. The same author also just finished accepting C14 dating, which would establish the ages of the gases trapped within those ice sheets and thereby showing the age of each layer. Once again, he's screwed the pooch on his own arguments.


All the waters falling from the heavens would have been FRESH water. Because salt water is denser than fresh water, a large fresh water "lens" would have formed on top of the flood

Enough fresh water to cover 5 miles above current sea level, falling over a period of 40 days and receding over a year, would not form a lens. It would mix. He has just established the extinction of most un-cooked marine life.


Far fetched? You be the judge. It is only a theory and requires further refinement. However, it meets the requirements of the literal wording of the Bible and does so through the agency of observable scientific principles.

This man is NO scientist. A scientist would actually know what a "theory" is, and would not use it as the appeal to ignorance fallacy which this example is. The "observable scientific principles", if you actually look at them consistantly, destroy his own arguments rather thoroughly. There is no scientific method at work here.

The author provides two sources on hyperbaric oxygen treatment. The first:
http://www.hbot4u.com/hom.html
Doesn't say anything about increased life span. It DOES suggest the following:

As we learn more we may find measurement of patient body mass correlates to advise that less mass benefits better with less duration, perhaps as little as 45 minutes, while more mass may benefit better with more duration

The implication would seem to be that humans are NOT ideally suited to a hyperbaric environment, contrary to the previous author's assertions. If he were correct, benefits would increase or maximize over time, and there would be NO situation in which a reduced treatment would be beneficial.

His second source:
http://www.oxytank.com/how.htm
is a dead link.

So...the Great Flood myth is still...drowning in contrary evidence, including the evidence brought out in its support.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 134
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 12:01:18 PM
So...the Great Flood myth is still...drowning in contrary evidence, including the evidence brought out in its support.


The main thrust of your rebuttals were against his idea of a greater atmospheric pressure and from that the rest of his arguments should be thrown out? lol. Typical evolutionist smoke and mirror arguments. You can do better then that.....or can you?
 Stinker*Belle
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 135
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 12:23:34 PM

The main thrust of your rebuttals were against his idea of a greater atmospheric pressure and from that the rest of his arguments should be thrown out? lol. Typical evolutionist smoke and mirror arguments. You can do better then that.....or can you?

He already has done, many times over and over again.

There is no point citing religious websites and recommending people view them to get a better idea... That is an Oxymoron
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 136
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 12:31:53 PM
Frogo.. you are now my logic hero

Wish I was still in Alberta

I had an idea while I was reading about water and such. I have had quite a few aquariums..both fresh and salt water. I had to learn a lot about water chemistry and such to keep the little critters alive and healthy. It's a lot more complicated than just adding water, a filter and food. For certain fish and creatures I had to have one kind of temp., depth of tank, chemistry, for others I had to have a separate tank for their needs..even had to time the amount of "daylight" the tank received, etc.. then there are certain creatures that can live tgether..some even have to to have a mini ecosystem.. there was salinity to measure, acid/alkaline levels, algae control (too much is bad, not enough is worse) the water has to be moving and be aerated (which I believe is done in the ocean through many ways...rain, wave movement, undersea rivers and currents, volcanic vents, etc...) I'm no marine biologist... but I did learn that an aquatic environment is more fragile than it looks, so are the creatures that live in it. Take deep sea creatures... they are finely attuned to their heavy pressure environment... too much change too quick and they implode. Even in a tiny little "copy" of a certain marine environment it's very easy to kill the whole thing. Most marine species that are okay for aquariums are reef dwellers... they live close to the surface of the ocean... reefs must have sunlight to exist... My point is that from my observation and experience the biologists are correct in stating that a drastic change in marine environments would have killed off most of the species in the oceans, and with the smaller fish gone the larger ones would have followed, as well as the marine mammals. That's just basic logic.

Freshwater tanks are easier... and Goldfish and Carp are amazingly adaptable and hardy (I've tried...through neglect, to kill my Fantail Goldfish, he just keeps going on- he is an amazing creature, I'm not proud of it though... bad girl! I take better care of him now)... but in the case of a worldwide flood they also would have become extinct... they can not survive in salt water. Also most amphibians are very fragile and live in extremely delicate ecosystems.. frogs, salamanders and the like.

This is observable on a small scale.

As for "where" did the water come from...hmmmmm.... if it isn't here now, it never was. Earth is like an aquarium.. it is a closed system (except for some material from space.. and maybe the odd comet/meteorite strike) Either it is here, or it is not. We know that the earth, under the crust is molten rock and metal... water in liquid form would not exist under that kind of heat and pressure... unless there is a form of H2O we are not aware of. Ice is out of the question, as ice is actually less dense than liquid water (ie: water takes up more space in solid form than in liquid)... even when the earth had no ice due to the warmth of a young planet water still didn't cover ALL of the land mass. If it ever did that was SO long ago there probably wasn't any life here, and if there was it was anaerobic. Even in a supersaturated atmosphere.. the amount of water in the earth's ecosystem is the same... unless there was a process that converted the "extra" H2O back into it's component elements of Hydrogen and Oxygen, but then where did the extra gases go? what about the electrons? I'm not sure what kind of process that would require as H2O seems to be pretty stable chemically... someone who understands Hydrogen fuel cell technology might be able to enlighten us (?) Is it a chemical process, electrical? I don't know.

I did read a book once (I believe it has been debunked by the scientific community) that had a theory about earth colliding with another planet (Tiamat) and exchanging materia (including water). "Worlds in Collision" I forget the author.. last I read though it was considered about as reliable as Von Danniken's "Chariots of the Gods".. and was based on mythological interpretation more than science. He did have a model for the flooding of the Mediterannean.. and a description that was quite awe-inspiring... seeing a wall of water from the Atlantic crashing over the Strait of Gibraltar... I would think anyone living in the Mediterannean Basin during that event would have seen it as a global flood..The BIGGEST waterfall of all time! (the amount of water is amazing - but it would not have happened overnight, or even in a month... maybe over years... that's a pretty massive basin. Maybe that is the memory that originated the flood story? I'm not sure what the geological timing was for that though... it would have been prehistorical-before the advent of the written word. Probably right at the beginning of the change in humans from semi-nomadic hunter/gatherers to primitive agriculturalists and husbandmen, if I could presume to make an educated guess.

Does Egypt have a Flood Story? You would think they would, being one of the very first civilizations and being right on the edge of the Mediterannean that they would have one also. They also LOVED to write things down... very prolific, if somewhat biased depending on who was in power, historians and story-tellers. I must look that up.

I truly believe that the ancients wrote down what they could, in the way they saw and understood things. No one can criticize their intelligence... but their knowledge base in some areas just does not match up to what we know now. kind of liTaking this into consideration I have to say that a literalist interpretation is untenable... which does not mean that the story does not have merit as it is... just not factual merit. Music has no "scientific" merit (except maybe in mathematics) yet we can not say that music does not enrich us and make life more meaningful. It has it's own value.

Just some things I've been ruminating on...
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 137
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 12:37:02 PM
YOU provided the source. I read the whole thing AND his one reference. Maybe you should re-read, since I addressed many of his points. They don't, pardon the pun, hold water. In several cases, he accepts the very evidence which proves him wrong.

He considers that the superheated water fell as rain. Okay. Go back and read the posts which explain the physics of that much falling rain. The author you reference clearly accepts laws of physics, does he not? He attempts to explain the heat of RISING steam, but never mentions the heat of falling rain. That's a strawman fallacy on his part, since the LATTER is the actual issue.

He considers the rain to have been freshwater, and considers a lens to form over saltwater. 1/8 MILE of rain, falling EVERY day, EVERYWHERE, for 40 days, and given a year to mix...would NOT form a lens. He accepts laws of physics, therefore he accepts the rules which prove his premise wrong. Goodbye sealife.

He uses C14 dating as evidence...but carbon 14 [and similar dating methods] dating shows that man existed long before "Adam", and it shows that massive glaciers have been in existence for 100s of thousands of years continuously. His rain would have floated and melted all such icecaps.

He uses gases trapped in ice as evidence of past atmospheric conditions being the same as now. Combined with C14 dating, this shows he accepts the existence and age of this ice, or he MUST since it's HIS evidence. He accepts constant atmospheric conditions, which contradicts his suggestion that the atmosphere once filtered out some solar radiation differently than it does now. More contradiction.

He suggests that hyperbaric conditions extend lifespans and were the normal and preferred conditions for man. He has no evidence of either, and his one source actually implies that hyperbaric conditions are NOT ideal.

He provides pretty graphs illustrating the declining lifespans of past humans, but he has no evidence these people existed, that they lived those long lives, nor that ANYONE has ever lived such long lives. You can fool anyone with statistics if you pull them out of your ass and spin them right.

So...

The main thrust of your rebuttals were against his idea of a greater atmospheric pressure

This is obviously false.

and from that the rest of his arguments should be thrown out?

No. They should be thrown out for the reasons I have now enumerated twice.

Typical evolutionist smoke and mirror arguments.

Ad hominem, though I'm not the least bit insulted at being labelled rational and scientific.

You can do better then that.....or can you?

You can read better than that.....or can you?
 Humanespresso
Joined: 11/19/2007
Msg: 138
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 1:33:19 PM

Likely not all of it but certainly the possibility that some did which would explain the drop in atmospheric pressure post flood as he talks about in this page: http://www.kjvbible.org/windows_of_heaven.html


Frog man dealt with this one quite thoroughly, so I won't bother.


Only if there was water under the whole ocean floor which was displaced. Only a fraction of the total of the water that the the Earth is predicted to contain would be required for Noah's Flood. The study of the Earth's interior and the ocean floors have only been recently started to reveal some of their secrets as we develop the technology to explore those depths.


Truly? A theory that I have yet to have heard other than from this gentleman out to prove a point on his site? The site he uses to prove the existence of such water http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070210171556.htm is one he probably read a little quickly to truly have gathered the meaning of...

Although the title suggests that there may be a volume of water the volume of the Atlantic Ocean here, none of it is in actual, free liquid form and I quote from the article itself:


"If you combine the volume of this anomaly with the fact that the rock can hold up to about 0.1 percent of water, that works out to be about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water."


They also had this to say:


Previous predictions calculated that a cold ocean slab sinking into the earth at 1,200 to 1,4000 kilometers beneath the surface would release water in the rock that would escape the rock and rise up to a region above it, but this was never previously observed.


So, had the circumstance occurred that this actually did happen, and all the water had gushed forth as Mr. Gaines R. Johnson suggests, the scientists somehow missed the 'bowing' of the seafloor while running sonar, coring and seismological tests? Seems Mr. Johnson believes he knows more than those scientists he cites.


Perhaps, but it also says that it possibly is from Noah's time.


Who says? Oh that's right. He says. I could say that there's likely a large, green, tentacled monster sitting in the abyssal trenches of New Zealand that likes to collect empty chip packets. How're you going to prove me otherwise?

In order for something to be evidencial fact, the information must be from several sources, all agreeing on that same fact, or at least alluding to the validity of the evidence, not to mention the fact that these sources must be CURRENT OR RECENT. Truly scientific papers and articles cite at LEAST a dozen, if not dozens of papers. During my Marine Biology degree I routinely had to cite upwards of 30 papers (all of them recent) when writing a mere assignment. I can personally attest to the fact that many papers that I have to read these days themselves have upwards of 50 other papers cited.

A measly two papers, out-dated (from the 80's and 70's), with no formal record available to the public, which I take to mean that they don't hold much water (eminent papers at least have abstracts available to the public) is not what I consider thorough proofing. In fact, to claim otherwise, would be considered offensive to most scientists.


If it is truly as you suspect then it lends support to the fact that they do not have any hard evidence that it didn't gush forth all at once.


But that's not the point, now is it? Scientists don't have to prove that the water did NOT gush forth all at once at any one time. To them, the fact that the water droplets, sometimes as small as a single molecule were imprisoned in solid minerals suggests the odds of something squeezing all this water out, allowing it to accumlate in large LIQUID reservoirs, and then gushing forth all at once isn't WORTH investigating. Again, I'll give you an example:

I COULD suggest that giant squid enjoy playing handsies before a mating session. Given the tactile nature of cephalopods, and the fact that squid do indeed grasp at one another during mating, it's not completely implausible. However, are the odds of this ever happening high enough to warrant the funds to research the matter? No.

Now, I know you'll probably bring up the fact that it was God, and therefore the odds don't have to be great, they just have to be possible. However, since it's your belief that this is how the floods happened, and that they did, it's decidedly your place to provide the evidence, and not ours. We can assess the evidence, but we most surely not dig around trying to find proof of the floods.

Contrary to belief, scientists have a lot more to do than go around attempting to disprove biblical literalisms.

I will also re-iterate what several others have said about the nature of aquatic animals and their relative delicacy.

Aquatic animals, marine or freshwater are NOT generalists. There are those who can tolerate several different environments, but NONE can tolerate all. Saltwater jellyfish simply sink and die in freshwater. I mean, seriously, have you seen what happens to coral reef immediately after freshwater flood events?

Even IF there was some miraculous salinity level that most could indeed tolerate (which they can't...), the level of dissolved minerals in water fresh from the mantle would basically kill most of the freshwater species in the tropics. Fish keeping is NOT easy. They don't just live in bowls of water left outside. Try keeping a discus fish alive in a ph of 8 and any sort of salinity. Or a Chaetodontid butterflyfish in anything BUT full marine salt and an acid pH. Sorry to say, it just won't happen.

Marine ecosystems are also based on very different timescales to those on land. Those in the tropics especially, have extremely high turn-overs, and such a severe interruption to algal and hard coral growth as 5km of freshwater dumped on top of them basically instantaneously would basically send the system pin-wheeling into non-existence as quickly as it happened.

We would most certainly not be looking at the same obligate coralivore butterflyfishes as have been in the fossil record for nigh on 65 million years today.

Anyway, now that I've gotten that off my chest. It's probably a good idea not to adopt circular reasoning at this point (the site/bible says, therefore...). It's very easy to quote one thing over and over and over again, but in the end, it does take several sources of information in order to confirm reality.

You would not go away and believe that apples were all flat, red with a green leaf on top simply because you read The Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar. You know when an apple is an apple because you've seen them, touched them, eaten them, and seen various pictures, photographs etc. of them. This in my mind is no different.

The bible has given you a contextual truth i.e. that a flood occurred over in the middle east some time about 4000 years ago, or whatever. A time when 600km away was the end of the world and an animal no one in the village had seen before was considered a mythical monster (The Aztecs upon first meeting Spanish Conquistadors believed that they were four-legged men, plated in metal and breathing fire (their guns)).

It takes nothing away from the meaning of the story if it did NOT literally happen. The people of the time did not believe they were lying. It's just that greater understanding of the real world has taken away the suger-coating so-to-speak.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 139
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 3:31:58 PM
Seems you have the problem reading since he addresses this issue:

<div class="quote">He attempts to explain the heat of RISING steam, but never mentions the heat of falling rain. That's a strawman fallacy on his part, since the LATTER is the actual issue.

The strawman fallacy is yours.


<div class="quote">1/8 MILE of rain, falling EVERY day, EVERYWHERE, for 40 days, and given a year to mix...would NOT form a lens. He accepts laws of physics, therefore he accepts the rules which prove his premise wrong. Goodbye sealife.

I did not read where he said all that. Neither did you i suspect. You throw out "laws of physics" but don't reference one that makes his premise wrong. Being that the saltwater would have been in the ocean basins and the freshwater flood rising fairly consistently across the entire earth, there would not need to have been a great deal of mixing especially at deeper ocean levels where most sealife would be to find cooler temps.


<div class="quote">He uses C14 dating as evidence...but carbon 14 [and similar dating methods] dating shows that man existed long before "Adam", and it shows that massive glaciers have been in existence for 100s of thousands of years continuously. His rain would have floated and melted all such icecaps.

I guess you missed the part where he clearly states he and his site are not Young Earth Creationist oriented. On what do you base your opinion that his rain would have melted and floated all the icecaps. He appears to disagree with you and at least presents some reasons for why he thinks as he does. You present nothing and make it out to be everything.


<div class="quote">He accepts constant atmospheric conditions, which contradicts his suggestion that the atmosphere once filtered out some solar radiation differently than it does now. More contradiction.

Not sure how you misread him so often. He clearly states that he is listing proposed causative agents and then why he doesn't believe that they are likely. No contradiction when read properly.


<div class="quote">He suggests that hyperbaric conditions extend lifespans and were the normal and preferred conditions for man. He has no evidence of either, and his one source actually implies that hyperbaric conditions are NOT ideal.

He provides pretty graphs illustrating the declining lifespans of past humans, but he has no evidence these people existed, that they lived those long lives, nor that ANYONE has ever lived such long lives.

Since his intent is to present a model which satisfies both the scriptural and scientific requirements, the point of whether they did or not is inconsequential to those who see Genesis as a fairy tale. His point is simply to present whether it is possible for the story to be true without resorting to God-did-it.


<div class="quote">You can fool anyone with statistics if you pull them out of your ass and spin them right.

Yes, I see that. You have a number of people believing your non-rebuttals and thinking they are inspired logic.


<div class="quote">
<div class="quote">The main thrust of your rebuttals were against his idea of a greater atmospheric pressure
This is obviously false.

Prove it.

Here is a site with some pretty pictures and some cool graphs explaining why atmospheric pressures had to have been higher in past.
http://levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaurs.htm
ps. please read all of it.


<div class="quote">Ad hominem, though I'm not the least bit insulted at being labelled rational and scientific.

Only by your peers.


<div class="quote">You can read better than that.....or can you?

I can, but you ? The record is not good so far.
 Stonestongue
Joined: 5/18/2006
Msg: 140
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 4:47:29 PM
After reading all of this and the links provided I have to go with Froggo and Humanespresso on this one...

It just doesn't seem feasable given the laws of physics.
 skypoetone
Joined: 3/24/2005
Msg: 141
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:00:46 PM
Hmmm... me too Stones...
But you know what the get-out is?
Nothing's impossible for "God" :)

We can question but it’s sacrilegious to deny…

And that's why nobody can win in an argument against.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 142
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:24:16 PM

Seems you have the problem reading since he addresses this issue

I re-read to see if I might be wrong. I wasn't. His only source of heat is the "geysers". Falling objects, including water, create friction which creates heat. Water itself will retain a lot of heat before it turns to gas. One half foot of water falling, per minute, for 40 days, everywhere on the planet, creates a LOT of heat. Where does that heat go? Mostly into the most heat-absorbant substance available - water. Until the water becomes a gas at 212 F. When the heat exceeds the available water, the atmosphere will heat higher than that. He doesn't address it, although this problem was pointed out and detailed earlier in this thread. I also have my doubts about his expectation of all that heat from the "geysers" managing to be dumped into space, but I'll let that be addressed by those who understand those aspects of physics better than I.

The strawman fallacy is yours

Could be. Doesn't look like it, and you didn't support it. Another ad hominem in that case.

I did not read where he said all that. Neither did you i suspect

You're not clear what you're referring to, so I'll make a couple guesses:
"1/8 MILE of rain, falling EVERY day, EVERYWHERE, for 40 days, and given a year to mix...would NOT form a lens"
If you meant THIS...well, if you submerge Mt Everest in water, it requires raising the sea level about 5 miles above its current mark. Most of the planet's surface is now ocean, and most of the land is fairly close to sea level. As a rough estimate, that means the sea level is required to increase by 5 MILES in 40 days. That's 1/8 mile per day. Your source refers to rising steam and falling rain. This requires that, on average, everywhere on Earth must experience 1/8 mile of rainfall per day for 40 days, or about 1/2 foot per minute constantly. He didn't need to say all this. It's a simple mathematical consequence of the scenario he presented.

If you meant this, which I suspect is the case:
"He accepts laws of physics, therefore he accepts the rules which prove his premise wrong"

Then...

"I considered increased amounts of solar and cosmic radiation in the post flood world as a possibility"
"Under the increased air pressure more oxygen gets into the bloodstream"
"else the difference in chemical composition would show up in the polar Ice Core measurements."
"What is needed is an antediluvian atmospheric model that... does not violate the laws of physics"
"We next need to determine the total weight of the additional atmospheric gas, and in doing the math we find that the present weight of the atmosphere is 4.99 X 1014 tons"
"the Earth's gravitational pull would be slightly increased"
"Solar "Radiation" is not a simple, single entity. It actually comprises many forms such as electromagnetic radiation, X-rays, gamma rays, and high-speed particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, and atomic nuclei"

There's a lot more, but it's clear that math, chemistry, and physics are very much part of his arguments, and he depends on reliable laws which apply to all of these. That fourth passage is particularly worth noting, as he is stating that laws of physics must be obeyed [as if we actually have a choice]. I pointed out that he accepts laws of physics as an unavoidable fact. I also pointed out the deliberately obscured consequences of that.

You throw out "laws of physics" but don't reference one that makes his premise wrong

Don't need to. It was done by others more than once earlier in the thread, and more or less ignored. You're just using an argumentum ad nauseum fallacy, hoping to "prove" your point by typing until no-one notices that damning evidence has been completely ignored.

Being that the saltwater would have been in the ocean basins and the freshwater flood rising fairly consistently across the entire earth, there would not need to have been a great deal of mixing especially at deeper ocean levels where most sealife would be to find cooler temps.

To begin with, the water falls equally, yes. And it still flows downhill. In incredible torrents. A foot per minute? The basins are no refuge from that volume of water flowing of the Himalaya and Andes in all directions. The basins aren't that large or numerous. You're also ignoring the fact that most sea life lives near the surface and could not survive at depth, regardless of the temperature. Plus, you're addressing temperature, which isn't the main issue, although a year under refrigeration at depth would ALSO kill a vast variety of marine species. The biggest issue is dilution, and there's not just 40 days of rain and torrential flows, but a year for water levels to mix as they recede. Most marine life won't survive in fresh water, and this volume of dilution would be quite sufficient to do them in. Already pointed out more than once.

Not sure how you misread him so often. He clearly states that he is listing proposed causative agents and then why he doesn't believe that they are likely. No contradiction when read properly.

I was quite careful to read properly.
His statements:

"I considered the possibility that, perhaps, the atmosphere of the Earth back in those days may have filtered out some other form of solar radiation. This could have been part of the answer, but did not seem to be enough by itself."

He accepts this as true, thus the phrase "enough by itself." He doesn't think it's the only factor, but he does think it's a factor. I'm rather careful in my reading. I caught the things he dismissed.

"But the existence of C14 in organics dating from the times of Adam, and even before him, ruled out cosmic radiation"

He's referring to radiocarbon dating, and using that evidence. How do you think he concluded "from the times of Adam, and even before him"? That's dating, which he has converted from a calendar measurement to a Biblical one. It's the levels of C14 which establish the age of such things. He's accepted radiocarbon dating evidence without overtly stating so. You could just as easily deny the validity of "electricity", but you'll still turn on your computer in order to state your denial.

Since his intent is to present a model which satisfies both the scriptural and scientific requirements, the point of whether they did or not is inconsequential to those who see Genesis as a fairy tale. His point is simply to present whether it is possible for the story to be true without resorting to God-did-it.

You're pretty much correct on this. However, the graphs with their seemingly concise plots, and his use of words like "data" are engineered to mislead. Those "data" are essentially fabricated and have no verifiable accuracy whatsoever. The word "data" suggests otherwise, and the detail of the graphs has no actual value in reality. Furthermore, although he's avoiding "goddidit", it still all comes back to believing, in the face of masses of contradictory evidence, in the testimony of an unscientific book thousands of years old and the existence of persons for whom there's no evidence. He doesn't SAY "goddidit", but the arguments presented are supported by a book of faith, and not by science.

Yes, I see that. You have a number of people believing your non-rebuttals and thinking they are inspired logic

A non-rebuttal like...hmmm...this ^^^?

Prove it.

Burden of proof is on you at this point. I made multiple arguments. I reiterated them. Somehow, you only see one. Prove they're one. The very fact I presented the arguments in the first place is all the proof I need.


ps. please read all of it

I had a look, though I'm not yet inspired enough to learn laws of aerodynamics in order to confirm the claims made. I found it interesting that he cited a work as old as Romer, and I found some of the claims dubious by their assumptions. It is, by and large, only the older works which have long-necked sauropods with their heads high in the air all the time. The current view is that their heads and necks like those of most living four-legged species, were held more or less horizontally. If they raised their heads or reared up, they'd only need one-way valves or musculature to prevent back-flow of blood. Those are standard features in vertebrate circulatory systems anyway. One more point - this site deals only with the possibility of greater air pressure when dinosaurs lived. Whether or not that's likely, it has no influence on the lifespans of humans of a few thousand years ago, unless you can also show the two co-existed. No such evidence is known - that which has been frequently offered has been tossed with last week's diapers. Is higher air pressure possible? Maybe. Not really my field. I pointed out that your citation had only a supposition without supporting evidence. An unsupported assumption in order to prove an unsupported assumption is fairly worthless.


Only by your peers

Geez. Another veiled ad hominem. I'm glad to have peers who are rational, so I'm again not insulted. You would, however, be quite surprised at the number of "opposition" who hold my reason in high regard. Some have said as much in this thread. Perhaps you couldn't read those parts. Selective-vision glasses?


I can, but you ? The record is not good so far.

Okay, I'll stoop that low to make a point...

I know you are, but what am I?
 fitman2005
Joined: 8/18/2005
Msg: 143
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/18/2008 12:01:15 AM
Interesting. The author accepts C14 dating...from the "times of Adam". C14 dating and related techniques show that man existed long, long, LOOOONG before Adam was supposed to have appeared.
He has just accepted a method which scientifically proves his very first premise wrong.


not so. This is your assumption. You therefore base both your reasoning and scientific conclusions on compromised, invalid evidences. One has to question exactly how much of what you are saying can serve as qualifying proof or evidence. In the instance of C14 dating--I have found quite the opposite to be true (this based from extensive research by top men in their field.) Consider the review of data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards which would lead to serious problems for long geologic ages as well:




Scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to estimate the ages of rocks, fossils, and the earth. Many people have been led to believe that radiometric dating methods have proved the earth to be billions of years old. This has caused many in the church to reevaluate the biblical creation account, specifically the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1. With our focus on one particular form of radiometric dating—carbon dating—we will see that carbon dating strongly supports a young earth.
Basics

Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry. Recall that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter. Atoms are made up of much smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons make up the center (nucleus) of the atom, and electrons form shells around the nucleus.

The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines the element. For example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all atoms of nitrogen have 7 protons, and all oxygen atoms have 8 protons. The number of neutrons in the nucleus can vary in any given type of atom. So, a carbon atom might have six neutrons, or seven, or possibly eight—but it would always have six protons. An “isotope” is any of several different forms of an element, each having different numbers of neutrons. The illustration below shows the three isotopes of carbon.
Carbon atomic mass numbers

The atomic number corresponds to the number of protons in an atom. Atomic mass is a combination of the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. (The electrons are so much lighter that they do not contribute significantly to the mass of an atom.)

Some isotopes of certain elements are unstable; they can spontaneously change into another kind of atom in a process called “radioactive decay.” Since this process happens at a known rate, scientists attempt to use it like a “clock” to tell how long ago a rock or fossil formed. There are two main applications for radiometric dating. One is for dating fossils (once-living things) using carbon-14 dating, and the other is for dating rocks and the age of the earth.
Carbon-14 Dating

Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common.1

When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

1. Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)?
2. Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?
3. Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe?
4. Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate?

All radiometric dating methods use scientific procedures in the present to interpret what has happened in the past. The procedures used are not necessarily in question. The interpretation of past events is in question. The secular (evolutionary) worldview interprets the universe and world to be billions of years old. The Bible teaches a young universe and earth. Which worldview does science support? Can carbon-14 dating help solve the mystery of which worldview is more accurate?

The use of carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds contain carbon-14). Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions.

There are three different naturally occurring varieties (isotopes) of carbon: 12C, 13C, and 14C.

Carbon-14 is used for dating because it is unstable (radioactive), whereas 12C and 13C are stable. Radioactive means that 14C will decay (emit radiation) over time and become a different element. During this process (called “beta decay”) a neutron in the 14C atom will be converted into a proton. By losing one neutron and gaining one proton, 14C is changed into nitrogen-14 (14N = 7 protons and 7 neutrons).

If 14C is constantly decaying, will the earth eventually run out of 14C? The answer is no. Carbon-14 is constantly being added to the atmosphere. Cosmic rays from outer space, which contain high levels of energy, bombard the earth’s upper atmosphere. These cosmic rays collide with atoms in the atmosphere and can cause them to come apart. Neutrons that come from these fragmented atoms collide with 14N atoms (the atmosphere is made mostly of nitrogen and oxygen) and convert them into 14C atoms (a proton changes into a neutron).
Cosmic rays bombard upper atmosphere C-14 during life and after death Total carbon

Once 14C is produced, it combines with oxygen in the atmosphere (12C behaves like 14C and also combines with oxygen) to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Because CO2 gets incorporated into plants (which means the food we eat contains 14C and 12C), all living things should have the same ratio of 14C and 12C in them as in the air we breathe.
How the Carbon-14 Dating Process Works

Once a living thing dies, the dating process begins. As long as an organism is alive it will continue to take in 14C; however, when it dies, it will stop. Since 14C is radioactive (decays into 14N), the amount of 14C in a dead organism gets less and less over time. Therefore, part of the dating process involves measuring the amount of 14C that remains after some has been lost (decayed). Scientists now use a device called an “Accelerator Mass Spectrometer” (AMS) to determine the ratio of 14C to 12C, which increases the assumed accuracy to about 80,000 years. In order to actually do the dating, other things need to be known. Two such things include the following questions:

1. How fast does 14C decay?
2. What was the starting amount of 14C in the creature when it died?

The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life. The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. The half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. For example, a jar starting with all 14C atoms at time zero will contain half 14C atoms and half 14N atoms at the end of 5,730 years (one half-life). At the end of 11,460 years (two half-lives) the jar will contain one-quarter 14C atoms and three-quarter 14N atoms.

Since the half-life of 14C is known (how fast it decays), the only part left to determine is the starting amount of 14C in a fossil. If scientists know the original amount of 14C in a creature when it died, they can measure the current amount and then calculate how many half-lives have passed.

Since no one was there to measure the amount of 14C when a creature died, scientists need to find a method to determine how much 14C has decayed. To do this, scientists use the main isotope of carbon, called carbon-12 (12C). Because 12C is a stable isotope of carbon, it will remain constant; however, the amount of 14C will decrease after a creature dies. All living things take in carbon (14C and 12C) from eating and breathing. Therefore, the ratio of 14C to 12C in living creatures will be the same as in the atmosphere. This ratio turns out to be about one 14C atom for every 1 trillion 12C atoms. Scientists can use this ratio to help determine the starting amount of 14C.

When an organism dies, this ratio (1 to 1 trillion) will begin to change. The amount of 12C will remain constant, but the amount of 14C will become less and less. The smaller the ratio, the longer the organism has been dead. The following illustration demonstrates how the age is estimated using this ratio.
Percent 14C Remaining Percent 12C Remaining Ratio Number of Half-Lives Years Dead(Age of Fossil)
100 100 1 to 1T 0 0
50 100 1 to 2T 1 5,730
25 100 1 to 4T 2 11,460
12.5 100 1 to 8T 3 17,190
6.25 100 1 to 16T 4 22,920
3.125 100 1 to 32T 5 28,650

T = Trillion
A Critical Assumption

A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3

What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
Magnetic Field of the Earth

Other factors can affect the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere. The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.

The cause for the long term variation of the C-14 level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon. The cosmic-ray flux, and hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4

Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed.... The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.5

Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.6

If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age.
Genesis Flood

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7

When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.
The RATE Group Findings

In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

* Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
* Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
* Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
* John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
* Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
* Steven Austin, PhD Geology
* Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
* Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies

The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. Samples were taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank. These coal samples were collected from major coalfields across the United States. The coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples in all three “time periods” displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.

These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.

Because the lifetime of C-14 is so brief, these AMS [Accelerator Mass Spectrometer] measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock layer.8

Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed in chapter 9. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.

Because of C-14’s short half-life, such a finding would argue that carbon and probably the entire physical earth as well must have a recent origin.9

Conclusion

All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.

The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.... Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.10

Footnotes

1. Earth Science (Teachers Edition), Prentice Hall, 2002, 301. Back
2. W. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1952, 8. Back
3. C. Sewell, “Carbon-14 and the Age of the Earth,” 1999. www.rae.org/bits23.htm. Back
4. M. Stuiver and H. Suess, On the relationship between radiocarbon dates and true sample ages, Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, 1966, 535. Back
5. R. Humphreys, The mystery of earth’s magnetic field, ICR Impact, Feb 1, 1989. www.icr.org/article/292. Back
6. J. Roach, National Geographic News, September 9, 2004. Back
7. J. Baumgarder, C-14 evidence for a recent global Flood and a young earth, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, 2005, 618. Back
8. Ibid., 587. Back
9. Ibid., 609. Back
10. D. DeYoung, Thousands ... Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005, 61. Back
 fitman2005
Joined: 8/18/2005
Msg: 144
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/18/2008 12:45:36 AM
this thread reminds me of the 'ol preacher man who was approached by a skeptic one time who held a Ph.D. in something or another. He said, "Why that water couldn't have covered the earth." preacher man said, "Why not?" And he said, " Because if it had covered all the earth it would have come up and over the top of Mt. Everest and the water would have frozen and that boat would have been up there stuck in the ice." Preacher man told him, "Why man, I'm not a physicist or a scientist, and physics just leaves me cold, but I know perfectly well that if water rose up uniformly all over the earth it would push the atmosphere up with it." It would have been just as warm on the top of Mt. Everest as it was down at the Bay of Bengal. I can figure that out, and I can't even figure out a steam kettle! And then this fellow said, "Well, that ark wasn't big enough to hold all those animals." Preacher man said, " How many animals were there?" Fella said, "I don't know." Preacher man said, " Well, how big was the ark?" He didn't know that either. Fella started saying, "You can't tell me that two Chihuahuas, two retrievers, two setters, two German Shepherds, and two collies...." Preacher said, "Now, hold the phone, brother, hold the phone. It didn't say two of every species, it said two of every kind. All you have to get is two canines (of course you have to get Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasian, so you get six, two of each kind.) So you get six of them, see. That's what he had with the people. He had two from Asia, Shem; two from Europe, Japheth; and two from Africa, Ham. All you need is six. Every dog in the world came from six dogs! Every cat in the world came from six cats.

All he had to do was get six of each of them there." The fella said, " Well, it still wasn't big enough to hold them." Preacher man said, "Well, just how big was it?" He didn't know that, so preacher told him "It was a hundred cubits long." Fella said, "Well, that ain't long enough." Preacher said, "How long is a cubit?" He didn't know that either. They got to working that thing out, and by the time they worked it out, that ark old Noah built was almost three times as long as a football field. Preacher said, "That's a pretty big canoe ya know! It had three decks on that thing. That will hold a lot of animals."
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 145
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/18/2008 12:50:42 AM
I'll let someone else deal with the canards in this lump about carbon 14 dating...I'm sure they will...I couldn't be arsed.

But c14 is only one of MANY forms of radiometric dating used to determine the ages of things. And bad news for those young-earth folks...there are several types of radiometric dating which DO INDEED allow you to date the age of rocks.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html



The real heart of the age-of-the-earth debate (if "debate" is the right word) is always radiometric dating. There are lots of ways to guesstimate ages, and geologists knew the earth was old a long time ago (and I might add that they were mostly Christian creationist geologists). But they didn't know how old. Radiometric dating actually allows the measurement of absolute ages, and so it is deadly to the argument that the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

Radiometric methods measure the time elapsed since the particular radiometric clock was reset. Radiocarbon dating, which is probably best known in the general public, works only on things that were once alive and are now dead. It measures the time elapsed since death, but is limited in scale to no more than about 50,000 years ago. Other methods, such as Uranium/Lead, Potassium/Argon, Argon/Argon and others, are able to measure much longer time periods, and are not restricted to things that were once alive. Generally applied to igneous rocks (those of volcanic origin), they measure the time since the molten rock solidified. If that happens to be longer than 10,000 years, then the idea of a young-Earth is called into question. If that happens to be billions of years, then the young-Earth is in big trouble.

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.

The putative age of the Earth, about 4,500,000,000 years is based on the radiometrically measured age of meteorites, and is also about 500,000,000 years older than the oldest rocks. But regardless of the accuracy of this age for the earth, the existence of rocks circa 4,000,000,000 years old puts the squeeze on a 10,000 year old Earth.

So the natural response from a young-Earth perspective is to claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate or untrustworthy. Unfortunately, while the young-Earthers are long on criticism, they are short on support. It's easy to assert that radiometric methods don't work, but it's quite another thing to prove it. This the young-Earth creationist regularly fails to do.


Many links on that page to radiometric source information, responses - such as they are and rebuttals. Probably a thorough rebuttal to any erroneous content in the above post as well...but again I have a documentary and a beer to get back to that is ever so much more entertaining. Ciao.
 Humanespresso
Joined: 11/19/2007
Msg: 146
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/18/2008 2:42:45 AM
I won't respond about the C14 as I'm no geologist nor nuclear chemist.

I will however take this one:



The large fossil fuel deposits present throughout the world suggest that there was a larger amount of vegetation than ever before (500 times in fact)


Now, in order for this to be true, all the vegetation must have been alive at the same time. Which means, according to this, coal (the result of terrestrial vegetation buried in a wet and anoxic (no oxygen) environment - usually swamps) should occur uniformly, in a band of strata and be of more or less the same age. Interestingly, it's not. It's why people have to work so hard to get it. Also why you get coal deposits with imprints of swamp vegetation e.g. reeds, cattails etc, and others with coniferous tree trunks in them. Coal also ages. Without the need for C14...brown coal is universally younger, and more full of water. Black coal is older, has less water (due to longer periods under heat and pressure) and therefore burns more cleanly. Really wonder why there'd be a distinction if it was all the same age...

Oil forms from dead glutinous, algal material sinking to the bottom of the ocean and getting covered in sediment. This stuff's older than coal, and is most certainly found in varying depths. Interestingly, you also find it where there hasn't been any water in hundreds of thousands of years...Sahara desert, anyone? And before you start chanting that this may indeed be due to the Noachian floods, the sediments in which you find coal are a lot older than 4000 years.

So, in summary, saying that there was over 500 times more vegetation on the planet before Noachian times than after, due to the presence of fossil fuels is much like saying there were more people on this earth 100 years ago than today. I mean, look at all the corpses buried in the ground...

As for that anecdote about the sceptic. Fitman, really? You're serious? Stop trying to make us look stupid. None of this refutes any of the arguments submitted already, and you've all but ignored most of them.

Oh, by the way, I'm sorry to say, your 'sceptic' mustn't know very much if he thinks chihuahas, rhodesians etc. are different species of dogs...they're all one species: Canis familiaris, same as the cats: Felis catus. So ummm...six of each you say? Righty oh, off you go then.
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 147
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/18/2008 7:43:33 AM

All you have to get is two canines (of course you have to get Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasian, so you get six, two of each kind.) So you get six of them, see. That's what he had with the people. He had two from Asia, Shem; two from Europe, Japheth; and two from Africa, Ham. All you need is six.




The 5 billion people in the world today came from a gene pool of SIX less than 6000 years ago? (oh..now wait, can't have the different sub-races breedin' together.. so 2 progenitors for each sub-race) My goodness they were prolific! And incestuous... are you SURE they aren't from the backwoods of West Virginia? (just a joke people don't go getting all in a knot) How many children per person does that require? And what about infant mortality rates.. which have only just recently (last 100-150 years) come down due to good nutrition, laws against child labour, modern medical care, and the eradication of serious diseases like polio, smallpox and Bubonic Plague...clean drinking water, etc... Hot Darn.. just like rabbits. No wonder sex is all over the bible.

Please go read up on genetic viability and interbreeding problems... any good animal husbandry program can enlighten in this area/
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 148
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/18/2008 9:55:11 AM

You're not clear what you're referring to, so I'll make a couple guesses:
"1/8 MILE of rain, falling EVERY day, EVERYWHERE, for 40 days, and given a year to mix...would NOT form a lens"
......................... That's 1/8 mile per day. Your source refers to rising steam and falling rain. This requires that, on average, everywhere on Earth must experience 1/8 mile of rainfall per day for 40 days, or about 1/2 foot per minute constantly. He didn't need to say all this. It's a simple mathematical consequence of the scenario he presented.


It is a mathematical consequence based on not fully reading what he and the Bible says. Witness:

According to the Scriptures there were two (2), related sources for the rains and waters of Noah's flood. There were "fountains" of water coming up out of the earth and there was water coming down from the "windows" of heaven.


And:

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
(Genesis 7:6-12 KJV)


And:

Careful parsing of the above passage indicates that great amounts of water were already being added to the Earth's seas at least seven days before the rains even began. This means that sea level was already rapidly rising; flooding low lying coastal areas


Not once in 3 posts did you take this into account even though it throws your assumptions out the window.
It is likely that the rain accounted for a small percentage of the total water volume. Consider that after the fountains of the great deep were broken up, the volume of water flowing directly into the Atlantic ocean would have increased along with the actual geyser action. This likely kept up for the 40 days by which time the pressure under the crust likely would have dissipated to a degree where the geyser action was finished. In actual fact the escaping steam was likely finished long before the 40 days were up but it took that remaining time for the steam to condense into rain.


To begin with, the water falls equally, yes. And it still flows downhill. In incredible torrents. A foot per minute? The basins are no refuge from that volume of water flowing of the Himalaya and Andes in all directions. The basins aren't that large or numerous.

As I have pointed out now, your assumption is based on incomplete information. Rather then flowing downhill the ocean levels rising would have had the waters flowing uphill. Likely the reason why fossilized marine life etc is to be found far from the ocean and at great heights. Not because those areas were upraised but because the ocean was, ie, Flood.

You're also ignoring the fact that most sea life lives near the surface and could not survive at depth, regardless of the temperature. Plus, you're addressing temperature, which isn't the main issue, although a year under refrigeration at depth would ALSO kill a vast variety of marine species. The biggest issue is dilution, and there's not just 40 days of rain and torrential flows, but a year for water levels to mix as they recede. Most marine life won't survive in fresh water, and this volume of dilution would be quite sufficient to do them in. Already pointed out more than once.


I did some quick research into the sources of salt. Interesting.

1) Sea or ocean water is salty because the world's rivers continue to dump mineral salts into the ocean depths. And it's no small amount. Four billion tons of dissolved salts are deposited every year into our seas.

2) Sea water is salty due to minerals leached from other sources: the ocean floor; decomposed bodies; erosion; lava deposited during volcanic eruptions.

3)Scientists now believe that hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor also contribute the salt present in sea water. Hydrothermal vents are openings in the ocean floor where water has seeped through the Earth's crust, become hotter, dissolving some of the minerals in the crust, and then flowed back into the ocean bringing with it the minerals it collected.

Consider that during the flood all these sources would have been contributing to maintaining the salinity of the oceans. Especially consider that according to the bible, rain had not fallen on the Earth since the creation event since it was watered by mists coming out of the ground. Common sense says that there were 1800 years of accumulated salt deposits on land because it had not been washed into the ocean during that time. The rising ocean levels would suck up those deposits as it advanced and thereby maintaining the salinity of the water.
Meanwhile the freshwater rain falling from the skies would create the "lens" on top with increasing salinity at greater depths. Contrary to implications in this thread, salt and fresh water do not mix that readily. As an example, research shows that the outflow from the Mississippi river travels 2000 km before it mixes sufficiently to be undetectable. Since the oceans rose and covered much of the land before the rains even started, there would have been little mixing of salt and fresh water through torrential flows.

Although it took a year for the land to be completely dry, land started to appear after 150 days. The lens would not have been needed for much time after that since freshwater lakes would have started appearing soon after the 150 days.


"I considered the possibility that, perhaps, the atmosphere of the Earth back in those days may have filtered out some other form of solar radiation. This could have been part of the answer, but did not seem to be enough by itself."

He accepts this as true, thus the phrase "enough by itself." He doesn't think it's the only factor, but he does think it's a factor. I'm rather careful in my reading. I caught the things he dismissed.


Actually he doesn't accept it as true but rather says "could".


However, the graphs with their seemingly concise plots, and his use of words like "data" are engineered to mislead. Those "data" are essentially fabricated and have no verifiable accuracy whatsoever. The word "data" suggests otherwise, and the detail of the graphs has no actual value in reality. Furthermore, although he's avoiding "goddidit", it still all comes back to believing, in the face of masses of contradictory evidence, in the testimony of an unscientific book thousands of years old and the existence of persons for whom there's no evidence. He doesn't SAY "goddidit", but the arguments presented are supported by a book of faith, and not by science.


The "data" is verifiable through the bible. In your "reality" it may have no validity and for the purpose of this particular thread it doesn't either, which is why I do not understand your harping on this area. It is an interesting side note for those of us who are interested but it has no bearing on the validity of his Flood model. Although i am sure there is some really cool latin phrase for your point here, I will have to resort to saying that you are attempting to baffle with BS.


Is higher air pressure possible? Maybe. Not really my field. I pointed out that your citation had only a supposition without supporting evidence. An unsupported assumption in order to prove an unsupported assumption is fairly worthless.


Your previous post:


So, we have good reason to believe the atmospheric pressure was NOT significantly different. With his statement of "we have no idea", he's fairly truthfully saying that he has no evidence of his hypothesis. He's hoping you'll be fooled by his wording. He's not an idiot - it worked!


Sounds to me like you are again attempting to baffle with BS or in your own words: hoping we'll be fooled by your wording. First you attempt to tell us that there is good reason to not believe it was different and then backpedal and say "maybe".
In the final analysis your rebuttal is not germane to the intent of this thread although it appears to have done an admirable job of misdirection.


You would, however, be quite surprised at the number of "opposition" who hold my reason in high regard. Some have said as much in this thread. Perhaps you couldn't read those parts. Selective-vision glasses?


Perhaps I didn't need to. You did supply plenty of ammunition for the opinion I developed. The main thrust of your rebuttals have been to refute those areas which are not pertinent to the discussion, twisting the authors words and/or intent, attack the author's style rather than content and lastly imply that you have evidence contrary to his points and later admit that you didn't.

That about cover it?
 fitman2005
Joined: 8/18/2005
Msg: 149
view profile
History
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/18/2008 10:16:42 AM

As for that anecdote about the sceptic. Fitman, really? You're serious? Stop trying to make us look stupid. None of this refutes any of the arguments submitted already, and you've all but ignored most of them.


Hey--I'm not trying to make anyone look stupid as some here might be attempting. I am trying to get some of you to begin to reason against all that you have randomly accepted as being truth. And I haven't ignored ALL the arguments submitted here--I'm just getting started and thought I would jump in on the most recent declaration by FrogO. The Preacher man story was just that--a humorous anecdote. It wasn't intended to be a scientific journal of any kind. The point is that if people accept all that science offers from an evolutionary standpoint without COMPLETE PROOF to the affirmative, then they will be deceived into wrongful conclusions OVERALL. It then becomes conjecture and ONLY that. Where there is conjecture for ANYTHING, you then have REASONABLE DOUBT as in the case of C14 dating.

As for multiplicity of the human race and origins?--



by J. Warren Nelson

With the relatively recent mapping of the human genome,1 new questions can be raised concerning potential genetic evidence for Biblical events (specifically demographic events; that is, events affecting population) such as Creation and the global Flood. Evidence for a Mitochondrial Eve2,3 suggests that the historical record in Genesis of one man and one woman at the beginning might be accurate, and this idea has already been discussed in the context of creation.4 When actual measured mutation rates are used with the mitochondrial DNA data, the time frame for Mitochondrial Eve reduces to fit with the Biblical Eve.5,6 Single nucleotide polymorphisms and linkage disequilibrium also provide relevant data concerning past populations, and could serve as quite objective evidence for such demographic events as a global flood, for instance. I outline a number of research findings and ideas here.
Genetic variation and the population bottleneck

By comparing DNA from different humans around the world, it has been found that all humans share roughly 99.9% of their genetic material—they are almost completely identical, genetically.7 This means that there is very little polymorphism, or variation. Much evidence of this genetic continuity has been found. For example, Dorit et al.8 examined a 729-base pair intron (the DNA in the genome that is not read to make proteins) from a worldwide sample of 38 human males and reported no sequence variation. This sort of invariance

‘ … likely results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically small effective male population sizes … any value of Q [lowest actual human sequence diversity] > 0.0011 predicts polymorphism in our sample [and yet none was found] … . The critical value for this study thus falls below most, but not all, available estimates, thus suggesting that the lack of polymorphism at ZFY [a locus, or location] is not due to chance.’

After citing additional evidence of low variation on the Y chromosome, they note in their last paragraph that their results ‘are not compatible with most multiregional models for the origin of modern humans.’ Knight et al.9 have had similar research results:

‘We obtained over 55 kilobases of sequence from three autosomal loci encompassing Alu repeats for representatives of diverse human populations as well as orthologous sequences for other hominoid species at one of these loci. Nucleotide diversity was exceedingly low. Most individuals and populations were identical. Only a single nucleotide difference distinguished presumed ancestral alleles from descendants. These results differ from those expected if alleles from divergent archaic populations were maintained through multiregional continuity. The observed virtual lack of sequence polymorphism is the signature of a recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.’

These results are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a global flood. Evolutionary models of origins did not predict such low human genetic diversity. Mutations should have produced much more diversity than 0.1% over millions of years. And yet this is exactly what we would expect to find if all humans were closely related and experienced a relatively recent event in which only a few survived. Research is needed to determine what variation should actually be present in the human genome—what would we expect within an evolutionary framework, and how does that compare with what we find? These results could have a great impact on biological evolution, population genetics, and could provide telling results about the age of the humankind. It could also affect the so-called molecular clock.

Another piece of evidence involves single nucleotide polymorphisms (hereafter SNPs), which are mutations common to the human genome (meaning that many humans share them), being present in the human population at a frequency of roughly 1%.7 These provide great insight into both medical research and population genetics. Many humans share large blocks of SNPs (called haplotypes), suggesting that all humans could have descended from a relatively recent demographic event.
Genetic Recombination
Crossing over
(or genetic recombination) during meiosis, results in shuffled genes.

Linkage disequilibrium (or LD) supports the same conclusion. Genes are located on chromosomes in cells, and these genes may either be far away or close to each other. All of the genes that are located on one chromosome are said to be linked. When cells divide through meiosis, crossing over (or genetic recombination) often occurs. This involves two chromosomes aligning and swapping segments of DNA, resulting in genes getting shuffled around.

The closer two genes are together, the more likely that they will be inherited together—because they are close, it is unlikely that they will be separated during crossing over. When this holds true, genes are said to be in linkage disequilibrium—a state where they are not thoroughly mixed, but tend to be inherited together.10

Likewise, if genes are thoroughly mixed, they are in equilibrium. LD has provided much evidence for a population bottleneck, because humans contain long-range LD, or LD that extends quite far in the genome, meaning that many genes tend to be inherited together. This type of evidence has been found in Northern Europe, for example. In fact, data gathered by Reich et al.,11 suggests that in general, blocks of LD are large in humans, because many genes are closely associated. The explanation of this can have significant implications:

‘Why does LD extend so far? LD around an allele [or variant form of a gene] arises because of selection or population history—a small population size, genetic drift or population mixture—and decays owing to recombination [crossing over], which breaks down ancestral haplotypes [blocks of SNPs]. The extent of LD decreases in proportion to the number of generations since the LD-generating event. The simplest explanation for the observed long-range LD [such as what we find in humans] is that the population under study experienced an extreme founder effect or bottleneck: a period when the population was so small that a few ancestral haplotypes gave rise to most of the haplotypes that exist today.’11

This study concluded with the possibility that 50 individuals may have founded the entire population of Europe. This evidence is also quite consistent with a historical global flood. Research is needed on the implications of this data for the flood of Genesis. Certainly, humankind has undergone a relatively recent (tens of thousands of years at most, within an evolutionary time frame) population bottleneck. However, it must be further investigated as to the proportionality of evolutionary dates to the creation model, and as to how the molecular clock can be adequately explained in such a context. Data aiding this understanding has already been published.5

We should also seek to understand genetic evidence in the context of the tower of Babel event. Evidence exists that, after the bottleneck, ‘the [human] population rebounded in a series of separate, rapid expansions on different continents.’12 This too seems consistent with Biblical events in Genesis 11. Surely, much research is needed to expand ideas about such genetic evidence to determine its consistency with the Bible and its inconsistency with, for example, the various evolutionary out-of-Africa models. Different models of human history are hotly debated in the scientific community today.13
References

1. Lander et al., Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome, Nature 409(6822):860–921, 2001. Return to text
2. Wilson, A.C. and Cann, R.L., The recent African genesis of humans, Scientific American 266(4):68–73, 1992. Return to text
3. Gibbons, A., Mitochondrial Eve refuses to die, Science 259(5099):1249–1250, 1993. Return to text
4. Batten, D., Y-chromosome Adam?, CEN Tech. J. 9(2):139–140, 1995. Return to text
5. Gibbons, A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279(5347):28–29, 1998. Return to text
6. Wieland, C., A shrinking date for ‘Eve’, CEN Tech. J. 12(1):1–3, 1998. Return to text
7. Wheelwright, J., Bad genes, good drugs, Discover 23(4):52–59, 2002. Return to text
8. Dorit, R.L., Akashi, H. and Gilbert, W., Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268(5214):1183–1185, 1995. Return to text
9. Knight, A., Batzer, M.A., Stoneking, M., Tiwari, H.K., Scheer, W.D., Herrera, R.J. and Deininger, P.L., DNA sequences of Alu elements indicate a recent replacement of the human autosomal genetic complement, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 93(9):4360–4364, 1996. Return to text
10. Zweiger, G., Transducing the Genome, McGraw-Hill, p. 24, 2001. Return to text
11. Reich, D.E., Cargill, M., Bolk, S., Ireland, J., Sabeti, P.C., Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411(6834):199–204, 2001. Return to text
12. Gibbons, A., Pleistocene population explosions, Science 262(5130):27–28, 1993. Return to text
13. D’Agnese, J., Not out of Africa, Discover 23(8):52–57, 2002.




by Carl Wieland

Most creationists will have by now heard of the ‘mitochondrial Eve’ hypothesis, the finding that all modern humans can be traced back to one woman. Some recent findings on when ‘Eve’ is supposed to have lived are very encouraging for creationists. But first we should review a few things, and hopefully sweep away some common misunderstandings.

Evolutionists do not claim, nor can it be fairly stated, that this evidence proves that there was only one woman alive at any point in the past. Holders to the ‘Eve’ theory certainly insist that all modern humans are indeed descended from one woman. However, they believe that there were other women present at the time, and that any of these other women could have contributed DNA information to our present gene pool of humanity. How does this apparent contradiction come about?

The answer lies in the fact that while we all inherit our usual complement of (nuclear) DNA from both mother and father, we only inherit mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from our mother. Think of it like a surname, only related to the opposite sex. In our society, we inherit our surname only from our father. A surname can become ‘extinct’ without implying that all the people in a line have died out—all it takes is for there to be only female descendants at any level.

In the same way, if a line of descent in a human population has only males at one point, then that line ‘dies out’ as far as its ‘mitochondrial signature’ is concerned, i.e., nuclear DNA is still passed on, but not mtDNA. To make it easier to understand, let’s return to the surname analogy (then later just substitute females for males). Imagine that an island is colonised by four couples, each with the first names Harry and Sally, but with four different surnames: Smith, Jones, Brown and White. In due course the population grows, with each generation marrying only among any of the other surnames available. It is very easy to set up a simple computer simulation to show how readily a surname can ‘die out’ with a line ending in only daughters. In due course, all the people on that island could end up with one surname only—say Smith. (Something like this happened on Pitcairn Island. Of the nine Bounty mutineers, six families settled the island in 1790. Of those six names [Christian, Young, Adams, McCoy, Quintal, Mills] only the first two have survived, even though Christian and Young were not the only ‘founding fathers’ to contribute genes to the island’s current small population. And some names have been ‘added’ from outside male settlers in the interim.) This is only probable where there is only a small number of surnames initially, i.e., a small original population; if the number of surnames is too large, it becomes very improbable for it to narrow down to only one or two.

In one sense it could be said that ‘Harry Smith’ is the ‘father of all on the island’. Yet this does not imply that Harry Jones, for example, is not the ancestor of any of them. Harry Jones could very well have contributed nuclear DNA to any of today’s islanders, without being their ‘surname ancestor’.

Let’s say you are a researcher investigating this particular island, without the benefit of any written records. You notice that all people on the island today are named Smith. Now this could be for two reasons:

1. Because there really was only one couple that colonised the island in the beginning, called ‘Smith’, or
2. There was only a small number of surnames on the islands to begin with, and the other surnames became extinct.

Returning to the ‘Eve’ debate, it is clear from the above example (by just swapping the sexes around) that the evidence from mtDNA, which has suggested that all modern humans come from one woman, can mean one of two things.

1. There really was only one couple in the beginning—i.e, mitochondrial Eve could be the real (biblical) Eve, or:
2. All modern humans are descended from only a small population existing at one time. The other ‘mitochondrial lines’ (from the other females living alongside the one whose mitochondrial ‘surname’ is found in all populations today) have become extinct whenever a line had no female offspring. ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ is the only one of the original population in whose offspring there has been a continuous supply of female descendants in each generation. Any of the other women living alongside her could have contributed nuclear DNA to today’s populations, via their sons.

I trust the analogy is clear. The mitochondrial Eve data does not force the belief that there was only one woman from whom we all descended—in other words, it doesn’t prove the Bible—but—a very important ‘but’—it is most definitely consistent with it. In other words, had there been more than one mitochondrial ‘surname’, it would have been a severe challenge to the biblical scenario. And it was not something that was expected by evolutionists. To explain it in their scenario requires a small population of modern humans to arise in one part of the world (archaic humans having already evolved and spread across the globe), and from there, spread out to replace all the other less-evolved humans, so that we all descend from that small original population (the ‘out-of-Africa’ or ‘Noah’s Ark’ theory of human evolution).

The biblical creationist would conclude that the one woman suggested by the mitochondrial data is almost certainly the real Eve.1
When did ‘Eve’ live?

Evolutionists, aware of the way in which the mitochondrial Eve discovery could be seen to have vindicated the Bible, have long countered by saying that their ‘Eve’ lived far too long ago to be the biblical Eve. How do they calculate this? The answer has to do with why this scenario came about in the first place. MtDNA is known to be much more transparent to selection than nuclear DNA. In other words, there are many places where a genetic ‘letter’ can be replaced with another by way of a mutational ‘copying mistake’ without causing any problems to the organism. Comparisons between various groups of people alive today can be made on the basis of the number of letters which are ‘different’, having been substituted by mutation. Modern humans were much closer to each other than standard evolutionary theory had predicted, hence the out-of-Africa theory.

Evolutionists have guessed at when their mitochondrial Eve lived via the idea of the ‘molecular clock’—i.e., that there is a more or less fixed rate of mutational substitutions per year in any population. How do they know what this rate is—in other words, how is the ‘molecular clock’ calibrated? By using evolutionary assumptions about the timing of events based on their interpretation of the fossil record. For example, if it is believed that humans and baboons, for example, last shared a common ancestor ‘x’ years ago, and if the number of differences between baboon and human mtDNA is y, then the substitution rate per year is y/x. In this way, estimates of when ‘Eve’ lived have varied from as low as 70,000 to 800,000 years ago, more commonly in the range 200-250,000 years.

It has recently been claimed that Neandertals were not direct human ancestors, but a different species in fact. This claim has been made on the basis of the number of substitutional differences in one stretch of mtDNA between that extracted from the one Neandertal ever tested and the average of today’s populations. In a consistent biblical model, there would be no ‘proto-humans’ having music, jewellery, trade, clothing, shelter, sophisticated hunting weapons and the like. ‘If he/she acts in so many respects like a human, he/she is a human’—and thus a descendant of Adam. Neandertals (some of whose physical traits can be found in some European populations) were not a different species (or a spiritless race not descended from Adam, as Rossists proclaim) but were post-Flood humans, representing a subset of the original gene pool broken up at Babel.

Creationists have correctly countered both Eve’s ‘age’ and the Neandertal assertions by saying that the molecular clock calibrations are way off.2 Since, for example, the creationist’s (true) Eve lived only a few thousand years ago, the mutational substitutions in mtDNA must have happened at a much faster rate than assumed by evolutionists to date.
Good news

In fact, a number of recent studies on living populations have indeed come up with results which indicate a much higher rate of mutation in human mtDNA.3,4

Although not all studies to date have found the same high rate, at least two studies, looking directly at substitutions occurring today, have found rates as much as 20 times higher than previously assumed.5 Studies on the bones of the last Tsar of Russia also showed that he, along with 10–20 % of the population, actually had at least 2 types of mtDNA, a condition called ‘heteroplasmy’, also caused by mutations.3 This, too, throws off the ‘molecular clock’ calibrations.

According to one review of the data, these recent results would mean that mitochondrial Eve ‘lived about 6500 years ago—a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human origins. Even if the last common mitochondrial ancestor is younger than the last common real ancestor, it remains enigmatic how the known distribution of human populations and genes could have arisen in the past few thousand years.’4

The review in Science’s ‘Research News’ goes still further about Eve’s date, saying that ‘using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.’ The article says about one of the teams of scientists (the Parsons team5) that ‘evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations ... they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations.’4

Evolutionists have tried to evade the force of these results by countering that the high mutation rate only occurs in certain stretches of DNA called ‘hot spots’ and/or that the high (observed) rate causes back mutations which ‘erase’ the effects of this high rate. Therefore, conveniently, the rate is assumed to be high over a short timespan, but effectively low over a long timespan. However, this is special pleading to get out of a difficulty, and the burden of proof is on evolutionists to sustain the vast ages for ‘Eve’ in the face of these documented, modern-day mutation rates. These are indeed encouraging results for creationists. In summary:

1. The mitochondrial Eve findings were, in the first instance, in line with biblically-based expectations; while not proving the biblical Eve, they were consistent with her reality, and were not predicted by evolutionary theory.
2. The dates assigned to mitochondrial Eve were said by evolutionists to rule out the biblical Eve. But these dates were based upon ‘molecular clock’ assumptions, which were calibrated by evolutionary beliefs about when certain evolutionary events occurred, supposedly millions of years ago.
3. When these assumed rates were checked out against the real world, preliminary results indicate that the mitochondrial ‘molecular clock’ is ticking at a much faster rate than evolutionists believed possible. If correct, it means that mitochondrial Eve lived 6,000 to 6,500 years ago, right in the ballpark for the true ‘mother of all living’ (Genesis 3:20).
4. These real-time findings also seriously weaken the case from mitochondrial DNA which argued (erroneously) that Neandertals were not true humans.

References

1. I say ‘almost certainly’ to cover the claim that she may have been one of the small post-Flood population, although I would not expect sufficient mtDNA divergence in the small number of generations between creation and the Flood. Return to text.
2. Lubenow, M.L., 1998. Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: an evaluation. CEN Tech. J. 12(1):87–97. Return to text.
3. Loewe, L and Scherer, S. ‘Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens.’ Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11):422–423, November 1997. Return to text.
4. Gibbons, A. ‘Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock’. Science 279(5347):28–29, January 2, 1998. Return to text.
5. Parsons, T.J. et al ‘A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region’, Nature GeneticsVol. 15: 363–368, 1997; as cited in ref. 4.


As for the issue of incest--I have read good apologetics for such but will be hard-pressed to find it right now. Will have to dig.


Why don't we do this here?-- **Why don't some of you present the biggest obstacles to Noah's Marine Cataclysm in short form and we'll go from there--
 asheel_heel
Joined: 4/7/2006
Msg: 150
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/18/2008 10:44:39 AM
It seems to me that the deists' best stance is to posit that the putative laws of nature and disputable, rational chains of causation are simply a method god uses to winnow out those who don't possess his most cherished trait-faith.

chaffully,
grignon
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > The "real" Noah's Ark.