|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ¿Can you believe in an old earth and a global flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garabato Junior Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
This is probably not going to be much of a discusion topic; but is a question that people who know about geology/flood debates could probably answer me.
Annyway, I ve noticed that most pages that defend a global flood also defend a young earth. And the OEC usually believe in a local flood. So, the question is: What part of flood geology becomes hard to explain if one acepts an old earth? I ask mainly because a friend of mine is a Jehova witness, and he believes in an old earth and a local flood. Is there any way I can prove him that those views are contradictory? Thanks Edited by Garabato, : No reason given. Edited by Garabato, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I ask mainly because a friend of mine is a Jehova witness, and he believes in an old earth and a local flood. Is there any way I can prove him that those views are contradictory? Probably not. The earth is old, and there are local floods all the time, so those two are definitely not contradictory. Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:Bible experts generally place the global flood at about 4350 years ago. At that time period you look to archaeology and sedimentology, rather than geology, for evidence. These fields are pretty much unanimous that there was no global flood at that time. There have been numerous local floods. Notable are the post-glacial floods, such as the ones that created the channeled scablands of southern and eastern Washington. Those resulted from ice dams in the area of the Idaho panhandle pooling water well into Montana. When those dams let loose, major parts of Washington were scoured, leaving very distinctive evidence behind. This evidence can be studied, giving a good idea of the number of the floods, and their ages. The fact that no such evidence exists for a global flood much more recently is telling. Regarding an old earth--events such as these, dated well past 6,000 years ago, all argue against the young earth belief. But the real evidence for the age of the earth comes from radioactive dating and a variety of other fields, not flood "geology."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes: Regarding an old earth--events such as these, dated well past 6,000 years ago, all argue against the young earth belief. But the real evidence for the age of the earth comes from radioactive dating and a variety of other fields, not flood "geology." I always thought Genesis 1:1 was pretty good for determining that the earth was old and the universe was old. It says in the beginning and since no one has ever been able to tell me when the beginning was then it has to be old. Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garabato Junior Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
"Probably not. The earth is old, and there are local floods all the time, so those two are definitely not contradictory"
Oh, sorry, I ment to say that he believes in an old earth and a global flood around 4500 years ago. Edited by Garabato, : Stupidity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I'm sure that there were local floods 4500 years ago. Do you think that heavy rainfall wouldn't have caused rivers to overflow into the flood plains 4500 years ago?
Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh, sorry, I ment to say that he believes in an old earth and a local flood around 4500 years ago. I you sure you didn't mean to say global flood? If there was an old earth and a global flood then we would expect to see a bottleneck in the number of species, but we don't so we can be pretty sure that a global flood did not happen. Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science" He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garabato Junior Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
quote: Could you please back that up? What kind of evidence suggest that there was no global flood at that time? I understand why a young earth view needs a global flood to be defended. But I dont really get what part of a global flood view needs a young earth to stand up. Yet, the correlation between old earth-local flood and YE-Global flood is huge among internet sites. Could annyone give me some light on the subject? Edit: I messed up again. :S He believes in an old earth and a GLOBAl flood. Edited by Garabato, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Actually, the two are pretty independent concepts. Either the earth is old, or it is young. In either case, either there was a
The main reason that young earth/global flood are linked is because Biblical literalists insist that because Genesis describes both, they must both be reality. (Also, literalists seem to believe that a global flood will explain data that indicates an old earth, but that's not correct.) But young earth and global flood will each, by themselves, independently, be confirmed or be contradicted by the different data. Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:Archaeology deals with these time periods all the time. I have personally conducted somewhere over 100 excavations and obtained nearly 600 radiocarbon dates. Maybe half of those have spanned that time period. I can detect no break at that time period in my own work, and my colleagues all over the world report similar results. There simply is no evidence of a global flood 4,350 years ago.quote:Could you please back that up? What kind of evidence suggest that there was no global flood at that time? And the effects of a global flood would be very obvious. What we see instead are continuities: continuities of local cultures, soil profiles, fauna and flora, etc. Two examples of continuity in local cultures and genetics: from the west coast there are skeletons at 10,300 years and 5,300 years in age with direct mtDNA continuity to living individuals. There is no break in that mtDNA and replacement with Middle Eastern mtDNA. Another example: dendrochronology (tree ring dating) has established a record going back some 12,600 years based on bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of Southern California. Annual rings are counted for each year back to that date. There is no break in this pattern 4,350 years ago, as would be necessary if there was a global flood at that date.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Could annyone give me some light on the subject? The hebrew word for the dirt and the ground was the same word for their whole world (and their country), kinda like we use the word earth. Earth can mean the whole planet or it can just mean dirt. I could say that I have some earth in my hand, or that there is a lot of earth in my backyard. Now, lets say I am experiencing a local flood (in my backyard). My scribe writes of my observation: "He looked out into his backyard and saw that all the earth was covered." What I literally mean is that all the dirt in my backyard is covered in water. But what someone might misunderstand me saying is that the whole freakin planet is covered in water. Can you see how a misinterpretation can lead to a misunderstanding? The whole planet was not covered in water in the timeframe of a YEC's young earth, one of the reason s we know this, as I mentioned above, is the lack of a bottleneck in the number of species. The planet is old and The FloodTM could just have been a misunderstanding of older tales (like the deluge in Epic of Gilgamesh) that could have been actual observation of local floods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
In general Young Earth Creationists believe in a global flood firstly because they adhere to a simple, literal reading of Genesis (which is why they believe that the Earth is young in the first place) and because it's the least bad explanation for the fossil record they can find.
Old Earth Creationists are more inclined to looser readings and tend to have a greater respect for the physical evidence (which is why they accept that the Earth is old). A local flood is not ruled out by Genesis and fits better with the actual evidence. I would guess that your friend adheres to one of the ideas which tries to fit an Old Earth with a fairly strict reading of Genesis such as "Gap Theory". "Gap Theory" postulates a long gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 with the world created in 1:1 laid waste at the end of the period (leading into 1:2).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:I don't think "bottleneck" is the right word to describe such a catastrophe. I think most people would agree to use something like "global extinction" or "mass extinction" to describe it. Bottleneck means the allele frequency after an event is very different from the allele frequency before the event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't think "bottleneck" is the right word to describe such a catastrophe. I think most people would agree to use something like "global extinction" or "mass extinction" to describe it. Did you even read the page I linked too!? It says:
quote: That is pretty much exactly what I was describing.
Bottleneck means the allele frequency after an event is very different from the allele frequency before the event.
Flase. If the allele frequency increased by a whole lot, then the frequency would be "very different" but it would not be a bottleneck. I guess I could call it a bottlebody Your definition needs to specify that it is a decrease. Besides, I specified that the bottleneck was in the number of species, not alleles. And on top of that, I could use bottleneck to describe all kinds of things, for example, if I was constipated, I say there was a bottleneck in the number of shits I take in a week. Got it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024