Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 1 of 130 (391393)
03-24-2007 9:38 PM


Glenn Morton hypothesis:
The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago
Hi, I just found this forum today. Looks like a lot of interesting discussions are going on!
For the last six months or so I've been discussing creation/evolution at a theology forum. I went from hard-core YEC to OEC to confused OEC/theistic evolutionist. I almost lost my faith, but decided I'd hang on even if modern science couldn't be reconciled with Scripture...
Now I'm working through the issues separating OEC from TE, which I realize could take the rest of my life - and then some
But in a number of discussions at the other forum, a vocal member GRMorton (Glenn Morton) has continually brought up his argument that his vast geological studies prove conclusively (in his mind at least) that the Flood could NOT have occurred any more recently than FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO.
THE REASON: He says the Flood would not have been sustainable and that the waters would have been dumped into a nearby sea within a few weeks...
With this in mind, he has expanded his study to anthropology to prove that modern man lived as far back as five million years ago. He justifies this belief using evidences of tools and religion, which he believes date back that far.
[HALT: My mistake. After Glenn's posts below, I am adding this note to say I realize I was unintentionally misrepresenting Glenn's view in the paragraph above. HE EMPHATICALLY DOES NOT BELIEVE * MODERN * MAN LIVED FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO, AS HE EXPLAINS BELOW. I made this mistake inadvertently because I assumed Noah would necessarily have had to be a "modern man." Glenn believes Noah was NOT a modern man. That is where I was mistaken.]
I don't know geology (or anthropology for that matter), but for a number of reasons, I don't buy his arguments. Few people do. Yet he has spent the last 10+ years developing his ideas (online @ http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm), and he kind of argues his points incessantly The Flood isn't often discussed at this other forum, so I thought there might be some geologist types here who could shed some light on this subject.
Are there any (non-YEC) geological studies online (or offline) that anyone is aware of that would dispute his claim that the Flood COULD NOT have occurred more recently than five million years ago?
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 03-24-2007 10:51 PM mpb1 has replied
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 03-24-2007 11:02 PM mpb1 has replied
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-25-2007 1:18 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 8:10 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 13 by grmorton, posted 03-25-2007 5:51 PM mpb1 has replied

  
AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 130 (391400)
03-24-2007 10:25 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 130 (391403)
03-24-2007 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mpb1
03-24-2007 9:38 PM


Good first post by the way
Are there any (non-YEC) geological studies online (or offline) that anyone is aware of that would dispute his claim that the Flood COULD NOT have occurred more recently than five million years ago?
I don't know of any that would dispute it, but lots that would push it back much further than only 5 million years. It is absolutely certain that if there ever was a Global Flood, it could only have happened in the very far distant past.
As a Christian, and fellow Texan, I so far have never found any evidence that supports there ever having been a global flood. For one thing, floods do leave distinctive geological signs, we can point to specific geographic areas and say, "Yes, that was caused by a flood." But unfortunately for floodists, they are all from very different periods.
The genetic information also seems to support the fact that there has not been a world-wide flood. One thing that can be seen looking a genetics are bottlenecks, period when a population crashes and so all future generations are directly related to the few critters that survived the bottleneck event. Well you don't get much more of a bottleneck event than only seven of each species surviving. If the flood had happened, there would be genetic markers in every critter all pointing to the same point of time in the past, the time of the supposed flood.
We can see bottle neck events in the genetic record, just as we can see flood events in the geological record, but again, they do not all point to the same point in time.
The problem for floodists is that there really is NO evidence anywhere of any world-wide flood, not recently, not in the last 6000 years, not in the last 600,000 years and not in the last many millions of years.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mpb1, posted 03-24-2007 9:38 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mpb1, posted 03-24-2007 10:57 PM jar has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 4 of 130 (391405)
03-24-2007 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
03-24-2007 10:51 PM


Re: Good first post by the way
Since many Christians believe the biblical language describing the Flood could be interpreted as REGIONAL, rather than worldwide, can we assume we're only debating a regional Flood?
If THAT is even remotely possible in recent history, then the Flood shouldn't be a stumbling block to our study of origins - at least that's what I would assume, and I'd imagine that's what all the other Creationists are assuming as well...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 03-24-2007 10:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 03-24-2007 11:32 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 5 of 130 (391408)
03-24-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mpb1
03-24-2007 9:38 PM


Welcome to EvC mpb1!
mpb1 writes:
But in a number of discussions at the other forum, a vocal member GRMorton (Glenn Morton) has continually brought up his argument that his vast geological studies prove conclusively (in his mind at least) that the Flood could NOT have occurred any more recently than FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO.
THE REASON: He says the Flood would not have been sustainable and that the waters would have been dumped into a nearby sea within a few weeks...
From my understanding, there was never a global flood in the entire history of the Earth. I have compiled 100 categories of the millions, if not billions, of data points of evidence against Noah's flood at Message 2, please feel free to pick one you may be uncomfortable with and we can discuss it if you would like to. As a side note, some of these, such as multiple conglomerates, came from Glenn Morton himself.
With this in mind, he has expanded his study to anthropology to prove that modern man lived as far back as five million years ago. He justifies this belief using evidences of tools and religion, which he believes date back that far.
It seems a bit strange that Morton would argue that 'modern man' would exist 5 million years ago. Are you sure that he was not arguing that precursors of humans existed 5 million years ago?
Please feel free to let me know what web forum he is active in, I would for one find it fascinating to see what he is up to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mpb1, posted 03-24-2007 9:38 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mpb1, posted 03-25-2007 12:53 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 14 by grmorton, posted 03-25-2007 5:55 PM anglagard has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 130 (391418)
03-24-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mpb1
03-24-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Good first post by the way
Since many Christians believe the biblical language describing the Flood could be interpreted as REGIONAL, rather than worldwide, can we assume we're only debating a regional Flood?
If THAT is even remotely possible in recent history, then the Flood shouldn't be a stumbling block to our study of origins - at least that's what I would assume, and I'd imagine that's what all the other Creationists are assuming as well...
If it is simply a regional flood, then it has NO relationship to origins. Biblical Creationism is simply wrong. That much is a non-starter.
There have been many, many floods during the life of the Earth but none that have had any major impact on living creatures in general. We know for a fact, for example, that there is almost no differences between the creatures living at the supposed time of Adam, and those living today.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mpb1, posted 03-24-2007 10:57 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 7 of 130 (391440)
03-25-2007 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by anglagard
03-24-2007 11:02 PM


The forum where Glenn often discusses this topic is TheologyWeb. He is GRMorton there. I'm mpb1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 03-24-2007 11:02 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-25-2007 1:32 AM mpb1 has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 8 of 130 (391446)
03-25-2007 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mpb1
03-24-2007 9:38 PM


Glenn Morton elsewhere at evcforum.net
Three plus years ago I started the "Links and Information" topic Glenn Morton's attempt at reconcilling the Genesis story and the worldly story. That topic contains the link A Theory for Creationists , where Morton proposes that the Genesis flood story best connects to the filling of the dry Mediterranean basin, apparently some +/- 5 million years ago.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Had the wrong link for the first cite.

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mpb1, posted 03-24-2007 9:38 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 9 of 130 (391451)
03-25-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mpb1
03-25-2007 12:53 AM


Need link(s) if you're going to guide us elsewhere
I mucked around Forums - TheologyWeb Campus a bit, and was unable to find the debate you refer to. Link(s) please.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mpb1, posted 03-25-2007 12:53 AM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mpb1, posted 03-25-2007 1:36 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 10 of 130 (391452)
03-25-2007 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Adminnemooseus
03-25-2007 1:32 AM


Re: Need link(s) if you're going to guide us elsewhere
Here's the most recent link to a discussion (on another topic) that Glenn brought this issue into a couple days ago:
TheologyWeb Campus
Also, here's a link to the science section: TheologyWeb Campus
where Glenn has a few thousand posts...
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-25-2007 1:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 130 (391473)
03-25-2007 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mpb1
03-24-2007 9:38 PM


roxrkool?
Welcome to the fray mpb1
GRMorton (Glenn Morton) has continually brought up his argument that his vast geological studies prove conclusively (in his mind at least) that the Flood could NOT have occurred any more recently than FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO.
THE REASON: He says the Flood would not have been sustainable and that the waters would have been dumped into a nearby sea within a few weeks...
Why wouldn't the flood dump into nearby seas at any past age? This seems like a "special pleading" logical fallacy (applies to {A} but not to {B} because {B} is special)
Are there any (non-YEC) geological studies online (or offline) that anyone is aware of that would dispute his claim that the Flood COULD NOT have occurred more recently than five million years ago?
Not that I am aware of. Best answer would come from one of the geologsts around here, like roxrkool (click for message list to reply on), but all (non-YEC) geology studies (double negative coming) do not dispute that the flood "could not have happened" - at any time in the past (if you get my drift).
I don't know geology (or anthropology for that matter), but for a number of reasons, I don't buy his arguments. Few people do. Yet he has spent the last 10+ years developing his ideas (online @ http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm), and he kind of argues his points incessantly ...
Which doesn't make them any more valid than the first time, does it?
With this in mind, he has expanded his study to anthropology to prove that modern man lived as far back as five million years ago. He justifies this belief using evidences of tools and religion, which he believes date back that far.
He's off by a few million years. See
http://www.mnh.si.edu/...ro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html
for some basic background. From the last link:
quote:
... remains of the oldest representative of the genus Homo had been recognized only in Asia. In that year, however, Louis Leakey, Phillip Tobias, and John Napier announced the new species Homo habilis, or "handy man". They had to redefine the genus to accommodate this oldest form.
... While calling attention to anatomical differences between OH 7 and Australopithecus, they chose a behavior - the ability to make stone tools - to help place OH 7 in Homo. This point relied on stone tools found in the same geologic horizon as the fossils.
This is the earliest recognized evidence of tool use in the fossil record, and the earliest Homo habilis is ~2.5 million years ago.
The earliest recognized evidence of religion is with the Homo neanderthalensis and Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens) less than 0.5 million years ago.
On the other hand going back 5 million years takes us to before Australopithicus and before Ardipithecus ramidus and very close to the (current thinking) split from the chimpanzee line.
Not that chimpanzees don't have religion or use tools ... or that some don't argue that chimpanzees belong in the Homo family.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mpb1, posted 03-24-2007 9:38 PM mpb1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by grmorton, posted 03-25-2007 6:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 12 of 130 (391525)
03-25-2007 4:53 PM


This is Glenn responding to some of the issues raised...
---------------------------------------------------------------
mpb1 - on Theology Web:
Glenn,
As far as my statement that, "To my knowledge, very few evolutionists even believe that modern man lived five million years ago," this is not based on a study of anthropology, but a general study of modern evolutionist teaching and time lines. If the statement is incorrect, feel free to correct me.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRMorton - on Theology Web:
When did I ever say that it was MODERN MAN????? Where does it say in the Bible that ONLY anatomically modern man can have the image of God??? Only man looks on the outside, but God sees the inner man and it is that which is inside that determines whether or not a person is human.
To tie humanity to the viseage of mankind is to make the same mistake Europeans made when they encountered Africans, Chinese and Native Americans. Many Europeans decided that these newly contacted people were not descended from Adam because they didn't look like us.
So, when it comes to Neanderthals, H. erectus etc, they don't look like us either, but, their activities reveal human-like natures. Indeed, many of their inventions we still use--coal mining, anoxic chemistry, the 7-note diatonic scale, flutes and whistles, shamanism, the flued hearth, spears, bedding, tents, jewelry, boomerangs, etc. None of these things were invented by anatomically modern peoples within the past 50,000 years. (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/chron.htm for references for these inventions).
So, your mistake is to believe that I have been talking about anatomically modern people. If you would but actually read what I write rather than what you think I write, it would make discussions so much easier. In short, I dont' think Adam was an anatomically modern human.
---------------------------------------------------------------
mpb1 - on Theology Web:
I desperately want to be objective. I do not want to bias myself against any information, if it is factual. I know you would probably die for your beliefs, so of course I don't want to arbitrarily discount them.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRMorton - on Theology Web:
If you wanted to be objective, you would read what disagrees with your position rather than reading what agrees with your position. That is the only path to objectivity (or as close to objectivity as a human being can get--for you are correct that absolutely no one is truly objective, including me and including you).
---------------------------------------------------------------
mpb1 - on Theology Web:
But what I have repeated throughout our numerous conversations is this:
I DO NOT WANT TO ALLOW THE FLOOD TO FORCE ME INTO BELIEVING THAT HUMANS ** MUST ** HAVE COME INTO BEING FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRMorton - on Theology Web:
And that is what is commonly called 'a bias'. When you rule out certain paths because you dont' like them, you are biased (now I have introduced the bias term without you using it.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
mpb1 - on Theology Web:
Once a person - such as yourself - does this, the discussion is over. Objective research is over. The scientific community could unanimously agree that modern humans were not present on earth until 100,000 years ago, AND YOU WOULD REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT BASED ON ONE FACT ALONE: YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE FLOOD COULD HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THAT TIME... and I assume you would then have to become an atheist in order to accept the science that disagrees with your bedrock belief about the advent of human life.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRMorton - on Theology Web:
As I said, I don't believe that Adam is anatomically modern, a fact you could have easily ascertained if you hadn't had a bias against actually reading anything I have written, either in the journals or on the internet. Adam was an archaic hominid--since the advent of H. floresiensis, with his very tiny brain but decent technology, it is conceivable that Adam was an australopithecine (whose brains were generally bigger than that of H. floresiensis).
But of course, we wouldn't want you to actually understand what I am saying because that might challenge your opinion, and you might actually have to deal with anthropological literature (whcih would be a horrible thing for you because you want it ruled out of the discussion by fiat).
---------------------------------------------------------------
mpb1 - on Theology Web:
I am more willing to say that the Flood story got into sacred Scripture when it perhaps shouldn't have - than I am to say I REFUSE TO ACCEPT ALL OBJECTIVE RESEARCH INTO ORIGINS BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS THE FLOOD STORY.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRMorton - on Theology Web:
So, you would be willing to re-write the Bible, give God a wee bit of help in telling the story. Is God such a bumbling dummy in your view? If so, you are closer to atheism than you realize.
---------------------------------------------------------------
mpb1 - on Theology Web:
Earlier, I e-mailed to let you know I started a thread on your hypothesis at another forum:
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.c...&f=7&t=204&m=1
I posted it there because they have a sub-forum dedicated to geology and the Flood.)
I know you've shared your ideas on TWeb repeatedly, and maybe you have a forum here where you deal with this issue in depth - I don't know. But please consider me ON THE SIDELINES of this issue. This is not a battle I want to fight.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRMorton - on Theology Web:
If you don't want to fight, why are you fighting? Are you afraid of what you might find in anthropology (once you lose the misapprehension that I believe that anatomically modern men lived 5 million years ago--which they didn't)?
---------------------------------------------------------------
mpb1 - on Theology Web:
The "Flood problem" is not going to stop me from objectively trying to find answers related to the origin of man.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRMorton - on Theology Web:
Once you rule certain areas of knowledge off limits, you can't be objective so cease this senseless prattle about how you wish to be objective. If you wanted to be objective you would include all areas of knowledge. If you wish to be biased, then focus only on that which makes you feel happy and satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRMorton - on Theology Web:
If you want to let geology stop you from objectively researching man's origins - without already being convinced it had be at least five million years ago - go right ahead. But I really think you should stop expecting everyone else to do the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRMorton - on Theology Web:
The whole problem here is that you don't understand that I have never ever claimed that anatomically modern humans lived 5 million years ago. This shows that you haven't done any research into what I am actually saying and that you are using either other people's misconceptions or have your own original misconception. To illustrate this
'Human' does not equal anatomically modern homo sapiens
'Human' does equal a set of behaviors--religion, art, invention of complex tools, music, ritual burial etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Above post from the bottom of page 2 of this thread:
TheologyWeb Campus
I don't want to discuss the issue on that (topically unrelated) thread any more if I can help it. But I'm hoping more light can be shed on it here. Thanks for the info posted so far.
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 03-25-2007 6:31 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 6197 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 13 of 130 (391533)
03-25-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mpb1
03-24-2007 9:38 PM


First off, Mark, It is rude to do this on another forum, one to which I am not a member and then expect me to come here to defend myself against your misunderstandings, which seem to boil down to the mistaken belief on your part that I am saying that anatomically modern humans lived 5 million years ago. hominids are definitively that old, and maybe older.
You have made this erroneous, and scandalous claim that I am advocating that anatomically modern man lived five million years ago. If you would but actually read what I have written you would see how mistaken that is.
I see lots of human-like activity in the past, prior to 100 kyr ago. The inventions of the archaic hominids are still being used. Since I don't want to re-type this twice on the very same day this is from my reply to you on another board.
When did I ever say that it was MODERN MAN????? Where does it say in the Bible that ONLY anatomically modern man can have the image of God??? Only man looks on the outside, but God sees the inner man and it is that which is inside that determines whether or not a person is human.
To tie humanity to the viseage of mankind is to make the same mistake Europeans made when they encountered Africans, Chinese and Native Americans. Many Europeans decided that these newly contacted people were not descended from Adam because they didn't look like us.
So, when it comes to Neanderthals, H. erectus etc, they don't look like us either, but, their activities reveal human-like natures. Indeed, many of their inventions we still use--coal mining, anoxic chemistry, the 7-note diatonic scale, flutes and whistles, shamanism, the flued hearth, spears, bedding, tents, jewelry, boomerangs, etc. None of these things were invented by anatomically modern peoples within the past 50,000 years. (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/chron.htm for references for these inventions).
So, your mistake is to beleive that I have been talking about anatomically modern people. If you would but actually read what I write rather than what you think I write, it would make discussions so much easier. In short, I dont' think Adam was an anatomically modern human.
I also don't believe that Adam is anatomically modern, a fact you could have easily ascertained if you hadn't had a bias against actually reading anything I have written, either in the journals or on the internet. Adam was an archaic hominid--since the advent of H. floresiensis, with his very tiny, chimp-sized brain but who had decent technology, it is conceivable that Adam was an australopithecine (whose brains were generally bigger than that of H. floresiensis). Mark, if you don't know anything about H. floresiensis maybe you should go learn some anthro instead of insisting that without any study in areas like geology and anthropology you have a sufficient basis upon which to judge the validity of various ideas.
When you say, " I don't know geology (or anthropology for that matter), but for a number of reasons, I don't buy his arguments."
that is an understatement. I have repeatedly claimed that there is no place on earth where a flood could be proposed which would fit the Biblical account (last 1 year,and move an ark north into Turkey). If you put the flood in the Mesopotamian basin, there are innumerable problems. The land slopes to the south meaning that the water would flow to the south, taking the floating ark south to the Persian Gulf, not north to Turkey. You can get out of this problem by asserting that water can indeed flow uphill, but, that would seem to be factually incorrect. At the speed of water in most continental, riverine floods, the ark and all the water would be drained into the Persian gulf in a couple of weeks, so the flood couldn't last 1 year. So, unless you wish to rewrite the Bible to help God along with the idiocies you see him committing, you need to find a place where the ark can float to Turkey and last 1 year. As I also told you earlier today, on another board, all you have to do to prove this assertion false is to name the place where such a flood could occur. You haven't.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mpb1, posted 03-24-2007 9:38 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mpb1, posted 03-25-2007 7:08 PM grmorton has replied
 Message 26 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-26-2007 4:19 AM grmorton has replied

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 6197 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 14 of 130 (391534)
03-25-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by anglagard
03-24-2007 11:02 PM


Anglagard wrote:
"It seems a bit strange that Morton would argue that 'modern man' would exist 5 million years ago. Are you sure that he was not arguing that precursors of humans existed 5 million years ago?"
This incredible mistake on the part of Mark is why I came here. I don't want people thinking I am saying such a stupid thing. Mark, you owe me an apology for claiming I am saying such nonsense and then spreading it around the internet. I have tried to explain this to you before but you ignore it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 03-24-2007 11:02 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 03-25-2007 6:41 PM grmorton has not replied

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 6197 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 15 of 130 (391536)
03-25-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
03-25-2007 8:10 AM


Re: roxrkool?
Razd wrote:
"He's off by a few million years. See
http://www.mnh.si.edu/...ro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html
for some basic background. From the last link:
"
Since I have NEVER EVER CLAIMED that anatomically modern man lived 5 million years ago, I am NOT off by a few million years. This is absolutely scurrilous that Mark is misrepresenting me so. Mark, you better stop it. This is bordering on malicious for you to spread this untruth about me about the internet. I would warn you not to do it further. I take this very seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 8:10 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 7:50 PM grmorton has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024