>The waters prevailed for 150 days (I would interpret this as rising).
>have calculated that with a breach of the Gibraltar area dam of 1000 m.
>(which fits with paleontological data in benthic foraminifera) and a
>flow of about 15 mph and 15 miles wide, one could fill the entire basin
>about 8 months. That is not far from the 150 days. The actual break
>probably wasn't at Gibraltar proper but in the Rif area of Morocco or
>Guadalquiver region of Spain)
>Secondly, the Mediterranean would take about 4000 years to totally
>evaporate not 1000, but that is a minor point. I have never said that
>Mediterranean must be re-emptied. The Scripture says that the land
>be destroyed. Genesis 6:13 says:
>"...I will destroy them with the earth."
>If the earth is to be destroyed, then there is a problem. the word
>is 'eretz'. If eretz means planet earth, then the verse is wrong, the
>earth was not destroyed. If eretz means Mesopotamia, then the it
>destroyed either. It is still there. But if the land that was
>was the Mediterranean, it is no longer land. It is sea.
Glenn you've rather majorly reinterpreted the Scriptures on this point,
since God's express purpose was to destroy life NOT sink land beneath
the waves forever. Verse 6:13 says he would destroy the land, but
wherever Noah landed was underwater for over two months [i.e.
"destroyed" as per God's statement.] Where was that? The recession of
flood-waters continued for quite some time after that as well. Where was
that possible in the Mediterranean? We both know it wasn't evaporation
that did it, so where did it flow back to?
>I am not sure that the ark was as big as the YEC writers beleive. I
>think we know the size of the cubit he used.
So Noah was a dwarf? A three foot Australopith?
And as to the level of
>technology, whatever the technology was of the pre-flood world. If it
>killed all but 8 people there would be no technology for a long, long
Glenn really advanced technology might require that, but Noah set about
planting his vine-yard in short order. Neolithic tech is far more
advanced than deep palaeolithic, and it doesn't take a huge society.
> Technology requires people, lots of them. Technology requires
>specialists. If there was no more than 8 people the world would
>a long, long dark age, longer than that which occurred after the fall
>the Roman Empire. The tasmanians with 4000 people were unable to
>the simple Aboriginal technology. When Europeans first landed on
>the tasmanians had only 24 tools. Archaeology shows that they used to
>lots of the same things mainland aborigines had, but with only 4000
>they gradually lost most of it. With 8 the loss would be sudden and
Maybe, though the Tasmanians might have simplified their kits for
practical reasons other than techno-loss in a small society.
>>Also after the Flood we have an inherently civilised people who are
>>still able to build a city together and a tower. They want to be
>>civilised and God takes steps to scatter them, but there's no hint
>>they don't retain the desire to live better than a hunter-gatherer
>>lifestyle. Interestingly since Babel was such a coherent group all
>>divergence dates from this point also if we take it as universal in
>>effect. Current human languages seem to converge at ~ 100,000 years
>>which also matches the rough time since the last African exodus - an
>>immense span back to a people with fired bricks and bitumen mortar.
>>Civilised skills. They kept their civilisation - that's the Bible's
>In my view, this was millions of years after the flood for the reasons
>outlined above. There can't be such technology without LOTS of people.
>And 8 people does not constitute a lot of people.
The problem you have not addressed is the import of the clear meaning of
Scripture [if we're going to be so literal!] that the people stayed
together after the Flood, and ultimately built Babel. We're talking
about a relatively small group that stays coherent over what you see as
millions of years. Wouldn't be a lot of genetic divergence due to this,
and there's no hint of it from palaeontology - humans spread as soon as
they appeared. So you'll have to accept a non-universal Babel or say
they built cities in short order after the Flood. Either scenario raises
hard questions about the rest of your schema.
>>If such people were about ~ 5.5 mya then we would have colonised the
>>Galaxy. We are only a few centuries off beginning such a journey
>>ourselves [we have the technology NOW, but not the space-going
>>infrastructure to match], and only 5000 years span between us and the
>>last group of fired-brick builders.
>This assumes that mankind is amazingly inventive. He is only if the
>conditions are right. Anatomically modern men lived as savages for
>100,000 years with no real sign of that inventiveness.
How much survives after 100,000 years? You're asking us to accept
minimal signs of religiosity over the past 5 million, so why make that
>become inventive until his numbers increased, and that could only
>after the agricultural revolution. 12,000 years ago there were
>more than 10 million people on the face of the earth. As I mentioned,
>technology requires specialists and you can't have technological
>specialists in societies that are hunter-gatherers because there aren't
True. I accept what you say. But the Bible gives a different story about
the descendents of Noah - a tale about Babel. A city built by
technological bereft survivors.
>>Technology and knowledge exponentially advances, while somatic
>>involves linear accumulation of mutations. It's very hard to imagine
>>builders giving rise to hand-axe makers after some 4 million years of
>>merely bashed rocks. People who build houses, kilns, plant vines and
>>metals don't give them up overnight to start a life gathering
>They do if there are only 8 of them. Lets say you want to plant a
>and there are just 8 of you
>In my opinion it is ridiculous to assume that Noah picked up the same
>he had before. With only 8 people their life would have been reduced
>savagery quickly. While they might not have wanted to go back to
>gathering, the fact is that it is the easier life. When the
>revolution occurred, lifespan actually decreased from that experienced
>the pre-agricultural peoples. It would be selectively advantageous to
>become a hunter-gatherer.
Glenn, wake up! Noah went back to farming as soon as the Flood was over.
Come one! Your whole argument trips on the words of the Bible!
Besides the Natufian culture built Jericho, pre the Great Neolithic
Revolution... can't be as hard as you paint it.
>>If your geology friends can't handle a quasi-literal Bible, as Dick
>>Paul advocate, then how do they respond to your views? Like you I want
>>Genesis I can defend as history, but I'm not sure that's what we have
>The ones I have told it to tell me I fit the facts. They have no
>geological objection at all. And you haven't heard any on this list
>not geological objections. The objections I get are to the antiquity
>man. But you know, in 1958 the oldest known member of the genus Homo
>Homo erectus and he dated 500,000 years ago. Today the genus Homo
>back to 2.4 myr to Homo rudolfensis. (UR-501) That is a rate of
>that has pushed back mankind back an average of 500 kyr per decade. And
>the earliest stone tools are dated at 2.6 myr ago. That is halfway
>when I say the flood was. And it is statistically likely that even
>examples will be found. Why? Because we never find the very first
>of any species. Only when the species becomes widespread is it likely
True enough. I just think you're barking up the wrong tree... on saying
that I would like to be proven wrong and for your Flood scenario to be
proven true. But I think the time-span is ridiculous. Still the
ridiculous has a way of being proven true...
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com