RE: Black Sea Flood

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 09:10:00 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Black Sea Flood"

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []On
    >Behalf Of Shuan Rose

    >Glory to Ugaboogah!!

    I think this is the point at which I ask for your money! :-)

    I hesitate to reply for fear of getting another round on this going, but you
    aren't George.

    >Seriously, although I come late to what is well-worn ground, I want to put
    >in my tuppence:
    >Glenn, why is what you are saying that much different from the literalist
    >who insists on a walking, talking snake in a literal garden? HE could say
    >the same: if the Bible says there was a talking snake and there wasn't, the
    >Bible is false. We are really talking about different forms of literature
    >here, and there is no reason to believe that EVERYTHING (Jonah and
    >the fish,
    >Balaam's ass, Esther, the Prodigal Son) is literally true.OTOH, there is an
    >irreducible minimum . If somewhere in Palestine, a tomb is located with a
    >skeleton with a crown with KING OF THE JEWS written on it, then the game is
    >up. I think we would have to say that Christianity is false.

    On the other hand we seem to find nothing wrong with a guy who raised
    Lazarus from the dead after 3 days, changed water to wine, walked on water,
    fed 5000 with a tiny bit of food, and who himself walked into locked rooms.
    Why on earth are these latter stories more believable than the ones you
    mention? And if we apply a single standard to both OT and NT, then why
    don't we claim that the NT is a different sort of literature? And why do we
    have to find the body for the game to be up? We all know that dead people
    don't rise--name one of your acquaintances who has died and then after 3
    days started walking and talking again.

    To me, we have a double standard-one for those silly unbelievable OT stories
    and one for those really believable NT stories. It seems to me that if we
    can believe a God who can perform the NT stories, what is the problem with
    believing that that same God can actually perform the OT stories? Did God
    suddenly learn how to do miracles sometime between 400 BC and 4BC?

    >Beyond the IM,
    >I'm prepared to be open-minded.
    >Speaking of observational Data, Glenn, I observe that there are parallels
    >between Genesis 1-11 and various Near Eastern myths.

    I don't have a problem with that. There are parallels. But, if the
    statement, "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth', is
    false, literally false, then we are worshippiing the wrong God. Either there
    isn't one, or we need to find the true God. And since that statement above
    is in that literature which everyone finds otherwise so unbelievable why
    should we believe that simple statement?

    I argue in
    >another post
    >that the stories in Genesis 1-11 were originally written to correct
    >misunderstandings of YAHWEH based on NE mythology. But I haven't observed
    >any evidence that Australopithecus or early Homo had a moral
    >sense, or could
    >build a boat and herd animals into it, or worshiped the one true God.

    Well there is evidence that they had to have built a boat because H. erectus
    is found on the island of Flores, Indonesia 780,000 years ago. Flores, even
    at lowest sea levels, was separated from the Asian mainland by 8 different
    straits of water.

            "Even at times of low sea level, when Sumatra, Java and
    Bali were connected to mainland Southeast Asia, at least two
    sea crossings were required to reach Flores. The first of
    these deep-water barriers, between the islands of Bali and
    Lombok, is about 25 km wide and constitutes a major
    biogeographical boundary, the Wallace Line. Prior to human
    intervention, only animals capable of crossing substantial
    water barriers by swimming, flying or rafting on flotsam
    were able to establish populations on Flores (e.g.
    elephants, rats). In fact, the impoverished nature of the
    fauna on the island in the Early and Middle Pleistocene
    rules out the possibility of temporary landbridges from

    earliest boat
    "There is a maximum in species diversity during this faunal
    stage, indicating full exchange with the Asian mainland. This
    period of maximum faunal exhange can be correlated with the onset
    of 0.8 Ma of a period of highly fluctuating but on average lower
    sea-levels as compared to the Early Pleistocene. Around the same
    time the overseas arrival of the artefact-maker seems to have
    taken place on Flores. However, a land-connection between Flores
    and Java at this time is unlikely, considering the faunal
    evidence. The existence of a former land-bridge connection
    between Flores and the Sunda Shelf is also not supported by the
    present-day bathymetry. Bringing the sea-level 200 m lower than
    it is today would not result in full land-connections between
    continental Southeast Asia. The presence of hominids on
    Flores in the Early Pleistocene therefore provides the
    oldest inferred date for human maritime technology anywhere
    in the world. Elsewhere, dates for such capabilities are
    much more recent. These findings indicate that the
    intelligence and technological capabilities of H. erectus
    may have been seriously underestimated. An accumulating
    body of evidence from elsewhere supports this conclusion
    (e.g. Thieme 1997).
              "The complex logistic organization needed for people to
    build water-craft capable of transporting a biologically and
    socially viable group across significant water barriers,
    also implies that people had language. Previously the
    organizational and linguistic capacity required for sea
    voyaging was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans
    and to have only appeared in the late Pleistocene. It now
    seems that humans had this capacity 840,000 years ago." M.
    J. Morwood et al, "Archaeological and Palaeontological
    Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of
    Fieldwork 1997-1998," Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p.
    Bali and Lombok and between Sumbawa and Flores. In addition,
    Flores is presently subject to strong uplift as evidenced by
    raised coastal terraces." ~ P.Y. Sondaar, et al., "Middle
    Pleistocene faunal turnover and Colonization of Flores(Indonesia)
    by Homo erectus," Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences.
    Paris 319:1255-1262, p. 1261

    "Both Lombok and Flores could have been reached only by crossing
    the open sea, which, most arcaeologists would agree, demanded
    considerable linguistic capability." ~ Robert G. Bednarik, "Sea
    Faring Homo Erectus" The Artefact, 18(1995): 92-92, p. 91

    People constantly underestimate what early man was capable of accomplishing.
    By the way, there is a polished wooden plank (woodwork) from the same time
    but different place. It is S. Belitszky et al, "A Middle Pleistoce
    Wooden Plank with man-made Polish," Journal of Human Evolution,
    1991, 20:349-353.
    So did he have the ability to build a boat and put animals on it? Yes.

    You can have the last word on all but the anthropological data. I really
    don't wish to get another round on how to interpret early Genesis going


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 10:50:29 EDT