Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[sandy whitelinger]

Other than in renaissance paintings, where is the idea that Adam created with the appearance of age supported?

Well, how about Autodiadact in post #450.

 

[Autodidact]

sandy: did you have a point at all?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't have a Holy Book of myths.

You don't? Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

sandy: did you have a point at all?

Yes, but your not interested in learning anything.

As I said, "Have a 'gday mate."

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, but your not interested in learning anything.

As I said, "Have a 'gday mate."

On the contrary, it's my favorite thing. You, however, do not seem to be interested in teaching me anything. May I guess from your lack of concern for an ignorant human being that you are perhaps Christian?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No takers?

I'll try:

To be a giant, you have to be significantly taller than the normal range of heights. Quantitatively, the definition is variable, depending on the population in question. I'm 6'0"; in some populations, I'd be a giant.

 

[Hope]

Yes, pretty much. You see, geologists actually know when and how the mountain ranges were formed. They were formed primarily by huge continental plates very slowly and gradually moving up against each other, so the land is pushed up with massive upheavals and earthquakes. This same process continues today, and can be observed and quantified. Even this slow, slow process triggers massive, destructive earthquakes. It's not a theory. It's a myth, or at best a hypothesis which has been amply disproven. They may think they see that, but they couldn't be more wrong. It's physically impossible, among other things. The earthquakes alone would have been more destructive than the flood. Any mention of those earthquakes in the Bible or the world's myths? It's not that I hate them; it's not about my personal emotional attitude. It's just that they're so inaccurate. There are plain old falsehoods on every page.

Is there specific geological reasoning behind the conclusion that the processes we see happening to today with the continental plates and mountain ranges have been progressing at the same exact rate over vast periods of time? Why is a rapid, more catastrophic process "impossible"?

And this brings us to: You assume a geophysicist knows his stuff, unless he disagrees with you. This inconsistency does not reflect well on you.

What inconsistency? I never said all the other geologists were flat-out wrong. I'm just trying to look at different angles, and trying to get to the bottom of this. You have just as many assumptions as I do.

 

[Hope]

Let's come back to the dating stuff later. It's not that hard, and completely demolishes any possibility for the flood or a young earth, but we don't have to deal with it now. Not only is there almost no evidence for a global flood--there is tons and tons of evidence against it. Here's just a few of the obvious objections:

--Such a flood would have utterly destroyed all plant life, on land. Thus, when the waters receded, there would have been nothing but a barren, empty, lifeless surface.
--All the animals on earth and in the water would have been killed at the same time. (ocean dwellers: water not salty enough. freshwater: too salty) So we would expect to see a single layer of fossils all over the earth, all the same age, with a massive extinction event represented by a single equally massive layer of fossils. There isn't one.
--There is a kind of geological layer called a paleosol. This is a kind of rock formed by a thick layer of earth when the earth is not under water, which is later compacted and turned to rock. These paleosols appear all over the earth at all different periods, demonstrating that at the point they were laid down, that part of the earth could not possibly have been under water.
--Had there been a flood, you would expect to see three basic layers: the pre-flood base layer, the flood deposits, representing violent sudden erosion, scouring of underlying rocks, and layers of mixed mud, gravel and organic debris, and absolutely filled with fossils of everything then in existence. From the frequent actual local floods on earth, we know what these layers look like (think Katrina) everything jumbled up together, not neatly sorted. Then a layer of silt on top of everything. Finally we would have layers comparable to what is forming today. This is not in fact what the earth looks like. In fact we have millions of layers in many complex formations--too complex to go into detail without th equivalent of several geology courses.
--For example, there are many places in the world where a layer of conglomerate rock, with large rocks and even boulders stuck in it like raisins in cake, rest on top of thousands of layers of sedimentary rock formed from silting layers of sand. Obviously in a flood the heavier boulders would sink to the bottom, so again--not possible to form from a flood. The bottom layers were already hardened into rock when the heavier layer on top formed.
--Often there are clean, sharp boundaries between geological layers. Sometimes one layer has fossil barnacles on it, with another layer of rock on top. These barnacles and limpets only attach to surface rocks, not under water, so obviously the bottom layer was not under water, and then much later another layer was laid down on top of it. Not possible during a flood.
--The biggest problem, IMO, is the order of fossil succession. It's always the same, all over the world. The older, more primitive creatures are on the bottom, regardless of weight or density. Then more recent creatures, such as dinosaurs. Mammals only on top, and humans on the very top. The sorting is never by weight or buoyancy, always by order of development. Couple examples: extinct flying creatures, like pteranodon, is always in older, lower layers than more modern heavy creatures like say a hippo, while birds and hippos are in the same layer. Do flood believers think that pteranodons somehow got drowned, while hippos flew above them? Similarly, extinct plants like giant ferns are in older, lower layers than more recent plants, along with their characteristic pollen. How would a flood possibly do this? A dramatic example are sea turtles. Because they are recent species, they are found in the highest, newest rock layers, above frogs, above dinosaurs. How would a flood do this? This isn't a sea turtle fossil--it's all of them. This pattern is found over and over again, thousands upon thousands of times.
--All kinds of fossilized remnants like termite nests, was cocoons, dinosaur nests and eggs, bird nests and eggs, fossilized worm holes, rodent burrows, animal tracks, even animal dung in its original piles as it dried and cracked on solid ground--all things that could not have been preserved under water. At various different layers in the rock. No way those layers could have been formed by a flood.
--As you probably know, Australia is populated mainly by marsupials, no placental mammals, and most found nowhere else on earth. So, after say the koala bears get off the ark, they race across Asia, always ahead of the tigers etc, swim across the Indonesian archipelego, etc., leaving all the placental mammals behind, and along with their cousins the wombats and kangaroos, populate Australia, filling all the available ecological niches, while all of the world's placental mammals just happened to stay behind in Europe and Asia. Um hmm.
--Varves. This gets into dating a tiny bit. A varve is a layer of sediment that forms at the bottom of a calm lake and eventually hardens into rock. Actually two layers, because there is a lighter summer layer and a darker winter layer. So scientists can count them (tedious) and determine how many annual layers of rock were laid down. In one of the most famous examples, the Green River formation, they have counted about 20 million varves. No sudden thick layer of sediment crammed with fossils, just varve after varve after varve, with fossils sprinkled throughout, and throughout always obeying the law of fossil succession, with older, extinct fossils lower, and more modern mammals etc. higher up. The only thing you need to know about radiometric dating is that when they do it to the varves, they get the same results.
--ice cores. Same thing. Layers of ice in Greenland. Two layers per year. 40,000 in a single core. No sudden difference 6000 years ago. Slight fluctuations related to how much it snowed that year--that's all. And, again, matches up with the radiometric dating method, which matches up with the varves.
--tree rings. Same thing. There's a plant called King's Holly in Tasmania that reproduces by cloning, so in a way they're all one big ring of the same plant. It's been growing there for 40,000 years. Also creosote bushes in the Mojave desert 12,000 and 15,000 years. Growing in that desert right through the flood.

Actually there's a lot more, but I'll stop there for now.

A thought about science. All of this is out in the open. Everything has to be subject to replication. That means that other scientists get to try it and see if they get the same results. You can go to Green River and count the varves yourself. No secrets, no conspiracy, just a lot of hard work and hard thinking.

Also, geologists don't have an atheist agenda to prove there was no flood. Most of them are Christian. They would have been just as happy to find there was a flood. It just so happened that there wasn't.

I think I gave you this link before: Glenn Morton's story. I wish you would click on it. Glenn Morton was a YEC and physicist who went to work doing geology for an oil company. What made him realize that YEC, and flood theory, is just plain wrong, was going out into the field and seeing the rocks. In this article he tries to convey what he saw, and why he came to realize it was not compatible with YEC flood theory. Give it a click and let me know what you think.

Thanks, autodidact. Very interesting stuff. I appreciate you taking the time to post all this. I will be looking into more geological evidence as time allows me.

 

[Hope]

I'd especially love to hear others' theories for those gigantic stones found in the Middle East (near or in Lebanon, I believe).

No takers on this yet??

 

[sandy whitelinger]

On the contrary, it's my favorite thing. You, however, do not seem to be interested in teaching me anything. May I guess from your lack of concern for an ignorant human being that you are perhaps Christian?

Nice try but you have already stated your position. In a religion vs. science debate you won't accept religion because it's not science. Ignorant, but your position nonetheless. It squelchs debate.

Besides I didn't say you were ignorant. Get it right, I said obstinately ignorant, which your debating rules, which have been discussed before, show. A refusal to learn means I will not waste anymore time with you.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'll try:

To be a giant, you have to be significantly taller than the normal range of heights. Quantitatively, the definition is variable, depending on the population in question. I'm 6'0"; in some populations, I'd be a giant.

I guess you'd have to conclude then from the evidence offered that there are indeed giants in evidence today which could presuppose them evident in the past which makes the story of David and Goliath highly probable.

Another example of a modern day giant, Andre:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you'll permit me, I need to break this up, because you've mixed a whole bunch of concepts together.

I guess you'd have to conclude then from the evidence offered that there are indeed giants in evidence today

Sure, though based on my own judgement and experience. I'm not sure what evidence you offered.

It should also be noted that most people termed "giants" today (Andre the "Giant" being a notable exception) have serious physiological problems that make even walking a strain, and likely wouldn't make particularily good soldiers... in fact, I'd wager that someone like Bao Xishun, the world's tallest man, would be at a disadvantage in a fight against an average person.

which could presuppose them evident in the past

Sure, though what was considered a "giant" in the past might not necessarily be one today, or vice versa. As I stated before, the frame of reference is the population of the person making the judgement.

which makes the story of David and Goliath highly probable.

No. For the story to be "highly probable" would take a heck of a lot more than just the fact that giants do occur sometimes.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

- the diameter of the Earth at the equator is 12,756.32 km. The diameter at the poles is slightly less: 12,715.43 km. If you were to assume that the Earth was a perfect sphere with the smaller diameter, it would still take 15,238,256 cubic kilometers of water to cover the surface to a depth of 3 meters (assumed arbitrarily but conservatively as the minimum depth that would kill all tall animals). Even for this lower limit, that's too much water to just come from aquifers. Where did all the water come from, and where did it go?

Scripture states that the windows of heaven were opened at the beginning of the flood and when the waters were assuaged that they returned from off the earth. It would seem from this language that the water needed came from heaven and returned there.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sure, though based on my own judgement and experience. I'm not sure what evidence you offered.

I started on page 44 post #437

It should also be noted that most people termed "giants" today (Andre the "Giant" being a notable exception) have serious physiological problems that make even walking a strain, and likely wouldn't make particularily good soldiers... in fact, I'd wager that someone like Bao Xishun, the world's tallest man, would be at a disadvantage in a fight against an average person..

I guess one notable exception would be all it would take.

Sure, though what was considered a "giant" in the past might not necessarily be one today, or vice versa. As I stated before, the frame of reference is the population of the person making the judgement.

People were shorter in the past were they not? Which would make anyone atheletic and of overly abnormal size easily fit the bill.

No. For the story to be "highly probable" would take a heck of a lot more than just the fact that giants do occur sometimes.

I was going back to a point brought up in post #407 "I'm sorry, but those skeletons of giants you may have heard of are hoaxes... There have never been any actual human giant skeletons." I was pointing out that there are giants alive today as a starting place as the tone seemed to suggest that Goliath was a myth because giants don't exist.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It should also be noted that most people termed "giants" today (Andre the "Giant" being a notable exception) have serious physiological problems that make even walking a strain, and likely wouldn't make particularily good soldiers... in fact, I'd wager that someone like Bao Xishun, the world's tallest man, would be at a disadvantage in a fight against an average person.

How about Eduarde Beaupree at 8" 2 1/2" and 400+pounds?
Edouard Beaupré - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was going back to a point brought up in post #407 "I'm sorry, but those skeletons of giants you may have heard of are hoaxes... There have never been any actual human giant skeletons." I was pointing out that there are giants alive today as a starting place as the tone seemed to suggest that Goliath was a myth because giants don't exist.

If the skeletons are of people who are 9 feet tall or more, then they likely ARE hoaxes. I'd be skeptical of any skeleton over 7 feet tall myself - even though it's in the range of documented human height, it's sufficiently rare that it may be fake... especially if someone was profiting off its exhibition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess one notable exception would be all it would take.

No, it would take one notable exception, living circa 1100 BC, fighting in the Philistine army and being its most-feared soldier. It would also require him to be nine feet tall, according to 1 Samuel 17:4, which gets rid of the "giants are relative" line of reasoning - while 6'6" is "gigantic" if everyone else is 5'0", Goliath's actual height is specified.

It would also take the decision of a Philistine general to halt a battle and instead decide the conflict by single combat between two opposing soldiers.

It would also take the existence of a boy who would be made king of Israel for slaying the exception, and would take the existence of the fortified city of Socoh, and its occupation by the Philistines.

There are a lot of points that have to be demonstrated before you could reasonably conclude that the story of David and Goliath actually happened.

 

[Autodidact]

Nice try but you have already stated your position.

Because I have a position does not mean that my mind does not remain open to changing it.

In a religion vs. science debate you won't accept religion because it's not science.

I don't believe I said anything of the kind. I don't accept religion as a good way to learn about the natural world, because it has such a terrible track record at it. Everything that we know about the natural world we know because of science. Do you think that religion is a good way to learn about the natural world? If so, which religion, how do you know, and what do you learn from it?

Ignorant, but your position nonetheless.

What am I ignorant of? What is it that you think I don't know? If so, please teach it to me.

It squelchs debate.

That certainly is not my aim.

Besides I didn't say you were ignorant. Get it right, I said obstinately ignorant, which your debating rules, which have been discussed before, show. A refusal to learn means I will not waste anymore time with you.

What is it I've refused to learn? The fact that I disagree with you, and that I have not changed my mind, does not imply a refusal to learn. You are more than welcome to persuade me, and I am always open to being persuaded. What works best is evidence. Got any?

Buh-bye. I'll miss our time together.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, it would take one notable exception, living circa 1100 BC, fighting in the Philistine army and being its most-feared soldier. It would also require him to be nine feet tall, according to 1 Samuel 17:4, which gets rid of the "giants are relative" line of reasoning - while 6'6" is "gigantic" if everyone else is 5'0", Goliath's actual height is specified.

It would also take the decision of a Philistine general to halt a battle and instead decide the conflict by single combat between two opposing soldiers.

It would also take the existence of a boy who would be made king of Israel for slaying the exception, and would take the existence of the fortified city of Socoh, and its occupation by the Philistines.

There are a lot of points that have to be demonstrated before you could reasonably conclude that the story of David and Goliath actually happened.

That would take ifrom the realm of probable to almost a surety.

 

[Autodidact]

Is there specific geological reasoning behind the conclusion that the processes we see happening to today with the continental plates and mountain ranges have been progressing at the same exact rate over vast periods of time? Why is a rapid, more catastrophic process "impossible"?

There is a general assumption in all of science that the basic laws of logic, physics and nature remain constant over time, so that current conditions can be studied to learn about the past. Without this assumption, most science becomes impossible.

This does not mean that everything remains exactly the same, but that the same laws apply. Gravity is always present and always works the same way, stuff like that.

I need to say this again and again: It's not that a rapid, catastrophic process was impossible, but that it turned out to have been. That is, it was not rejected in advance, quite the contrary. The 18th and 18th century scientists who set about researching this question all assumed that it had happened, and were surprised and disappointed when the evidence did not seem to support their assumption. Here's a quote that summarizes the history:

The basic pattern of the attempts to accommodate extrabiblical information during this period is by now familiar. Scholars began with the assumption that the biblical flood narrative describes a literal universal deluge and then sought evidence of that event using the best scientific tools and evidence available to them. As evidence accumulated, however, their theories became increasingly untenable, and when that happened, all those who were dedicated to the truth of the matter -- scientists and theologians alike -- abandoned the discredited hypotheses and began to look elsewhere.

from History of the Collapse of Flood Geology

What inconsistency? I never said all the other geologists were flat-out wrong. I'm just trying to look at different angles, and trying to get to the bottom of this. You have just as many assumptions as I do.

Actually, I don't. We share the same assumptions, that knowledge is possible, that the rules of logic apply, etc. You have an additional assumption that I do not share, that the Bible is literally correct. I have no assumption that it is not. I can follow the evidence wherever it leads.

You were very impressed that--I forget the guy's name--was a geophysicist, and said something about assuming that a geophysicist must know his stuff, IIRC. 9/10 said all the other geophysicists disagree with him; you didn't seem to assume that they know their stuff. On the contrary, you were quite prepared to believe that they did not. Why? Is it maybe because they disagree with you?