Evidence for God from Science

http://theweek.com/article/index/221669 ... n-a-desert



Thoughts?

You seriously got "global flood" out of that article?

I don't think that lends to the global flood theory unless that flood happened 1 million or so years ago.
Probably more like they suggested in the article ( mass beaching or some geological event that isolated a body of water from the ocean)

There have been some theories surronding the possibility of a "global flood" but even the most "stretched" doesn't relate a TOTAL global flood at ONE time.
Personally I don't think the Genesis account speaks of a global flood in the concrete and literal sense of the word, but more of a large local ( which would have been viewed as a "world" flood by the inhabitants)flood.
The genre of ancient writing lends to "exagerration" of this type and is very common in the ancient literal works:
Alexander conquered the world, Roman ruled the world

Rick, that seems a little prejudicial. There is actually evidence like this all over the world. There is no doubt that this evidence confirms this area as having been fully submered under ocean water in the past. And when we look at all the evidence, we see that the whole globe was under water at some point. It's just a matter of when, and whether all at the same time.

Regarding the date. How do they know the ages of the bones? They can't go by carbon dating. They can't go by the geo-strata. The article is silent. They only know that some of the bones were from extinct animals, and thus they speculate the date. The coelacanth throws a little wrench in that thinking. But hey.

Jlay, there's nothing in that article that even hints of a global flood. The article itself, gives more reasonable explanations for why the bones were there. Making a jump to those bones supporting a global flood, is a huge leap. I'm not saying the bones disprove a global flood, but there are other, more rational explanations for how the bones got there. I also believe the entire globe may have been under water, jlay. I just think, claiming "global flood" from this, is a stretch.

Jlay, there's nothing in that article that even hints of a global flood

That might be one of the most interesting statements I've heard in a while. THe article isn't pro-flood. That has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Whale bones in a desert.

So, it's OK to make a jump that the bones are 2 million years old, and that there were these other factors of which there is no evidence for. A person reads the article and says, "hmmm, this seems to fit with a global flood." And you make a mocking statement, "You seriously got "global flood" out of that article?"

More rational to who? People, like you, who outright reject a global flood.(in Noah's day) As I said, prejudicial. The OP doesn't even make a reference to Noah. You just assumed it.

I also believe the entire globe may have been under water, jlay.

What? Huh?

I'm totally perplexed why Christians will work so hard to poo poo a global flood.

So, it's OK to make a jump that the bones are 2 million years old, and that there were these other factors of which there is no evidence for. A person reads the article and says, "hmmm, this seems to fit with a global flood." And you make a mocking statement, "You seriously got "global flood" out of that article?"

Jlay, if you have a problem with what the article says, about the age of the bones, then address it. DRDS asked for our thoughts. I thought there was nothing in the article that hinted of a global flood.

More rational to who? People, like you, who outright reject a global flood.(in Noah's day) As I said, prejudicial. The OP doesn't even make a reference to Noah. You just assumed it.

The op put global flood in the title of the post, jlay. Where did I even mention Noah, much less assume the op was referring to noahs flood? Please, quote me, jlay. Before you jump down my throat, and accuse me of assuming something, you need make sure your facts are straight. Maybe you attributed Paul's post to me, jlay. Maybe Mr. Crankypants needs his binky, and a nap.

I also believe the entire globe may have been under water, jlay.

What? Huh?

I was agreeing with your statement here:

And when we look at all the evidence, we see that the whole globe was under water at some point. It's just a matter of when, and whether all at the same time.

You seriously got "global flood" out of that article?

I'm not confusing Paul's post with yours. My excpetion was with this statement. Sorry, if I didn't see you were 'agreeing' with me.

I'm going to take a nappy poo.

How did the animals end up there?
It's unclear. Some theorists suggest that a mass beaching — in which whales swim onto land and die there — occurred millions of years ago when the desert wasn't as far from the Pacific Ocean as it is today. More likely, says lead Smithsonian researcher Nicholas Pyenson, the area was once a "lagoon-like environment" that somehow became closed off from the open ocean. The whales either died when the lagoon dried up, or when a natural disaster (such as an earthquake or landslide) sealed them off from the sea.

These explanations are much more plausable, that a global flood. You can even change "millions of years ago" to thousands of years ago, and it is still more plausible than a global flood, IMO.

The OP doesn't even make a reference to Noah. You just assumed it.

Where did I assume this, jlay?

First point I am an Old Earther, however I believe we should take scientific dates with a large pinch of salt.
I once asked a man with a scientific education how they dated rocks, he said from the fossils. He then admitted they dated fossils from the age of the fossils. He admitted he had problems with this to his teacher who told him to accept this is how it was done.
So I don't accept everything is 6 thousand years or younger, but I don't accept everything is millions of years.

Rick,

You can't find bones with a date etched into them. Claims of dates are made all the time without even a question. Estimated between 2 mil and 7 mil. 5 million year margin of error? Sure. It isn't about evidence, it is about starting points.

jlay wrote:Rick,

You can't find bones with a date etched into them. Claims of dates are made all the time without even a question. Estimated between 2 mil and 7 mil. 5 million year margin of error? Sure. It isn't about evidence, it is about starting points.

I agree, jlay. I really don't know enough about how fossils are dated, to even argue one way or another about how old they are, from that point.

What I'm saying, is that this seems plausible:

More likely, says lead Smithsonian researcher Nicholas Pyenson, the area was once a "lagoon-like environment" that somehow became closed off from the open ocean. The whales either died when the lagoon dried up, or when a natural disaster (such as an earthquake or landslide) sealed them off from the sea.

I'm still waiting for a new anyalsis of that wood found of Mount Ararat.

I'm with Rich Deem, if that wood checks out I might have too rethink my position on the global flood theory.

Murray wrote:I'm still waiting for a new anyalsis of that wood found of Mount Ararat.

I'm with Rich Deem, if that wood checks out I might have too rethink my position on the global flood theory.

that's ok, Murray. Don't you change your creation beliefs, as often as you change your underwear?

Just about a month ago, you were rallying for evolution.

I'll never be YEC...

I said global flood beliefs not creation beliefs