Meanwhile, the Hebrew text of Genesis says nothing about a global flood. That is an anachronistic reading of the text and can traced to a modern day misunderstanding of even the older English meaning of EARTH when the 1611 King James Bible was translated: Much like the Hebrew word ERETZ, the word EARTH in 1611 was typically applied to refer to “the ground”, the land under one’s feet. “Planet earth” and its spherical shape was not the meaning. So it doesn’t make sense to claim that the Bible speaks of a “global flood” or an “entire planet flood.”
The Hebrew text of Genesis states that the ERETZ (the land) was flooded, everything under the heavens (SHAMAYIM.) The ERETZ (and especially “the circle of the earth”) commonly referred to the land one could see to the horizon. ERETZ also referred to the land of a particular region or nation, such as Land of Egypt or even a particular geographical area like a wilderness. There are many instances of ERETZ in the Old Testament applying to various lands, large and not so large.
Rendering ERETZ as “world” can be useful. It is clear that “everything under heaven” applied to the entire world Noah knew: the whole land. (The wording of the text does not require a meaning of the whole planet or entire globe.) Thus, many have pointed out that the Noahic Flood was not global but that it was worldwide.
No, it’s not so cut and dry, is it. In fact it is in dispute. (No, if they can’t agree on the common ancestor, they can’t have evidence there really was one).
“Do the puzzles of conflicting phylogenetic trees or ORFans undermine the theory of Universal Common Descent? Most evolutionary biologists say no. Others are not so sure. Molecular evolutionist Michael Syvanen of the University of California-Davis argues that, “there is no reason to postulate that a LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) ever existed.”
Explore Evolution, p. 61”
Source: The Last Universal Common Ancestor | National Center for Science Education.
Assuming common ancestry through genetics, is just as backward as doing so through homology.
Looking at similarities and forming a conclusion of common ancestry, without first verifying the original ancestors of the common ancestry in question is not scientifically sound.
You can find any pattern you like through either. But, until you can identify and validate the original ancestors were actually caused through universal common descent, you are simply making unsubstantiated claims.
But, on the other hand, should you decide to run with what is observable in real life, where each of the different kinds go back for centuries, without a break in the pattern, then there is no logical reason to assume the pattern had ever been broken in the past.
Not for any of the species you care about. It’s not disputed for you and your fellow apes. It’s not disputed for you and insects. It’s not disputed for you and baker’s yeast. It’s only at the very beginning that things are murky, so that doesn’t help you.
There’s no assuming. It’s all based on the evidence (all observed in real life) that you claim doesn’t exist without bothering to look for it.
What people say isn’t evidence of anything other than what they say. You still don’t understand the meaning of “empirical.”
You misunderstand what Syvanen thinks. He believes there’s no one LUCA because of great amounts of horizontal transfer in early life. Instead of one universal common ancestor there are many overlapping less-than-universal common ancestors. But all life is descended from a fairly small group of early taxa, all of them things you would think of as bacteria.
Your problem is that you never look at the primary sources.
Nothing in my comment this reply was made to suggests I was referring to LUCA when I asked if you were familiar with the genetic evidence for evolution.
In any case, let’s discuss the great apes which includes us.
If humans and other great apes are indeed descendants of a common ancestor, then what do you expect to see when you look at our genetic and genomic datasets? Please answer this
This is word salad.
Nobody is assuming anything. Common descent makes testable predictions from the genetic and genomic data and in general those predictions stand.
This is silly and it reflects your poor understanding of how science works.
If common descent happened, then there are particular patterns we expect to find, not “any” pattern. Again, your misunderstanding of the scientific process is evident here.
The Fountains of the Deep scenario proposes that water from deep underground rush to the surface, so causing Noah’s Flood. Let’s take a looks at some facts.
The Transition Zone of the Earth’s mantle is “… about 410 kilometers (255 miles) to 660 kilometers (410 miles) beneath Earth’s surface,” I’ll use 500 km for convenience. There is a lot of water down there, more its not in liquid form (more on the later. The temperature of the upper mantle is about 1000°C, and the Transition Zone is even hotter. I’ll use 1000°C as a “low end” estimate the water temp at that depth.
My source for the numbers above is a National Geographic educational page.
The basis of my argument here is that if you take water from the mantle to the Earth’s surface, it arrives at 1000°C PLUS the additional heat generated doing the Work. It takes about 10 Joules of force to raise a kilogram of water 1 meter, and 5,000,000 joules to raise that water to the surface (100 meters per kilometer and 500 kilometers). Sources 1, 2.
The Work done generates waste heat - that is basic thermodynamics. It takes about 4.18 Joules to raise the temp of one grams of water by 1°C, so 5,000,000 / (4.18 \times 1000 grams/kg) = 1196°C. Sources 3, 4.).
Most of that extra heat will go along with the water to the surface. More, actually, because I’m not accounting for friction or the energy needed to convert water from a solid form in the mantle back to liquid water.
Summing up so far, 1000°C from the mantle will gain another 1200°C by the time it reaches the surface. That’s magma hot, so essentially a volcanic eruption spraying steam and vaporized rock into the atmosphere. I did not account the the weight of the vaporized rock or for friction because I don’t really know how to do those calculations. In any case, I am comfortable with the claim that the water reaches the surface at at least 2000°C.
Next comes volume. I’ll have to pick up on this later, but a rough estimate (from some Creationist source I can’t recall) is 3 times more water than currently exists on the surface of the Earth. Very roughly, when all the water mixes together it will be roughly1500°C, which is more than enough to cook every living thing to ash, but I think I can be a little more precise, and find some sources. Until next comment.
Even creationist organizations admit that the heat problem is insurmountable. The global flood scenario requires supernatural miracles, which makes it not empirically testable, and thus not science. You’re free to believe in it but don’t claim that it’s scientific or supported by science in any way.
There really is no evidence other than the unsupported claims that we are related to other kinds of organisms.
“There’s no assuming. It’s all based on the evidence (all observed in real life) that you claim doesn’t exist without bothering to look for it.”
Great provide said evidence then, please.
I’m afraid you do not even understand what evidence is. Let alone empirical evidence.
It doesn’t matter how many, or who may. The fact is, there is no way to provide support for your figures.
And plenty of scientists recognize the impossibility that something could come from nothing.
It contradicts the laws of physics. But, for those who are willing to subvert the law and invent a mythical singularity, suddenly the law is suspended in favor of a speculation that falls apart without said myth.
As I have already pointed out to you, there are no historical records of a world wide flood – merely “myths”, “stories” and “legends”.
This is even explicit in the quote you yourself give:
That you continue to repeat claims, after they have already been debunked, speaks to your lack of honesty, and further exascerbates your lack of credibility.
This would be Duane Gish, the notorious charlatan, and originator of the Gish gallop?
You certainly know how to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
I would also point out that Gish has no expertise whatsoever in any field related to ethnography.
The “similarities” that Gish inexpertly and self-servingly points to (and probably exaggerates) can be easily explained:
Many (most?) of the earliest civilisations were founded on flood plains, as these areas had the most fertile lands.
Most early civilisations were therefore subject to devastating local floods.
Comparative mythology shows that myths from different civilisations tend to follow shared themes and characteristics.
No, it does not, for the reasons I have explained.
(And no@rtmcdge, they are NOT “part of their history” – merely part of their myths, stories and legends.)
Yes, I believe that a global flood has no credible evidence – because you have presented none.
WTF is “reginal[sic] global flooding”? Talk about an oxymoron!
Your first link is for a 7,500yo (i.e. prehistoric) regional (not global) flood.
Your second link is likewise to the possibility of a regional (not global) flood.
Your lengthy quote is to Answers in Genesis, an apologetics ministry with no scientific credibility. To the extent that it cherry-picks the scientific record, it says nothing that it not explicable via uniformitarian geology. It simply carefully and dishonestly omits any of the scientific record that contradicts its claims. See for example: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
Given that you have provided no evidence of this, of courseI will admit nothing of the sort!
I will note that this piece gives no information on how much water is down there, or the conditions necessary to release this water to the surface, let alone whether those conditions are survivable by Earth’s lifeforms.
The fact that it is “400 miles beneath North America” means its unlikely to have come to the surface in millions (billions?) of years.
“The “similarities” that Gish inexpertly and self-servingly points to (and probably exaggerates) can be easily explained:”
No, you may submit it as an explanation, but now, prove your explanation is valid.
It makes no sense either. Sure, there may have been some, But, ALL. That would not be a logical assumption. Plus, there are more than the action of the flood that are so similar. There is the rest of the historical accounts.
And again, you are thinking our ancestors were illiterate and clueless.If they had enough sense to save their history for posterity, they would more than likely want it to be historically accurate.
You have provided no evidence that Galloping Duane Gish’s inexpert, self-serving and likely-exaggerated table is in any way accurate.
You have likewise provided no evidence that this table, even if accurate, necessitates the conclusion of a global flood.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Therefore I require no evidence to “dismiss” your claim of a global flood.
You have no credible evidence of “ALL”.
Please stop repeating this falsehood.
There are NO “historical accounts” of a global flood,
There are merely myths, legends and “stories”.
This sort of misrepresentation is why nothing you say is likely to be accepted without fact checking.
These sorts of misrepresentations are also why nothing that the the creationist videos and articles you cite will be accepted without fact-checking.
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
However, as (near) Universal Literacy is only a modern thing, even in Western countries, I would suggest that the majority of my ancestors, and particularly a majority of those before the last few centuries, probably were illiterate.
Nobody claims that “something came from nothing.” That is a huge creationist misconception. Scientists admit that we don’t know (and probably can’t know) what came before the singularity. Was there an earlier universe? Maybe. Was there a quantum field? That’s possible. God? Also possible.
@GutsickGibbon actually did an update video on the heat problem. A month or two ago Answers in Genesis posted a paper where they admit just the heat from large igneous bodies and other volcanic rocks alone cannot be cooled to their present temperatures without appealing to miracles. This of course gets worse when you factor in the accelerated nuclear decay, friction of tectonic plates moving at the speed of bumper cars, etc.
IF one accepts the Genesis Flood story, one MUST reject the Biblical timeline. Why?
Because the Bible places the timing of the Flood as just before the Pyramids of Giza, or just after.
The uninterrupted historical record for Egypt does not allow for this, nor does the archaeological record for the Nile Valley. We have animal fossils … but no human fossils mixed in. This is virtually impossible in an extensive valley setting.
If there was a global flood, it would not have happened when the Bible says it happened. It would have happened well BEFORE the 1st Egyotian dynasty.
No version of a global flood would explain why only MARSUPIAL animal forms exist at the deepest levels of Australian archaeology. Certainly placental predators travel faster than marsupial moles!
A history of millions of years can explain how the Australian land mass was once in close proximity to other continents. A 6000 year history cannot explain this - - unless, God made another miracle!
Ah, so that’s why what ever enemy of the day is always a vile savage, while the hero who led the battle against them is a descendent of the gods. No hyperbole, no artistic or dramatic embellishment. No, if people went out of their way to have scribes record their stories, they made sure, every time, to record things as they were.
See, I think the one who underestimates the literacy of our ancestors is you. We make up stories now, to entertain ourselves, or to teach things, or to cleanse us of stress, or to bond with our fellow enjoyers of stories. To say that the very much human folks from just a few thousand years ago would have no such inclinations is not only preposterous on the face of it, but also kind of dehumanizing. They were very much literate, and creative, and I reckon, much like us, that they would put more effort to preserve the fairy tales and songs and other items of art they produced, than they would mere news reports. Why do you think they were so profoundly different back then from us now?
