Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!celerity!akgub!akguf!akgua!lcuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!cbatt!clyde!watmath!watnot!cbbrowne From: cbbrowne@watnot.UUCP (Christopher Browne) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Creation, Evolution, and Flood Message-ID: <12002@watnot.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Sep-86 13:28:45 EDT Article-I.D.: watnot.12002 Posted: Wed Sep 17 13:28:45 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Sep-86 16:14:47 EDT References: <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> <3580@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> Reply-To: cbbrowne@watnot.UUCP (Christopher Browne) Distribution: na Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 90 Keywords: science flood cosmology In article <3580@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes: >What is this "general evolution" and "specific evolution" you are >speaking about here... I believe that what he is speaking of is the idea of what might better be called 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution'. Just to define a bit, let's call 'macroevolution' mutations which generate a new species (genus, or whatever... basically - homo sapiens to something else, perhaps similar, but not based merely on gene combinations). Let's call 'microevolution' changes caused by gene restrictions (i.e. - hereditary conditions or potentially hereditary conditions, like hair colour, skin colour, certain medical conditions). 'Microevolution' should basically mean restriction of genes, because of dominant genes that get more and more dominant in a given population. 'Macroevolution' would refer to changes independent of previously inherited genes - basically mutations. > >>I think a subject more approachable from the scientific view is the >>Noahic flood. Let's have some discussion on the net about the Flood. >> > >Yeah sure...the Noahic flood was something rumored about in a work >of fiction...end of scientific analysis...but seriously...WHY should >we scientifically analyze something that hasn't been proven to >happen, and in fact is rather unlikely to have happened? Isn't this what a lot of scientific researchers do for a living ? :-) >>Here are some facts from the Bible >> >>Duration: 40 days of rain. The earth covered by water for more >> than a year. >> > >Musta been one hellofa downpour...DONT YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE >SURFACE AREA OF THE EARTH!?! Even assuming an inch/hour downpour >across the face of the Earth, it would take a thousand years for the >seas to rise up enough to cover just the highlands, and tens of >millenia before covering the mountains...40 days just does not cut >it! I think that the idea is that it was a RATHER heavy downpour. It has also been suggested that there was also an 'up-pour'. There is some comment in Genesis about a 'breaking forth' of the 'fountains of the deep'. This might imply underground springs (by implication rather more extensive than anything around now). Given large underground 'reservoirs' of water breaking open, this would mean (as well as the major water movement) a change in the structure of the earth. Like, parts of the 'reservoir covers' would go down, and others up creating both hills & valleys (or perhaps even mountains & ocean valleys & other such structures). > >>Onset: Sudden. Only the seven in the Ark had (100 years worth >> of supernatural) warning. > >Again, see above...Even assuming a torrential downpour that we may >assume swept all the lowlanders into the sea, the highlanders would >have had years to prepare for the rising waters... > Actually, the seven in the ark were probably NOT the only ones warned. Noah would probably have told friends about the coming situation SOME time during the 100 years. However, the warnings were ignored. Effectively the same. By the way, even if the 'highlanders' had years to prepare, how would they deal with the torrential downpour falling on them? Would they not, like the lowlanders, be swept down to the lowlands, and then into the sea? >> Changes in lifespan and weather indicate to me that radiation >> based dating would be totally off base for events >> prior to the flood. (I.e. carbon 14). >> > >Of course C-14 dating would still be accurate...radiation doesn't >change its half-life for some mere quadrillions of tons of water... >weather has absolutely no effect on radiation, and neither does our >lifespans! > Perhaps radiation does not change it's half-life over a rainstorm, but might not the rate of radiation absorbtion by carbon change with changes in the atmosphere? With less water & stuff to absorb radiation than there was before, I would think that more carbon 14 would be available to be absorbed. The changes in C-14 levels before & after could foul things up rather a lot (as far as dating is concerned). -- Christopher Browne University of Waterloo Faculty of Mathematics "To do is to be." -- Aristotle "To be is to do." -- Socrates "Do be do be do." -- Sinatra "Do be a do bee." -- Miss Sally of Romper Room fame. "Yabba dabba do." -- Fred Flintstone "DO...BEGIN..END" -- Niklaus Wirth