Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp From: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (wagener) Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Creation, Evolution, and Flood (Long) Message-ID: <682@bcsaic.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Sep-86 12:48:49 EDT Article-I.D.: bcsaic.682 Posted: Mon Sep 15 12:48:49 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Sep-86 23:49:52 EDT References: <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> Reply-To: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha-wagener) Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Lines: 161 Keywords: science flood cosmology Xref: linus talk.origins:53 talk.religion.misc:114 In article <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >Actually, I don't assume evolution is not part of God's plan. I don't >pretend to have been around when God created the world. I am convinced >that it happened just the way the Bible describes it. I get ticked >off at both creationists and evolutionists because of the irrational >basis of both theories. > >Evolutionist: The only alternative to evolution is special creation. > Since God doesn't exist, this is clearly impossible. Therefore > evolution is true. (Despite the evidence.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What evidence are you refering to? > >Creationist: Evolution was conceived by heathen, therefore it could > not possibly be Biblical (i.e. true). (No science required.) > >The waters are further muddied by the 'apparent age' problem which >makes any scientific consideration of creation impossible. (Science >is only concerned with what we can observe.) > How else is there to prove anything? Arm-wave and hypothesise maybe, but prove anything? Sure you could speculate that all was cleverly brought to being complete as is, with evidence included that things have changed over a LONG period of time -- but what is the use? All that is is speculation -- nothing more. Without evidence to observe it goes no where. >My conclusion: both creationism and evolution are totally unscientific ^^^^^^^^^ I object to the assertion that evolution is not scientific, for it is. It's just that like anything in science that is a theory, the "truth" is dynamic not static as popular belief and creationist would have it to be. More evidence,more clarification. It's the same throughout science. Most non-scientists have no concept of the shift of scientific theories and models through time. The shifts are not haphazard, but they do occur when the time is right and the facts are in. There is a history to the flow of science, DON"T IGNORE IT! Also, the world is a highly integrated unit, this is never so clearly seen as in geology. One can't focus just on one aspect of any problem without taking into account a large variety of other aspects and fields. This is the main area that Ted H.'s arm-waving falls apart, as well as lots of the creationist doctrines. Current evolutionary theory may not be perfect in all its aspects but it does seem the closest to the right track. Only Time will tell. A track. Time will tell. >and should not be taught in science classes. (I mean general evolution. >Specific evolution is well proven.) Perhaps 'cosmology' would be an >appropriate name for the subject. > >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. > >Here are some facts from the Bible > >Duration: 40 days of rain. The earth covered by water for more > than a year. > >Onset: Sudden. Only the seven in the Ark had (100 years worth > of supernatural) warning. > >Water source: the 'floodgates of heaven' and the 'fountains of the deep'. > (The objection that there is not enough water in the atmosphere > and polar caps is not sufficient.) There's more than just not enough water, there's also the fact that where did the water go if it was an outpouring of juvenile water? (juvenile water -- water that is derived from the interior of the earth and has not previously existed as atmospheric or surface water. Dictionary of Geological terms, American Geological Institute, Anchor Books,1976.) Once you get water onto the surface of the earth, it becomes part of a closed system cycle. Very little goes back into the earth. So even if there was an outpouring of juvenile waters that allowed the earth to be covered with water, where did the extra go? >Consequences: the flood caused profound changes in the earth's ecology. > > Before: It never rained until the flood. The earth was > watered by a mist from the ground. > Average human lifespan was 900+ years. > There were no seasons. > > After: Rain was a regular event; rainbows were seen. > Typical human lifespan dropped quickly to 120+ years. > Between Moses and David lifspan dropped further to > 70 years. > Seasons took hold. > Eating meat was condoned by God. > >Thoughts: > > Did the flood split the super continent in a year? (As opposed > to millions of years.) Continents DO NOT split because of water! THERE IS LOTS OF EVIDENCE for the tensional aspect of continents being pulled apart by movements of mobile layers under the crust. The rock signatures are there, as are the signatures in the continents for the gradual buildup of continents over a LONG period of time. I really suggest that it would be wise to delve into geology - specifically plate tectonics, radiometric dating (beyond C-14 theres are atleast 5 or 6 methods that all correlate) paleontology and especially stratigraphy. If there are some good verifiable model that will reconcil the great portion of already recognizable evidence, I'll listen with eager ears. So far neither the above, nor Teds diatribes fit any known evidence. > > When did the flood take place? There IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A WORLDWIDE FLOOD! None.Zip. Nada. (And believe me floods leave lots of evidence that canbe found all over -- there is no evidence of a flood over all the world. Lots of little ones here and there, but all at different times,places,and circumstances.) PLEASE READ some geology and look at its evidence before condeming it. > > 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). There have already been SIGNIFICANT changes in the atmosphere types of fauna and flora and weather which show no changes in the radiometric dating methods. (C-14 is accurate to only a couple of 100,000 years,beyond that the accuracy deteriorates to total unreliablity at about 1 million years. There are other methods for much older dating. C-14 is used only for relatively recent events.) > > Evidently, some species were able to survive the flood without > being in the Ark. (E.g. insect eggs, fish eggs, plants, etc.) > The Bible says that everything that breathed died (Gen 7:22). > Only breathing creatures were in the Ark (Gen 7:15). > > Was the flood the demise of dinosaurs? (They were too big > to fit in the Ark?) The dinosaurs did not die in one fell swoop. Nor did all the life at the end of the Mesozoic die off. There were a lot of air-breathing life left in the form of mammals,bird and even reptiles (of whom the dinosaurs were only a fraction). The demise was somewhat gradual over a short period of time. > > What kind of sediment layers (mixed with creatures) would the > flood produce? I suggest that some study into stratigraphy and paleontology would be useful. This issue was settled about 100 years ago, and the evidence keeps mounting against it.