Post flood evolution?

[nebula]

Now, if the words which we translate as "earth" to the people of the time meant the land they inhabited, and God said He would destroy the whole earth, why wouldn't that term be the concept the people of the time had of it?

If your theory is correct then another problem exists. God further stated that he would never do that again, and according to your theory, that means no more local flooding or major events that could wipe out the inhabitants of a region. since major tidal waves and monsoons have done just that, then I must accept that God doesn't keep his word, or accept that the flood was world wide.

OK, time to back up a bit, I think!

Hi, skidd!

Welcome to WorthyBoards!

Allow me to introduce myself a bit. I have been a Christian practically all my life and have read the Bible through several times and listened to many, many sermons in church, on radio and on TV, and have read several teaching books. When I was in college, a Christian college, I decided to major in the biological sciences. Starting there and since then, I have been exposed to a lot of scientific methodologies and knowledge and operations and what-not. I've also done a bit of studying regarding origins from different sides of the equation (and not just the two extremes). A lot of my thinking has been adjusted over the years. One being that most people really do not understand science and how it operates. The way schools teach science is partly to blame for that.

But one thing I learned about science is that understanding is adaptable - given the sufficient evidence (and I know we can have debates about what this means and how it is applied, but for now just let me say this is an appropriate principle).

With that, let me say that this is not "my theory." For one, I didn't come up with this. For another, I mean only to offer an alternative perspective.

Considering how many ancient cultures - from Native Americans to Chinese to Babylonian to Hebrew and what-not - all have the story of a great flood wiping out the earth (or at least the whole entire world that they knew) with only a few survivors, that says to me personally the Great Flood really did occur. How far spread that was, I'll give it some varience. Apparently, scientists have found more evidence of a world-wide ice age than a world wide flood. So, either the flood happened before the last great Ice Age, and thus the evidence is farther down than anyone has dug yet, or the flood occured over a very large but not worldwide area. It is also possible that the evidence has been misunderstood due to the changing nature of the Earth due to its geological activity and other phenomena - I will not discount that - unfortunatley, scientist need substantial evidence to accept such a claim. (And considering all the crack-pit theories running around, such as the people trying to claim intelligent beings once lived on Mars, it's a good thing science holds such a scepticism, otherwise, we'd let anybody get away with believing anything!) So, I've been trying to sort out how to deal with the apparent inconcistencies to feel comfortable with how to not betray my faith nor science. Oh, did I mention I am in school to become a science teacher? So, I have to deal with this in this way - and if I'm wrong, I'll live with it and move on.

But since the concept of the Earth as a spherical body was not determined until the time of the Greeks, I think it does open the possiblility that the concept of the "whole world" was not over places unknown to the seat of humanity at that time and place. I merely offer it as a possibility.

Now, about your rebuttal, let me offer mine.

In response to: "God further stated that he would never do that again, and according to your theory, that means no more local flooding or major events that could wipe out the inhabitants of a region. since major tidal waves and monsoons have done just that, then I must accept that God doesn't keep his word, or accept that the flood was world wide."

Let's see what the passage says.

Gen. 9:11 - "Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."

Calling the Flood "localized" does imply a small area; it doesn't necessarily have to mean that. Considering that we don't know how far spread humanity existed and such, nor exactly where everyone was located (as the flood would have completely changed the topography of the land - including destroying old rivers and creating new ones, filling in valleys as sediment settled, etc.), it could mean anything, really. Scientists have found evidence of very large-scale "localized" floods in different areas of the world; so, even being "localized" could have meant it covered a very vastly extensive area.

Now, looking at the passage above and comparing it to the kinds of localized floods we have today, I see a difference. I note the phrase: "all flesh" and the mention of a flood being used to destroy the earth. Personally, I see a difference in implication. You may not, but I do. So, if you disagree - oh well! Go with what your convictions tell you!

By the way, just where do your convictions lie on this matter, if I may ask?

[nebula]

BTW - geneticists believe the human population went through what is called a "bottleneck" - where the population is reduced to a significantly small number (like less than 10 or so?), such that the gene pool suffers a very severe shortage, and the decendants have much more genetic similarities than the original population. That would be why humans share about 99% of the genome.

Of course, their claim is that this happened about 70,000 years ago, so. . . .

[Guest idolsmasher]

Well, I'm not a scientist, nor do I know much about genetics, but I do know that the bible is not always logical, just as God himself is a mystery. Miracles defy logic. Anyway, perhaps the scattering at the tower of Babel involved genetics. The cursing of Ham surely must have involved genetics. I'm thinking that the answer you are seeking may just defy logic, just as Creation, or for that matter, evolution.

[Guest LadyC]

skidd, i finally, with the help of a friend, found the article i was looking for. perhaps this will explain your question of when, as well as why.

Try this link for a summary of the Shoumatoff article by John Hollenhorst

[Guest skidd2]

[

By the way, just where do your convictions lie on this matter, if I may ask?

My convictions are to seek the truth. I have had for as long as I have lived a belief that many of the turns I take in life are being guided by someone else. I believe in a higher power, BUT, I am not sure this power is the God of the Bible.

To be more exact, I tend to think that the Bible is man's explaination of what I just said, that there is a higher power. But for me, at least at this time, there are too many problems, conflicts, errors, and otherwise stupid aspects about the Bible for me to not question it's origin.

Case in point. The Bible is written in a very inconsistant manner, some verses are specific, others seem to be abstract. Our discussion shows this problem. If indeed the Bible is the word of God, we all should have the ability to fully understand it, without the help of experts who may insert their opinions while spreading the message.

A second point is that if the Bible was written by men inspired by God, then the meaning would apply to all, and not just to those who were present at that time. The Bible, as we know it, didn't exist until several generations after Jesus. If the Bible was meant as a statement to us, then why such a long delay after such an important event.

Nothing I have just said implies that God does not exist, I instead question the Bible as proof of that existance.

Just so we are clear, allow me to share what first really started me on this line of thought. Starting at the end of the Bible and working backwards, I see an ever increasing amount of direct communication between God and man. In Genesis, God speaks directly to man and puts on plenty of major events to show the world that he is large and in charge. The books of the NT are written by people who talk about what they remember of Jesus, but no major events. (I am speaking of floods, large groups of people killed, fire and brimstone stuff). Why such a change in things 2000 years BC vs 2000 years AD? God did not hesitate to show who he was in the OT, but has been noticably quiet in the last 2000 years. Why? I believe that as humans developed better and better forms of communication, general knowledge of science and nature increased. People were less likely to believe fantastic stories much in the same way that children figure out about Santa Clause, the stories didn't fit. So rather than write about events that would not have been believed (firestorms, rivers turning into blood,etc.), the authors wrote about things that were harder to disprove. For as much as is written in the Bible about Jesus and all of his miracles, there is virtually no evidence outside the Bible to support these claims. NOTE: I didn't say that there wasn't a man called Jesus, I am saying that if his message was as important as is stated in the Bible, there should be other supporting facts found outside, and independent of, the Bible.

I am sorry for this long post, but you asked where my convictions lie. I have faith that there exists a being greater than us, or at least, greater than me. I doubt, however, that human communication can fully describe such a being and as such doubt that any written document would be used as his testimony.

[nebula]

Case in point. The Bible is written in a very inconsistant manner, some verses are specific, others seem to be abstract. Our discussion shows this problem. If indeed the Bible is the word of God, we all should have the ability to fully understand it, without the help of experts who may insert their opinions while spreading the message.

OK. You have addressed a lot.

I'm on limited time, so I'll just make a comment about what you stated here.

Keep in mind that the books of the Old Testament were originally written over the time span of centuries. So, the original writings would have contained expressions and cultural knowledge of the people of that time. If you think about it, how could it not? For instance, when it mentions someone sitting at the gate of a city (such as Lot), most people now days do not realize that city gates were the location for the conduction of governing affairs. Thus, a person sitting at a gate to a city was some sort of governing official. But that was their culture back then. So, without understanding their culture, it would be hard to get a complet picture of what was going on.

Imagine someone from China 2000 years for now trying to interpret a book in current English with this sentence: "It was raining cats and dogs."

I do believe in the power of the word of God; I am just also aware that languages and cultures change over time, and having the knowledge of that people and that culture and their view of the world helps me to see what was really going on with the giving of the word. Taking God's word rigidly only leads to legalism. Granted there needs to be a balance with taking God's word too fluidly, but that's what makes something living verses something stale.

OK?

[Rick]

Something to toss into the mix:

" Virtually all cells of every living thing (plants, animals, and humans) contain tiny strands of coded information called DNA. DNA directs the cell, telling it what to produce and when. Therefore, much of your appearance and personality is determined by the DNA you inherited from your parents.

In human cells, the nucleus contains 99.5% of the DNA. Half of it came from the individual

[Guest skidd2]

Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago.

My original post wanted to know how so many different races could have come about in such a short time. You seem to state that mitochondrial Eve lived only 6000 years ago, however, mtDNA that matches modern humans has been found that is much older. Infact, not only is matching mtDNA much older, it is found in far reaching places, from Australia to England. There is a vast wealth of information that shows that modern humans match the mtDNA of humans at least 15,000 years old, and some evidence that modern humans could be as old as 20,000 to 40,000 years.

This link may help you:Genetic Evidence

Based on your concept of dating Eve using mutation rates, Eve would have to be at least as old, if not older than, the mtDNA that matches modern humans. Currently that means Eve lived at least 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.

All of this does not exclude the flood as a possibility, or that we are decendents of Noah. It does, however, bring into question the date of this event.

[Rick]

Just for the record , the information I provided in the post was a quote from Dr. Walt Brown, from the link I posted at the bottom of the page.

A little information about Dr. Brown.

[ QUOTE ]

" Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins. "

" Written Debate

The issue is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Dr. Brown

[Guest shadow2b]

-This could be true. You want to know what that "common ancestor" was? Drumroll, please. It was an ape-like ancestor from which we evolved.

-IF EVVY-LUU-SHUNN-----IZSA TRUE?WHY AREN'T THERE PEOPLE--HUMAN LIKE-WALKING OUT OF THE

-JUNGLES--SWAMPS--AROUND THA WERLD IN VARIOUS STAGES OVA EVVY-LUU-SHUNN-ever-daye now??PULL-

-LUUU-ZZZEEE----DON'T INSULT MAH IN-TELLY-GINZE---BY aSAYIN; WELLLL,ITS SOOOO SLOW--WE

-CAINT SEE IT!!!!!! :x: :x: YUPP--& PIGS FLY TOO!!!THYIS whone izsa pre-pair-inn fer tayke offshhheeesssshhh