[W:#183]Humans in the Americas before last Ice Age

[rahl]

Uhhhh, what?

I didn't stutter

Now please, what time frame are you even trying to talk about?

4.5 billion years

Because if you notice, I was actually quite specific about time frames when I gave an example of a massive flood that covered continents.

At no point in earths history has there ever been a global flood. MASSIVE floods is not GLOBAL floods.

You are aware that essentially the entire planet was a "Water World", until around 3.2 billion years ago, right?

no it wasn't.

There was at that time no continents at all. No land, the planet was nothing but a single great ocean. And for the first few hundred million years multiple continents are believed to have risen, then fallen into the ocean again.

You see, this is the problem in that you are trying to maintain absolutes, and not putting in any kind of context at all. That is not science, and I am actually talking from science. "There is not enough water" is actually a nonsensical claim, especially as apparently you are only talking about in reference to the planet at this day. You are aware that it is billions of years old, right? And it was not always as we see it now.

"Not enough water" indeed, One of the silliest claims I have ever read.

I'm sorry you find biology, geology, physics and hydrodynamics to be silly. Meanwhile, at no point in earths history has there ever been a global flood. We know this empirically, based on the 4 disciplines of science previously mentioned.

 

[MamboDervish]

Yep, guessing. That's all old earth science has is a bunch of guessing.

No. Old earth science has a lot of science.
The sciences - many of them - understand a great deal about old earth. And the sciences compliment each other.

 

[Loulit01]

I'm going to go with these:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
KJV

--------------

Is a complete global flood physically possible on Earth?

Genesis 7:11-20 presents an account of a precipitation event which, in 40 days, submerges the entire surface of the earth: [On] the seventeenth day of the second month — on that day all the sp...

earthscience.stackexchange.com

Harvard scientists determine early Earth may have been a water world

A new study suggests Earth’s primordial ocean 3 to 4 billion years ago may have been much larger than it is today, and possibly covered the entire planet.

news.harvard.edu

Was the Earth ever totally underwater?

Was this planet ever a 'water world'?

www.thenakedscientists.com

 

[Irredentist]

I'm going to go with these:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
KJV

--------------

Is a complete global flood physically possible on Earth?

Genesis 7:11-20 presents an account of a precipitation event which, in 40 days, submerges the entire surface of the earth: [On] the seventeenth day of the second month — on that day all the sp...

earthscience.stackexchange.com

Harvard scientists determine early Earth may have been a water world

A new study suggests Earth’s primordial ocean 3 to 4 billion years ago may have been much larger than it is today, and possibly covered the entire planet.

news.harvard.edu

Was the Earth ever totally underwater?

Was this planet ever a 'water world'?

www.thenakedscientists.com

By studying ancient religious texts, it is sometimes possible to discover records of real historical events that have been distorted into myth by the passage of time. The legend of the flood is popular among many religious traditions, and this may indicate the existence of a real historical event upon which these legends are based. It may possibly pertain to the end of the last glacial maximum, which would have entailed large scale flooding in many parts of the world.

 

[Loulit01]

By studying ancient religious texts, it is sometimes possible to discover records of real historical events that have been distorted into myth by the passage of time. The legend of the flood is popular among many religious traditions, and this may indicate the existence of a real historical event upon which these legends are based. It may possible pertain to the end of the last glacial maximum, which would have entailed large scale flooding in many parts of the world.

I'm more inlined to think they were regional events perceived as global.

 

[Glitch]

*proto-humans

No, homo sapiens. There is no such thing as a "proto-human." There have been more than 20 different species of human, only homo sapiens remain. The last species of human to die out or get assimilated (depending on which theory you believe) were the Neanderthal which vanished around 30,000 years ago.

 

[Glitch]

I'm more inlined to think they were regional events perceived as global.

This is a good example of that.

Noah’s Not-so-big Flood

A long time ago, whether your time frame is biblical or geological, the Black Sea was a large freshwater Black "Lake." It was cut off from the Mediterranean Sea by a high piece of land that dammed the entry of salty seawater through the narrow connecting Bosphorus valley. [caption...

www.whoi.edu

 

[Oozlefinch]

no it wasn't.

Actually yes, it was. And there are many reasons why this was, but here are just a few.

According to a new, Harvard-led study, geochemical calculations about the interior of the planet’s water storage capacity suggests Earth’s primordial ocean 3 to 4 billion years ago may have been one to two times larger than it is today, and possibly covered the planet’s entire surface.

“It depends on the conditions and parameters we look at in the model, such as the height and distribution of the continents, but the primordial ocean could have flooded more than 70, 80, and even 90 percent of the early continents,” said Junjie Dong, a Ph.D. student in Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, who led the study. “In the extreme scenarios, if we have an ocean that is two times larger than the amount of water we have today, that might have completely flooded the land masses we had on the surface of the early Earth.”

Harvard scientists determine early Earth may have been a water world

A new study suggests Earth’s primordial ocean 3 to 4 billion years ago may have been much larger than it is today, and possibly covered the entire planet.

news.harvard.edu

New research suggests ancient Earth was a water world, with little to no land in sight. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.

While modern Earth’s surface is about 70 percent water-covered, the new research indicates that our planet was a true ocean world some 3 billion years ago. At this point, only scattered archipelagos breached our global ocean’s briny surface. That is, if any land existed at all.

The scientists based their findings on unique rock samples found in Western Australia’s Panorama district. Because rocks carry imprints of the environments they formed in, the researchers determined the rocks formed in a hydrothermal vent system on the sea floor about 3.24 billion years ago. Over the eons, the rocks were turned on their side and exposed, which allowed scientists to investigate Earth’s watery past from the convenience of dry land. This led them to conclude that ancient Earth may have been a waterlogged planet without any significant landmass.

Ancient Earth may have been a "water world" without any dry land

New research suggests ancient Earth was completely covered in water. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.

astronomy.com

Of course, the reference to rocks is the Australian Shield.

Across the ages, sea levels have risen and fallen with temperatures—but Earth's total surface water was always assumed to be constant. Now, evidence is mounting that some 3 billion to 4 billion years ago, the planet's oceans held nearly twice as much water—enough to submerge today's continents above the peak of Mount Everest. The flood could have primed the engine of plate tectonics and made it more difficult for life to start on land.

Rocks in today's mantle, the thick layer of rock beneath the crust, are thought to sequester an ocean's worth of water or more in their mineral structures. But early in Earth's history, the mantle, warmed by radioactivity, was four times hotter. Recent work using hydraulic presses has shown that many minerals would be unable to hold as much hydrogen and oxygen at mantle temperatures and pressures. "That suggests the water must have been somewhere else," says Junjie Dong, a graduate student in mineral physics at Harvard University who led a model, based on those lab experiments, that was published today in AGU Advances. "And the most likely reservoir is the surface."

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

And this is not even getting into the aspect that at that time the crust was still thin, and there were no continents. What, you thought there were always continents? Nope, it is now accepted those came much later, after the early Tectonic Plates started to form, and the crust grew thick enough that it could start to push one layer on top of another instead of just fold away inside like melted taffy.

But if you prefer videos and not actually looking at the research, here is a good breakdown of what is now being accepted.

 

[rahl]

Actually yes, it was. And there are many reasons why this was, but here are just a few.

Harvard scientists determine early Earth may have been a water world

A new study suggests Earth’s primordial ocean 3 to 4 billion years ago may have been much larger than it is today, and possibly covered the entire planet.

news.harvard.edu

Ancient Earth may have been a "water world" without any dry land

New research suggests ancient Earth was completely covered in water. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.

astronomy.com

Of course, the reference to rocks is the Australian Shield.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

And this is not even getting into the aspect that at that time the crust was still thin, and there were no continents. What, you thought there were always continents? Nope, it is now accepted those came much later, after the early Tectonic Plates started to form, and the crust grew thick enough that it could start to push one layer on top of another instead of just fold away inside like melted taffy.

But if you prefer videos and not actually looking at the research, here is a good breakdown of what is now being accepted.

it's amusing you think a youtube video disproves 4 separate fields of science, lol. But no. We know, empirically, based on biology, geology, physics and hydrodynamics, that at no time in earths history has there ever been a global flood.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The legend of the flood is popular among many religious traditions, and this may indicate the existence of a real historical event upon which these legends are based.

Actually, it is most likely that as each culture has their own myth that is similar, it is simply multiple floods.

Part of the problem with reading to much into religious texts is that they are trying to be literalists. The entire world flooded, how would a Mesopotamian know that? And it is not like the story of Noah is the oldest flood myth, just one of the most well known.

Now there are several known floods along the Tigre's and Euphrates rivers that fall in the right time frame. Not "global", but close enough for the point of view of Neolithic people. Where the low flat land would have essentially created a lake over a hundred miles wide, if only a dozen or so yards deep.

Then there is some that follow the Black Sea Deluge theory. In that it is known the Black Sea would largely drain, then flood again. Multiple times in the past 10ky. And there is archaeological evidence that there were settlements along the edge of some of these ancient water levels. And that either rising water levels from the South, or the break-up of a glacial dam could have flooded it, causing the same belief among any there that had managed to survive.

My great-grandfather told me when I was young a similar tale, which is common among almost all Indian tribes. Most anthropologists just believe that of all natural disasters to happen to ancient man, flood was the most memorable, most common, and tended to leave deep scars that became part of their myths. In fact, many missionaries learned of these common myths, and used the connections to gain converts to Christianity.

 

[Oozlefinch]

One time, long ago, the Creator Mamogosnan flooded the Earth. Original man, known as Wiske, was floating in the water along with all the Earth’s other animals. To stay afloat, they each climbed onto a large log that had been carried by the current.

Wiske, tired of hanging onto the log in the cold water, decided that they needed some land to rebuild the Earth.
The other animals and Wiske talked about how to do this. They had been floating for days without any sight of land, and decided the only place they were sure it existed was under the water.

Shishibe, the Duck, was a good swimmer and volunteered to dive down and retrieve some Earth from the water below. Shishibe disappeared into the water below with the kick of his webbed feet and was gone for a long time.

Eventually, he emerged, breathing heavily and shaking his head.

“I dove as far as I could, and I couldn’t even see the ground,” he explained dejectedly.

The Loon, who had been sitting on top of the log waiting for the Duck to come back, volunteered to try next. Diving off the log, he disappeared into the water. The other animals waited as the Loon spent a longer time beneath the blue water than the Duck had.

Eventually, he too reappeared, saying “I got close enough that I could see the dirt at the bottom. It is there, I just couldn’t hold my breath long enough to reach it.”

One after another, the animals floating in the water took turns diving below the waves in hopes of reaching the bottom. Each one though, returned with nothing to show for it. As more failed, hope started to fade that they would ever be on land again.

Finally, when everyone agreed that the water was just too deep, a small voice from the far end of the log said, “Let me try.”

All the creatures looked to where the voice had come from and saw a small, hairy animal that looked like a cousin of the Beaver.

“What is your name?” Wiske asked.

“I am Zheshko the Muskrat, and I am a good swimmer. I would like to try,” replied the animal.

The animals all shook their heads, and Shishibe the Duck said, “If I couldn’t do it, and the Loon couldn’t do it, what makes you think that you can?”

“Everyone else has tried, why not let him?” someone said from the other end of the log.

So Zheshko took a deep breath and jumped off the log and into the water.

Soon everyone realized he had been gone longer than the duck, the loon and everyone else who had attempted to reach the bottom. Eventually, air bubbles began to emerge from the water where Zheshko went in. Soon after, Zheshko floated slowly to the surface.

Wiske and the other animals brought him to the log and sat him on top of it. Though he was no longer breathing, in his hand was a clump of Earth. In his desire to reach the bottom, Zheshko realized that if he reached the bottom, he wouldn’t have enough air to get back to the surface. By grabbing the dirt, he sacrificed himself in order to help the other animals still up on the log.

Mshike the Turtle, had watched all of this happen and was touched by Zheshko’s sacrifice and offered his shell as the platform to rebuild the Earth. Through Mshike and Jeshko’s efforts, the Earth began to form on the shell and grew larger and larger. Eventually all the animals were able to leave the log and walk onto the newly formed land that was built on Mshike the Turle’s back.

This is the reason that to the Potawatomi, North America is known as Turtle Island.

The above is the Potawatomi Flood Myth. Not the same as Noah, but enough similarity that it got the attention of many when the Missionaries told them of a similar tale.

 

[Oozlefinch]

it's amusing you think a youtube video disproves 4 separate fields of science, lol. But no. We know, empirically, based on biology, geology, physics and hydrodynamics, that at no time in earths history has there ever been a global flood.

I see, and rejecting the study from Harvard, and multiple others and only talking about the video at the end.

Right. In other words, you do not want to look into it, refuse to consider it, and outright reject it because you do not want to believe it.

Go ahead and join Grasshopper then. You two are very much alike really.

 

[rahl]

I see, and rejecting the study from Harvard, and multiple others and only talking about the video at the end.

nothing you presented shows a global flood. "might have been, could have been, maybe etc" does not refute established science. We know at this point, that there has never been a global flood. It's why you can't provide any evidence that there was.

Right. In other words, you do not want to look into it, refuse to consider it, and outright reject it because you do not want to believe it.

I have looked into it. There is no scientific evidence showing a global flood.

Go ahead and join Grasshopper then. You two are very much alike really.

no idea who grasshopper is, but I will continue to point out the science in refutation of the religious stupidity that is being peddled here. At no point in earths history has there ever been a global flood. We know this empirically.

 

[Glitch]

it's amusing you think a youtube video disproves 4 separate fields of science, lol. But no. We know, empirically, based on biology, geology, physics and hydrodynamics, that at no time in earths history has there ever been a global flood.

Actually, there has been peer-reviewed studies presenting evidence that the world was once entirely covered by water between 4 and 3.2 billion years ago. It cannot be construed as a "flood" either, since there was no land to flood at the time.

Oxygen-isotope evidence from ancient zircons for liquid water at the Earth's surface 4,300 Myr ago - Nature, Issue 409, pages 178–181 (2001).
Constraining the volume of Earth’s early oceans with a temperature-dependent mantle water storage capacity model - AGU Advances, 2021.

 

[rahl]

Actually, there has been peer-reviewed studies presenting evidence that the world was once entirely covered by water between 4 and 3.2 billion years ago. It cannot be construed as a "flood" either, since there was no land to flood at the time.

Oxygen-isotope evidence from ancient zircons for liquid water at the Earth's surface 4,300 Myr ago - Nature, Issue 409, pages 178–181 (2001).
Constraining the volume of Earth’s early oceans with a temperature-dependent mantle water storage capacity model - AGU Advances, 2021.

First study is behind a paywall. The abstract provided zero information as to your assertion. Second study does not conclude the entire earth was covered by water.

"may have" "scientists suspect" is not evidence.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

And I am not an Atheist. I am very much a Christian. I am simply not a Fundamentalist, who has no concept of logic as being a literalist actually requires lack of logic.

Interesting however that apparently you are trying to project onto me something I do not believe, just because I think you are wrong. However, it does tell me quite a bit about your idea of tolerance, and acceptance of others who do not agree with you.

And yes, it is pseudo-science. A more polite word than "pseudo-nonsense".

I simply reject the idea that scientists with PhD's as recognized as any other PhD are called pseudo-scientists. Science is dead if people reject other's interpretation and scientific experimentations based on their idea that they are fundamentalist Christians. Who says they are? To me, it sounds like your group of ideology is much like the Catholic Church was back in Galileo's time. Galileo rejects the idea's of the Church and he's attacked. He can't be right! It goes against the norms.
It's okay for you to have your opinions. But, to brandish someone as wrong without an ounce of proof is really cowardness. Christ himself went against the norm.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

No. Old earth science has a lot of science.
The sciences - many of them - understand a great deal about old earth. And the sciences compliment each other.

Nope. They have no more science than creation scientists. The interpretations are different. Funny thing is, creation scientists don't go around calling old universe scientists names and trying to vilify them like all of you guys do.

 

[Loulit01]

Nope. They have no more science than creation scientists. The interpretations are different. Funny thing is, creation scientists don't go around calling old universe scientists names and trying to vilify them like all of you guys do.

What branch of science do these creation scientists have degrees in?

 

[MamboDervish]

Nope. They have no more science than creation scientists. The interpretations are different. Funny thing is, creation scientists don't go around calling old universe scientists names and trying to vilify them like all of you guys do.

". . . . all you guys ..." ??!!??

Actually, they have an ENORMOUS amount of science, as dozens of very diverse earth and planetary sciences all confirm each other using entirely different scientific disciplines. Conversely, there's no such thing as "creation scientists" because the phrase itself is an oxymoron.

 

[Glitch]

First study is behind a paywall.

Here is a free preprint:

Oxygen-isotope evidence from ancient zircons for liquid water at the Earth's surface 4,300 Myr ago

The abstract provided zero information as to your assertion. Second study does not conclude the entire earth was covered by water.

"may have" "scientists suspect" is not evidence.

Actually, the study does conclude that the ancient oceans were bigger and most likely caused massive flooding.

If the actual water content of today's mantle is greater than its storage capacity was in the early Archean, then the early Archean oceans must have been larger than at present, possibly causing excessive flooding of the surface.

It is also not the evidence that is being "suspected," but rather the conclusions that the evidence presents. The evidence of the zircons suggests that water most likely covered the entire planet. That does not make the evidence suggestive, only the conclusion. If you have a better suggestion that fits the evidence, present it.

It may also come as a shock to learn that Earth was entirely covered in ice for millions of years, not once but possibly twice.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

What branch of science do these creation scientists have degrees in?

These are 3 in the last ICR monthly magazine"
Dr. Clarey, PhD in geology from Western Michigan University
Dr. Tomkins, PhD in Genetics from Clemson University
Dr. Thomas, PhD in Paleobiochemistry from University of Liverpool
Here is a list from https://creation.com/creation-scientists. On the site is a much larger list. You can check them out but all have PhD's. There is about 10,000 scientists who are creation scientists.
Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field. There's more on this list but the forum limits the number of characters to 5,000.

• Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
• Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
• Dr James Allan, Geneticist
• Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
• Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
• Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
• Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
• Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
• Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
• Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
• Dr Markus Blietz, Astrophysicist
• Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
• Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
• Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
• Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
• Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
• Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
• Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
• Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
• Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
• Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
• Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
• Dr Tim Clarey, Geology, Paleontology
• Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
• Dr Bob Compton, DVM
• Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
• Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
• Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
• Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
• Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
• Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
• Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
• Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
• Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
• Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
• Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
• Dr Angel Duty, Biomedical engineering
• Dr Chad Duty, Mechanical engineering
• Robert H. Eckel, Medical research
• Dr André Eggen, Geneticist

 

[Grasshopper121212]

". . . . all you guys ..." ??!!??

Actually, they have an ENORMOUS amount of science, as dozens of very diverse earth and planetary sciences all confirm each other using entirely different scientific disciplines. Conversely, there's no such thing as "creation scientists" because the phrase itself is an oxymoron.

No it's not. God is the creator of all science. Without God, there is nothing.

 

[MamboDervish]

No it's not. God is the creator of all science. Without God, there is nothing.

Man is the discoverer of all the sciences - and all the sciences attest to the same thing. An old earth, in a very old universe. All of them.
All the earth sciences - Geology, mineralogy, physics, meteorology, hydrology, seismology, . . . . and all of their related fields of study, like vulcanism, plate tectonics, sedimentation, glaciation, . . . . all of these sciences, and others, support each other in the confirmation of an old earth. All of them!
All the biological sciences - Zoology, botany, archeology, genetics, paleontology, anthropology, . . . . all of these sciences, and others, support each other in the confirmation of an old earth. All of them! The sciences are complimentary, and their discoveries and advances over time all attest to the same thing.
Likewise, physics and astrophysics confirm the existence of a very, very old universe - and those results are not in question. At least they are not in question by any real scientists.

If there happens to be a handful of hardcore religious folks (perhaps in your list above?) who are desperate to ascribe a creator as an "assignable cause" behind all of these well known, well studied scientific dynamics, well . . . . hey. People are free to believe whatever they want. They can believe in the Easter Bunny. But the science is based on empirical evidence - not belief - and the science says what it says. We live on a very old earth, in a very, very old universe. If you claim that "creation science" says otherwise, then it is a lie.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Actually, the study does conclude that the ancient oceans were bigger and most likely caused massive flooding.

Rather pointless, as they seem to only want to see evidence that supports their own belief, and reject automatically anything that says otherwise.

 

[rahl]

Here is a free preprint:

Oxygen-isotope evidence from ancient zircons for liquid water at the Earth's surface 4,300 Myr ago

which does not conclude there was ever a global flood. Thank you.

Actually, the study does conclude that the ancient oceans were bigger and most likely caused massive flooding.

right. they did not conclude there was a global flood, as I keep pointing out.

It is also not the evidence that is being "suspected," but rather the conclusions that the evidence presents. The evidence of the zircons suggests that water most likely covered the entire planet. That does not make the evidence suggestive, only the conclusion. If you have a better suggestion that fits the evidence, present it.

It may also come as a shock to learn that Earth was entirely covered in ice for millions of years, not once but possibly twice.

The facts remain. At no point has the earth even had a global flood. No evidence concludes there was. All the evidence to date shows it is not possible, and this spans across 4 separate disciplines of science. Biology, geology,, physics and hydrodynamics.