The Flood is biblical event!

[PetriFB]

Jari Iivanainen's article:

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theflood.html


Certain people who believe in the theory of evolution and do not believe that the Flood had ever taken place have often regarded the Flood as a mere legend.

However, it is good to ask whether the Flood really did take place. If we were to make practical observations of the ground and the fossils found therein, and traditional folklore, they would refer quite often to the Flood. These indicate that a large mass destruction had taken place in the immediate past. The following passages will examine these different sources of information, which refer to the Flood.

The Mass Graves of Animals

- It has been estimated that in the Karroo region of South-Africa there would be about 800 billions of skeletal remains of vertebrates (Robert Broom's article in the Science newspaper of January, in the year 1959). This large grave find indicates that it cannot be a question of any natural event. The animals must have been buried very quickly. Generally, this kind of burial is explained in the best way by mass destruction such as the Flood, which can also accumulate strata on animals instantaneously.

- One special matter is the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia, because it can include millions of tons of animals’ bones. Significantly, several of these animals have been large mammals, which would not get along in cold conditions and they themselves could not be buried in any way, or be put into the ground. The next description, which is from the book "Maailman Luonto”, discusses this matter. It indicates how these large animals were found deep in the underground together with different kinds of vegetation:

... Of particular interest here is the fact that the permafrost in Alaska and in Siberia can include noticeable amounts of bones and meat, and half-rotted vegetation and other remains of the organism world. In some places, these form a notable part of the whole soil. A considerable part of the remains is from large animals such as from hairy rhinoceroses, giant lions, beavers, buffaloes, musk, oxen, mammoths, and hairy elephants, which have become extinct. That is why it is clear that the climate of Alaska was much warmer before it became frozen.

- An indication of the large mass graves are also the remains of rhinoceroses, camels, wild-boars and innumerable other animals in Agate Spring of Nebraska. According to the experts on this area, over 9000 remains of these large sized animals have been buried here.

- From Odessa of Russia, remains of animals were excavated in 1845 and bones belonging to more than 100 bears and of horses, boars, mammoths, rhinoceroses, buffaloes, deer, wolves, hyenas, different insect eaters, rodents, otters, pine-martens and foxes were found. These were upside down with different plant remains and birds, and even with fishes (!). This presentation of fishes among these country animals seems to be a clear reference to the Flood.

- In Palermo, Italy, mounds with a large quantity of hippo’s bones were found. As there are also young hippos' bones among the finds, they did not die in natural circumstances. The presence of these young hippos refers clearly to the Flood.

- Cave finds in Yorkshire in England, in China, in the east coast of USA and in Alaska, where a large number of skeletal remains of herbivores and carnivores were discovered. In Yorkshire, England skeletal remains of elephants, rhinoceros, hippo, horse, wild reindeer, tiger, bear, wolf, horse, fox, rabbit, and many birds were found in a cave. Generally, these animals, which can eat each other, would not in any case stay together.

- One example of large grave finds is from France, where more than 10,000 skeletal remains of horses were found.

- Finds of large cemeteries of dinosaurs have also been made. For example, in Belgium many hundreds, even thousands of bones of small dinosaurs were found 300 metres deep in clay stratum. In Montana of USA, about 10,000 bones of duck lizard were found, and from Canadian Alberta graves in which many hundreds of bones of rhinoceros lizards were also found. In addition to this, smaller grave finds related to dinosaurs have been made in different places around the world. It is likely that these animals have been simultaneously devastated. (For example in the book "The age of dinosaur", by well-known evolution researcher Björn Kurten, it is mentioned that several fossils of dinosaurs have been found in the swimming position, their heads twisted backwards, as in a mortal struggle.)

[McCulloch]

As a background for this topic, who is Jari Iivanainen? What credentials does he have? Has he been published in any peer reviewed scientific journal? Does he have a doctorate in Geology? How have his ideas been received by the existing experts in this field? Is this the same guy who also denies that there has been an ice age?

[micatala]

Welcome to the forum, PetriFB.

As I think you will discover soon, if you haven't already, we do have a lot of diverse views here. McCulloch and I are sometimes on opposite sides (theist vs. non-theist) and sometimes on the same side (both accepting evolution as the best explanation we have for the diversity of life).

McCulloch brings up the issue of credibility, and I think this is valid, although it is not the be all and end all of such a discussion. We should look at the arguments themselves.

Looking at the link posted by M, I do have some problems with Iivanainen's discussion. For example, as part of his argument, he tries to deny that the vast sheets of ice could possibly move.

Keijo Parkkonen has addressed this problem in his book "Sadan Vuoden Harha-Askel" (p. 20) – which concerns the non-existence of ice ages:



Those who teach of ice ages present the idea that ice started to glide in a northwesterly to a southeasterly direction, as the scoring on rocks show. A mass of ice which is over 3 kilometres (1,8 mile) thick has enormous weight. The weight is distributed equally along each kilometre. To enable this kind of mass to move it would need power, which would be able to push it forward. Where would we find such a power, which would get this mass to move in rough terrain – a mass that weighs millions of tons?

The slide theory of ice fields was tested in Antarctica, where using explosions did experiments try to move ice. The experiment came to a sorry end, because the ice did not move even one millimetre. Instead, it broke off into the water on the seashore. The flow of ice fields has often been used to explain the ice age theory. We can see that ice field flows do not have anything to do with the ice age because they do not move upwards and transport big boulders with them.

I see two problems, here. One is that we can actually measure the motion of vast ice sheets within glaciers today. This happens in Alaska, Siberia, the South American Andes, and many other places.

Also, this 'explosion experiment' seems to misunderstand some of the laws of physics. Yes, explosions can move some things, but other things are better moved through force applied over a longer period of time and/or over a wider area. This experiment seems akin to trying to move a car by blowing up a firecracker wedged under its tire. One simply needs a LOT of force to move a very large ice sheet.

Also, as the experiment found, explosions tend to be destructive. Really what they have found is that the force holding the ice together is weaker than the force holding the ice in place. My guess is engineers could have predicted this ahead of time.

We could ask 'how do glaciers move'. I don't know, but my hypotheses would be something along the lines of the formation of ice at 'one end' or maybe 'in the middle' of the glacier creates a force over a very long period of time along a vast stretch of ice. Kind of like a very slow-moving but very wide bull-dozer pushing on big block of ice.

If the force was applied only in one narrow spot, and very quickly, say like a massive sharp wedge running into the block of ice at 60 mph, then the block would probably not move but be split, shattered, or damaged.

Getting back to the flood, you might want to visit other threads around the forum devoted to that topic. Here are a few:

The Grand Canyon: How did it get here
Global FLood: THe Issue with the water
Global Flood: Was the whole world covered by water
(THis one sort of fizzled out at the end due to people getting a little off-track in their debating behavior).
Fossils and the FLood I. There is also a second installment of this.

Don't mean to overwhelm you with pages of posts! but thought you might find these interesting, and you could see some of the arguments that have been made on both sides.

I will also over Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe site, as he is an evangelical Christian, and an astronomer, and not a believer in the mainstream version of evolution, but has some reasonable arguments against the idea of a global flood, both from a scientifif and a theologicial perspective. Here is a more robust discussion from Ross.

Hope to see you around the forum.

[snappyanswer]

"Peer reviewed" means running things by only people that will only see things through Darwins dead eyes. I'm reading the court documents on the PA school board verdict handed in today. That term is always used like a tribunal verdict was in the dark ages.

Whatever happened to freethinkers? I mean real ones. Free thinkers.

[McCulloch]

Micatala is helping me learn manners. Welcome PetriFB

As a background for this topic, who is Jari Iivanainen? What credentials does he have? Has he been published in any peer reviewed scientific journal? Does he have a doctorate in Geology? How have his ideas been received by the existing experts in this field?

McCulloch brings up the issue of credibility, and I think this is valid, although it is not the be all and end all of such a discussion. We should look at the arguments themselves.

As you so rightly point out the issue of credibility is not the be all and end all of any debate. However, when asked to review the opinion of someone, it is, in my opinion a good place to start. I am not a Geologist. In evaluating the assertions of someone who is making claims about the history of the earth, it's age, the possibility of a global flood, the possibility of an ice age, I think that it would be helpful to get the viewpoint of those who have made it their career to study these things and who are recognized experts in the field.
This is not to say that the experts are necessarily correct. They could very well be wrong. Experts have been wrong before. But I do think that we owe it to ourselves to look at all sides and to weigh the evidence as best we can. That being said, I do not have the time to acquire the knowledge needed to fully assess all of the implications of Iivanainen's position. That would take years. We will necessarily need to draw upon the learning of experts.

"Peer reviewed" means running things by only people that will only see things through Darwins dead eyes. ...
Whatever happened to freethinkers? I mean real ones. Free thinkers.

I will not reject Iivanainen's position just because he lacks credentials. Nor will I necessarily accept his position if he has reputable credentials. I was asking because it may save us a fair bit of work to review the reaction of those who have made it their life's work to scientifically evaluate this stuff. Free thinkers do not reject peer review simply because it is ideologically opposed to their own position. Free thinkers, do however, welcome peer review for those subjects where they are not experts, because the experts probably can see some flaws in the argument that the rest of us could easily miss. I would not want our debate of the topic to miss out on that source of insight. Would you?

[jcrawford]

As a background for this topic, who is Jari Iivanainen? ... Is this the same guy who also denies that there has been an ice age?

Many creation scientists theorize that the flood caused an Ice Age of about 700 years duration and offer some evidence in support of their view.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... eage16.asp

[McCulloch]

As a background for this topic, who is Jari Iivanainen? ... Is this the same guy who also denies that there has been an ice age?

Many creation scientists theorize that the flood caused an Ice Age of about 700 years duration and offer some evidence in support of their view.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... eage16.asp

That is one creation scientist. Of the three authors of the article, two claim to be scientists, Donald James Batten, B.Sc.Agr. Ph.D.—University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science and Jonathan D. Sarfati,
B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D. - Physical Chemistry. Neither have credentials in the field being discussed but the make reference to Michael J. Oard, B.S. Atmospheric Science, 1969, University of Washington, M.S. Atmospheric Science, 1973, University of Washington who does seem to have relevent credentials. But I'll take your word for it that there are other creation scientists who support this view. One has to wonder why God, included the flood in his revealed book but not the ice age.

[PetriFB]

I ask you all to answer honestly to the next thought!

How accident in other words evolution have the ability to next kind of things:.

How is possible, that evolution develops eye which sees, woods which hears, heart which upkeep body's life, person who has emotional life and ability understands many matters. Person which has been built extremely miraculously with all mechanism of his/her.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Intervention

I ask you all to answer honestly to the next thought!
How accident in other words evolution have the ability to next kind of things:.
How is possible, that evolution develops eye which sees, woods which hears, heart which upkeep body's life, person who has emotional life and ability understands many matters. Person which has been built extremely miraculously with all mechanism of his/her.

We have a number of debate threads which discuss evolution. The topic of this debate, which you have started, has to do with the Flood and with Jari Iivanainen's article about the evidence for the flood. Please stay on topic.

Yes, I know that the topics are related, but if you are bringing in another topic, try to relate it to the topic being debated. Something like, "The Flood must have happened because I don't understand how eyes evolved."

Here is a debate where your particular question is being looked at What is Chance in Atheistic Evolution?.
Here are some other debates where evolution is being discussed

• Hovind/Callahan Debate
• Theology Journals
• Human Evolution
• What are the limits to so-called "micro-evolution"
• Evolution is compatible with belief in God.
• DNA cannot be explained by non-design
• Differences between human and ape
• Can Intelligent Design make predictions about the mechanism?

[steen]

Certain people who believe in the theory of evolution and do not believe that the Flood had ever taken place have often regarded the Flood as a mere legend.

What does the mythical food have to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? What connection is it you are trying to draw here?