Did Noah's Flood Kill All Humans except his family?

[gbob]

Tents, and Music Technology part 2

Before I present what I wrote in 2005 I want to ask a question for readers to think about. Most Christians, conservative and liberal, believe in some sort of Adam. Some believe he was a member of a tribe; some believe he was Neolithic farmer picked out for special recognition: some think he is the genetic ancestor of humans but not the first human. The fact is they all get the idea that there was an Adam from Scripture. Yet a lot of people ignore everything about Adam except his existence. If we all believe some type of Adam existed, why do we ignore the data about his descendants?

I have always found this very odd. I am my description–70, 3 boys, geophysicist, live in a medium size town (maybe small by today’s standards), interested in science and theology. If someone decides to describe me as 45, 2 girls, shopkeeper living in a town of 2.5 million and an avid sports fan, they wouldn’t be describing me. Thus, to ascribe to Adam and his family traits not described in Scripture is to make Adam someone else. As we will see in this post, things claimed to be invented by Adam’s descendants were invented long before Neolithic Adam lived. Neolithic Adam is a choice of interpretation which makes Scripture false, because it says things actually invented thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago, were invented in the Neolithic. This makes a mockery of both science and the Bible. Since interpretations are a conscious choice, this implies that it is a conscious choice to force the Bible into a position where it is false. Why do we do this to ourselves?

We worship the God of a religion based upon a book we proclaim is scientifically and historically false. That is so illogical that it should gobsmack us all.

From Pathway Paper #5

20“And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle. Gen. 4:20 (ASV)

Let us first look to when tents appear in the archaeological record. I can assure every reader, that tents were not a Neolithic invention. People have been living in tents for 400,000 years or more! How could a descendant of a Neolithic Adam be the ‘father of such as dwell in tents and have property’ when such things were in existence long before that?

Mankind has regularly set up tents for at least the past 400,000 years. Here is a sampling from among many more that I could draw upon. All examples are pre-Neolithic so when reading each case, think about how it falsifies the claim by many that a Neolithic Adam invented tents.

From Kostenki I (19,000 years ago)
“At Kostenki II, dated to 19,900 years ago, the circular footings of a structure survive.”131

From Arcy-sur-Cure (40,000 years ago)
"Thus, at Arcy-sur-Cure, protected by the overhang of the Cave of the Reindeer, the Chatelperronians built and rebuilt circular huts three meters in diameter, with a floor of flat stones, over the course of at least 5,000 years. Part of the framework of these huts might have consisted of mammoth tusks set in holes, and the roof might have been made of skins or bark, flat stones or lumps of soil. These dwellings are different from those of prehistoric Russia and the Ukraine–true pit houses whose construction required skeletal parts of almost 150 mammoths."132

Figure 8 Postholes around Neanderthal hut Reindeer Cave,
Arcy-sur-Cure. Mammoth bones M, river pebbles (striped)

Ian Tattersall relates,

"Hearths are a regular feature of Mousterian sites, and occasionally postholes (and at one site a natural cast of a tent peg) have provided evidence that from time to time Neanderthals rendered their camping sites more comfortable by the rigging up of shelters. Indeed, there is a very recent report of a Neanderthal structure quite deep within a cave, indirectly suggesting that some form of artificial lighting was available."133

The above reference is to Bruniquel, France, where 47,000 years ago, Neanderthals went several hundred meters into a cave. They built a rectangular structure and burned a bear. Mark Berkowitz said,
"A discovery by Francois Rouzaud of the French archaeological service suggests

• Neandertals were more sophisticated in their use of fire than previously believed. A burnt bear bone found deep in a cave in southern France has been dated to at least 47,600 years ago, before modern humans reached western Europe. It proves Neandertals were able to use fire for illumination. Earlier evidence showed only that they used fire in simple hearths. The bone came from a 13- by 16-foot structure made of stalactite and stalagmite fragments. Built by Neandertals, its purpose is unknown*."134

[GRM Note: radiometric dating of Bruniquel in 2016 says it is 176,000 years old, not 47,600. see Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in southwestern France | Nature]

Molodova 40-60 kyr135
“ Large horizontal excavations at Molodova I have revealed the remnants of several large tent rings up to 8 meters in diameter comprised mainly of mammoth bones. Inside these rings are dense scatters of lithics, faunal remains and ash scatters/hearths. Recreating the depositional history and related taphonomic processes of this site is one key to understanding long term use of the site as well as area specific activities.”136

From Lunel-Viel, (200,000 years ago)
"The earliest indications come from one of the 12 Mindel/Riss interglacial occupation levels at Lunel-Viel. There, a line of six groups of large stones occurs about 10 m inside the present cave entrance. Two to four large stones constitute each group, and the line creates a division between the occupied area at the mouth of the cave and the less used interior part of the cave. These groups of stone most plausibly represent rocks used to stabilize poles wedged between the cave floor and ceiling. In fact, one such small rock circle at Lunel-Viel surrounded a small post hole 15 cm deep and about 2.5 cm in diameter confirming the construction nature of these rock features. The line of six rock groups may represent a form of wall that blocked the living area from cold damp air currents coming from the cave interior when Preneandertals sought refuge in the cave during inclement weather. Bonifay also uncovered what appears to be portions of paved areas sometimes associated with hearths or work areas on several levels. At Lunel-Viel a true dry stone wall almost 3 m long was also excavated. This separated one part of the cave which did not appear to have been habitable due to its high humidity and low roof from the clearly inhabited zone. There were also pits dug along the underground lakeshore, constructed hearths, bone dumps on the periphery of habitation zone and other indications of a strongly specialized use of domestic space inside the cave."137.

The Neanderthals were making stone pavements at that time (200,000 years ago).
"The possibility of lower Paleolithic stone pavements, presumably constructed to protect cave
inhabitants from ground moisture and mud during times of inclement weather, is a topic on which opinions vary, as they also do concerning specific sites. The densest, best defined cobble and artefact accumulations are certainly unusual and enigmatic, requiring some explanation. However, while the excavators are often convinced of their intentional human origin, others are more cautious and posit possible, gradually built-up, unintentional origins for at least some of these deposits. The most widely accepted candidate for a clearly defined pavement has been excavated in the Mindel/Riss deposits of Grotte d’Aldene. This continuous 6 m2 pavement was primarily composed of adjoining rounded limestone cobbles that had been split and flaked on the sides that were set into the ground with their rounded surfaces facing up. Waste flakes, stalagmitic slabs with smooth surfaces up and flint tools also formed part of this pavement. The continuous nature of the pavement, the occurrence of flaking on the underside of the cobbles and their limestone material make it seem unlikely that these are randomly abandoned tools meant to be used for practical tasks. As Barrall & Simone argue, these factors, as well as a good size sorting together with the tight, almost conjoining fit between the constituents, and the presence of incontestable flakes, prove that this is certainly an intentional habitation structure.’ Lumley & Bottet excavated other stone concentrations in several Riss II and III deposits of stratum 30(J) at Baume Bonne. The best example at this site, with over 185 cobbles per square meter, had well defined edges forming an oval 5 m long by 2.5 m wide containing up to 70 retouched flint tools per square meter, leaving little doubt as to its association with human activity."138

And from Bilzingsleben, a 425,000 year old German Homo erectus site:

“At Bilzingsleben each hut opened to the south had a hearth in front of the door

Why facing south? To keep the cold north winds out of the hut.

[GRM note:I am throwing this in because it shows H. erectus had religiion!
There is an even earlier altar, which is not controversial, found at Bilzingsleben, Germany. An entire Homo erectus village was excavated at this site which dates to 425,000 years old. The excavators, Dietrich and Ursula Mania have found a 27-foot-diameter paved area that they say was used for "special cultural activities"49. Gore writes:

"But Mania’s most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle. "‘They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,’ says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were fractured human skulls.'"50

I would contend that the symbolism here, if found in a modern village, would be enough to cause one to turn and flee for his life. Such an arrangement of objects would immediately be interpreted as evidence of religion, and a hostile religion at that. Bilzingsleben dates to around 425,000 years, not the mere 28,000 years that Rana and Ross prefers for the oldest evidence of religion or the 6,500 years for evidence of sacrifice that Fisher allows. If Rana and Ross wish to claim that religion doesn’t go back further than 28,000 years, they should explain why the above five examples don’t qualify as examples of religion? It is clear that evidence of religion in the anthropological record prior to 28,000 years is not rare. Rana and Ross can’t prove their case by ignoring these sites and this data. END of Insertion]

The oldest claim to a built windbreak was made by Mary Leakey at the site called DK which dates to 1.8 million years. It is controversial, but the remains there do look like the remains of a modern hut left by nomads today. For a full account see Johanson and Shreeve.140

OK, so a descendant of a Neolithic Adam couldn’t possibly have invented tents. But could they be the first ones in tents with cattle? Well, that depends upon what the verse means. The translation above may not be the best. “Tents” is ok, but ‘cattle’ might not be. The word, translated as ‘cattle’ is tso’n and it can be translated as cattle, flock, herd, possession, purchase, substance. Numbers 31:9 illustrates the issue. It says,

“And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods.” Num 31:9 ASV.

Now, the word translated ‘cattle’ in this verse is not miqneh which was used in Genesis 4:20, be-hay-mah, which means beast. The word translated ‘flocks’ is miqneh, which was translated cattle in the previous verse. And the word ‘goods’ is chayil and can be translated as ‘strength’, ‘might’, ‘efficiency’, ‘wealth’, or ‘army’.
Gen 26:14 translates miqneh as possessions. It says:

“For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds.”

The word translated ‘flocks’ is our old sheep and goat word, tso’n. This word is translated this way 54 times.

What all this shows is that the meaning of these words is somewhat obscure. If sheep/goats can be also a flock, which implies birds, but can also be sheep or goats or cattle. But miqneh is translated 60 times as ‘cattle’, three times as ‘flocks’, five times as ‘possession’ or ‘possessions’, two times as substance (also meaning possessions) and once as ‘herds’ and once as ‘purchase’. With this range of possible meanings, it is entirely possible that the verse should read:

‘And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and have possessions’

Which clearly doesn’t require a Neolithic/farming setting. The ancient tentmakers among the archaic humans also had possessions. One is not required to think in terms of herds or flocks, even if the original writer thought that was what was God was saying to him.

Harps and pipes141

21And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and pipe.” Gen. 4:21 (ASV)

Using this verse, arguing for a Neolithic Adam, Dick Fischer asks,

“*Could sophisticated musical instruments (Gen. 4:21) predate simple bone flutes?”*142

Fischer misses an important point here, a simple bone flute is more complex than what the Bible is describing. The word translated ‘pipe’ means “perhaps a flute, reed-pipe, or panpipes. Pan pipes are merely tubes of proper length taped or tied together. It is much less complex than the Neanderthal flute which was found at Dvije Babe in Slovenia. But that gets ahead of ourselves.

The plain fact is that no descendant of a Neolithic Adam could have invented the flute or pipe because it was invented tens of thousands of years earlier.

But music is found much earlier than that, although the number of instruments become much fewer. The reason for this is the durability of wood and skin artefacts. The only objects which appear from much earlier than this are those made of very durable material, such as bone, although bone is not as durable as many would surmise. Because of the progressive destruction of perishable musical instruments, the bone flute and bone whistles become the major survivors from earlier periods.

Five thousand years ago in the Orkney Islands (north of Scotland), bone flutes were made. This was from a time equivalent to the Neolithic Adam, yet the Orcadians had flutes. Here is a picture I took of it.

Figure 9 Bone flute from Orkney Islands, Scotland

I would note that the holes are not even and not even circular. Yet this is in a museum as an example of a flute made by modern humans. Remember this picture when we show the Neanderthal flute below.

Other early flutes made by modern men prior to the proposed Neollithic Adam include those from the Magdalenian period dating 13-15,000 years ago, a beautiful eagle bone flute was found. Marshack describes it,

"In cabinet number one at the Musee des Antiquites Nationales in 1965, there lay a tiny gray, broken bit of hollow eagle bone. It was some 4 1/2 inches long (11 cm), had been cut by a flint knife at one end, and was broken at thee other. It came from a level approximately 13,000 to 15,000 years old, was dated as late middle Magdalenian and came from the same site of Le Placard that gave us the two earlier Magdalenian batons. Worked or decorated bird bones are not uncommon in the Upper Paleolithic. Some have blow holes cut into them, indicating their use as whistles or flutes, and they can be blown to give a high, piping, flute sound."143

This beautiful flute is engraved on the outside by two linear sequences of parallel lines, and six sets of nested chevrons. The flute, as a flute, is very simple and could only make one sound. It had no finger holes to alter the pitch. Thus, technically this was a whistle.

The oldest picture of a flute may be from an 18,000 year old French site. Coles and Higgs observe,

“At Les Trois Freres (Ariege), a semi-human figure seems to be playing either a musical bow (although musically this is not in the correct position) or a flute. The association of the semi-humans at this site, with grouped animals, seems to indicate some ceremonial activity, whether it be sympathetic magic or not and music by this time had been in existence for some thousands of years."144

Another type of whistle used in ancient times was a reindeer phalange which was drilled through. When blown, it whistles. Megaw observed of these,

"The earliest evidence we have for blown instruments are those made from reindeer phalanges pierced on one surface which when blown across between the tips of the articular condyles emit a shrill whistle. Often regarded – largely on the evidence of modern parallels – as decoy whistles, these objects, whose method of playing is exactly that of the modern cross-flute, have been found in Upper Palaeolithic occupation sites in France, at for example La Madeleine and Solutre, and in Central Europe at Dolni Vestonice and the cave of Pekarna. They have also occurred on comparable sites in North America."145

Megaw’s description of the phalanges is accurate, but phalanges are not the earliest evidence of blown instruments, but that comes later. The claim for the “earliest” is one that is found quite often, and is usually wrong. I cited Megaw in order to convey what a phalange whistle was. Megaw continues (I will insert the approximate age of the various sites, that I could find, in Megaw’s text),

"To return to our catalogue: at the Hungarian cave site of Istallosko,[Istallosko-This dates at 31,000 B.P. but this particular flute may have been from younger levels. (see147–GRM] in an occupation level dated to Aurignacian II, the excavators found not only two pierced reindeer phalanges but also the femur of a cave bear having three holes, one in the centre of the posterior surface and two on the anterior. The larger of these near the proximal epiphysis measures some 11mm. across, close to the size of the lip hole of a modern cross-blown flute, and as the position of the epiphysis does not allow the lips to cover the open end it must be presumed that here was an early ancestor of the notch flutes of present-day primitive groups. Be that as it may, Istallosko does not stand alone, for several other Central European cave sites of an Aurignacian II date have produced pierced long bones. Lokve in what used to be Fiume had a curved bone – once more that of a cave bear – with three ‘finger holes’ pierced on one side. The bird’s ulna from Drachen, Mixnitz, has three large holes and several smaller – a more doubtful candidate. … On the other hand in a bone from Salzhofen in Austria we have a closer analogy to Istallosko with two holes on one side and three on the other. Returning to France, in the Aurignacian levels of the cave of Isturitz [~27,000 B.P. based on it being a Perigordian site See ref. 143, p.96-97–GRM], Basses-Pyrenees, was found part of the cubitus of a large bird, which the excavators think may have been a vulture. The broken end preserves part of a sub-rectangular hole, while below it are two other complete holes. In the later series of excavations of the Aurignacian III levels at the same site some seven other pierced bird bones were found, one having indications of four holes of which three must have been finger holes. The simple notch decoration which ornament it was found on other examples as well. Coming full circle the nearest parallel to Istallosko is to be found in a reindeer radius from Badegoule dated by its association with Solutrean leaf-shaped blades[Solutrean was approx. 20,000 years B.P.–GRM]. At the damaged distal end is one large hole repeated by a smaller on the opposite side which also has a second hole at the proximal end."146

Of the Isturitz find, the original report, written in French, describes it thusly,

"Enfin, j’ai decouvert en 1921, une piece qui est sans doute unique, un gros os d’Oiseau, malheureusement brise a une de ses extremites, mais qui porte encore sur une seule rangee trois larges trous, comme dans une sorte de flute (pl. VII). C’est, sans doute, le plus ancien instrument de musique connu."148

Translation:

“At last, I uncovered in 1921 a piece which is without doubt, unique, a big bird bone, unfortunately broken at the ends, but because still carried three holes, like that of some sort of flute. It is without doubt the most ancient musical instrument found.” [trans. by David Morton]

Gravettian sites in eastern Europe, also have yielded several flutes. Coles and Higgs report,

"Also in Moravia are the important Gravettian sites of Predmost, Pavlov and Brno. At Pavlov a large number of hut plans have been identified, oval, round and five-sided in shape, with some postholes and hearths. The associated industry included decorated bone and ivory objects including animals and human figures, and a number of phalange whistles; the occupation has been radiocarbon dated to c. 25,000 B.P."149

At Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia, flutes are found. This site is approximately 27,000 years old. Coles and Higgs relate,

"Decorative objects include perforated shells and other pendants, and tubular beads; bone tubes, one with a plug of resin, probably were panpipes."150
The oldest known flute, made by anatomically modern humans today, comes from Abri Blanchard from 30,000 years ago.151

I have been able to find many more examples of musical instruments which were made by Neanderthal. The most recent find was from Divje Babe. It is a flute, which is made in the same fashion as the Upper Paleolithic flutes made by modern men noted above. Thus the tradition of flute making continues unaltered across the Neanderthal/Modern man transition. David Keys writes,

"Deep inside a cave in Slovenia, in the north of former Yugoslavia, archaeologists have unearthed the world’s oldest true musical instrument - a flute which appears to have been made by Neanderthals around 45,000 years ago."152 (18)

Here is a drawing of the Neanderthal flute,

Some people don’t think it is a flute. They say it is the regurgitated remains of a hyena dinner. However, this is a better made flute than the one in the Orkneys Museum in Kirkwall, Orkney which is made by modern humans. The holes are rounder and more regularly spaced.

But like lots of claims for being the oldest, it isn’t. Neanderthals made phalange whistles (just like anatomically modern man. One was found at La Quina(19), which dates to 64,000 years ago.153 This is a musical instrument from prior to the time Hugh Ross used to say any should exist. Dr. Ross has repeatedly stated that it is Biblically unacceptable for there to be any evidence of spirituality prior to 60,000 years (although he has recently changed to a 100,000 year time zone. As long as Christians make these types of claims, we will set the Bible up to be disproven all too easily. He writes:

"In the case of the cave drawings and pottery fragments, the degree of abstractness suggests the expression of something more than just intelligence. Certainly no animals species other than human beings has ever exhibited the capacity for such sophisticated expression. However, the dates for these finds are well within the biblically acceptable range for the appearance of Adam and Eve – somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago according to Bible scholars who have carefully analyzed the genealogies. Since the oldest art and fabrics date between 25,000 and 30,000 years ago, no contradiction exists between anthropology and Scripture on this issue."154

But this is not the end of the Neanderthal musical instruments. They extend much further into the past. [GRM Note: the oldest art in the world is from Spain dated to 64,000 years ago predating modern humans by 20,000 years. ]

The oldest flute I have been able to find is a from Haua Fteah in Libya. It is had at least two perforations and thus was much more complex than the first flute I mentioned above, the Le Placard Eagle bone flute. McBurney notes,

"To these may be added a remarkable bone object most plausibly explained as a fragment of a vertical ‘flute’ or multiple pitch whistle, from spit 1955/64. In this position although directly associated only with a few non-diagnostic chips, splinters and splinters of bone it is none the less attributable to the Pre-Aurignacian owing to the clear indications provided by the overlying spits 1955/61-58, to be discussed in the next chapter. These last show every affinity with the material culture as described and certainly indicate the continued existence of the tradition in the area. 155

Stringed instruments, which is what the harp refers to, do not preserve well in the archaeological record. They are usually made of perishable material like wood. The only thing that can be said about their existence in prehistory is that mankind has been making string and cord for a long time (using them for strings of beads) and surely somewhere along the way someone would have noticed that a taut string when plucked, makes sound. The Neanderthals made a necklace, and thus string. So, the likelihood of some descendent of a Neolithic Adam being the first to discover that strings can make music is very, very low.

But again, all the items discussed here were pre-Neolithic. Again, the common view, even if they believe the account of Adam and Eve’s descendants is literal, it is a johnny-come-lately story. Everything was invented before by Adam and Eve’s tribal parents not their descendants. (assuming one believes A and E were born of a pre-existing human tribe). Unfortunately, those who believe this tribal theory are generally are quite willing to dismiss Scripture as having no real historical or scientific content–Thus it doesn’t bother them. Adam and Eve must be much older than is commonly believed.

references
50. Rick Gore, “The First Europeans,” National Geographic, July, 1997, p. 96-113, p. 110
131. Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.204
132. Andre Leroi Gourhan, The Hunters of Prehistory, transl. Claire Jacobson, (New York: Atheneum, 1989), p. 131
133. Ian Tattersall, Becoming Human, (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998), p. 158
134. Mark Berkowitz, “Neandertal News,” Archaeology, Sept./Oct. 1996, p. 22
135. Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.204
136. A. Nowell, F. d’Errico, A. Sytnyk , “The Art of Taphonomy and the Taphonomy of Art: An analysis of Molodova I, Level IV: Putative Symbolic Evidence ,” Abstracts for the 2003 Meetings http://www.paleoanthro.org/abst2003.htm
accessed 6-22-03
137.Brian Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 132n
138. Brian Hayden,“The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals”, Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p.132-133
139. D. Mania and U. Mania, “Latest Finds of Skull Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia)” Naturwissenschaften, 81(1994):123-127, p. 127
140. Donald Johanson and James Shreeve, Lucy’s Child, (New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1989), p. 152-153
141. parts of this are taken from http://home.entouch.net/dmd/music.htm
142. Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution, (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 1996), p. 118
143. Alexander Marshack, The Roots of Civilization, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), p. 147.
144. J.M. Coles and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man, (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), p. 226-227
145. J.V.S. Megaw, “Penny Whistles and Prehistory,” Antiquity XXXIV, 1960, pp 6-13, p. 6-7
146. Ibid., p. 7-8
147. J.M. Coles and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man, (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), p. 290
148. E. Passemard, 1944, “La Caverne d’Isturitz en Pays Basque,” Prehisoire 9:1-84, p. 24.
149. J.M. Coles and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man, (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), p. 298
150. Ibid.
151. Goran Burenhult, editor,American Museum of Natural History The First Humans, (San Francisco: Harper,1993), p. 103 and Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 322
152. David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent, “Independent” Sunday 2/25/96, p. 15 Manchester England.
153. Paul Mellars, The Neanderthal Legacy, (Princeton: University Press, 1996), p. 404
154. Hugh Ross, “Art and Fabric Shed New Light on Human History,” Facts & Faith, 9:3 (1995)p. 2
155. C.B.M. McBurney, Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica),(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 90

[gbob]

@bluebird1

Again, very interesting. While I am NOT a young-earther, I do believe that the Bible generally (with exceptions) is referring to things that actually did occur. I am not saying “your” idea here is the final word on the matter, but very though-provoking.

Of course my word is not the final word. But why should ‘accommodation’ or ‘young-earth creationism’ be considered the final word? Science is about challenging the status quo, finding new ways to look at the world, finding new data and new fits between data and theory. Christianity over the past 200 years has removed itself from any intellectual excitement or novelty. We are as stuck in ruts as my pickup was on my ranch once.

So find things wrong with my view and fix them, but what bothers me is that so much of the criticism is merely to find something wrong so the critic can stay in his rut. Find a new view, totally different from mine that fits the facts. Maybe I have missed another big local flood that happened more recently, but for us to sit and just say, “it isn’t history” and therefore do no more research is very bad for Christianity. It cedes the intellectual world to the materialist without a fight. I think Christianity is worth fighting for because I believe it is true and that God is a miraculous god–not TV evangelist style miracle but far more interesting…

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

I absolutely agree with you, Gbob. And I do like the idea you are presenting, but I also find the Persian Oasis locale interesting too. It does mean (at very least) that places —perhaps a number of places — existed, evidently in that general Mediterranean/Mesopotamian region – that could and did fit the bare-bones description of the early chapters of Genesis. That too is intriguing. It at very least suggests that the biblical writer of the first chapters of Genesis (authorship a separate debate!!) had memory --perhaps a very distant one – of actual geography and actual events. I think Swamidoss’ idea was for a more recent event, and his ideas also seemed, at very least, intriguing. When I saw more recent, I do not mean he has a YEC view of things.

At any rate, thanks for adding to the discussion!!

[gbob]

@bluebird1

At any rate, thanks for adding to the discussion!!

My pleasure.

[gbob]

There Was No Iron in the Preflood World. Technology part 3

I am going to start this with a passage from Jeremiah 6:28

“They are all grievous revolters, walking with slanders: they are brass and iron ; they are all corrupters

Why would Jeremiah equate corrupters to brass and iron? Obviously this is some sort of metaphor or euphemism. This was written at a time when iron was the top technological metal. The rules of what to do with iron were ‘ironed-out’ experimentally. At some point it was learned that mixing brass and iron together didn’t work and resulted in a corrupted product. Brass is mostly copper and it is the copper which is the problem. I could through up a phase diagram that few would understand or I can use some discussion boards on exactly this topic. Here are some of the answers metalurgists gave to a guy who wanted to use brass and iron in a game he was writing. These answers are easy to understand:

" If cu content is more then .4% it is considered as unwanted element and it will show cracks on surface after rolling or forging of steel ," https://www.quora.com/If-you-mix-copper-and-iron-is-the-resulting-alloy-a-bronze-or-a-steel?share=1

Copper and iron are like oil and water, they won’t mix. Immiscible = unmixable. From an article.

" Moreover, a large undercooling tended to promote the coagulation of the separated droplets, so the size of the separated Fe-rich spheroids in the microstructure of the immiscible Cu–Fe alloys increased with the increase in the undercooling . Junting Zhang. Liquid phase separation in immiscible Cu–Fe alloys International Journal of Cast Metals Research Volume 31, 2018 - Issue 2

One can heat them to high temperatures and stir vigorously and unless you quench it immediately the copper will form lumps in the iron, ruining the product.

One metalurgist said: " You’d have distinct crystals of the copper-rich and iron-rich phases, the relative size of which are dependent on your alloying ratio ."

[Necro]Is an Iron/Copper alloy possible? (and useful?)

In other words, lumps of copper and lumps of iron somewhat glued together, but useful for nothing.

I started with this topic to show why Jeremiah used this euphemism for corrupters. It was a high tech euphemism of that day. This euphemism appears once more in Scripture, back in Genesis 4 and it says more about the time the account was written than it does about the technology those people had. Here I am letting the Bible itself interpret the Bible.

Genesis 4:22-24 says:

19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle.

21And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and pipe.

22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

23 And Lamech said unto his wives:

Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;

Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech:

For I have slain a man for wounding me,

And a young man for bruising me:

24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,

Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfol d.(Genesis 4:22-24 ASV)

We will analyze this passage to show that it is easily possible to translate this in another way. So, the answer to Dick’s question lies in the power of the first person to translate a passage. But first the background. This is the last generation before the flood. Of this generation, the Bible says, “And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”(Gen. 6:5 ASV) I note this because this passage is actually very strange. If one groups verse 22 with verses 19 and 20, the translation makes sense. The passage seems to be speaking of technological things. But the strange thing about this passage is the sudden proclamation of Lamech to his wives claiming the protection that God gave to Cain (Gen 4:15). One can legitimately ask, ‘What on earth is the guy talking about?’ ‘Where did this claim come from?’ The narrative seems to be missing something here because in the middle of talking about technology, Lamech makes claims about killing people. Lumping 22 with the rest of that passage brings another meaning out. Let’s look harder at verse 22

There is a clue in Tubal-cain’s name. The last part of that name is Cain, the very man whose name is invoked two verses below. According to Strong’s Tubal-cain means “offspring of Cain ” . But there is more. If one looks up the meaning of Tubal, Strong’s says it comes from a primitive root meaning to flow, which makes one think of ‘flowing from Cain’.

So, who was Cain? Cain was the first murderer. His name also means spear—a weapon of violence. A spear doesn’t have to be made of metal. Fire hardened wooden spears work just fine and dandy. Everything about Cain involves violence. While the account doesn’t say how Cain struck Abel, given that Cain had a name meaning spear, one might wonder if it is a name earned after the dirty deed. So, did Tubal-Cain get his name from what he did? In other words, could he be a spiritual offspring of Cain? In light of this, one can take a new view of Genesis 4:22.

With the Hebrew in parenthesis, we see that Tubal-cain was the forger ( latash ) of every ( kol) cutting instrument( choresh ) of brass ( nechosheth ) and iron( barzel) . Latash appears five times in the Bible. Brown-Driver-Briggs says it means “to sharpen, hammer, whet” But nowhere else is this word translated as forger. In Ps 52:2 it is translated as sharp: “ Like a sharp razor .” In 1 Sam. 13:20 it is translated as sharpen: “ all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock ;”. In Job 16:9 it is translated as “my adversary sharpens his eyes against me”. And finally in Ps. 7:2 it is translated as ‘whet’: “ he will whet his sword ”. Whetting is sharpening so this verse says, ‘he will sharpen his sword”. So, let’s use the words sharpen, as the meaning for this word since all instances seem to fall into that category rather than as a forger.

So, now we have Tubal-cain being the sharpener of every, what? The word translated above as instrument is choresh Strong’s says this word means ‘fabricator’ and that it is the active participle of charash , which has the meaning, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs of “to cut in, plough, engrave, devise; to plot evil ; to be deaf; to be silent”. The ASV and RSV translations translate this as ‘instrument’, but the problem is that instrument is not a Hebrew active participle. An example of an active participle would be “Tubal-cain was a sharpener of every cutter” or “Tubal-cain was a sharpener of every fabricator…” This verse is used to claim that iron working was the invention of Tubalcain, the Neolithic child of Adam. But it is mis-read as ‘Tubalcain was the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron’, when in fact, Tubalcain was the forger of every fabricator! A fabricator is a person, not an instrument; not a utensil. This is the reason that the King James translates ‘ latash ’ as ‘instructor’ rather than forger. If one wishes to believe that this verse is talking about literally forging things, they need to remember that what is being forged is a person. To be literally true, then Tubal-cain needs to be putting people into his forge and burning them (which clearly isn’t the meaning). Nor is Tubal-cain literally sharpening people as one would a knife.

The interesting thing is what words the Bible doesn’t use. The passage doesn’t use chariyts , keliy , or magzerah , all of which are iron instruments, or implements. If Tubal-cain were sharpening a chariyts (a cutting instrument) or a keliy (utensil) or magzerah (axe) that would make sense if it is really brass and steel implements. But the Bible doesn’t use those words. Instead of these words, Tubal-cain is sharpening a person! Whatever the verb latash means, it was being done to a person. To forge a person is to be that person’s instructor or to have a person burning in the hot coals of the forge. I strongly suspect that the latter is not the meaning. To sharpen a person, like iron sharpens iron, is to teach him. Of the two choices, I know what I would opt for—he is an instructor of people. For better or worse, it can be said of my wife and I, that we forged our children’s lives, meaning we instructed their lives. That is what Tubal-cain did. He forged people, not iron. To deny this is to deny the Hebrew grammar with the fabricator.

This point is utterly crucial to my argument. Now, what was Tubal-cain instructing that person in? Let’s look at one of the other possible meanings of charesh . In particular, one meaning caught my eye; one possible meaning of the root word means ‘a plotter of evil’. If one read this verse using that definition, it would read “Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil…” This would clearly be an entirely different meaning to the verse and it illustrates the power of the first translator. He who translates first, influences everyone in the future on the meaning of the verse. But, the reader will ask, if Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil, why does this verse say brass and iron? What I have learned and you saw above is that it is because “brass and iron’ is an idiom for rebellious or corrupt people. Jeremiah 6:28 says:

“ They are all grievous revolters, walking with slanders: they are brass and iron ; they are all corrupters .” (ASV) [my emphasis]

This is the only other place in Scripture where this phrase occurs. While it might be uncertain in Genesis, it is clear that ‘brass and iron’ is an idiom in Jeremiah 6:28. And that sheds light upon the meaning of Genesis 4:22. If brass and iron is an idiom for spiritual rebellion, then it totally fits what is about to happen to the world in Genesis 4:22. It plays right into the reason for the Flood, which is about to come upon the earth. So, this verse may explain Genesis 6:5, “ And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ”

I would submit for the reader’s consideration, that this verse says nothing about metal working as has been commonly assumed for millennia, but it says everything about human rebellion and who was the leader of it. Tubal-cain is the last generation before the flood of Noah; brought upon the earth because of man’s rebelliousness. Genesis 4:22 would then read:

“ Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil corruption .”

Or

“ Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil rebellion .”

This would group this verse with the Lamech proclamation in the following verses rather than with the technology in the earlier verses. Lamech’s claim to have killed a man would fit in a world of increasing rebelliousness. But who was it that Lamech killed? I think it was his own son. Lamech lamented:

“for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt” (Gen. 4 23 KJV)

It would grieviously hurt a father to kill his own son. It wouldn’t hurt that much to kill an unrelated young man, at least not to the same degree.

There are two different Hebrew words translated as ‘man’ here. The first is iysh and that word simply means ‘man’. But the second, which is translated ‘young man’ is a different word, yeled , which means “child, son, boy, offspring, youth” according to Brown-Driver-Briggs. Four of the five meanings are of a person’s child. Lamech killed his own son. And that is why he goes on to talk about being avenged 77 times because the crime of killing your own son is that much worse than killing your brother. When he says he has slain his son to his hurt, that has new meaning given the above interpretation.

If the traditional interpretation of Tubal-cain being the inventor of metal work is correct, then it makes no sense why Lamech, Tubal-cain’s father, claims to have killed his son. But, if Tubal-cain was a rebellious corruptor of others, this declaration of filicide, the killing of one’s child, makes perfect sense. Rebellious children often bring ruin to family relationships.

Now, one other connection here is that this translation makes Tubal-cain a corruptor of other people. Notice again that Jeremiah 6:28 effectively defines the phrase ‘brass and iron’ as corruption. And then notice that Genesis 6:11, 12 says about why the world was about to be destroyed:

“ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt ; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth .”

This recurring theme of corruption from Tubal-cain on, makes sense in a world gone mad.

"Scientifically minded’ Christians (a term used her on Biologos) proud of the fact that they don’t conflict with modern science in their theological interpretation. While most of that conformity has been achieved by declaring the Bible false, they do mostly maintain a Neolithic Adam. But this temporal placement of Adam creates for them another conflict with science, and not just with genetics. We have seen that archaeology does not support the concept that tents, harps, flutes and tending sheep were invented in the Neolithic, after the time when Neolithic Adam lived. Thus a Neolithic Adam does not get the ‘scientifically minded’ Christian out of a scientific conflict with the Bible. None of the post-Adamic events match archaeology. Thus, if one interprets these events as being Neolithic, then the Bible would simply be wrong. Why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we place the Bible in a position to be false? But reading Genesis 4:22 as follows will allow us once and for all to reject the Bible-falsifying view that Adam was Neolithic.

“ Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil corruption .”

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Another likely explanation of the idiom on brass and iron being corrupter is familiar to every experienced plumber and boat owner who know to never put dissimilar metals in contact. When in contact, they set up a situation similar to a battery, and corrosion develops quickly. I suspect this tendency for corrosion may well have been more common knowledge than the forger’s problem. I have experienced this principle by have a water hose with aluminum connections, which fused with the brass connectors of another hose.

Galvanic corrosion

[gbob]

I thank you for that. While I was at one time in charge of production technology for an oil company, I could never describe myself as an expert in corrosion. Indeed, I am a babe in the woods on that topic.
You very well might have provided an even better reason for that euphemism than I had found.

[gbob]

A Small-Brained Hominid with Culture, Tools and Language

I place Eden, Adam and Eve and the Flood at 5.3 myr ago, at the time when Hominids were new on the planet. One of the criticisms of my views is that it requires a small brained Adam and Eve and that they wouldn’t have been smart enough to do anything. Most people think they couldn’t have language or technical skills. I have pointed out that the two curses involve the effects of a larger brain and have pointed out that brain size makes no difference to intelligence, especially in light of Daniel Lyon’s brain size… While Eve might not have experienced it(or it might have been imposed immediately), the descendants of this pair most assuredly would have had larger brains.

In 2003, archaeologists discovered H. floresiensis at Liang Bua . H. floresiensis is a tiny human with a small brain. National Geographic described it this way

" Scientists have found fossil skeletons of a hobbit-like species of human that grew no larger than a three-year-old modern child (See pictures). The tiny humans, who had skulls about the size of grapefruits , lived with pygmy elephants and Komodo dragons on a remote island in Indonesia as recently as 13,000 years ago. Australian and Indonesian researchers discovered bones of the miniature humans in a cave on Flores, an island midway between Asia and Australia. Scientists have determined that the first skeleton they found belongs to a species of human completely new to science. Named Homo floresiensis, after the island on which it was found, the tiny human has also been dubbed by dig workers as the “hobbit,” after the tiny creatures from the Lord of the Rings books. The original skeleton, a female, stood at just 1 meter (3.3 feet) tall, weighed about 25 kilograms (55 pounds), and was around 30 years old at the time of her death 18,000 years ago ." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html#main accessed 10/27/04

A 2016 nature paper redated the chronology at Liang Bua and now all H. floresiensis is believed to date from 100-60 kyr ago. (source)

There was a big debate about whether these were microencephalics, but most people now do not think that is correct. Principal component analysis lumps this with H. erectus and that isn’t true for sapient microencephalics. There were enough similarities to H. erectus that a sizable group of anthropologists believe floresiensis represents a case of island dwarfism.

" Compared with a human skull scaled to less than a third of full size, the LB1 skull differs in shape, robusticity and key features of the base. Furthermore, although human pygmies are short (1.4 - 1.5 m), they show very little reduction in brain size, probably because their small size is attained through mechanisms that curtail growth during puberty,when brains are already fully grown . In general terms, LB1 ’ s morphology groups it with H. erectus. " Marta Mirazon Lahr and Robert Foley, “Human Evolution Writ Small,” Nature, 431(2004): 1043-1044

How fast can island dwarfism happen? It can be a very rapid process.

"Some examples can be truly extreme - for example,the one-metre high fossil elephants, found on Sicily and Malta,which may have become dwarfed from a 4-metre ancestor in less than 5,000 years . Indeed, remains of now-extinct primitive elephants (Stegodon), which had become dwarfed in relation to their mainland relatives, were found in the same deposits as LB1. The dwarfism of H. floresiensis is also dramatic, resulting in the shortest adult Homo, and possibly hominin, known. " Marta Mirazon Lahr and Robert Foley, “Human Evolution Writ Small,” Nature, 431(2004): 1043-1044

Now, I believe that H. erectus had all the qualifications to be human. He had religion and built huts, made complex stone tools. To me, religion is the key because if they built an altar and sacrificed other erectines, how is that different from what the Maya did, sacrificing modern humans by cutting off their heads? Ancient skull reveals Mayans used severed heads to burn incense

If some of our human descendants found themselves isolated on an island for thousands of years, with no new genetic input and they underwent island dwarfism, would they still be human? I would think so. My wife had a Down’s uncle with a very small cranium, and he was fully human even if his intelligence was rather low.

Not only were the body structures similar to H. erectus , the stone tools are similar to those made by H. erectus.

"If, as is assumed, H. floresiensis’s initial technology resembled the stone tools associated with H. erectus on Java, not only did the hominins retain its technological abilities in the face of selective pressures on Flores, but it in fact increase those abilities. That H. floresiensis could manage to substantially shrink its brain yet retain the cognitive ability to make and use stone tools is telling us something important about evolution in our genus ." Mark W. Moore, "Lithic design space modelling and cognition in Homo floresiensis,” in Andrea C. Schalley, Drew Khlentzos eds., Mental States, Volume 1 John Benjamins Publishing, 2007, p. 12

Interestingly, similar stone tools were found at Mata Menge, Flores, and in 2014 they found a 700 kyr old human mandible, smaller than that of Flores. The Wiki Mata Menge entry says:

"Hominin fossils at Mata Menge, in particular the mandible, are smaller than those of Homo floresiensis . [5] The size and shape of the teeth of the Mata Menge fossils are similar to those of H. floresiensis , but the Mata Menge fossils are more primitive. [5] The lithic artefacts at Mata Menge also show cultural similarities to those found at Liang Bua . [4][5][3] The similarities in lithic artefacts and hominin fossil remains suggest that the hominins at Mata Menge were likely ancestral to H. floresiensis . [5] "

One of the things people don’t understand about stone tool-making is that the maker must envision a geometrical object which can be created by striking the rock in the correct sequence of places. Chimpanzees are totally incapable of doing this. I could put in a quote on what chimps do with rocks, but it isn’t what made the tools in Flores. H. floresiensis was have been capable.

We know that these are artificially made because of the acute angles of the flakes. When chimps bash a stone on the floor to make a cutting surface the pieces have steep angles.

Mike Morwood, one of the discoverers of H. floresiensis said in an interview that it likely had a language:

" It is a new species of human who actually lived alongside us, yet were half our size," he said. They were the height of a three-year-old child, weighed around 25 kilos [4 stone] and had a brain that was smaller than that of most chimpanzees. Even so, they used fire, made stone tools and hunted stegadon - a primitive type of elephant - and giant rats. “We believe their ancestors may have reached the island in bamboo rafts. The clear implication is, despite tiny brains, these little humans were intelligent and almost certainly had language,” Professor Morwood said . "

The use of fire has been questioned in 2016 but some anthropoloigsts say that some of the stone tools were exposed to fire, so I don’t know if he used fire. Contrary to popular belief, use of fire is not a mark of humanity or intelligence. An article published this month (March 2020), questioned statements by early European explorers that Tasmanians had lost the ability to create fire. Even if that is wrong, this paper documents that five other groups did lose that ability. These tribes were the Onges, Yuquí, Warlpiri, Sirionó, and northern Aché source. With few people on an island, once a skill is lost, there is no one to teach the next generation, so even if they didn’t control fire, that could be due to the technological equivalent of genetic drift. Archaeology of Tasmania has shown that the Tasmanians lost the ability to fish. Jones says this is due to the small island population which causes the " slow strangulation of the mind." Josephine Flood, "The Archeology of the Dreamtime, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p.179, 185

In fairness, the rafts had to have been built by normal sized H. erectus , but that does nothing but up the cognitive skill set of the founding population which lead to the dwarf hominids we call H. floresiensis. Morwood states in Nature:

" Even at times of lowest sea level during the last glacial maximum, these straits required sea crossings of at least 19 km . Either thee must have been a land bridge linking Flores with mainland Southeast Asia in the Early Pleistocene epoch, or Homo erectus in this region had the capacity to make water crossings. The impoverished nature of the fauna on Flores throughout the sequence, however, seems to negate a connection with Sunda at any time. The presence of endemic pygmy elephants, giant reptiles and giant rats in the Early Pleistocene also suggests a continued insular context both before and contemporaneous with the first evidence for hominids. In fact Sondaar has argued that the extinction of pygmy Stegodon and giant tortoises, followed by recolonization of Flores by large Stegodon from continental Southeast Asia after 0.9 Myr BP, resulted from increased predation, not reduced insularity. More specifically he says that the onset of hunting by hominids cause the turnover in fauna, a position supported by our results.

" Our findings, therefore, validate generally dismissed (or ignored) claims for the presence of hominids on Flores in the Early/Middle Pleistocene. Furthermore, they indicate that, sometime between 800,000 and 900,000 years ago Homo erectus in this region had acquired the capacity to make water crossings. Previously, in the region of the Wallacean islands this capacity was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans and to hove only appeared in the Late Pleistocene, with the earliest widely accepted evidence for watercraft being the colonization of Australia by modern humans from Wallacea between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago. Outside this region, the technology to undertake even limited water crossings is not clearly evident until much later, at the end of the Pleistocene. Our results challenge this view. Therefore , this evidence, combined with the geographical radiation of Homo erectus in the Early Pleistocene and other recent discoveries, suggests that the cognitive capabilities of this species may be due for reappraisal ." ~ M. J. Morwood, et al., “Fission-track ages of Stone Tools and Fossils on the East Indonesian Island of Flores,” Nature, 392:173-176, p. 176

But it isn’t just one strait that needs to be crossed. One also needs to cross the most major biogeographical barrier on earth, the Wallace line:

" Even at times of low sea level, when Sumatra, Java and Bali were connected to mainland Southeast Asia, at least two sea crossings were required to reach Flores. The first of these deep-water barriers, between the islands of Bali and Lombok, is about 25 km wide and constitutes a major biogeographical boundary, the Wallace Line . " M. J. Morwood et al, “Archaeological and Palaeontological Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of Fieldwork 1997-1998,” Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p. 285,286

" Both Lombok and Flores could have been reached only by crossing the open sea, which, most archaeologists would agree, demanded considerable linguistic capability ." ~ Robert G. Bednarik, “Sea Faring Homo Erectus” The Artefact, 18(1995): 92-92, p. 91

What makes such a crossing unlikely by raft are the direction of the currents. Currents are perpendicular to the crossing direction. If your ship isn’t steerable, meaning it is a raft, it is washed south to join the South Equatorial Current, where rafters, animal and human will meet their deaths. Go look up the Wallace line and see that the animals east of that line are much different than animals west of it. Because of this, we know that the H. erectus’s who crossed that strait were sailers, not rafters. They had to have the cognitive ability to build a steerable boat.

" Wallace’s Lin is one of the world’s biggest biogeographic disjunctions, marking the border of placental-dominated ecosystems to the west, whereas the lesser known Lydekker’s Line marks marsupial-dominated ecosystems to the east. Only two terrestrial mammal groups are known to have crossed Wallacea (the area between the two lines) to migrate into Australasia: rodents and anatomically modern humans. The discovery of Homo floresiensis (‘Hobbits’) on Flores in 2003 indicates a separate dispersal across Wallace’s Line, whereas a ~67,000 year old foot bone from Callao in the Philippines represents a small-bodied hominin of unknown taxonomic affiliation. These taxa remain enigmatic, but suggest that other hominin species had the capacity to cross the powerful marine current that forms and maintains Wallace’s Line even during times of lowered sea levels . " A. Cooper and C. B. Stringer, "Did the Denisovans Cross Wallace’s Line? Science Oct 18, 2003, p. 321

Regardless of who crossed these lines, they had to have steerable boats, language and an ability to make things. H. floriesiensis are their descendants, who made tools and hunted dwarf elephants. Below is a current map in the area. I have circled in white the Flores strait and you can see the currents take a raft SE away from land. Below this is an enlargement of that area:

Crossing these straits, even at low sealevel requires sailing skills and advanced cognitive thinking for the ancestors of H. floresiensis:

" The evidence so far assembled warrants a number of important propositions. The presence of Homo erectus populations at several Indonesian deep-water islands indicates the navigational ability of that species, which probably commenced about a million years ago in the region of Java and Bali. It presents sound evidence of ‘reflective’ communication, most probably in the form of speech. Replicative experimentation has shown unequivocally that island colonisation by maritime navigation is impossible without numerous interdependent technological capabillities, long-term forward planning, the support of a social system, and effective communication . Such replication studies have resulted in the complete rejection of the concept that the settlement of Wallacea could have occurred unintentionally or accidentally. We can only know about sea crossings that resulted in successful colonisations capable of being visible on the very coarse and taphonomically distorted ‘archaeological record’. To achieve such crossings, a sufficient number of males and females to found a new population had to survive the journey, in each and every case. This required adequate vessels to convey these people, their supplies and equipment. To suggest that such sea-going vessels were built without a deliberate plan, and that an adequate number of people was in each case swept out to sea on them against their will is not just illogical, it is symptomatic of a discipline that perceives hominids as culturally, technologically and cognitively inferior, much in the same way Europeans once treated indigenous peoples in other continents. These kinds of minimalist arguments, which permeate many aspects of Pleistocene archaeology, indicate a lack of knowledge about the practical aspects of the human past. To appreciate the circumstances in which the ‘archaeological record’ formed requires understanding derived from practical experimentation with the materials in question, under the conditions in question, and involves appreciation of taphonomic processes and metamorphological biases ." Robert G. Bednarik, “Maritime Navigation in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic,” C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 328(1999):559-563, p. 563

Bednarik said elsewhere:

"This species must have possessed language and a sufficiently complex society to organize such colonization attempts. It now appears that seafaring capability first developed in the region of Indonesia, especially around Java perhaps a million years ago. But it took most of that million years to evolve to the sophistication that made it possible to sail distances of several hundred kilometers to a target that for most of the journey remained invisible - which was necessary to reach Australia,’ he said. www.nando.net

If one finds it incredible or a fluke that H. erectus could cross the strait to Flores 900 kyr ago, consider this. This species may have done it in another place–and may have done it as a small brained being. Recently a fossil has been found there which resembles H. floresiensis. It is called H. luzonensis and while they haven’t found a cranium yet, they say it is of the proportions of H. floresiensis. Luzon is large enough that island dwarfism might not occur. For the past 2.5 myr Luzon Island in the Philippines has been an island. .

"Because Luzon has always been an island in the Quaternary, the ancestors of H. luzonensis would have had to have made a substantial sea crossing to cross the Huxley Line.[ 1] " Wiki Homo Luzonensis.

The ancestors of this hominid, as I measure it, crossed a 20 mile gap and a 100 mile gap when sea level was low, This would get them to the Philippines proper. This hominid hunted deer. These discoveries say much about what we don’t know about the intelligence of small brained hominids.

To conclude, it is not out of the range of possibility for a small brained Adam to have been much smarter than we appreciate. At least this is still an open question given the stone tool ability of H. floresiensis.

[gbob]

I want to go back to an issue that I find now to be crucial. The Bible is the only document founding two major religions which has an account of how the deity created the world. No other major religious document has such an account. It also has an account of how mankind was created, and it has an account (rather needlessly theologically speaking) of an account of a massive flood. If as tradition holds, and Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, why did he include these events? They could not have been his eye witness accounts because 1. in Genesis 1, no man was there to see what God did. 2. Moses wasn’t there to see how God created Adam, and 3. the flood was long before Moses lived. Some will say oral mythologies are why Moses included them. but they will also say those mythologies are fantasy.

If God inspired Moses, there really was no reason to inspire a false creation account because no other major religion has a similar creation account. Judaism and Christianity would be basically the same without Genesis 1-11. So, there are only two reason for this to be in the Bible. 1. Moses or his ancestors made it up or 2. God inspired the account and there is truth in it.

In my post Days of Proclamation I present a way to view Genesis 1 as conformable to modern science. The mere fact that there exists a way to interpret that chapter as being conformable with modern science is amazing in and of itself. Regardless of whether one likes what was done in that Days of Proclamation view, everything is documented and within the confines of a fit to science. If God is really God, why wouldn’t He inspire an account that could be read as true–other than that one doesn’t want a verifiable religion. Tipler believes this latter is the case:

" Of course, the real reason modern theologians want to keep science divorced from religion is to retain some intellectual territory forever protected from the advance of science. This can only be done if the possibility of scientific investigation of the subject matter is ruled out a priori. Theologians were badly burned in the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. Such a strategy seriously underestimates the power of science, which is continually solving problems philosophers and theologians have decreed forever beyond the ability of science to solve. " ~ Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 7

Maybe some are afraid that Christianity might be found to be false. If that is the case, isn’t it better to find it out than to ignore it? Christians make a huge mistake by removing Christianity and its source document from objective verifiability. Doing this means that by today’s standards, it can never actually be true! If it is true, then it gives us much assurance that we are on the right path.

In this thread I have presented a way to see Eden and the Flood as a real historical events. What is amazing to me is that what Moses wrote matches what actually happened, at least within the limits of historical science. Below is a list of things that no Neolithic man like Moses could have known. The geologic facts I have presented are all documented and generally accepted within the geological community. The only real controversial thing about what I have presented is my inclusion of the Biblical account and it is the Bible being historically true that is the problem.

1.The rivers of Eden. How did Moses chose those particular rivers. Even in his day it was known that those rivers didn’t join together. Yet they did join together back in the Messinian–in the earliest days of hominids on earth.

2.Why did Moses describe hydrology that would only make sense in a place located in a deep basin?

3.How could he have known that both the rivers and the hydrology pointed to a place where the only geologically known flood matching the description of Noah’s flood actually occurred?

4 Why did Moses chose to say a flood lasted about a year? The fact is, within geological abilities we know that the Mediterranean infilling took from a few months to two years:

" Although the flood started at low water discharges that may have lasted for up to several thousand years, our results suggest that 90 per cent of the water was transferred in a short period ranging from a few months to two years . This extremely abrupt flood may have involved peak rates of sea level rise in the Mediterranean of more than ten metres per day ." D. Garcia-Castellanos, et al, Catastrophic flood of the Mediterranean after the Messinian salinity crisis," Nature volume 462, pages 778-781

5.If the infilling of the Med took place solely by heavy rains engorging the rivers, then there would be nothing one could claim was a ‘fountain of the deep’. What caused Moses to mention fountains of the deep when something very similar to 'fountains of the deep bursting open was the cause of the catastrophic flood, the only flood ever to be able to say it can match the description of Noah’s flood? How did this Neolithic man come to put that into the account?

6.This is the only flood conceived by anyone which actually allows the ark to be deposited on the mountains (plural) of Ararat. Why did Moses pick just that site rather than say the ark was flushed into the Indian Ocean as would happen in a Mesopotamian flood in Neolithic times?

Does it scare us that Moses might have been given this information from a living God? It should. A living God is more dangerous than the one that we cage in our materialism, not letting Him out to do anything embarrassing like, do a miracle. Or create the world. Or actually oversee a flood. Or having worked for millions of years with mankind.

While I have published this view in PSCF in 1997, I haven’t pushed the view because I lacked the courage and lacked geologic data from the Eastern Mediterranean. Both that data, and my realization that the Pison actually did flow from Arabia made things fall into place this year. My views obviously have not been received well, but few new views are. Opposition comes with the territory of thinking out of the box.

That said, I was cowardly for too long a time. This recent data has stiffened my spine. Plus, I can’t figure out how Moses came to write the things he did. These are things which he could only have known by inspiration.

Some no doubt will claim I am ‘reading things into geology’. Didn’t we read the experiments into quantum theory, into General Relativity? This is how science works. I didn’t make up the collapse of the dam at Gibraltar which sure fits the description of fountains of the deep. I didn’t write the Bible either. I didn’t read into the geology a flood that lasts between a few months and 2 years (centroid about a year), Other geologists said that is how long it lasted. I didn’t write the Bible to make it say 1 year for the flood. I didn’t chose the rivers. I didn’t write the description of Eden which seems to match the lay of the land 5.3 myr ago. I didn’t invent artesian flow which could easily match the mists. No, I am not reading things into geology or the Bible, I am noting only that there is an incredible match between the words of the Bible and the Mediterranean 5.3 myr ago.

[Bill_II]

@gbob

If God inspired Moses, there really was no reason to inspire a false creation account because no other major religion has a similar creation account.

How do you see the inspiration of Moses working? Do you have any scripture that would back that up? Prophets always seem to indicate when they received a message from God but I don’t think Moses ever said something similar.

Correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure you will) but aren’t creation myths common in the ANE (and I just checked also China)? And it would only be false using your definition of truth.

@gbob

Judaism and Christianity would be basically the same without Genesis 1-11.

Since the origin of mankind is not a salvation issue why would removing Genesis 1-11 make any difference?

[gbob]

@Bill_II

How do you see the inspiration of Moses working? Do you have any scripture that would back that up? Prophets always seem to indicate when they received a message from God but I don’t think Moses ever said something similar.

I don’t know how inspiration works. I don’t think anyone does. But yes, I do have a scripture:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Ti 3:16

All Scripture would include Genesis.

@Bill_II

Correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure you will) but aren’t creation myths common in the ANE (and I just checked also China)? And it would only be false using your definition of truth.

I think you missed what I said, I said no major religious document other than Christianity has a how God created the world. I used that phraseology on purpose knowing that there are other creation stories. Yes, ancient mythologies and loads of tribal religions have creation myths. They are all different and so can’t all be true. If one wants to determine if any are possibly true, the only way I can see to determine that by comparing the account with the facts of science. This is what I did in my Days of Proclamation post. I found a way to read Gen 1 in a real way.

This is typical of tribal creation stories:
In the ancient times only Sinawav, the Creator and Coyote lived on the earth. They had come out of the light so long ago, that no one remembered when or how. The Earth was young and the time had come to increase the people. Sinawav gave a bag of sticks to Coyote and said “Carry these over the far hills to the valleys beyond.” He gave specific directions Coyote was to follow and told him what to do when he got there. “You must remember, this is a great responsibility. The bag must not be opened under any circumstances until you reach the sacred grounds.”

“What is this I carry?” asked Coyote

“I will say no more. Now be about your task” Sinawav answered.

Coyote was young and foolish, consumed with curiosity. “What is this I carry?” he kept asking himself.

As soon as he was over the first hill and out of sight, he stopped. He was just going to peek in the bag. “That could hurt nothing.” He thought. Just as he untied the bag and opened a small slit they rushed for the opening. They were people. These people yelled and hollered in strange languages of all kinds. He tried to catch them and get them back into the bag. But they ran away in all different directions. Ute Creation Story – Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Now, I am not going to denigrate it but it simply doesn’t match the science of our day, so I would rule it out.

The foam which Tia-mat [ . . .
48 Marduk fashioned [ . . .
49 He gathered it together and made it into clouds.
50 The raging of the winds, violent rainstorms,
51 The billowing of mist—the accumulation of her spittle—
52 He appointed for himself and took them in his hand.
53 He put her head in position and poured out . . [ . . ] .
54 He opened the abyss and it was sated with water.
55 From her two eyes he let the Euphrates and Tigris flow,
56 He blocked her nostrils, but left . .
57 He heaped up the distant [mountains] on her breasts,
58 He bored wells to channel the springs.
59 He twisted her tail and wove it into the Durmah(u,
60 [ . . . ] . . the Apsû beneath his feet.
61 [He set up] her crotch—it wedged up the heavens—
62 [(Thus) the half of her] he stretched out and made it firm as the earth.
63 [After] he had finished his work inside Tia-mat,
64 [He spread] his net and let it right out.
65 He surveyed the heavens and the earth .

Same here, How does one read this as being in conformance with science? Maybe after 40 years of research someone could figure a way to do it and then I wold be interested. So, even though this is a creation story, it isn’t the creation story of a major religion, and also I don’t think too many people will say that we are created from the body of a being. At least that doesn’t seem to be the prevailing scientific view.

@gbob

@gbob

udaism and Christianity would be basically the same without Genesis 1-11.

Since the origin of mankind is not a salvation issue why would removing Genesis 1-11 make any difference?

Didn’t I just say that? But the problem is, that it WASN’T excluded from the Bible. It was included and there in lies the problem. Back to the 2 Tim 3:16 verse, Genesis 1-11 is part of Scripture whether you or I like it or not. It is not up to me to proclaim that it was a wrong inclusion to the Bible. You and I are presented with a Bible as it is and we must deal with it.

Edited to add: the fact that I can provide a way for Scripture to be real history is amazing in and of itself, not because it is me, but because it is capable of being done. I don’t see how to make the Babylonian creation story into a match with science or any of the other creation stories I have read.

[Bill_II]

@gbob

All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Ti 3:16

I must have missed it. Where does it say it is profitable for understanding the origin of man? I know it is not profitable for understanding the fusion process that produces the light of the sun so why insist on including origins? Scripture is profitable in understanding WHY God created man but I don’t think it really says anything about HOW He did so.

@gbob

the fact that I can provide a way for Scripture to be real history is amazing in and of itself, not because it is me, but because it is capable of being done.

You cherry pick the science to match to cherry picked portions of Scripture so it is really no surprise.

[gbob]

@Bill_II

I must have missed it. Where does it say it is profitable for understanding the origin of man? I know it is not profitable for understanding the fusion process that produces the light of the sun so why insist on including origins? Scripture is profitable in understanding WHY God created man but I don’t think it really says anything about HOW He did so.

Look Bill, sigh. If you disagree fine, I don’t deal with you for very long because I don’t see you even trying to understand the assumptions someone made. One must do that in order to correctly criticise someone. Below is my logic, like it or not, I won’t subject myself to harpy like argumentation over this issue again. Either show my how my logic fails, or simply disagree, but don’t ask me to provide you with the impossible statement you seem to think has to be there. Scripture says God can’t lie. Scripture says Bible is inspired by God. That would strongly suggest to me, that God wouldn’t inspire a false story and Genesis is part of Scripture which is divinely inspired. You seem to be under the misaprehension that if something isn’t explicitly stated a human is forbidden to use logic. . Furthermore, Yec criticism I find valid is that Ezekiel, Paul and Peter all mention Noah in their God inspired accounts. Inspired by a God who can’t lie.

That is it Bill, find another flea to worry over

@Bill_II

You cherry pick the science to match to cherry picked portions of Scripture so it is really no surprise.

This is always the cry of those who do not think originally and don’t want to be bothered by a new idea.

Go read the articles I cite. I stand on my geological work. It comes from the standard geological literature, and what they are doing is precisely what I did successfully for a 47 year career, including running my own very successful consulting company. The only thing they lack is biblical implications, which is what bothers everyone here. Very few here want the bible to be historically true.

I do notice that you do not answer a single thing in my previous reply to you. Conversations are TWO way. What you want is a soliloque, where you just ignore what I say but find a new flea with every new post.

[Bill_II]

@gbob

I do notice that you do not answer a single thing in my previous reply to you.

My last reply to you did address your reply. Did you mean a different reply? Remember I was out of pocket for a week with limited access and may well have missed something.

Let’s look at your scripture reference in context.

From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work

The purpose of Scripture is to “make you wise for salvation”. Scripture had a purpose long before the science came up with the data you seem to love. I asked you before (and you ignored the question) to explain what people with no science were supposed to get from Scripture. I think 2 Timothy answers that question for everyone except you. Origins is NOT a salvation issue (a comment which you also ignored). It is to Ken Ham as you well know.

And I will just throw this in here while I am thinking of it, but your idea that rain shadows could cause an extended period of no rain in Eden is hard to believe. A rain shadow reduces but doesn’t eliminate all rainfall. If conditions at the top of the mountain do not support rain the moisture will flow over the mountain and rain forms when conditions allow. Even stacking several rain shadows doesn’t get you to zero. Winds don’t always blow in the same direction. It even rains in the Sarah Desert.

The driest populated spot in the Sahara, and indeed in all of Africa, is Al-Kufrah in Libya, with an average annual rainfall of 0.0338 inches.

And to get back to the four rivers you are so proud to have found. If a river totally changes it’s direction is it really the same river? Do you have any data that would say the headwaters of the four rivers are even the same as today? You found 4 rivers that flowed into the Med basin and came to the conclusion that they are the same 4 rivers. And as I pointed out you have a spring from Eden joining 4 rivers when the Bible says the spring was the headwaters of the rivers. Your creative re-translation of the Hebrew not withstanding.

Enough conversation for you?

[gbob]

You quote Scripture: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work

If you knew how this knowledge has supercharged my faith you wouldn’t doubt this has more fully equipped me. The Scripture is real.That, to me says we have a real God.

You say it is to make us wise for salvation but ignore the 2nd part which insstructs us to convict us (which this stuff does convict me of my lack of faith), for training in righteousness? Yeah, this has made me think more about my failings because God is far more real now. And I have already addressed good work part. Sure makes me more willing to witness. Yeah, I admit I wasn’t great at that in my life because of my doubts about the reality of Scripture.

@Bill_II

Origins is NOT a salvation issue (a comment which you also ignored). It is to Ken Ham as you well know.

And your point is? that verse doesn’t only speak of salvation issues. It is one out of 4 by my count.

@Bill_II

And I will just throw this in here while I am thinking of it, but your idea that rain shadows could cause an extended period of no rain in Eden is hard to believe. A rain shadow reduces but doesn’t eliminate all rainfall.

Agreed that it doesn’t entirely eliminate it, but one can wonder how long it could be between rains on such a deep basin with rain shadows in every direction. Parts of the Atacama went without rain for over 400 years, and they are not in the same rainshadow setting. Further, just because there is a small chance of rain doesn’t mean it actually rained. There is a small chance of me winning the powerball but that doesn’t mean I have actually won it.

@Bill_II

I asked you before (and you ignored the question) to explain what people with no science were supposed to get from Scripture.

I figured that was so obvious, but it seems to me they get exactly what my wife gets from it and I can assure you she has no science background. They actually have a better faith. But where do YECs go when they start doubting the reality of Scripture? I can speak personally for this. When I left YEC, I got no comfort or good options to deal with the issue I had from accommodationalissts. They just all told me it didn’t matter if scripture was true or not. It does matter very much.

@Bill_II

. It even rains in the Sarah Desert.

True, but any humidity in the air of the Sahara will be far far less after it falls 3 more kilometers. I question if you understand this fact or are just ignoring it.

@Bill_II

And to get back to the four rivers you are so proud to have found. If a river totally changes it’s direction is it really the same river?

LOL, It is in China. The Huang He has changed course several 10s of times over the past 50000 years. What you think the name must change every time the Mississippi changes its course to the sea? Are we to say it is a diffferent river when it finally goes through Morgan City? Besides, I thought you were big on the headwaters. The headwaters of the Euphrates would still be the same, all the way down to when it takes its first right angle turn away from the Mediterranean where it used to go. The headwaters of the Tigris would have been the same as well.

@Bill_II

You found 4 rivers that flowed into the Med basin and came to the conclusion that they are the same 4 rivers.

No, I found four rivers which matched your previous criterion of paying attention to the headwaters, and now you disappoint me by changing your standard just so you can play gotcha. I think that means you have no real standards on this from which to argue a postion except for what is expedient to take a potshot at my view. Just be honest that that is what you are doing. First with Eden you concentrated on headwaters, now you don’t, except that you changed back to headwaters with Eden again.

@Bill_II

And as I pointed out you have a spring from Eden joining 4 rivers when the Bible says the spring was the headwaters of the rivers.

And you obvously didn’t look up my Toodles river analogy, which you can search for in this thread. It seems to me that you have totally ignore that my friend.

[gbob]

Off to chemo tomorrow morning.

[Randy]

@gbob

chemo tomorrow morning.

Sincere prayers, best wishes, and keep safe.
I want to say I love reading this technical stuff about geology in this back and forth. Thanks to you and those who interact with you that i learn from. May everyone keep safe.

[Bill_II]

@gbob

If you knew how this knowledge has supercharged my faith you wouldn’t doubt this has more fully equipped me.

Interesting comment. So your faith is based on the science and not the person and works of Christ?

@gbob

You say it is to make us wise for salvation but ignore the 2nd part which insstructs us to convict us (which this stuff does convict me of my lack of faith), for training in righteousness?

To me the conviction is part of salvation.

@gbob

True, but any humidity in the air of the Sahara will be far far less after it falls 3 more kilometers. I question if you understand this fact or are just ignoring it.

When a parcel of air descends 3 km it will warm due to the compressional heating but the amount of water vapor does not change.

@gbob

What you think the name must change every time the Mississippi changes its course to the sea?

I think a river is defined by more than the location of the headwaters. The course and ultimate mouth of the river are what makes a river a river. If the Mississippi was to change direction and flow into the great lakes would you call it the same river?

@gbob

No, I found four rivers which matched your previous criterion of paying attention to the headwaters, and now you disappoint me by changing your standard just so you can play gotcha.

No my criteria is the four rivers share the same headwaters, the spring from Eden. That’s what the Bible says. You have four rivers with different headwaters that the spring from Eden simply joins.

@gbob

And you obvously didn’t look up my Toodles river analogy,

I told you I was out of pocket and this is something I missed so no I am not ignoring it.

[gbob]

What were the conditions in the Dry Mediterranean Basin?

I am going to show how new data changed what I believed. It is important for anyone to follow the data. I had planned to post this yesterday but new (to me) and interesting data came to my attention… Here is the story.

I spent a lot of time building an atmospheric model for the Mediterranean. I made certain assumptions outlined below in the detail section, if anyone is interested, and was ready to present it. I had gone to some effort to determine that the basin was probably 3 km deep where Eden was. This is the summary.

I calculated temperatures for the bottom of the basin given a range of initial conditions. Going into this I felt that the biggest issue would be hellish temperatures. There is some Chickenwire dolomite on the bottom of the Med and that requires temperatures above 35C (95F). But this basin was so deep, deeper than anything on earth today, that I was very worried about the temperature. The ones I calculated would probably be close to daily maximums as it would cool off at night, and do so quickly if there was not much humidity.

I assumed a couple of reasonable temperatures for sea level during the Late Messinian and then used a variety of adiabatic lapse rates to calculate the temperature and the dew points. I had calculated the following. are:

Lapse	Surface	3000 m	3000 m
rate	C	C	F
9.8	288	316	107
9.8	300	328.5063	131.8942
7.5	288	310.2	98.94668
7.5	300	322.2	120.5467
5	288	303	85.991
5	300	315	107.591

The pressure down there would be 1.4 times our sea level atmospheric pressure.

And no, the line is not linear.
I calculated dew points for how much uplift of the air by the infilling water it would require to cause rain.
For the temperatures calculated, I also calculated dew points at -3000 m for 50% relative humidity and 75% relative humidity. Basically at 50% RH, the air must be uplifted 2 km in order to reach dew point and cause rain. At 75% RH, the air needs only a 1 km uplift to reach the dew point and cause rain. If the water pouring into the basin saturates the air, then almost any rise in water surface would start the condensation of moisture out of the air. Rain would be an inevitable part of this process. I stand by that because that is simple physics.

Put a known RH air in a balloon and then walk it up a tall mountain at 7 m per day. I will guarantee that when that balloon reaches a dew point temperature, the moisture will condense. It can’t help it. Bill said a slow rate of fill wouldn’t cause rain, but the laws of dew point condensation a have nothing to do with speed. Also,Speed of uplift has nothing to do with the physics that happens to moist air at a dew point temperature.

I was ready to discuss a rather warm life in the basin when I ran into a surprise. Temperatures calculated from pollen and fossil plants, were a bit cooler and more temperate than other studies said, and so I expected. MAT is mean annual temperature. The rainfall was a little higher, but then, the plants are mostly in the higher elevations, meaning the Alps, The pollen and leaves would be carried downhill into the basin.

" For the post-evaporitic interval CAM reconstructions are available for Maccarone (Fauquette et al., 2006: ca 5.5 Ma to 5.3 Ma), where MAT is evaluated between 16 and 20°C for most spectra , but up to 23-24.5°C for a few others, with most likely values oscillating between 17 and 20°C (only one spectrum shows a lower MLV around 15°C). MAP is less stable along the succession. The first part of the sequence is characterized by large intervals, from around 400 to 1300 mm - MLV 1100 mm -, and smaller intervals from 1100 to 1300 mm, whereas the second part of the Messinian is characterised by more precise ranges from 700 to 1300 mm with MLV around 800 to 1200 mm ." Bertini A.; Martinetto E… Messinian to Zanclean vegetation and climate of Northern and Central Italy / - In: BOLLETTINO DELLA SOCIETÀ PALEONTOLOGICA ITALIANA. - ISSN 0375-7633. - 47 (2)(2008), pp. 105-121., p.117

Here is their 'Sketchy" reconstruction. We are interested in the Post evaporative Messinian. this is after the water from the Atlantic has been completely shut off.

The fascinating thing is that this area of Italy was uplifted and was at a lower elevation when the Messinnian rocks were laid down. I went and looked up the mountains they mention as being uplifted at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17445647.2017.1316218

The Bertini article cautioned:

" Of course, we cannot provide direct palaeoclimatic evidence for the palaeobotanically barren primary gypsum beds (Vena del Gesso basin), however it is curious that for all the clastic sediments adjacent to such beds we can definitely reconstruct palaeofloras and vegetation types which are never connected to desertic or subdesertic conditions ." Bertini A.; Martinetto E… Messinian to Zanclean vegetation and climate of Northern and Central Italy / - In: BOLLETTINO DELLA SOCIETÀ PALEONTOLOGICA ITALIANA. - ISSN 0375-7633. - 47 (2)(2008), pp. 105-121., p.119

So, I did a bit more looking at temperatures and found some interesting chemical estimates of temperature from air bubbles in the salt deposits. It was surprisingly cool down in the bottom of the basin where the halite was being deposited.

" In South America at latitude 47°S, till was deposited sometime between 7 m.y. and 4.6 m.y. ago, at a time when the local climate was colder than today’s . During this same interval glaciers extended to sea level in southeast Alaska, and widespread cooling of the ocean surface in middle latitudes, worldwide marine regression and change in the oxygen isotopic composition of ocean water occurred. From the last three events, major late Miocene expansion of the Antarctic Ice Sheet has been inferred, on the assumption that the history of North Atlantic ice rafting precludes the existence of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets until 3 m.y. ago. This is disputed, first because precipitation in Antarctica would probably have decreased at temperatures below today’s, second because the Antarctic Ice Sheet cannot expand appreciably until buildup of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets has lowered sea level, third because virtually no late Miocene sediments are present at the Labrador Sea DSDP sites that are critical to the reconstruction of North Atlantic ice rafting history, and fourth because the scale of late Miocene glaciation in Alaska is at least permissive for simultaneous buildup of ice at similar latitudes further east. If global ice sheet volume at the end of the Miocene was greater than it is today, by an amount that would have lowered sea level by several tens of meters, the excess ice did not accumulate in Antarctica, but in the Northern Hemisphere, chiefly in North America away from the Atlantic coast." J.H.Mercerab and J.F.Sutterab, “Late miocene—earliest pliocene glaciation in southern Argentina: implications for global ice-sheet history,” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 38, 1982, p. 185-206

And then I found a direct measurement of temperatures down on the bottom of the Med and was very surprised:

“Taking into account both the present-day annual SST of the Mediterranean Sea around study sampling sites, which range between 18 and 20C , and the lower latitude of the Mediterranean Basin during the MSC, our homogenization temperatures point to a colder climate during the Messinian halite deposition, in comparison with the present interglacial climate stage. This conclusion is consistent with the Messinian SST of 16–18C estimated through indexes of coral richness in shallow-water carbonates from different sites of the Mediterranean Basin [Bosellini and Perrin, 2008].” Giulio Speranza, et al, " Paleoclimate reconstruction during the Messinian evaporative drawdown of the Mediterranean Basin: Insights from microthermometry on halite fluid inclusions, " G3, Volume 14, Number 12 11 December 2013, p. 5073

The halite deposition was down around 3 km or slightly deeper. This is where the surface of the remnant Mediterranean was, and it was much cooler than I could have imagined. Speranza et all calculated the surface water temperatures down in the basin by using fluid inclusions. If the water temperatures down at minus 3 km deep were 18-20 C, then that is 68 deg F, which is incredibly cold. So, what is the problem?

It turns out that Mercerab and Sutterab were correct, this was a very cold time on earth. The Messinian is 6 myr ago to 5.33 or the end of the shading.

So, because of two oddities in earth history this time was one of intense cold which, would ameliorate the temperatures I had calculated above. Now, no doubt day time air temperatures were higher and what they calculated was average temperature, but this new information makes Eden a much more comfortable place than it otherwise might have been. Now I have to figure out how to incorporate this information.

Details of my calculations. .

Because the situation in the Messinian was so different from anything on earth today, it is natural to ask a question about what were the physical conditions at the bottom of this hole. We know a variety of large bodied mammals lived there so it couldn’t have been a true representation of hell. If it were that, they couldn’t have lived. The question revolves almost entirely around the depth of the basin at the time of Eden, and that has been the subject to much debate in geology. Thus, what I will present is my view of how that is answered.

There are some constraints on the depth of the basin. The Nile is said to have carved a 4+ km deep canyon in the granite platform of the African continent. This means it had to be that deep at some point during the crisis. It doesn’t have to be that deep at the time of Eden. Below is the topo map of the current basin. http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/oceansatreading/files/2016/05/Med_Topo_2.png

We are not interested in the deep areas of the central Med, but are interested in the area from Cyprus to the Nile and west of there, which is where I think Eden lay. It is said that the sedimentary thickness in this area is about 10 km

" The Levant basin contains over 10 km of Upper Jurassic through Cenozoic rocks that overlie a rifted Triassic to Lower Jurassic succession [Gardosh and Druckman, 2006; Netzeband et al., 2006a]. The southern and eastern flanks of the basin are cut by deep canyons of Oligocene and Miocene age [Druckman et al., 1995]." Madof, Andrew & Connell, Sean. (2017). Northern Levant basin (Seismic stratigraphy of a previously unidentified Messinian fluvio-deltaic succession: Implications for pre-Zanclean lacustrine flooding in the eastern Mediterranean). " In book: Seismic atlas of the “Messinian Salinity crisis” markers in the Mediterranean and Black Seas - Volume 2, Chapter: 17

What we need to do is remove the Pliocene through Cenozoic sediments and we will get an idea of the depth of the basin when it was dry. Yes, it would be a bit shallower than this because of isostatic adjustments, it does get us into the ball park.

We can do this by some depth sections taken from seismic. Like this section out from the NIle. It shows that in the Med, above the sale we have approximately 2 km of Pliocene-Cenozoic sediment–above the orangis Abu Madi and above the purplish salt.

Looking back up at the bathimetry picture we are talking about basin depths for the Messinian surface of between 2200-3000 m deep.

A look at a seismic line off the Israeli coast shows 1 sec of Plio-Cenozoic section.

Such sediments generally have velocities of around 8000’/sec but, this is two-way time, so we have about 4000’ or 1.2 km or so. This given the pink is around 1600 m (not the steep slope) off the coast, then we are around 2800 m for the Messinian surface in this area.

So, knowing this, how hot was it down there? We all know of the heat in the Dead Sea and Death Valley. It all depends on how much humidity is in the air. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8 deg C/ km and the wet is about 5 deg C/km. The saturated lapse rate (at the dew point) goes down with higher temperature, and at high temperatures and one atmosphere it becomes as small as 1 deg/km for saturated air

saturated adiabatic lapse rate (SALR)

The rate of cooling of ascending saturated air. It is approximately 1.5°C/1000 ft but may reduce to as little as 1°C/1000 ft in the warm saturated tropical regions. It also may exceed 2°C/1000 ft when the temperature of the air falls below the freezing point until it is no longer saturated and the lapse rate falls to that of dry air. Saturated adiabatic lapse rate | Article about saturated adiabatic lapse rate by The Free Dictionary

Non-raining lapse rates are generally in the area of 5-7 deg C/km.

Here is what I calculated using sea level temperatures. Remember, these would be the hottest temperatures of the day, not the average temperature.

Lapse	Surface 0 m	-3000 m	-3000 m
rate	C	C	F
9.8	288	316	107
9.8	300	328.5063	131.8942
7.5	288	310.2	98.94668
7.5	300	322.2	120.5467
5	288	303	85.991
5	300	315	107.591

I grew up in an area that had 115 deg days while I was there. it was miserable but even outside if one had shade, one could bear it so long as one had water. We didn’t have air-conditioning when I was a kid. My parents either couldn’t or wouldn’t afford it.

For the temperatures calculated, I also calculated dew points at -3000 m for 50% relative humidity and 75% relative humidity. Basically at 50% RH, the air must be uplifted 2 km in order to reach dew point and cause rain. At 75% RH, the air needs only a 1 km uplift to reach the dew point and cause rain.

Now, the western basin of the Mediterranean was filled with water to -400m prior to when the eastern basin started filling. It had to top the Sicily sill first. The water pouring into the basin at as fast as 200 mph would quickly take the relative humidity up to near 100% which would mean, dew points were reached quickly there and it had rained for months before the process started in the eastern part of the Mediterranean.

When the eastern basin started filling, again the velocities of the water approached 200 mph. See below, 100 m/s is 223 mph. This would create turbulence.

I know it has been challenged that it would rain with a 4-10 m/day rise in the water surface. It was asserted I believe that the slow rate of uplift would not cause rain. I think I can push back on that. Take a balloon and fill it with a known humidity of air, where you know the dew point. To claim that such a slow uplift would not cause condensation and rain is equivalent to saying that if you moved that balloon up a mountain at the same rate that when it got to the dew point temperature, the water would not condense on the inside of the balloon. Such an observation would mean that in addition to temperature alone, some other physical processes would be required to condense the moisture. Such a discovery would be big, but it would require a different physics for condensation NOT to occur.

Thus I do claim that this constant uplift of now fully saturated air would cause a very long rainstorm the likes of which the earth has not seen since.

[gbob]

@Bill_II

Interesting comment. So your faith is based on the science and not the person and works of Christ?

I thought about how I would respond to this as I went to sleep last night Bill. It is a predictable question I have been asked many times. I am going to point out some events with the disciples. Let’s look at Paul first. What was it that made Paul so dedicated to spreading the Gospel? It was a personal experience which he KNEW to be true. He had no doubt about the history of that event. He didn’t doubt the miraculous thing that happened to him. He spent 3 yrs in the desert working out the theology and figuring out how he had been wrong and how to now fit Jesus into his previous theological views. But make no mistake, his theology didn’t give him the certitude he exhibited. the real history of his experience brought real excitement to his life. Paul’s faith was bolstered by this event. His faith was still in the Christ. Faith ain’t a ‘mental assent’ it is a life changing thing.
It was the historical event on the Damascus road that was a peg point for his faith just as the Turkish translator experience was a peg point for my faith, but, the reality of the flood has become another peg point. .

What would cause an old man above 80 yrs old, to risk his life chasing a young man whom he at led to the Lord, but who had fallen away and was now the leader of a murderous gang of thieves. John chased after this young man risking that when he met the underlings, they might kill him before he could get to his friend. I would suggest that he KNEW that Jesus rose. He experienced it. Unlike the Mormon witnesses to the golden plates, John and the other disciples never recanted. They experienced a real historical event.

You and I, on the other hand, didn’t experience that resurrection. Trying to believe it is true amongst all the doubts atheists can come up with is not the same as when one has observational evidence to back up one’s faith. It isn’t faith in the event, it is that the events(like the flood for me) is evidence that the faith is correct. John had this kind of certitude and it impelled his faith. This comes from John’s Spiritual grandson. St. Clements told this story so his hearers would :“be still more confident” That is the same reason I am now telling my flood story, so christians can “be still more confident” of their faith

John and the thief
XLII. And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.
Having come to one of the cities not far off (the name of which some give), and having put the brethren to rest in other matters, at last, looking to the bishop appointed, and seeing a youth, powerful in body, comely in appearance, and ardent, said, “This (youth) I commit to you in all earnestness, in the presence of the Church, and with Christ as witness.” And on his accepting and promising all, he gave the same injunction and testimony. And he set out for Ephesus. And the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and guardianship, under the idea that the seal of the Lord he had set on him was a complete protection to him. But on his obtaining premature freedom, some youths of his age, idle, dissolute, and adepts in evil courses, corrupt him. First they entice him by many costly entertainments; then afterwards by night issuing forth for highway robbery, they take him along with them. Then they dared to execute together something greater. And he by degrees got accustomed; and from greatness of nature, when he had gone aside from the right path, and like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse, had taken the bit between his teeth, rushed with all the more force down into the depths. And having entirely despaired of salvation in God, he no longer meditated what was insignificant, but having perpetrated some great exploit, now that he was once lost, he made up his mind to a like fate with the rest. Taking them and forming a hand of robbers, he was the prompt captain of the bandits, the fiercest, the bloodiest, the cruelest.
Time passed, and some necessity having emerged, they send again for John. He, when he had settled the other matters on account of which he came, said, “Come now, O bishop, restore to us the deposit which I and the Saviour committed to thee in the face of the Church over which you preside, as witness.” The other was at first confounded, thinking that it was a false charge about money which he did not get; and he could neither believe the allegation regarding what he had not, nor disbelieve John. But when he said “I demand the young man, and the soul of the brother,” the old man, groaning deeply, and bursting into tears, said, “He is dead.” “How and what kind of death?” “He is dead,” he said, “to God. For he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber; and now he has taken possession of the mountain in front of the church, along with a band like him.” Rending, therefore, his clothes, and striking his head with great lamentation, the apostle said, “It was a fine guard of a brother’s soul I left! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one be my guide on the way.” He rode away, just as he was, straight from the church. On coming to the place, he is arrested by the robbers’ outpost; neither fleeing nor entreating, but crying, “It was for this I came. Lead me to your captain;” who meanwhile was waiting, all armed as he was. But when he recognized John as he advanced, he turned, ashamed, to flight. The other followed with all his might, forgetting his age, crying, “Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.”
And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Saviour, beseeching and failing on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church. Then by supplicating with copious prayers, and striving along with him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances of words, did not depart, as they say, till he restored him to the Church, presenting in him a great example of true repentance and a great token of regeneration, a trophy of the resurrection for which we hope; when at the end of the world, the angels, radiant with joy, hymning and opening the heavens, shall receive into the celestial abodes those who truly repent; and before all, the Saviour Himself goes to meet them, welcoming them; holding forth the shadowless, ceaseless light; conducting them,to the Father’s bosom, to eternal life, to the kingdom of heaven.
St. Clement of Alexandria
Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?

Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?

@Bill_II

When a parcel of air descends 3 km it will warm due to the compressional heating but the amount of water vapor does not change.

When water pours into the basin BENEATH the dry air, which water is being sprayed into the air, I can assure you the moisture in the air will increase. Have you ever stood at Niagara?. the humidity there is high because of all the spray. Thankfully the water temp is cool. Bill, I don’t think you have even given a thought to what happens when water comes in BENEATH the dry air. Are you saying NO moisture would be transferred? That there would be no evaporation? How unrealistic.

@Bill_II

I think a river is defined by more than the location of the headwaters. The course and ultimate mouth of the river are what makes a river a river. If the Mississippi was to change direction and flow into the great lakes would you call it the same river?

So, if any part of a river changes course we must rename it? Ridiculous… Here are the changes in the course of the Yellow River. It’s name was never changed

Does an oxbow getting cut off and isolated from the river count as a need to rename the river? (which is a change of course for the river,) You didn’t specify how large a course change needs to be.

Better get busy trying to name all these oxbows along each and every river in the world.

And here are the Mississippi deltas from the past few thousand years. When I was geophysical manager for the Gulf of Mexico for Oryx and Kerr-McGee, we used this information to know where sand rich targets for our prospecting were(edited to add, the ones we were interested in were much older). And looking at the old deltas worked. But since the ultimate mouth changes every few thousand years, again you best start coming up with names for each of the rivers which is different from Mississippi. Sheesh, how ridiculous. Bill, you are stretching.

And very soon, the Mississippi will finally break through the River Control structure and wipe out Morgan city as it tries to do what it normally does, change deltas. Better have a name available for the new river. I would suggest The Toodles River as a candidate.

Edited to add a picture of me from 1994 on the banks of the Huang He (Yellow River). To get there tthis was my first successful communciation in Mandarin Our guides had stopped to discuss the local geology and mentioned that the Yellow river was 100 m that way. I asked them "could we take a walk see Huang He? (Ke bu ke yi, women zou yi zou, kan yi kan Huang He?). and they said yes!