To Alan Feuerbacher Re: Radiocarbon Dating, Flood and Plate Tectonics, Gowanaland, Pre-Adamic Race
lemuel at access.inet.co.th
Fri Oct 6 23:34:03 EDT 2000
Thanks for the replies.
I have my reservations about radiocarbon dating since it looks like solar
effects should have been factored into the analysis and it looks like we
need other data to corroborate results.
The collapse I am trying to mention is based on plate tectonics theory that
continents actually "float" on molten metal on the earth's core. Thus, a
recession from normal elevations we have now were not unlikely, enabling the
continents to partially settle, thereby being engulfed by seawater. With
this scenario, there were not that much turbulence in the encroachment of
seawater inland, no tsunamis, or wave bores, to cause serious morphological
damage. It seems that not only the Black Sea was inundated but that the
Mediterranean was also a freshwater lake before the Flood as partly
theorized that the old river bed levels of the Nile were actually lower than
as it is now. In any case, we have to wait for results perhaps within the
next 2-3 years assuming research in this area continues.
It seems that mythological accounts support the Genesis 6 story of a super
race, the antediluvian generation.
On the Gondwanaland theory, it looks like if this theory is proven, it is
not remote that a universal flood did occur from a literal understanding of
the flood accounts in Genesis, and the plate tectonic explanation mentioned
By the Restored Earth theory, I mean that God restored the earth from a once
perfect condition due to a past catastrophe (Genesis 1: 2), and the
restoration took 7 days. Signs of a young earth (which are proven by
helium/hydrogen-?- amounts in the atmosphere) and an old earth abound.
I am not really inclined to evolution.
On the account in the book of Daniel, for an earth model you mentioned, I
don't think that we can make a conclusion that the writers did think that
the earth is flat. It seems that I read somewhere that Jewish writers early
on thought that the earth is spherical, by observing the moon. Even ancient
Chinese figurines indicate that it was common to think that the earth and
other cosmic bodies were spherical.
----- Original Message -----
From: <alanf00 at home.com>
To: Lemuel Abarte <lemuel at access.inet.co.th>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: To Alan Feuerbacher Re: Radiocarbon Dating, Flood and Plate
Tectonics, Gowanaland, Pre-Adamic Race
> From: "Lemuel Abarte" <lemuel at access.inet.co.th>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: To Alan Feuerbacher Re: Radiocarbon Dating, Flood and
Plate Tectonics, Gowanaland, Pre-Adamic Race
> Date sent: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 05:47:29 +0700
> Send reply to: "Lemuel Abarte" <lemuel at access.inet.co.th>
> Hello Lemuel,
> > Some raised the issue of radiocarbon dating with reference to
sedimentary layers and as it impacts on accuracy of fossil dating. Do you
have some comments on these?
> Radiocarbon dating is used to date items less than 50,000 years old. It is
not even theoretically accurate beyond that time. For times up to roughly
10,000 years ago, the "radiocarbon clock" has been found to be inaccurat
> e by up to about 500 years, for reasons not yet completely understood but
speculated to be varying amounts of C-14 production in the upper atmosphere
due to variables such as varying radiation from the sun, varying overal
> l amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, varying and unknown ways in which
living things remove carbon from the atmosphere, and so on. For a good
technical discussion, you'll have to look into this for yourself.
> dating for the past 10,000 years has been calibrated mainly by
dendrochronology (tree-ring dating), using living and dead wood from
extremely old trees in California and some places in Europe and the Middle
East where wo
> od lasts a long time in the weather. These studies have shown where the
"C-14 clock" differs from a "true clock", and so all dates before about 1000
C.E. must be corrected by an amount that has been published in tables.
> > Was there a massive collapse of continents to account for a worldwide
> No. Are you talking about the dopey theories of Walter Brown?
> > What about the pre-Diluvian generation? Was there an advanced
> That depends on what you mean by "advanced". Certainly there have been
people living in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years, also depending
on exactly what we mean by "people". There has certainly been what we might
> call "civilization" in the Middle East, if by that we mean a culture that
constructs permanent buildings. This has been established in many ways. For
example, William Ryan and Walter Pitman published a book about 1997 co
> ncerning their discovery that the Black Sea was a fresh water lake until
about 5500 B.C.E., but had suffered a massive invasion of sea water at that
time. This was dated via C-14. This past summer these men mounted anothe
> r expedition and found buildings, trash heaps, and other proof of human
habitation, about 100 meters in depth and about 20 km. off the coast of one
> > Was there a single land mass during the Earth's restoration in such
theories as the Gowanaland?
> I don't know what you mean by "the Earth's restoration". The notion of
Gondwanaland merely refers to the fairly well established idea that
somewhere between about 400 and 250 million years ago, all of the earth's
> ts had been merged into one, after which they gradually drifted into their
present form. Before that, there were other, quite different continents,
which for poorly understood reasons drifted together to form Gondwanaland
> . It has been theorized, with fairly good support, that the continents
have undergone a number of cycles of coming together and splitting apart.
Unfortunately, time and erosion has erased most of the evidence.
> > The evidence for a Young Earth theory may well fit into a Restored Earth
theory as proposed by Morris.
> The earth is about 4.6 billion years old.
> > What about a Pre-Adamic Race?
> You got me! All I know is that humans or human-like creatures have been
around for several million years, and they have gotten closer to the form of
present-day humans as time passed.
> > In my opinion, the Restored Earth model fits more data from both sides
and archaeological evidence. I deny though, theistic evolution or
> I don't think there is enough evidence on this to make any definitive
> > Although I could assert that I am inclined to a more literal
interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Daniel and Jesus account
are not really a problem since Daniel's center of the earth is more
consistent with an imperial theme rather than a geological one.
> I don't understand what you're talking about.
> Alan Feuerbacher
More information about the b-hebrew