Category Archives: Noah’s flood

Why Our Technological World Could Not Arise in a Mere 4000 Years

 

Young earth creationists claim, with no thought whatsoever, that the entire world was flooded approximately 4000 years ago, and that our present society arose since that time. This idea is based upon two very mistaken ideas. The first is that humans are infinitely inventive, and the second is that a small number of people can bring a world of technology with them. This essay will dispute that notion.

For a small while, I was essentially the research department for a company. I was told, in effect, go in that room and think deep thoughts. The idea was that I was not to be bothered by day to day activities so I could think. I got no phone calls, was asked to no meetings and consequently, I thought of no new ideas. There was no stimulus. It was boring. I quickly begged my way out of that job. The lesson here is that technology and invention requires intellectual stimulations.

You can see this same phenomenon with the Tasmanians. The Tasmanians were Australian aborigines at the time that the seas rose and cut them off form Australia 8,000 years ago. The small island could really support only about 4000 hunter-gatherers. So these 4000 people were isolated for 8,000 years. Josephine Flood said:

No other surviving human society has ever been isolated so long or so completely as were Tasmanian Aborigines over the last 8000 years. (The land bridge was gradually inundated between 12000 and 8000 BP?….)” (Flood, 1989, p. 173)
What was the effect of this isolation? A decline in technology. There is an infamous article by William McGrew, an anthropologist, who compared Tasmanian technology with that of the chimpanzee. Mithen writes:

“Bill McGrew, author of the most comprehensive study of chimpanzee material culture, firmly believes that chimpanzee tool use is of considerable complexity. Indeed, in an (in)famous article written in 1987, he directly compared the toolkits of chimpanzees to those of Tasmanian Aborigines and concluded that they were at an equivalent level of complexity. For this comparison McGrew chose to measure complexity by counting ‘technounits’, which is simply an individual component of a tool, whatever material that component is made from and however it is used. So a hoe used by, say, a peasant farmer, comprising a shaft, a blade and a binding, has three technounits, while the suite of computerized robots operated by a modern car worker has perhaps three million technounits.
“When McGrew measured the technounits in the tools of the Tasmanian Aborigines and those of the Tanzanian chimpanzees he found that the mean number of technounits per tool was not substantially different. All chimpanzee tools and most of the Aboriginal tools were made from a single component. The most complex Aboriginal tool, a baited hide, had only four technounits.”(Mithens, 1996, p. 75)

Did the Tasmanians start out this way when the waters rose? No.

“Bone tools were also present at Rocky cape. Seven thousand years ago people here were using a considerable number and variety of bone artefacts: large, rounded tipped points or awls made from macropod shin bones, small, sharp needle-like points (without an eye), broad spatulae, and an assortment of split slivers of bone fashioned ot a point at one end. The people were using one bone tool to every two or three stone ones.
“A remarkable change took place over the next four thousand years: bone tools dropped out of use. By 4000 years ago only one bone tool was being used for every fifteen stone ones, and by 3500 years ago they had disappeared from the Tasmanian toolkit altogether. This disappearance of bone tools in Tasmania about 3000 years ago has been confirmed by the evidence of several other sites in both the north-west and east of the island.”
 (Flood, 1989, p. 176-177)

Continue reading

Advertisements

Problems with a worldwide flood

Following is from an article by Robert Moore on the Ark.  He points out that a global flood won’t work due to the number of animals required, the constraints of genetics, diseases & parasites, sanitation, fresh air and a host of other major problems (like even loading the animals!).  The article was written in 1983.  The number of species and the genetic problems have only grown since then.  See his full article here. Continue reading

The “vapour canopy” doesn’t hold water

One of the difficulties that a supporter of the global flood theory faces is that there is seemingly not enough water in the world today to flood the entire planet. To explain this, a canopy of water is sometimes proposed. This canopy has been proposed to take one of three forms: vapour, liquid or ice. The idea is that this canopy once surrounded the entire world prior to the flood during the days of Noah. This theory is said to have the following explanatory power: Continue reading

Robert Roberts thought the flood was local

Bro Roberts considered the flood to be local (but to have killed all humans bar Noah and family). His comments are reproduced below:

“Considering the comparatively limited extent of the human family at the time, and that it was confined to one small district of the globe, it would seem reasonable to conclude from the principle already looked at-the divine sparingness of means-that the flood was co-extensive only with the Adamically-inhabited portion of the globe.

There are facts that compel such a conclusion: and as all facts are of God, they must be in agreement. The animals of New Zealand are different from those of Australia. The animals of Australia, again, are different from those of Asia and Europe. These again differ entirely from those of the American continent: All differ from one another: and the fossil remains on all the continents show that this difference has always prevailed. Now if the flood were universal in the absolute sense, it is manifest that these facts could not be explained, for if the animals all over the earth were drowned, and the devastated countries were after-wards replenished from a Noachic centre, the animals of all countries would now show some similarity, instead of consisting of totally different species. The animals taken into the ark in that case would be the animals of the humanly populated district. Only a comparatively small district in relation to the face of the world at large.”

Roberts, R. “The Visible Hand of God”, The Christadelphian (18.205.308), 1881

Continue reading

A Local flood position by Christadelphians

Bro Alan Hayward believed in old earth creation (but not theistic evolution) and had this to say about the Flood in his book “God’s Truth”:

“Of all the miracles recorded in the Bible, the biggest by far is the Flood. It is also the one that has provoked the greatest amount of disbelief.
In this particular case the objections are not unreasonable. They deserve careful consideration. If the Biblical Flood ever took place, it ought to have left some traces. Where are they? Continue reading

Noah's ark monreale mosaic

Noah’s Flood, global or local?

The following is an extract from LOTE (“Living on the Edge” by Bro J Burke) as the question of the flood has come up on this page.

Was the Genesis flood local or global?

There are three possible interpretations of the Genesis flood. It could have been anthropologically global (all humans everywhere in the earth were affected), and geographically global (the entire earth was covered with water). Alternatively, it could have been anthropologically global (all humans on the earth affected), but geographically local (only a local area of the earth covered with water because all the humans were localized in that area). Continue reading