- This topic is empty.
- Posts
If the flood took place around 2300 BCE, and the earth was covered in water 15 cubits above the highest mountain for 150 days, how did these trees survive? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29
- Methuselah (estimated germination 2832 BC) is a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) in the White Mountains of California, which was 4,789 years old when sampled in 1957 by Schulman and Harlan. It is the oldest known non-clonal living organism still alive, at the age of about 4,839 years old.[1][2] It is named after Methuselah, a Biblical figure reputed to have lived 969 years. Located in the “Forest of Ancients” in the Methuselah Grove at between 2,900–3,000 m above sea level, its exact location is currently undisclosed to the public as a protection against vandalism;[3] the coordinates cited here refer to the Methuselah Grove Visitor Center.
An older specimen, WPN-114 and nicknamed Prometheus, was more than 4,844 years old when cut down in 1964 (estimated germination date 2880 BC). Another tree, approximately 4,600 years old, is still living. A dendrochronology, based on these trees and other bristlecone pine samples, extends back to about 9000 BC, albeit with a single gap of about 500 years.[4]
Numerous claims of older plants of other species have been made, but these are all of clonal colonies, not individual plants.
Authenticity Affirmed
In the Scriptures, Noah appears in two genealogies of the nation of Israel, the second culminating in Jesus Christ. (1 Chronicles 1:4; Luke 3:36) Ezra and Luke, the compilers of these genealogies, were both skilled historians and must have believed that Noah was a real person.
Elsewhere in the Bible, Noah is listed alongside historical characters, being cited as a man of righteousness and faith. (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; Hebrews 11:7) Would it make sense for Bible writers to include a mythical figure as an example to follow? No, for this could easily lead those reading the Bible to conclude that faith is beyond the power of humans and can only be displayed by storybook characters. Noah and the other men and women of faith were listed because they were humans with frailties and feelings like our own.—Hebrews 12:1; compare James 5:17.
David,
There may have very well been a common ancestral story of the flood. But each has its own variation although they may have some commonalities. That being the case, that begs this big question: with 270 in existence, it would seem that the biblical account — while having some small basis of truth — has 269 other versions vying for their own piece of the “truth” pie.
One other thing you can't factor out is the superstition of ancient man. If you realize that Hurricane Katrina had some fundamentalists crawling out of the woodwork saying it was the wrath of God on sinful New Orleans, you can bet primitive man would see a flood as the wrath of their god against something naughty they were doing. After all, flooding is pretty much a worldwide phenomena.
There really is no archeological evidence of a worldwide flood. Localized flooding, yes, but not worldwide. From The great Flood: Archaeological evidence:
- The Great Flood: mythological story about a great destruction that once befell the earth. There are several variants; the Biblical version is the most famous. The possibility that there is a historical event behind the story (a local flood in southern Babylonia in the twenty-eighth century BCE) can not be excluded.
In 1929, the archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1880-1960) announced that he had discovered a 3¾ meter thick clay deposit, which he believed had been laid down by the Great Flood. On top of this deposit was the stratum that contained the famous Royal Tombs, which belong to the period called Early Dynastic III (c.2600-2400 BCE); underneath it was a settlement from what is called the Late Ubaid period, which ended in c.3100. Unfortunately, no trace of a similar deposit was found at Eridu, 23 kilometers from Ur.
At the same time, the excavators of Kiš -situated more to the north- made a similar discovery. They announced evidence for two floods, the younger one contemporary with Woolley's Royal Tombs, the older one between the Jemdet Nasr period and Early Dynastic I (c.2900 BCE). Two years later, evidence for a fourth flood came to the surface at Šuruppak; this one was at the end of the Early Dynastic I period, in c. 2750. Finally, in Uruk, there is evidence for a flood between the layers known as Uruk-2 and Uruk-1, i.e., at the beginning of the Early Dynastic I period, roughly the same age as the older flood at Kiš.
We can be a bit more precise. Several of the kings mentioned in the Sumerian King List as rulers after the Flood, can be dated to the Early Dynastic periods II and III. This suggests that the rulers before the Flood can be dated to Early Dynastic I, and the Deluge, accordingly, to c.2750. The Šuruppak flood fits this date, and it is perhaps not a coincidence that the hero of Eridu Genesis, the Epic of Atrahasis, and the Epic of Gilgameš is a king of Šuruppak. It is likely, therefore, that the event that is behind the myth of the Great Flood can be dated to the end of Early Dynastic I period.
Quote (david @ Mar. 31 2008,18:44) Authenticity Affirmed In the Scriptures, Noah appears in two genealogies of the nation of Israel, the second culminating in Jesus Christ. (1 Chronicles 1:4; Luke 3:36) Ezra and Luke, the compilers of these genealogies, were both skilled historians and must have believed that Noah was a real person.
Elsewhere in the Bible, Noah is listed alongside historical characters, being cited as a man of righteousness and faith. (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; Hebrews 11:7) Would it make sense for Bible writers to include a mythical figure as an example to follow? No, for this could easily lead those reading the Bible to conclude that faith is beyond the power of humans and can only be displayed by storybook characters. Noah and the other men and women of faith were listed because they were humans with frailties and feelings like our own.—Hebrews 12:1; compare James 5:17.
Uh, that makes no sense whatsoever David. All you are saying is that one set of writers accepted the truth of the OT. After all, they needed to fit Jesus into the framework of the Hebrew scriptures. They would have had a hard time doing so if they cam out and said the Noah story was a hoax
.If the flood took place around 2300 BCE, and the earth was covered in water 15 cubits above the highest mountain for 150 days, how did these trees survive? From ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29[/QUOTE]
First, about the “highest mountain.” I believe the earth used to be a lot flatter. The deluge (literally “heavenly ocean”) would have an impact on the earth. With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km [20 mi] and 160 km [100 mi] thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62.
But I guess your question was: how did trees survive?
“Symptoms of Flood Damage to Trees
It is often difficult to judge a trees reaction to flooding and the safety of retaining the tree. Trees in general are slow to show symptoms. Symptoms of flood stress can include:* Leaf yellowing or chlorosis followed by leaf drop
* Early fall color and leaf drop
* Small leaf size when it does leaf out
* Excessive watersprouts
* Dieback at the crown or top of the treeAny of these symptoms may occur quickly or progressively and none are guarantees that the tree won't survive. . . . Root rot in particular, can quickly take hold because the combination of standing water and the lack of oxygen getting to the roots provides ideal conditions. You probably won't be able to see the roots well enough to notice rot, but dieback from the top of the tree down could be a symptom.“
http://gardening.about.com/od/treesshrubs/a/FloodTrees.htmTruthfully, I don't know anything about trees and how they survive underwater. If you put a billion trees underwater for a hundred days, would any survive? Life tends to find a way. Maybe they survived in the form of seeds. I don't know.
Flood tolerance and the avoidance of severe flood conditions in tree seedlings were examined experimentally to elucidate tree zonation along the Rhine and determine the effect of higher floods. In comparison with seedlings of Acer campestre from only incidentally flooded forest, seedlings of Fraxinus excelsior, Quercus robur and Ulmus minor from hardwood floodplain forest and Alnus glutinosa and Populus nigra from softwood floodplain forest showed a high tolerance to partial submergence. This partly correlated with morphogenetic adaptations, e. g. adventitious rooting and hypertrophy of stems and lenticels. Seedlings of all species were much more sensitive to total submergence than to partial submergence, especially when light transmission during flooding was strongly reduced. Seedlings of trees from softwood floodplain forest were able to endure longer periods of total submergence than those of hardwood floodplain forest. Because of their relative slow extension growth rates, seedlings of species from hardwood floodplain forest cannot avoid being totally submerged when flooded on low-lying sites.
http://scilib.univ.kiev.ua/article.php?2868990“How long can trees survive flooding before injury results? As you might expect, this has become an all too frequent question lately as torrential rains and bloated rivers continue to plague many regions in Iowa. Fortunately for most trees, the prospect for survival and continued growth is good. Even flood-sensitive trees will escape injury if flood waters recede in seven days or less. But, if flood waters cover roots of sensitive trees for longer periods, injury symptoms such as leaf chlorosis (yellowing), downward curling of leaves, leaf drop, and branch dieback may occur. And in a few extreme cases, entire trees may die.
Which trees are intolerant of flooding? Some of the more common species used in Iowa are sugar maple, white oak, yellow buckeye, tulip tree, black walnut, redbud, linden, red oak, and most pines and spruces. Researchers have found these species suffer severe injury or die if flood waters persist over their roots for one month or less.“
http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/hortnews/1993/7-14-1993/flood.html3 minutes of research tells me that some trees are more tolerant than others. But these sites deal with one week and one month periods.
What of a tree that's been living for thousands of years? How strong are they?
So, enough of trying to figure if a tree can survive under water.
The oldest living tree known (called the Methuselah Tree) is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California. The American Forestry Association estimates that it is 4,600 years old. Amazingly, it is not part of any “long chronology.” Its age, however, is remarkably close to the probable time of the flood, about 5,000 years ago. It should not be surprising that some trees alive today started growing soon after the flood.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ23.htmlAnd this is interesting:
Flood and Creation Dating the oldest Bristlecone pines now living quite possibly have been growing since right after the flood. With “Methuselah” going back to around 2600 B.C. according to Dr. Ferguson, this becomes a very real possibility. The actual date may be adjusted for extremely wet years which occurred in the past, as shown by the numerous dry lakes in the desert regions of eastern California and Nevada. Experiments show the trees can grow more than one ring in unusual seasons.
http://www.icr.org/article/381/I'm no longer sure what point you were trying to make.
Not really. The bible says that ALL of the mountains were covered and then the water was up 15 cubits. That would put the trees in question completely under water for months. From http://www.na.fs.fed.us/Spfo/pubs/n_resource/flood/toler.htm
- Tree injury increases in proportion to the percent of crown covered by water. Species that can survive standing in several feet of water for months may die in less than one month when their foliage is completely covered. Few species can tolerate more than one month of complete submersion during the growing season.
But you've yet to address the remainder of the world's foliage. The time it would have taken to recover from such a flood would mean that the surviving animals would have nothing to eat for some time. Most plant life would never recover.
Quote That being the case, that begs this big question: with 270 in existence, it would seem that the biblical account — while having some small basis of truth — has 269 other versions vying for their own piece of the “truth” pie. Yet….if these “legends” occur all over the world, they must be based on something. If this was just a minor flood, who cares. Why do we see it's story everywhere?
In chinese (manderin I think) the characters to make the word “boat” ('ship' actually) are:
Vessel + eight + persons
[I'm going to edit this and say this about the chinese character for ship:
“vessel +eight + mouth (persons) = ship”BTW, biblical scholars date the flood at around 2300 BCE, 500 years after the germination of the world's oldest tree.
Quote (kejonn @ April 01 2008,12:13) Not really. The bible says that ALL of the mountains were covered and then the water was up 15 cubits. That would put the trees in question completely under water for months. From http://www.na.fs.fed.us/Spfo/pubs/n_resource/flood/toler.htm - Tree injury increases in proportion to the percent of crown covered by water. Species that can survive standing in several feet of water for months may die in less than one month when their foliage is completely covered. Few species can tolerate more than one month of complete submersion during the growing season.
But you've yet to address the remainder of the world's foliage. The time it would have taken to recover from such a flood would mean that the surviving animals would have nothing to eat for some time. Most plant life would never recover.
Wouldn't their seeds still germinate and start a new generation of plants and trees after the flood?
Many seeds are presoaked in water to help them to germinate.Tim
Quote Wouldn't their seeds still germinate and start a new generation of plants and trees after the flood?
Many seeds are presoaked in water to help them to germinate.That's what I was thinking too. And the odd tree (one out of a million) might have survived, if it was the right species.
Have we ever tested this?Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 31 2008,19:20) Quote (kejonn @ April 01 2008,12:13) Not really. The bible says that ALL of the mountains were covered and then the water was up 15 cubits. That would put the trees in question completely under water for months. From http://www.na.fs.fed.us/Spfo/pubs/n_resource/flood/toler.htm - Tree injury increases in proportion to the percent of crown covered by water. Species that can survive standing in several feet of water for months may die in less than one month when their foliage is completely covered. Few species can tolerate more than one month of complete submersion during the growing season.
But you've yet to address the remainder of the world's foliage. The time it would have taken to recover from such a flood would mean that the surviving animals would have nothing to eat for some time. Most plant life would never recover.
Wouldn't their seeds still germinate and start a new generation of plants and trees after the flood?
Many seeds are presoaked in water to help them to germinate.Tim
I'm having difficulty getting a scientific answer, only answers from apologetics sites. Their never biased
.Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 31 2008,19:20) Quote (kejonn @ April 01 2008,12:13) Not really. The bible says that ALL of the mountains were covered and then the water was up 15 cubits. That would put the trees in question completely under water for months. From http://www.na.fs.fed.us/Spfo/pubs/n_resource/flood/toler.htm - Tree injury increases in proportion to the percent of crown covered by water. Species that can survive standing in several feet of water for months may die in less than one month when their foliage is completely covered. Few species can tolerate more than one month of complete submersion during the growing season.
But you've yet to address the remainder of the world's foliage. The time it would have taken to recover from such a flood would mean that the surviving animals would have nothing to eat for some time. Most plant life would never recover.
Wouldn't their seeds still germinate and start a new generation of plants and trees after the flood?
Many seeds are presoaked in water to help them to germinate.Tim
But another factor on seed survival is the level of salinity in the water. The world's oceans would have mixed with the rain water, and the seeds would have another detriment. Plus, no one has answer how salt water species of fish and other creatures survived the brackish environment for 150 days, and the same on fresh water species.Some things to consider on plant life during and after the flood, from http://www.geocities.com/pgspears/fs.html
- The Survival of Plant Species
Most plant communities would not be able to survive the conditions of the flood, for several reasons:
1. The seeds would soak in salt water for a year.
2. During this year, plant seeds would be subject to abrasion and damage by sediment-laden water. If the seed shells were cut during the flood, the chances of its survival after the flood would be practically nil.
3. Most seeds will have been buried deeply under sediment, deep enough to prevent sprouting.
4. For any seeds that did manage to sprout, another problem remains — most seeds need established soils in order to grow. The post flood environment, in contrast, would have been a silty, saltwater-soaked wasteland.
5. Many flowering plants require animal pollinators in order to reproduce. Even if a few of these managed to sprout, most would likely die long before the last two pollinators made the journey down from Ararat. On example is the fig wasp, which Richard Dawkins discusses in Climbing Mount Improbable. There are something like 900 species of fig, and almost all require their own specific species of fig wasp in order to reproduce. The existence of both species is contingent on preserving this symbiotic relationship. In this case and thousands of others like it, how did Noah and family maintain these intricate, interdependent relationships through the flood?
Creationist George Howe (1968) made an attempt to assess the survivability of plant species in relation to a global flood. Using 5 different types of plant seeds, Howe soaked them in shallow sea water for 20 weeks. The result? Only one of the 5 seeds sprouted without being cut. Two sprouted only when the seed shell was deliberately cut, and the other two failed to sprout at all. Howe's conclusion from this is that “there is widespread resistance to salt or fresh water soaking among the seeds of flowering plants.”
As Dr. Stanley Rice points out, however, the “results demonstrate nothing of the sort.” First, Howe selected only one type of plant — weeds. He included no mosses, no ferns, no trees of any kind, no shrubs, no herbs. Weeds are more tolerant than just about any other plant of environmental extremes, so Howe has attempted to stack the odds in his favor by selecting only a single, exceptionally robust type of seed. Second, Howe took his weed samples from Santa Barbara, a coastal area. Weeds close to the sea would be expected to have a higher salt tolerance than those farther from the sea. Third, Howe's experiment did not even attempt to replicate the same conditions which must have prevailed in the “Great Flood.” For example, Howe submerged his seeds for 20 weeks, less than half the amount of time needed. Nor did Howe factor in other important variables, such as how many seeds would remain within “sprouting distance” of the surface, how many seeds would grow without established soils, or how many seeds could survive the flood with their shells intact.
Quote The Survival of Plant Species Most plant communities would not be able to survive the conditions of the flood, for several reasons:
1. The seeds would soak in salt water for a year.
2. During this year, plant seeds would be subject to abrasion and damage by sediment-laden water. If the seed shells were cut during the flood, the chances of its survival after the flood would be practically nil.
3. Most seeds will have been buried deeply under sediment, deep enough to prevent sprouting.
4. For any seeds that did manage to sprout, another problem remains — most seeds need established soils in order to grow. The post flood environment, in contrast, would have been a silty, saltwater-soaked wasteland.
5. Many flowering plants require animal pollinators in order to reproduce. Even if a few of these managed to sprout, most would likely die long before the last two pollinators made the journey down from Ararat. On example is the fig wasp, which Richard Dawkins discusses in Climbing Mount Improbable. There are something like 900 species of fig, and almost all require their own specific species of fig wasp in order to reproduce. The existence of both species is contingent on preserving this symbiotic relationship. In this case and thousands of others like it, how did Noah and family maintain these intricate, interdependent relationships through the flood?
If you can believe in evolution, then you should have no problem in the slightest, to any degree knowing that these things could happen. Even though you believe that the chances would be practically nil, all you need is a couple to survive. Life has this tendancy to flourish and find a way.
Quote I'm having difficulty getting a scientific answer, As am i. As it turns out, no scientist has taken trillions of plants and submerged them in water to see what happens.
Quote (david @ Mar. 31 2008,19:58) Quote I'm having difficulty getting a scientific answer, As am i. As it turns out, no scientist has taken trillions of plants and submerged them in water to see what happens.
Quote I just finished watching a nova special on the scablands of the U.S. Forever everyone believed that they were caused by millions of years of slow erosion. It was “heresy” when someone suggested it was caused by water. Decades later, we know it was caused by a lake being damned by a glacier and the lake grew and when it broke, the water created the apparent “evidence” for what the geologists forever believed was millions of years of work. Such “evidence” was caused very quickly. We now know that this process actually happened many times over some 20,000 years or so. But my point is, what was forever believed to have been millions of years of slow erosion, can be created very very quickly, by water. Not in 40 days though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scablands
Stuart
Quote kejonn, did you know that all the variety of “dogs” we have today came from one “kind” of animal, the wolf? The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.
What has that got to do with natural selection? We got dog varieties by artificial selection.
How is it that the fossil record does not have a clear-cut change in the distribution of species that this would predict? A sudden drastic drop in the numbers of living specimens of a species, followed by a gradual rise again with super-fast evolution added would leave a very distinct archeological pattern, which would seem actually to be missing. The definition of 'kind' is conveniently not given. That is because it can mean anything a lunatic 'flood geologist' or lying creationist wants it to mean to suit the argument.
Stuart
Quote I believe that there is a variety of shapes and sizes between each “kind” of animal. The wolf (dog) can become a variety of dogs. But adding an extra toe to a horse or looking at smaller sized horses is not proof of evolution from one species into another. It's proof of diversity.
See? Not only do we get 'kind' meaning whatever you want, we then get distortions of the meanings of the words 'species' and 'proof'.Does shower of liars mean anything?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
