Re: Genesis 5
Suzanne
> harry k wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 8:57 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 18, 2:16 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 16, 12:04 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 15, 10:19 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 15, 7:45 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:20:50 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 14, 11:25 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 12:47 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> It's good clean fun, Harry, why quit? Presenting a creationist with
> >>>>>>>>> facts is really fun:-)). The best part of it is when they attempt to
> >>>>>>>>> deny the facts.
> >>>>>>>>> For example...Maggs and Suzanne, can you make a guess as to the total
> >>>>>>>>> weight of water, five miles deep on the face of the earth. After you
> >>>>>>>>> take that guess perhaps you can tell me why it is physically impossible
> >>>>>>>>> for that amount of water to exist on the surface of the earth.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> That is a new one to me. Please elucidate. It would, of course,
> >>>>>>>> increase the mass of the earth to some percentage which would, I
> >>>>>>>> presume, affect orbital mechanics. Beyond that I have no clue.
> >>>>>>> What he is describing might cause the earth to
> >>>>>>> spin like a raw egg on it's side, with a wobble.
> >>>>>> What would happen to the earth if it were completely covered in water?
> >>>>>> What would the tides look like?
> >>>>>>> The centrifugal force and gravity would keep it
> >>>>>>> all together anyway. If you notice the wobble
> >>>>>>> that is produced with spinning a raw egg, there
> >>>>>>> is a snap to the wobble which would add an
> >>>>>>> additional amount of centrifugal force to keep
> >>>>>>> the liquid on the planet. If you drew on paper
> >>>>>>> in two dimensions the shape of the shift of
> >>>>>>> the fluid on the planet in such a situation, it
> >>>>>>> would be in the shape of a boomerang,
> >>>>>>> which would produce an added mementum
> >>>>>>> to the earth in it's daily spin and in it's sun
> >>>>>>> encircling orbit. Everything would stay together.
> >>>>>> What mechanism would cause the earth to look like a boomerang? What
> >>>>>> direction would the boomerang be oriented?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> I didn't say that the earth would look like a boomerang.
> >>>>> Let me show you what I said. Have you yet spun a
> >>>>> raw egg? If so, do you see that it spins with a hesitation
> >>>>> every few parts of a second? The liquid egg will shift
> >>>>> in the direction of the spin in a straight line. If you drew
> >>>>> "the direction" of the shift of the raw egg inside the egg,
> >>>>> it would go in a straight line and then be jerked a new
> >>>>> direction and go in another straight line. I am not saying
> >>>>> that the earth would be boomerang shaped, but the
> >>>>> direction of the movement of the fluid interior of the
> >>>>> egg would shift in a series of straight lines. If you put
> >>>>> those directions down on paper, you would have lines
> >>>>> that were in obtuse angles to one another. That is how
> >>>>> a boomerang is shaped. The movement of the fluid
> >>>>> in the egg would cause the egg to have a hesitation
> >>>>> and then a wobble as it spins on it's side, when you
> >>>>> spin it. The movement of the fluid inside the egg
> >>>>> changing courses would produce a mementum to
> >>>>> propel the egg to keep spinning because of the
> >>>>> angular momentum, and the water would not fall
> >>>>> off of the earth, or collapse the foundation upon
> >>>>> which is rests. The pull of the moon as it is in
> >>>>> orbit around the earth would also tend to
> >>>>> stabilize the waters of the earth. When it's high
> >>>>> tide on one side of the earth, the moon also
> >>>>> attracts the water on the opposite side of the
> >>>>> earth to also be in high tide. This is visible from
> >>>>> outer space, they say. The waters tend to mound
> >>>>> up near the place where the moon is the closest,
> >>>>> and the same thing happens on the opposite side
> >>>>> even with moon on the opposite side of the
> >>>>> earth.
> >>>>> Flood waters from a global flood may not have
> >>>>> to have been 5 miles deep, either, since there is
> >>>>> a Bible verse that refers to the bowing down of
> >>>>> the mountains to the Lord. Upturned strata, on
> >>>>> Mt. Ararat, for example, indicates that the
> >>>>> mountains were at one time taller than now.
> >>>>> Austin, Texas is ringed by seven anciently
> >>>>> extinct volcanoes. They have settled down
> >>>>> deeper into the earth now and are just really
> >>>>> tall hills. They still have lava plugs, but they
> >>>>> are no longer active. Yet there is a field near
> >>>>> to Austin, that is a field of hardened lava.
> >>>>> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> And once again you demonstrate why people call you a liar when you
> >>>> claim having been in a graduate (?physics? was it?) program.
> >>>> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
> >>> Harry, you are lying. I have never said anything about being in any
> >>> kind of a graduate program at all. In fact, I said that I had never
> >>> had
> >>> any higher physics classes. Tell the truth from now on, rather than
> >>> trying to start something.
> >>> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> Again, my apologies if I misspoke. I am sure others will confirm it
> >> if I was right. I was probably wrong though, not uncommon...
>
> >> BTW. do you see how one can admit being wrong? You should try it
> >> sometime.
>
> >> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Okay. I found it by accident. Your claim was to have been in
> > "graduate physics major"
>
> > ***********************
> >>>> On Nov 14, 3:46 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> You stated elsewhere; "I went to the University of Texas in Austin,
> >>>>>> Texas, the original campus. I was a physics major, but I switched to
> >>>>>> Education."
>
> > And:
>
> > Nov 19, Post 738 (currently) on talk.origins 'did man walk on the moon
> > and creationism'
>
> >>>> Did you attend UoT as a physics major? Of course not. A silent fart
> >>>> still smells.
> >>> Yes I did attend as a physics major.
> >> For how long were you a physics major? How many physics or
> >> mathematics courses did you complete as a physics major?
>
> > The first year in college I was enrolled in physics,
> > and that's it.
>
> > *************
>
> > So just how long did you stay in it? My bet is that you got tossed for
> > arguing with the professor.
>
> > I won my bet about your claim to having "met" vB and and length of the
> > talk. In both cases you finally had to admit it was only while going
> > through the receiving line. Even your claim of "several minutes" is
> > supect as a lowly student would not have been allowed to hold up the
> > line that long.
>
> > Harry K
>
> Good man, Harry. Quite frankly, I didn't believe you, yet it was hard to
> reconcile her beliefs with her lack of knowledge of physics. Glad you
> found this.- Hide quoted text -
>
Harry is not telling the truth again. I have not said that I was a
"graduate" in anything. He says above:
HARRY WROTE:
'Okay. I found it by accident. Your claim was to
have been in
"graduate physics major" '
END OF QUOTE
>
He has put in the word "graduate," and that is not
correct. However it is correct that I was a physics
major when I enrolled as a freshman. He does not
seem to understand that.
>
You, Ralph, say to him "Good man, Harry." which
shows that you, too, do not understand how a
person enrolls in a university.
You can see these divisions at this URL:
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/ugdegrees.html
You guys are revealing a lot about yourselves. : )
>
Suzanne
Ralph
What I meant was I certainly couldn't tell you ever had a physics course
or any other science course for that matter. If you did they never
taught you that water seeks its own level.
Suzanne
>
It doesn't if the levees hold. In this case, for
example, the level your insult wanted to
reach, did not produce the result that you
must've been hoping for. What it did, though,
is show the level at which you are abiding. : D
>
Happy Thanksgiving
Suzanne
Ralph
No Suzanne, water still 'seeks' its own level. In your example above,
breach the levee and see how quickly the water will not only seek its
own level, but find it:-)).
Suzanne
>
You don't know anything then about pitch It is a plant residue,
created in simple mud that has been aged for a while. It is
capable of keeping out the wrath of any flood, provided that
your environment is swabbed with it. In the Bible it is the same
as the word for "atonement." It will keep out the ravages of any
flood that the world can swirl around you. It will keep out the
height of any flood, no matter how high the water rises. If you
find yourself in high water, it can only go so high, and that is
above the highest form of land on the earth. The Lord's level
is higher than that highest level. So water can't seek any higher
than the world can take you, and the Lord will take someone
higher than that, because he is able to get above the level that
any water seeks. All you have to do is "pitch" your safety
at a higher level.
harry k
You are correct. I screwed up there and dunno where I got that
"graduate" from. Give me a few more errors and I will have you
teaching Einstein physics :).
Harry K
Ralph
You don't know anything outside of your biblical world. I can tell you
for a fact, that your 'Lord' notwithstanding, water will seek its own
level and pitch, concrete or whatever has nothing to do with the physics
of fluids.
Suzanne
>
highest mountain and submerge the ark of Noah, since
Noah's ark was above the highest level of any water on
earth.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
Einstein physics. He was one super-incredible scientist.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
Your insults seem to seek your idea of a level.
Yet you sound like you wish to blame someone
else for that.
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<babecfbc-57b8-461d...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
Noah's ark is a part of a fictional story. It never happened. You know
that.
Ralph
Do you drink or smoke pot, Suzanne? Sometimes the replies you make to a
post are so weird that is the only possible explanation.
Let's deal with your reply above. Water will seek its own level, period.
If the ark of Noah didn't spring a leak it would rise with the water.
The ark and how high it rose, isn't a consideration of water seeking its
own level. It appears that you might not know the meaning of the term
'water seeks its own level', in which case you didn't take a physics
course at the college level and you didn't even take a general science
course in elementary school.
Ralph
I just did above.
> Pitch is like tar.
I know what pitch is and you need to be specific here, you are not
talking about oil based pitch.
> Your insults seem to seek your idea of a level.
> Yet you sound like you wish to blame someone
> else for that.
> Suzanne
Whew! I'll let someone with a better sense of humor than me handle that
one:-))).
Suzanne
>
Actually, Ralph, I was wondering those things about your
wierd recent answer, talking about "concrete," when no
one had mentioned concrete at all. You didn't sound like
you had really understood what had been said. However,
I thought maybe you were tired or something when you
had replied.
>
>
Suzanne
harry k
> Suzanne wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 7:11 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Suzanne wrote:
> >>> On Nov 26, 7:50 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Suzanne wrote:
>
<snip for brevity>
> >>> flood that the world can swirl around you. It will keep out the
> >>> height of any flood, no matter how high the water rises. If you
> >>> find yourself in high water, it can only go so high, and that is
> >>> above the highest form of land on the earth. The Lord's level
> >>> is higher than that highest level. So water can't seek any higher
> >>> than the world can take you, and the Lord will take someone
> >>> higher than that, because he is able to get above the level that
> >>> any water seeks. All you have to do is "pitch" your safety
> >>> at a higher level.
> >> You don't know anything outside of your biblical world. I can tell you
> >> for a fact, that your 'Lord' notwithstanding, water will seek its own
> >> level and pitch, concrete or whatever has nothing to do with the physics
> >> of fluids.
>
> > No one has mentioned concrete.
>
> I just did above.
>
> > Pitch is like tar.
>
> I know what pitch is and you need to be specific here, you are not
> talking about oil based pitch.
>
> > Your insults seem to seek your idea of a level.
> > Yet you sound like you wish to blame someone
> > else for that.
> > Suzanne
>
> Whew! I'll let someone with a better sense of humor than me handle that
> one:-))).
I would do it for you but I'm laughing too hard.
Harry K
harry k
> On Nov 26, 7:50 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Suzanne wrote:
> > > On Nov 23, 10:37 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Suzanne wrote:
> > >>> On Nov <
<Another massive snip>
>>>>http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/ugdegrees.html
> > >>> You guys are revealing a lot about yourselves. : )
> > >>> Suzanne
> > >> What I meant was I certainly couldn't tell you ever had a physics course
> > >> or any other science course for that matter. If you did they never
> > >> taught you that water seeks its own level.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > It doesn't if the levees hold. In this case, for
> > > example, the level your insult wanted to
> > > reach, did not produce the result that you
> > > must've been hoping for. What it did, though,
> > > is show the level at which you are abiding. : D
> > > Happy Thanksgiving
> > > Suzanne
>
> > No Suzanne, water still 'seeks' its own level. In your example above,
> > breach the levee and see how quickly the water will not only seek its
> > own level, but find it:-)).- Hide quoted text -
>
> Water that seeks it's own level cannot rise up above the
> highest mountain and submerge the ark of Noah, since
> Noah's ark was above the highest level of any water on
> earth.
>
> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nope for either of 2 reasons:
1. There was no flood and therefore no ark.
2. If there had been a flood, an ark that size made of wood would
have sunk as soon as it was launched. Ask any naval architect.
Naval architect = designer of boats, I added that so you wouldn't
have to look it up.
Harry K
harry k
LOL
Harry K
harry k
So sorta back to the question you have been asked. Just how long did
you stay in that physics major?
Harry K
Ralph
Well you dishonest witch, it would be easier for all to understand if
you left the original post intact. I have previously told you to quit
clipping posts but being the dishonest Christian you are, you keep right
on selectively removing material, without notation I might add, and
obscure the meaning of prior posts.
When I mentioned concrete it was in reply to your mentioning pitch. Put
the god damn material back in the post!!
Suzanne
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> <babecfbc-57b8-461d-8d21-09ef002a8...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
there. The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
did happen. There is evidence on the ocean floor between
the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
On "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep."
It is toward the end of the program if you can find it. I
saw it on Discovery International but I think it also appears
sometimes on the regular History Channel. It also mentioned
Yonaguni off the coast of Japan which is estimated to be
near 10,000 years old, which is under the sea now, of
course.
>
Suzanne
Ralph
You still can't explain how the earth's crust was able to sustain the
weight of the flood water. Until you can do that, you have no argument.
Free Lunch
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<136301ed-10ff-4ecb...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 30, 7:22�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <babecfbc-57b8-461d-8d21-09ef002a8...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
...
>> >Water that seeks it's own level cannot rise up above the
>> >highest mountain and submerge the ark of Noah, since
>> >Noah's ark was above the highest level of any water on
>> >earth.
>>
>> Noah's ark is a part of a fictional story. It never happened. You know
>> that.
>>
>The Bible says that it did happen.
So you say. It does not matter whether it is your interpretation that is
wrong or the Bible itself that is wrong. The fact is clear -- Noah's
Flood did not happen. Those who claim that it is a historical fact are
repeating falsehoods. The evidence shows that it did not happen.
>Jesus also referred to
>the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
>there.
The Gospels, as you know, are not reliable history, so any claims about
what Jesus may have said must be considered with a lot of scepticism.
>The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
>did happen.
No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
> There is evidence on the ocean floor between
>the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
>shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
>took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
>History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channel
may have claimed.
>On "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep."
>It is toward the end of the program if you can find it.
The physical evidence shows that this did not happen.
>I saw it on Discovery International but I think it also appears
>sometimes on the regular History Channel. It also mentioned
>Yonaguni off the coast of Japan which is estimated to be
>near 10,000 years old, which is under the sea now, of
>course.
Still doesn't help. I don't really care what you want your Bible to say
or how import it is for you, your doctrine about the Flood is false. You
repeat lies every time you claim that Noah's Flood happened. You cannot
provide any evidence -- and entertainment shows are not evidence, even
if they are on channels that occasionally have unreliable
popularizations of science on them.
harry k
> On Nov 30, 7:22 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > <babecfbc-57b8-461d-8d21-09ef002a8...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >On Nov 26, 7:50 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Suzanne wrote:
> > >> > On Nov 23, 10:37 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Suzanne wrote:
> > >> >>> On Nov 19, 3:50 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>> harry k wrote:
> > >> >>>>> On Nov 18, 8:57 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<massive snip>
You are still sstuck with those timelines I referred you to.
Remember? The ones that show continual habitation of China, Egypt and
Mesopotamia with no gap big enought into which to fit a global flood?
Don't even try that lame 'Joe Blow is mentioned as is...., and they
are in the bible...' Explain the lack of the gap.
I dont' know how many times you have been told that myths and legends
are not evidence of anythign...well, they are evidence of your
credulity.
Harry K
Suzanne
deep, according to the reckoning of some that have a theory
as to how this took place, based on biblical verses. You are
assuming that the highest mountain today is what had to be
covered, yet you don't really know today what the highest mt.
was during the time that Noah's flood would have occurred.
I have explained previously that there are verses in the Bible
that tell of the mountains "lying down." There are verses that
tell that the mountains rose up during or after the flood and
that the water went down into the valleys. As you also know,
no doubt, the Bible indicates that in the pre-flood world, there
was a canopy (the "raqiya") that covered the atmosphere of
the earth, and that there was water above that canopy. As you
undoubtedly also already know the biblical account says that
all the water from Noah's flood didn't come just from the
internally located "fountains of the deep," but also from the
"windows of heaven." Though most accounts do not mention
any other explanation other than just that the waters drained
off, the new information about the Wadsleyite that has been
found, a stone that is supposed to be capable of holding or
somehow bringing forth water, has introduced some new
knowledge not known by people before a few years ago, and
there is the Bible verse that says that God bound up the waters
"as with a stone." I am not saying "this is it," but I am simply
offering that there is something there that introduces the idea
we can't judge the flood based only on what we think we know
about the earth, when there are many things about it that we
simply do not know. If Wadsleyite is capable of containing
oceans of water in some kind of compressed state, or can
produce the form we know of as water, that could answer a
lot of questions. I have also told you that Wadsleyite has been
found in meteors, and that this is also reminiscent of the term
"windows of heaven," if it means in addition to the water that
was above the raqiya/canopy.
>
Another thing, if there was a raqiya in place around the
atmosphere of the earth in Noah's day, it most probably would
have shielded the earth from some of the EMR energies that
could have altered the dating of things on the earth, which
could affect in turn the amount of carbon that is residual in
things which gets dated by the carbon dating system. In other
words, if scientists do not consider the presence of a raqiya
in pre-flood days, then what they would conclude is that any
carbon dated object would appear to be vastly older than it
actually is, which is a point made prominent by the Young
Earth Creationist groups.
>
Plate Tectonics is a rather new field, in case you are not
aware of it. Your view of the earth's crust not being able to
sustain the weight of the water that you conclude must
have been present, could even have something to do with
the breaking up of continental plates. There are magnetic
lines on the earth's floor that tell about switches in the
polarity of the earth, and the possible switches in the
directions of the separating plates that are interesting to
investigate. In modern times we now about Pangaea's
breaking up into Eurasia and Gondwanaland, and then
the formation of the continents. But did you know there is
even a more ancient configuration of the land of the earth,
where there were the continents were strung out end to
end and forming a band of continents like a belt around the
earth before Pangaea was formed? All this movement of
continents would affect the heights of the highest mountains
in Noah's day. There are many things to consider above
those that you are arguing against.
http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
Can you identify gopher wood? It is believed to be Cypress,
and that is a strong light-weight wood.
>
Suzanne
harry k
I can't believe I read that without dying of laughter.
Mountains lying down and tectonic plate movement in that short of a
period would have melted the crust.
It is amazing what the creationist morons will distort, lie about,
twist and ignore to try to make reality match a book of myths.
Harry K
Ralph
I don't know that I would call anything that even hinted at such
nonsense, a 'theory'. It would fit better as a WAG.
> You are
> assuming that the highest mountain today is what had to be
> covered, yet you don't really know today what the highest mt.
> was during the time that Noah's flood would have occurred.
Of course I do, it is the same as the mountains we have today. It was
only 4,500 years ago, according to the legend, just what fib do you
think you can conjure that would change the height of the tallest
mountains by 23,000 feet? This is an excellent example of the apologetic
being worse than the original event itself.
> I have explained previously that there are verses in the Bible
> that tell of the mountains "lying down."
Tell me Suzanne, how do the mountains 'lie down'? This process must be a
real doozy.
> There are verses that
> tell that the mountains rose up during or after the flood and
> that the water went down into the valleys.
Yes there are and there are verses that tell us that talking demons
reside in our bodies and people ride to heaven in a chariot of fire. All
pure nonsense. The mountains and valleys didn't change in the
intervening period between the alleged flood and today. Persons like you
and other fundamentalists who are so ignorant of modern science give a
bad name to other Christians.
> As you also know,
> no doubt, the Bible indicates that in the pre-flood world, there
> was a canopy (the "raqiya") that covered the atmosphere of
> the earth, and that there was water above that canopy.
A canopy that would be physically impossible for several reasons not the
least of which is th added pressure of the atmosphere and the resulting
darkness from the massive amounts of water. Oh...wait a minute...what do
you think gravity would do to the canopy? Again, apologetics run wild.
> As you
> undoubtedly also already know the biblical account says that
> all the water from Noah's flood didn't come just from the
> internally located "fountains of the deep," but also from the
> "windows of heaven."
I'm really not that into where the water came from and where it went,
however, when the terminology is "fountains of the deep" and 'windows of
heaven", most people can see this most obvious symbolism reference. Same
thing applies to the "tree of life" and the "tree of knowledge of good
and evil".
> Though most accounts do not mention
> any other explanation other than just that the waters drained
> off, the new information about the Wadsleyite that has been
> found, a stone that is supposed to be capable of holding or
> somehow bringing forth water, has introduced some new
> knowledge not known by people before a few years ago, and
> there is the Bible verse that says that God bound up the waters
> "as with a stone." I am not saying "this is it," but I am simply
> offering that there is something there that introduces the idea
> we can't judge the flood based only on what we think we know
> about the earth, when there are many things about it that we
> simply do not know.
Wow! Sometimes the lengths you go to protect your literal version of the
bible boggles the mind, not only mine, but anyone with a modicum of
scientific knowledge.
> If Wadsleyite is capable of containing
> oceans of water in some kind of compressed state, or can
> produce the form we know of as water, that could answer a
> lot of questions.
Yes, this is so exciting!!! All we need now is an explanation of how
this water was absorbed and how it reached the location where it could
be absorbed.
> I have also told you that Wadsleyite has been
> found in meteors, and that this is also reminiscent of the term
> "windows of heaven," if it means in addition to the water that
> was above the raqiya/canopy.
You don't understand squat about Wadsleyite, do you?
> Another thing, if there was a raqiya in place around the
> atmosphere of the earth in Noah's day, it most probably would
> have shielded the earth from some of the EMR energies that
> could have altered the dating of things on the earth, which
> could affect in turn the amount of carbon that is residual in
> things which gets dated by the carbon dating system.
There was no 'raqiya' in place. I've told you why that is physically
impossible.
Since items dated by carbon dating are calibrated, I don't think your
hair-brained creationist scheme will hold water:-)))).
> In other
> words, if scientists do not consider the presence of a raqiya
> in pre-flood days, then what they would conclude is that any
> carbon dated object would appear to be vastly older than it
> actually is, which is a point made prominent by the Young
> Earth Creationist groups.
Why would scientists consider what they have already shown to be
impossible? There are no 'prominent' young earth creationist groups.
There groups practice religion and apologetics, not science.
> Plate Tectonics is a rather new field, in case you are not
> aware of it.
I'm aware of it. Although most of science denied the theory of plate
tectonics, when the evidence was presented it became an accepted
scientific theory. Creationists on the other hand, denied it until the
movement of continents was actually measured.
> Your view of the earth's crust not being able to
> sustain the weight of the water that you conclude must
> have been present, could even have something to do with
> the breaking up of continental plates.
Only in the minds of scientifically illiterate creationists. How does it
feel to deny the sciences the majority of the sciences of the world?
The breaking up of all of the previous super continents was due to the
internal heat of the earth. If the earth were covered with the amount
of water required for a global flood when the continents were young they
would be at the floor of the ocean
> There are magnetic
> lines on the earth's floor that tell about switches in the
> polarity of the earth, and the possible switches in the
> directions of the separating plates that are interesting to
> investigate.
Yes, I know very well. It is a good refutation of the young earth
creationist argument and also the decline of the earth's magnetic field
today.
> In modern times we now about Pangaea's
> breaking up into Eurasia and Gondwanaland, and then
> the formation of the continents.
How long ago was this, Suzanne?
> But did you know there is
> even a more ancient configuration of the land of the earth,
> where there were the continents were strung out end to
> end and forming a band of continents like a belt around the
> earth before Pangaea was formed?
What does this have to do with your case of a great flood??
You might be referring to Rodinia. I don't think that the lay of this
super continent was known.
>All this movement of
> continents would affect the heights of the highest mountains
> in Noah's day.
Not so! You provide the evidence if you think so. I'm tired of fighting
surmises, guess, might-have-beens. It is time for you to substantiate
your assertions.
> There are many things to consider above
> those that you are arguing against.
Say what??
> http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood
> Suzanne
You won't find any science at 'creationwiki', nor at any other
creationist crap site.
Suzanne
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
asking anyway? I entered college as a physics major, and
after a year I changed my major. But so what? That doesn't
stop one's interest in a subject. Do you have an interest
in that field yourself, and are you a physicist?
>
Suzanne
Ralph
A statement that means nothing in the discussion at hand, but that is
Suzanne's modus operandi. Can't refute the claim, try obfuscation.
Suzanne
that you thought pitch had something to do with concrete?
You have insulted me over and over again, and because
of that I get the idea that you think I am the kind of person
that would return evil. I'm not that kind of person, nor have
acted against your comments.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:30:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> <136301ed-10ff-4ecb-aaec-6e5c05d6f...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Nov 30, 7:22 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> <babecfbc-57b8-461d-8d21-09ef002a8...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> ...
>
> >> >Water that seeks it's own level cannot rise up above the
> >> >highest mountain and submerge the ark of Noah, since
> >> >Noah's ark was above the highest level of any water on
> >> >earth.
>
> >> Noah's ark is a part of a fictional story. It never happened. You know
> >> that.
>
> >The Bible says that it did happen.
>
> So you say. It does not matter whether it is your interpretation that is
> wrong or the Bible itself that is wrong. The fact is clear -- Noah's
> Flood did not happen. Those who claim that it is a historical fact are
> repeating falsehoods. The evidence shows that it did not happen.
>
that is wrong or the Bible itself that is wrong."
>
> >Jesus also referred to
> >the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
> >there.
>
> The Gospels, as you know, are not reliable history, so any claims about
> what Jesus may have said must be considered with a lot of scepticism.
>
>
> >The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
> >did happen.
>
> No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
>
>
> > There is evidence on the ocean floor between
> >the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
> >shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
> >took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
> >History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
>
> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channel
> may have claimed.
>
ocean floor between the Isle of Wight and the mainland.
And yes, it's very apparent that you don't care what the
History Channel has to say about your claims.
>
> >On "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep."
> >It is toward the end of the program if you can find it.
>
> The physical evidence shows that this did not happen.
>
That's why they explained it and put it in the documentary.
>
> >I saw it on Discovery International but I think it also appears
> >sometimes on the regular History Channel. It also mentioned
> >Yonaguni off the coast of Japan which is estimated to be
> >near 10,000 years old, which is under the sea now, of
> >course.
>
> Still doesn't help. I don't really care what you want your Bible to say
> or how import it is for you, your doctrine about the Flood is false. You
> repeat lies every time you claim that Noah's Flood happened. You cannot
> provide any evidence -- and entertainment shows are not evidence, even
> if they are on channels that occasionally have unreliable
> popularizations of science on them.
>
claims that are bogus, and you appear to not care
if anyone shows any evidence.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
referred to biblical things. I explained that to you earlier and
you didn't understand that, or else you tuned it out. There
is not a gap, it is there within the history that was given since
the first "emperor" after the flood is the very one that the
history of China says is "from the flood." I explained to you
that he is the one who made the first "border sacrifice," and
that in those days China met with the border of Iran, which
is not far from where the ark of Noah landed on Mt. Ararat,
at least close enough for the people to have reached the
border of China. This border sacrifice was used by all of
the emperors into the modern times, as has been reported,
and it refers to the one true God. You might go back and
seriously read what I have told you, and really look at the
websites that I gave you concerning this.
>
> I dont' know how many times you have been told that myths and legends
> are not evidence of anythign...well, they are evidence of your
> credulity.
>
other information that confirms what I've said to you.
You are ignoring what has been given to you to help
you, if you would only look. You need to read all the
history of China and not just some modern person's
take on it. Look into the ancient history rather than
in some godless version of it. Go look up the Border
Sacrifice, for starters.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
what you say, you are twisting what the Bible says.
>
Suzanne
>
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Dec 1, 9:11�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:30:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <136301ed-10ff-4ecb-aaec-6e5c05d6f...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >On Nov 30, 7:22�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
>> >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> <babecfbc-57b8-461d-8d21-09ef002a8...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> >Water that seeks it's own level cannot rise up above the
>> >> >highest mountain and submerge the ark of Noah, since
>> >> >Noah's ark was above the highest level of any water on
>> >> >earth.
>>
>> >> Noah's ark is a part of a fictional story. It never happened. You know
>> >> that.
>>
>> >The Bible says that it did happen.
>>
>> So you say. It does not matter whether it is your interpretation that is
>> wrong or the Bible itself that is wrong. The fact is clear -- Noah's
>> Flood did not happen. Those who claim that it is a historical fact are
>> repeating falsehoods. The evidence shows that it did not happen.
>>
>No, I did not say "it does not matter whether it is my interpretation
>that is wrong or the Bible itself that is wrong."
>QUIT LYING.
That is what I said. The story as you interpret it is wrong. I do not
care if it is merely your interpretation that is wrong or if the Bible
itself is wrong. The fact is that there was no global flood. The Bible
is not controlling when it comes to scientific facts. You make a mockery
of the Bible when you insist that it says things that are demonstrably
not true.
>> >Jesus also referred to
>> >the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
>> >there.
>>
>> The Gospels, as you know, are not reliable history, so any claims about
>> what Jesus may have said must be considered with a lot of scepticism.
>>
>The Gospels are the word of God and are reliable historically.
There is no evidence that God had anything to do with the Gospels. That
is a religious doctrine that you hold. The facts are still clear. The
Flood did not happen.
>> >The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
>> >did happen.
>>
>> No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
>>
>Yes, they do.
The facts are clear. The Flood did not happen. Old stories are never as
reliable as physical evidence. The evidence has spoken. Your dogma is
false.
>> > There is evidence on the ocean floor between
>> >the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
>> >shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
>> >took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
>> >History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
>>
>> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channel
>> may have claimed.
>>
>I just gave you the proof of what people have found on the
>ocean floor between the Isle of Wight and the mainland.
That is not evidence in any way for a global flood.
>And yes, it's very apparent that you don't care what the
>History Channel has to say about your claims.
I do care what scientists have to say. It is not my fault that you
cannot tell the difference between an entertainment show and science.
>> >On "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep."
>> >It is toward the end of the program if you can find it.
>>
>> The physical evidence shows that this did not happen.
>>
>The physical evidence does show that this did happen.
>That's why they explained it and put it in the documentary.
No, that is not what the physical evidence says. I don't care what you
think you heard on an entertainment show.
>> >I saw it on Discovery International but I think it also appears
>> >sometimes on the regular History Channel. It also mentioned
>> >Yonaguni off the coast of Japan which is estimated to be
>> >near 10,000 years old, which is under the sea now, of
>> >course.
>>
>> Still doesn't help. I don't really care what you want your Bible to say
>> or how import it is for you, your doctrine about the Flood is false. You
>> repeat lies every time you claim that Noah's Flood happened. You cannot
>> provide any evidence -- and entertainment shows are not evidence, even
>> if they are on channels that occasionally have unreliable
>> popularizations of science on them.
>>
>You make statements without any evidence, and
>claims that are bogus, and you appear to not care
>if anyone shows any evidence.
You have been directed to the evidence many times. You have refused to
look at it. You want to remain ignorant so you can justify lying about
the Flood in your mind.
First, you can start with the current distribution of plants and animals
on earth. Second, you can look at what plants and animals can survive
brackish water for a year. Third, you can look at the fact that there is
no convenient time in Bible-Storyland for the Flood to have happened
that does not conflict with what we know about human cultures that
continued to exist at the time. Fourth, you can look at the
(pre-)historical distribution of plants and animals on earth and see how
they tie to current distributions.
<dozens of items skipped because this is all you will do>
Finally, you can ignore everything and just keep lying to us about the
Flood. I am sure that will be your choice because you worship your
interpretation of the Bible and are inerrant in you interpretation. If
the Flood did not happen, you made a mistake, but you cannot make a
mistake.
Keep your lies coming.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Dec 2, 11:41�pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 1:20�pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
There was no such Flood. You lie to us each time you try to twist
reality to fit your demented dogma. You mock God with your teachings.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Ralph
The only person who thought that was either you or one of your other
brain dead creationist friends. Pitch and concrete are both used to
resist water pressure, that was my connection.
I don't mind people reading my posts, that's why I make them. I do mind
your arrogant and ignorant decision to clip them. Do you understanding
that or do I have to use smaller words?
> You have insulted me over and over again, and because
> of that I get the idea that you think I am the kind of person
> that would return evil. I'm not that kind of person, nor have
> acted against your comments.
> Suzanne
You have asked for every insult that I have give to you.
Ralph
If the bible says that the mountains 'bowed down', then the bible is wrong.
Ralph
> On Dec 1, 9:11 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:30:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <136301ed-10ff-4ecb-aaec-6e5c05d6f...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 7:22 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
>>>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> <babecfbc-57b8-461d-8d21-09ef002a8...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>> ...
>>
>>>>> Water that seeks it's own level cannot rise up above the
>>>>> highest mountain and submerge the ark of Noah, since
>>>>> Noah's ark was above the highest level of any water on
>>>>> earth.
>>>> Noah's ark is a part of a fictional story. It never happened. You know
>>>> that.
>>> The Bible says that it did happen.
>> So you say. It does not matter whether it is your interpretation that is
>> wrong or the Bible itself that is wrong. The fact is clear -- Noah's
>> Flood did not happen. Those who claim that it is a historical fact are
>> repeating falsehoods. The evidence shows that it did not happen.
>>
> No, I did not say "it does not matter whether it is my interpretation
> that is wrong or the Bible itself that is wrong."
> QUIT LYING.
You inferred it by your replies.
>>> Jesus also referred to
>>> the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
>>> there.
>> The Gospels, as you know, are not reliable history, so any claims about
>> what Jesus may have said must be considered with a lot of scepticism.
>>
> The Gospels are the word of God and are reliable historically.
>>> The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
>>> did happen.
>> No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
>>
> Yes, they do.
There was no global flood, Suzanne, quit attempting to shoe there was one.
>>> There is evidence on the ocean floor between
>>> the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
>>> shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
>>> took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
>>> History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
>> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channel
>> may have claimed.
>>
> I just gave you the proof of what people have found on the
> ocean floor between the Isle of Wight and the mainland.
> And yes, it's very apparent that you don't care what the
> History Channel has to say about your claims.
If you are referring to the great Mediterranean flood, you are right.
This flood, however, doesn't come close to being a global flood.
harry k
So someone who was in a physics major thinks that mountains can rise
and fall like yo-yo? Did you even pass the _first_ class session?
Have you _any_ concept of how much energy would be involved in such
rapid plate movements?
Harry K
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now try refuting Egypt records...then Mesopotamia. Again. That a
passing reference to a name in the bible occurs in an historical
record is no proof that the bible is correct. There is world wide
evidence written in the rocks, let alone all the biological, phisics
and most of the other science fields that it nver happened.
I would love to be fly on the wall when you face your maker and he
asks "I gave you a brain, why did you not use it? Why did you mock
me?"
Harry K
harry k
Okay, you finally answered it so it could not be mistaken. You just
said "after a year" thus you were in the major for a year.
It is to laugh. Your demonstration of physics shows that you could
not have passed the first semester.
Harry K
Suzanne
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:28:08 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com>
said.
>
> The story as you interpret it is wrong. I do not
> care if it is merely your interpretation that is wrong or if the Bible
> itself is wrong. The fact is that there was no global flood. The Bible
> is not controlling when it comes to scientific facts. You make a mockery
> of the Bible when you insist that it says things that are demonstrably
> not true.
>
doesn't say much. Neither does twisting what someone says and feeding
it back as being something they did
not say.
>
> >> >Jesus also referred to
> >> >the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
> >> >there.
>
> >> The Gospels, as you know, are not reliable history, so any claims about
> >> what Jesus may have said must be considered with a lot of scepticism.
>
> >The Gospels are the word of God and are reliable historically.
>
> There is no evidence that God had anything to do with the Gospels. That
> is a religious doctrine that you hold. The facts are still clear. The
> Flood did not happen.
>
>
> >> >The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
> >> >did happen.
>
> >> No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
>
> >Yes, they do.
>
> The facts are clear. The Flood did not happen. Old stories are never as
> reliable as physical evidence. The evidence has spoken. Your dogma is
> false.
>
written long, long ago, there was a flood. You have
not presented such a document because you have
no defense of your position.
>
> >> > There is evidence on the ocean floor between
> >> >the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
> >> >shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
> >> >took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
> >> >History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
>
> >> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channel
> >> may have claimed.
>
when it was seen and what they said. You have not
given anything.
>
> >I just gave you the proof of what people have found on the
> >ocean floor between the Isle of Wight and the mainland.
>
> That is not evidence in any way for a global flood.
>
doing. You are doing nothing, contributing nothing.
>
> >And yes, it's very apparent that you don't care what the
> >History Channel has to say about your claims.
>
> I do care what scientists have to say. It is not my fault that you
> cannot tell the difference between an entertainment show and science.
>
scientists said that was cited above
about the information found on the ocean floor.
The history that they are saying is found there, was
not something someone planted just for your
"entertainment." It's real history.
>
> >> >On "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep."
> >> >It is toward the end of the program if you can find it.
>
> >> The physical evidence shows that this did not happen.
>
> >The physical evidence does show that this did happen.
> >That's why they explained it and put it in the documentary.
>
> No, that is not what the physical evidence says. I don't care what you
> think you heard on an entertainment show.
>
informative history program to only be "entertainment."
History was not formed for your entertainment.
>
>
>
>
> >> >I saw it on Discovery International but I think it also appears
> >> >sometimes on the regular History Channel. It also mentioned
> >> >Yonaguni off the coast of Japan which is estimated to be
> >> >near 10,000 years old, which is under the sea now, of
> >> >course.
>
> >> Still doesn't help. I don't really care what you want your Bible to say
> >> or how import it is for you, your doctrine about the Flood is false. You
> >> repeat lies every time you claim that Noah's Flood happened. You cannot
> >> provide any evidence -- and entertainment shows are not evidence, even
> >> if they are on channels that occasionally have unreliable
> >> popularizations of science on them.
>
> >You make statements without any evidence, and
> >claims that are bogus, and you appear to not care
> >if anyone shows any evidence.
>
> You have been directed to the evidence many times. You have refused to
> look at it. You want to remain ignorant so you can justify lying about
> the Flood in your mind.
>
>
> First, you can start with the current distribution of plants and animals
> on earth. >>
>
do not disprove a global flood.
>
> Second, you can look at what plants and animals can > survive
> brackish water for a year.
>
year? I might give you a gold
star if you explain your statement. : )
>
> Third, you can look at the fact that there is
> no convenient time in Bible-Storyland for the Flood to > have happened
> that does not conflict with what we know about
> human cultures that
> continued to exist at the time.
>
>
> Fourth, you can look at the
> (pre-)historical distribution of plants and animals on
> earth and see how
> they tie to current distributions.
>
can see in a sort of time line or progression line?
>
> <dozens of items skipped because this is all you
> will do>
>
>
> Finally, you can ignore everything and just keep lying to us about the
> Flood. I am sure that will be your choice because you worship your
> interpretation of the Bible and are inerrant in you interpretation. If
> the Flood did not happen, you made a mistake, but you cannot make a
> mistake.
>
>
Bless your heart. I'm not lying to you by telling you what the Bible
says, but I can see that you don't know that.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
claimed and I do understand what you are saying. I've
had experiences like that also. I've told you that if you
do not want a post to be shortened, I will not shorten
it. If you remember, though, someone had complained
that the posts get too long and should be snipped.
>
Suzanne
Gregory A Greenman
> On Dec 4, 8:51=A0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:28:08 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Dec 1, 9:11=A0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:30:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> > >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> <136301ed-10ff-4ecb-aaec-6e5c05d6f...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > >> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> > >> >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> :
> >
> > >> ...
> >
> > >> >> >Water that seeks it's own level cannot rise up above the
> > >> >> >highest mountain and submerge the ark of Noah, since
> > >> >> >Noah's ark was above the highest level of any water on
> > >> >> >earth.
> >
> now
> > >> >> that.
> >
> > >> >The Bible says that it did happen.
> >
> is
> > >> wrong or the Bible itself that is wrong. The fact is clear -- Noah's
> > >> Flood did not happen. Those who claim that it is a historical fact are
> > >> repeating falsehoods. The evidence shows that it did not happen.
> >
> > >No, I did not say "it does not matter whether it is my interpretation
> > >that is wrong or the Bible itself that is wrong."
> > >QUIT LYING.
> >
> > That is what I said.
> >
> You did not. People can read above what you
> said.
Suzanne, you are complaining that he put words in your mouth. He
did not do that. The words you are complaining about are ones he
said for himself. Free Lunch never claimed they were your words. In
fact, most of us can tell that they are not your words because they
are correct.
> > The story as you interpret it is wrong. I do not
> > care if it is merely your interpretation that is wrong or if the Bible
> > itself is wrong. The fact is that there was no global flood. The Bible
> > is not controlling when it comes to scientific facts. You make a mockery
> > of the Bible when you insist that it says things that are demonstrably
> > not true.
> >
> You are in a debate. Your merely saying "It is wrong,"
> doesn't say much. Neither does twisting what someone says and feeding
> it back as being something they did
> not say.
> >
> > >> >Jesus also referred to
> > >> >the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
> > >> >there.
> >
> > >> The Gospels, as you know, are not reliable history, so any claims abou=
> t
> > >> what Jesus may have said must be considered with a lot of scepticism.
> >
> > >The Gospels are the word of God and are reliable historically.
> >
> > There is no evidence that God had anything to do with the Gospels. That
> > is a religious doctrine that you hold. The facts are still clear. The
> > Flood did not happen.
> >
> Here we go again. You are just making claims.
There is more than plenty of evidence that the flood did not
happen. Here are a few:
1.
The arctic and antarctic ice sheets would have melted. Instead we
find, from ice cores, that they are over 50,000 years old.
2.
Assuming that all the animals somehow survived life on the ark,
they'd all become extinct soon after being let off. Think about it.
The two wolves would immediately eat the two deer. Now the deer are
extinct. A couple weeks later, having eaten the only two members of
their prey species the two wolves starve and they too are extinct.
Unless of course the deer get away. Then the wolves starve to death
a few days earlier. With no vegetation to eat, the deer also starve
to death.
3.
Many animals have specialized diets. Koalas pretty much only eat
eucalyptus leaves. Pandas pretty much only eat bamboo. You've
claimed that the animals came to Noah. So, did these animals carry
a stash of food with them?
4.
Many animals would not be able to survive travel from Ararat to
their present habitats. Kangaroos and the aforementioned koalas are
examples of this. Another is the sloth. Sloths are only found in
south and central America. They walk only about 1.2 miles per hour.
They don't swim. They live virtually their entire lives in trees.
How could the sloth have possibly crossed the Atlantic?
5.
The pyramids predate the flood. At least some of them do. The
pyramid of Djoser was built before 2600 BCE. The flood supposedly
occurred around 2100 BCE. Did Noah's descendents just move to Egypt
and pick up the culture of all the people that drowned there?
> > >> >The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
> > >> >did happen.
> >
> > >> No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
> >
> > >Yes, they do.
> >
> > The facts are clear. The Flood did not happen. Old stories are never as
> > reliable as physical evidence. The evidence has spoken. Your dogma is
> > false.
> >
> According to the Bible, which is a document that is
> written long, long ago, there was a flood. You have
> not presented such a document because you have
> no defense of your position.
> >
> > >> > There is evidence on the ocean floor between
> > >> >the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
> > >> >shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
> > >> >took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
> > >> >History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
> >
> > >> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channe=
> l
> > >> may have claimed.
> >
> Stop lying. I have you the reference, the show, and
> when it was seen and what they said. You have not
> given anything.
Personally, I wish Free Lunch wasn't so dismissive of The History
Channel. I like that channel alot. It has alot of good shows.
Further, I'm sure it did talk of flood evidence in the English
Channel.
Suzanne, alot of people criticize you for being uneducated. I want
you to know that I think those people are completely wrong. I think
you have learned an impressive amount of information. The problem
is not the amount you've learned, it's your complete lack of
understanding of the information.
You seem to hear what you want to hear and fail to understand most
of the rest. The History Channel show is no doubt, an example of
this. There was a flood in The English Channel. It used to be dry
land. It is thought to have flooded over 180,000 years ago (not
8,000). And it was not part of a worldwide flood. If they said the
flood was of biblical proportions, they meant that metaphorically.
Think about it, if there was a worldwide flood, the English Channel
would already have been under water. So, how could there be flood
evidence there?
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
harry k
> On Dec 4, 9:10 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Suzanne wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 7:46 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Suzanne wrote:
> > >>> On Nov 30, 7:26 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Suzanne wrote:
> > >>>>> On Nov 26, 7:50 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Suzanne wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Nov 23, 10:37 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip to address one point>
>
> > > Then, are you saying that you don't mind people knowing
> > > that you thought pitch had something to do with concrete?
>
> > The only person who thought that was either you or one of your other
> > brain dead creationist friends. Pitch and concrete are both used to
> > resist water pressure, that was my connection.
>
> > I don't mind people reading my posts, that's why I make them. I do mind
> > your arrogant and ignorant decision to clip them. Do you understanding
> > that or do I have to use smaller words?
>
> > > You have insulted me over and over again, and because
> > > of that I get the idea that you think I am the kind of person
> > > that would return evil. I'm not that kind of person, nor have
> > > acted against your comments.
> > > Suzanne
>
> > You have asked for every insult that I have give to you.
>
> I did not "clip" the post for the reason that you have
> claimed and I do understand what you are saying. I've
> had experiences like that also. I've told you that if you
> do not want a post to be shortened, I will not shorten
> it. If you remember, though, someone had complained
> that the posts get too long and should be snipped.
>
> Suzanne
It does not matter _why_ you clipped it. The dishonest part is in not
marking it as having been done.
As above, I clipped that way-overlong post because I only wanted to
address this point. Note that I marked it and gave the reason why.
Repeating hundreds of lines of text is bad posting unless the entire
text is pertinent to what you are saying.
Harry K
harry k
almost all branches of science prove that it did not happen. He has
all of that for evidence. You have one book. One book by itself it
not proof of anything - it must be supported by other evidence.
============================================
> > >> >Jesus also referred to
> > >> >the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
> > >> >there.
>
> > >> The Gospels, as you know, are not reliable history, so any claims about
> > >> what Jesus may have said must be considered with a lot of scepticism.
>
> > >The Gospels are the word of God and are reliable historically.
>
> > There is no evidence that God had anything to do with the Gospels. That
> > is a religious doctrine that you hold. The facts are still clear. The
> > Flood did not happen.
>
> Here we go again. You are just making claims.
>
===================================
Claims that can be proved by looking in scientific sources.
===================================
> > >> >The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
> > >> >did happen.
==========================
But not _every_ society has the myth and most of those that do do not
match one another
==========================
> > >> No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
>
> > >Yes, they do.
>
> > The facts are clear. The Flood did not happen. Old stories are never as
> > reliable as physical evidence. The evidence has spoken. Your dogma is
> > false.
>
> According to the Bible, which is a document that is
> written long, long ago, there was a flood. You have
> not presented such a document because you have
> no defense of your position.
===============================
According to bible, many impossible things happened. It also has
hundreds of contradictions. Remember "Skeptics Annotated Bible"?
================================
>
> > >> > There is evidence on the ocean floor between
> > >> >the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
> > >> >shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
> > >> >took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
> > >> >History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
>
> > >> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channel
> > >> may have claimed.
>
> Stop lying. I have you the reference, the show, and
> when it was seen and what they said. You have not
> given anything.
===================================
Please explain how an artifact found under water is proof of a world
wide flood. The sea level has fluctuated up and down tremendously
over the life of the earh (any yes there is proof of that in
scientific sources).
Most of the 'man-made' structures found undewater have proven to be
natural geologic formations (the ones off Japan for example)
==================================
>
> > >I just gave you the proof of what people have found on the
> > >ocean floor between the Isle of Wight and the mainland.
>
> > That is not evidence in any way for a global flood.
>
> Citing a program on the History Channel is much more than you are
> doing. You are doing nothing, contributing nothing.
==========================
Yes you cited a program. The problem is even it that is a man-made
structure, it in no-way proves there was a world wide flood. It is a
wild stretch to even claim it has a remote evidentiary connection.
There are remains of villages under the Black Sea also. It is also
known how they got flooded and it had nothing to do with a world wide
flood.
=================================
> > >And yes, it's very apparent that you don't care what the
> > >History Channel has to say about your claims.
>
> > I do care what scientists have to say. It is not my fault that you
> > cannot tell the difference between an entertainment show and science.
>
> No, you don't care what scientists have to say if you ignore what the
> scientists said that was cited above
> about the information found on the ocean floor.
> The history that they are saying is found there, was
> not something someone planted just for your
> "entertainment." It's real history.
>
===========================
Yep and that show did not claim it was caused by a world wide flood.
I saw the show. Those structues are easily explained without drawing
the bible into it.
===============================
> > >> >On "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep."
> > >> >It is toward the end of the program if you can find it.
>
> > >> The physical evidence shows that this did not happen.
>
> > >The physical evidence does show that this did happen.
> > >That's why they explained it and put it in the documentary.
>
> > No, that is not what the physical evidence says. I don't care what you
> > think you heard on an entertainment show.
>
> That's too bad Free Lunch, if you consider an
> informative history program to only be "entertainment."
> History was not formed for your entertainment.
>
=========================
Apparently history (and science) was formed for you to ignore all the
scientific and historic content except a few things you can twist to
your distorted view of the bible.
==============================
>
>
>
> > >> >I saw it on Discovery International but I think it also appears
> > >> >sometimes on the regular History Channel. It also mentioned
> > >> >Yonaguni off the coast of Japan which is estimated to be
> > >> >near 10,000 years old, which is under the sea now, of
> > >> >course.
>
> > >> Still doesn't help. I don't really care what you want your Bible to say
> > >> or how import it is for you, your doctrine about the Flood is false. You
> > >> repeat lies every time you claim that Noah's Flood happened. You cannot
> > >> provide any evidence -- and entertainment shows are not evidence, even
> > >> if they are on channels that occasionally have unreliable
> > >> popularizations of science on them.
>
> > >You make statements without any evidence, and
> > >claims that are bogus, and you appear to not care
> > >if anyone shows any evidence.
>
> > You have been directed to the evidence many times. You have refused to
> > look at it. You want to remain ignorant so you can justify lying about
> > the Flood in your mind.
>
> You don't give evidence. Just insults as here.
>
========================
The evidence is out there in every library. Try visiting one and
staying out of the 'religion' section.
=========================
> > First, you can start with the current distribution of plants and animals
> > on earth. >>
>
> The distribution of plants and animals on the earth
> do not disprove a global flood.
>
> > Second, you can look at what plants and animals can > survive
> > brackish water for a year.
>
> Another claim with no information. What about the brackish water for a
> year? I might give you a gold
> star if you explain your statement. : )
================================
Ummm...you should ahve been able to understand it without explanation
but...
Plants and animals acclimated to fresh water cannot survive in
brackish water (except for a very few). Plants and animals acclimated
to salt water (except for a very few) cannot survive in brackish
water.
Look it up in that library.
===================================
> > Third, you can look at the fact that there is
> > no convenient time in Bible-Storyland for the Flood to > have happened
> > that does not conflict with what we know about
> > human cultures that
> > continued to exist at the time.
>
> Please develop this idea further.
============================
No need, it has been done several times by both me and others.
Remember those awkward timelines you want to dismiss?
You mentioned that the China timeline mentions a dynasty that was
apparently mentioned in the bible also. Who remained alive to write
that continuation of the history?
No, you cannot use "Noah's survivors" as they would have had no
knowledge of what was going on in China. That does not even consider
the impossibility of them havig migrated over there and repopulated
the area in such a short time.
=================================
> > Fourth, you can look at the
> > (pre-)historical distribution of plants and animals on
> > earth and see how
> > they tie to current distributions.
>
> Are you talking about evolutionary changes that one
> can see in a sort of time line or progression line?
>
> > <dozens of items skipped because this is all you
> > will do>
>
> ????
>
> > Finally, you can ignore everything and just keep lying to us about the
> > Flood. I am sure that will be your choice because you worship your
> > interpretation of the Bible and are inerrant in you interpretation. If
> > the Flood did not happen, you made a mistake, but you cannot make a
> > mistake.
>
> > Keep your lies coming.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Bless your heart. I'm not lying to you by telling you what the Bible
> says, but I can see that you don't know that.
=========================
No, you are not lying about what the bible says. Your interpretation
thereof and denial of evidence is are the lies.
Harry K
=========================
>
>
>
>
Ralph
Suzanne, your background in Usenet shows that you know exactly what you
are doing. You have been around for years and from some posts that I
read, have been selectively deleting from posts for years. I honestly
don't see how you can lie constantly and still consider yourself a
Christian.
All of us clip posts for brevity and note that this is what is being
done to the post. You don't clip between lines in a post if you wish to
keep your integrity. In your case, I see that you lost your integrity
thousands of posts ago.
Ralph
Yes, the bible says it happened. Unfortunately all of the physical
evidence shows that it didn't happen. So far you have refuted exactly
none of this evidence. Of course you never have refuted this evidence in
your many years of Usenet. Do you think you are being clever or that you
will lead many persons to be saved by denying the evidence?
>> The story as you interpret it is wrong. I do not
>> care if it is merely your interpretation that is wrong or if the Bible
>> itself is wrong. The fact is that there was no global flood. The Bible
>> is not controlling when it comes to scientific facts. You make a mockery
>> of the Bible when you insist that it says things that are demonstrably
>> not true.
>>
> You are in a debate. Your merely saying "It is wrong,"
> doesn't say much. Neither does twisting what someone says and feeding
> it back as being something they did
> not say.
At this point he can say pretty much anything he wishes. The evidence
has been shown, you have denied it with the wave of a hand so nothing
more is owed to you.
>>>>> Jesus also referred to
>>>>> the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
>>>>> there.
>>>> The Gospels, as you know, are not reliable history, so any claims about
>>>> what Jesus may have said must be considered with a lot of scepticism.
>>> The Gospels are the word of God and are reliable historically.
>> There is no evidence that God had anything to do with the Gospels. That
>> is a religious doctrine that you hold. The facts are still clear. The
>> Flood did not happen.
>>
> Here we go again. You are just making claims.
If you have evidence that the gospels were written by any supernatural
means then you need to present it. As I said above, just asserting a
position and then being unable to defend it isn't quite honest.
>>>>> The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
>>>>> did happen.
>>>> No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
>>> Yes, they do.
>> The facts are clear. The Flood did not happen. Old stories are never as
>> reliable as physical evidence. The evidence has spoken. Your dogma is
>> false.
>>
> According to the Bible, which is a document that is
> written long, long ago, there was a flood. You have
> not presented such a document because you have
> no defense of your position.
He doesn't need to present a document, he presents something even
better, physical evidence.
>>>>> There is evidence on the ocean floor between
>>>>> the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
>>>>> shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
>>>>> took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
>>>>> History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
>>>> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channel
>>>> may have claimed.
> Stop lying. I have you the reference, the show, and
> when it was seen and what they said. You have not
> given anything.
I saw the show and I also read the book. It is interesting and probably
is the source of many flood stories. It has evidence to support the
theory and I ask as I always ask you...so what?? That is a long way from
a global flood as described in the Hebrew bible.
>>> I just gave you the proof of what people have found on the
>>> ocean floor between the Isle of Wight and the mainland.
>> That is not evidence in any way for a global flood.
>>
> Citing a program on the History Channel is much more than you are
> doing. You are doing nothing, contributing nothing.
You call your position as evidence for a global flood? Show how this is
physically possible.
>>> And yes, it's very apparent that you don't care what the
>>> History Channel has to say about your claims.
>> I do care what scientists have to say. It is not my fault that you
>> cannot tell the difference between an entertainment show and science.
>>
> No, you don't care what scientists have to say if you ignore what the
> scientists said that was cited above
> about the information found on the ocean floor.
> The history that they are saying is found there, was
> not something someone planted just for your
> "entertainment." It's real history.
It is, and it isn't about a global flood.
>>>>> On "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep."
>>>>> It is toward the end of the program if you can find it.
>>>> The physical evidence shows that this did not happen.
>>> The physical evidence does show that this did happen.
>>> That's why they explained it and put it in the documentary.
>> No, that is not what the physical evidence says. I don't care what you
>> think you heard on an entertainment show.
>>
> That's too bad Free Lunch, if you consider an
> informative history program to only be "entertainment."
> History was not formed for your entertainment.
And if you think this presents any evidence to support a global flood,
you are more seriously deluded than I thought.
>>>>> I saw it on Discovery International but I think it also appears
>>>>> sometimes on the regular History Channel. It also mentioned
>>>>> Yonaguni off the coast of Japan which is estimated to be
>>>>> near 10,000 years old, which is under the sea now, of
>>>>> course.
>>>> Still doesn't help. I don't really care what you want your Bible to say
>>>> or how import it is for you, your doctrine about the Flood is false. You
>>>> repeat lies every time you claim that Noah's Flood happened. You cannot
>>>> provide any evidence -- and entertainment shows are not evidence, even
>>>> if they are on channels that occasionally have unreliable
>>>> popularizations of science on them.
>>> You make statements without any evidence, and
>>> claims that are bogus, and you appear to not care
>>> if anyone shows any evidence.
>> You have been directed to the evidence many times. You have refused to
>> look at it. You want to remain ignorant so you can justify lying about
>> the Flood in your mind.
>>
> You don't give evidence. Just insults as here.
He probably is tired of presenting evidence which you deny without
justification.
>> First, you can start with the current distribution of plants and animals
>> on earth. >>
>>
> The distribution of plants and animals on the earth
> do not disprove a global flood.
They damn well present evidence against a distribution by a flood. If
you care to hang your hat on this position I'll be more that happy to
discuss it with you.
>> Second, you can look at what plants and animals can > survive
>> brackish water for a year.
>>
> Another claim with no information. What about the brackish water for a
> year? I might give you a gold
> star if you explain your statement. : )
Take your precious indoor and outdoor plants, forget the 'brackish'
water, and flood them to a depth where light can't reach them. Keep them
flooded for one year. Remove the plants from the water and tell me how
many of them are alive.
>> Third, you can look at the fact that there is
>> no convenient time in Bible-Storyland for the Flood to > have happened
>> that does not conflict with what we know about
>> human cultures that
>> continued to exist at the time.
>>
> Please develop this idea further.
Why should he? This has been talked to death already.
>> Fourth, you can look at the
>> (pre-)historical distribution of plants and animals on
>> earth and see how
>> they tie to current distributions.
>>
> Are you talking about evolutionary changes that one
> can see in a sort of time line or progression line?
Read the damn post. I can see what he is saying. Seriously, are you
really that stupid?
>> <dozens of items skipped because this is all you
>> will do>
>>
> ????
>> Finally, you can ignore everything and just keep lying to us about the
>> Flood. I am sure that will be your choice because you worship your
>> interpretation of the Bible and are inerrant in you interpretation. If
>> the Flood did not happen, you made a mistake, but you cannot make a
>> mistake.
>>
>> Keep your lies coming.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Bless your heart. I'm not lying to you by telling you what the Bible
> says, but I can see that you don't know that.
> Suzanne
What the bible says is in serious error when it conflicts with the
natural evidence, deal with it!
Free Lunch
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<ea307845-4aca-417d...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
And most of them can understand English, so they will know that you
misinterpreted what I said.
>> The story as you interpret it is wrong. I do not
>> care if it is merely your interpretation that is wrong or if the Bible
>> itself is wrong. The fact is that there was no global flood. The Bible
>> is not controlling when it comes to scientific facts. You make a mockery
>> of the Bible when you insist that it says things that are demonstrably
>> not true.
>>
>You are in a debate. Your merely saying "It is wrong,"
>doesn't say much. Neither does twisting what someone says and feeding
>it back as being something they did not say.
I'm not debating you. I'm telling you that you are repeating falsehoods
and lies and that you are blaming God for those falsehoods when you
cannot justify your claims at all. You have chosen to be ignorant. You
have chosen to ignore physical evidence. Your refusal to learn is not a
side in a debate. It is reprehensible behavior.
>> >> >Jesus also referred to
>> >> >the flood of Noah. According to John, chapter one, he was
>> >> >there.
>>
>> >> The Gospels, as you know, are not reliable history, so any claims about
>> >> what Jesus may have said must be considered with a lot of scepticism.
>>
>> >The Gospels are the word of God and are reliable historically.
>>
>> There is no evidence that God had anything to do with the Gospels. That
>> is a religious doctrine that you hold. The facts are still clear. The
>> Flood did not happen.
>>
>Here we go again. You are just making claims.
The Flood did not happen. The facts are clear. You know that you don't
have any evidence to support your claim that the Flood happened any time
within human history. I've directed you to areas where you can find
evidence, but you have chosen to remain ignorant and dishonest. You have
chosen to hide behind the Bible when you tell these lies.
>> >> >The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
>> >> >did happen.
>>
>> >> No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
>>
>> >Yes, they do.
>>
>> The facts are clear. The Flood did not happen. Old stories are never as
>> reliable as physical evidence. The evidence has spoken. Your dogma is
>> false.
>>
>According to the Bible, which is a document that is
>written long, long ago, there was a flood. You have
>not presented such a document because you have
>no defense of your position.
The Bible is not evidence in any way on this issue. Stop making claims
about it that you cannot back up.
>>
>> >> > There is evidence on the ocean floor between
>> >> >the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
>> >> >shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
>> >> >took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
>> >> >History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
>>
>> >> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channel
>> >> may have claimed.
>>
>Stop lying. I have you the reference, the show, and
>when it was seen and what they said. You have not
>given anything.
You are really too proud of your immoral behavior for me to bother to
discuss anything with you for a while. You are cheerfully ignorant,
proudly dishonest, and celebrate your foolishness. You mock God with
every claim you make that is false that you blame Him for.
No doubt you will be proud to be chastised for your immoral behavior. So
be it.
...
Suzanne
flood, save the animals and then not see to their needs after he
saves them? I think he would have done OK by them, or he would
not have saved them. You are assuming things from the human
perspective, not from God's perspective.
>
> 3.
> Many animals have specialized diets. Koalas pretty much only eat
> eucalyptus leaves. Pandas pretty much only eat bamboo. You've
> claimed that the animals came to Noah. So, did these animals carry
> a stash of food with them?
>
who invented them. He would also know how to feed them.
>
> 4.
> Many animals would not be able to survive travel from Ararat to
> their present habitats. Kangaroos and the aforementioned koalas are
> examples of this. Another is the sloth. Sloths are only found in
> south and central America. They walk only about 1.2 miles per hour.
> They don't swim. They live virtually their entire lives in trees.
> How could the sloth have possibly crossed the Atlantic?
>
I don't think that you would know what the conditions
would be afterwards. Still, you are using human reasoning,
and you are not seeing things from God's point of view.
>
> 5.
> The pyramids predate the flood. At least some of them do. The
> pyramid of Djoser was built before 2600 BCE. The flood supposedly
> occurred around 2100 BCE. Did Noah's descendents just move to Egypt
> and pick up the culture of all the people that drowned there?
>
location, but we do have the story of the Tower of Babel and how
the language was confounded, and we do have the chapter that
is called the "Table of Nations," showing where everyone moved.
In my opinion, they really scattered on the face of the earth when
the language was confounded and found others who spoke their
own "new" language. However, there is a clue as to how this
took place. God earlier told man to be fruitful and to multiply on
the face of the earth. Instead of doing that, man banded together
in the case of Nimrod in rebellion. The fact that people were
scattered anyway, indicates to me that God had a reason that
man does not understand, and was capable of bringing about
the scattering of the people, in spite of their defiance. Next, the
statement that in the days of Peleg the earth was divided, which
indicates that in spite of man, God divided the people and he
scattered them.
probably, or hear what the scientists themselves have said.
>
> Suzanne, alot of people criticize you for being uneducated. I want
> you to know that I think those people are completely wrong.
>
>
> ........I think
> you have learned an impressive amount of information. The problem
> is not the amount you've learned, it's your complete lack of
> understanding of the information.
>
>
> You seem to hear what you want to hear and fail to understand most
> of the rest. The History Channel show is no doubt, an example of
> this. There was a flood in The English Channel. It used to be dry
> land. It is thought to have flooded over 180,000 years ago (not
> 8,000). And it was not part of a worldwide flood. If they said the
> flood was of biblical proportions, they meant that metaphorically.
>
> Think about it, if there was a worldwide flood, the English Channel
> would already have been under water. So, how could there be flood
> evidence there?
>
seems to have taken out part of what I had said. Dr. Gary Momber
is in charge of excavation at the Isle of Wight. They have found
the ruins of a city on the ocean floor between the Isle of Wight
and the south end of Britain. Kitchen tools were found of an ancient
type which they say were buried in the silt that is in the submerged
town. They have dated it to 7,950-8,000 years ago. They have
evidence that the last time the ice caps on earth melted was about
8,000 years ago. Europe and Britain were joined before the melting
of the ice caps took place. Afterwards the English Channel was
formed, and the town on the ocean floor there was submerged
due to the flooding of the ancient seas. This area is called
Solent Strait. You can read about it in other articles and this
is one of the Ten top underwater sites people frequently are
interested in. See #8 for a bit of information:
http://heritage-key.com/blogs/sean-williams/top-10-underwater-archaeology-sites-around-world
This was brought to my attention on the program in the History
Channel that is calle "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Underwater
Structures of the Deep."
>
As you can see, this area near the Isle of Wight is a real place,
and not a metaphorical speculation. Often the History Channel
will repeat these shows, but I don't know when this one will
be on again.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
the Bible from what I've seen are people's lack of
information or understanding. The rule of thumb is
that usually when someone thinks they see a contradiction
between two things in the Bible, it's likely that they do not
understand at least one of them.
>
> > > >> > There is evidence on the ocean floor between
> > > >> >the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
> > > >> >shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
> > > >> >took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
> > > >> >History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
>
> > > >> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Channel
> > > >> may have claimed.
>
> > Stop lying. I have you the reference, the show, and
> > when it was seen and what they said. You have not
> > given anything.
>
> ===================================
> Please explain how an artifact found under water is proof of a world
> wide flood. The sea level has fluctuated up and down tremendously
> over the life of the earh (any yes there is proof of that in
> scientific sources).
>
> Most of the 'man-made' structures found undewater have proven to be
> natural geologic formations (the ones off Japan for example)
> ==================================
>
History Channel spoke to these, and explained the events
you mention. The name of the program is
"Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep," but
you can read some of this briefly in some Internet articles.
They have found a city on the ocean floor there in the
"Solent Strait" part of the ocean floor in the English Channel,
near the Isle of Wight. The way that they can tell how long
ago it was, is that when the city was submerged and
underwater plant and animal life coated the structures, those
can be dated as to when this occurred. This is not the only
mega city that is found submerged on the floor of the ocean.
>
> > > >I just gave you the proof of what people have found on the
> > > >ocean floor between the Isle of Wight and the mainland.
>
> > > That is not evidence in any way for a global flood.
>
> > Citing a program on the History Channel is much more than you are
> > doing. You are doing nothing, contributing nothing.
>
> ==========================
> Yes you cited a program. The problem is even it that is a man-made
> structure, it in no-way proves there was a world wide flood. It is a
> wild stretch to even claim it has a remote evidentiary connection.
>
bout 8,000 years old and that they can tell when it was
submerged by dating the time when uniformly the place
was begun to be covered with marine life that latches
onto underwater structures. What has been reported is
certainly not a "wild stretch," since they are using their
scientifically found information to decide this.
>
> There are remains of villages under the Black Sea also. It is also
> known how they got flooded and it had nothing to do with a world wide
> flood.
>
flood, nor was it the flood of Noah. Besides that, had the story
of Noah's flood been the large local flood that happened at the
Black Sea, the birds let loose from the ark would not have
returned to the ark, seeing as how birds are capable of flying
great distances. They simply could have flown past the flood.
As it was the raven can feed from the top of a tree, but a dove
is a bird that eats with it's feet flat on the ground. Besides this,
there has been more than one large flood in the Black Sea.
>
> > > >And yes, it's very apparent that you don't care what the
> > > >History Channel has to say about your claims.
>
> > > I do care what scientists have to say. It is not my fault that you
> > > cannot tell the difference between an entertainment show and science.
>
> > No, you don't care what scientists have to say if you ignore what the
> > scientists said that was cited above
> > about the information found on the ocean floor.
> > The history that they are saying is found there, was
> > not something someone planted just for your
> > "entertainment." It's real history.
>
> ===========================
> Yep and that show did not claim it was caused by a world wide flood.
> I saw the show. Those structues are easily explained without drawing
> the bible into it.
>
> ===============================> > >> >On "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep."
>
talking about the story of Noah and how every civilization
tells about that flood that wiped out civilization all over the
earth. The narrator tells that people have discovered the
town submerged in the sea "that may hold the secrets of
the mythical flood," a reference to the flood of Noah already
mentioned in the opening of the program. The diving team
marked out a grid on the sediment on the town, and each
square is carefully brought up and sieved through, looking
for artifacts that will give clues. They can tell that the
sediment dates back about 8,000 years. They looked for
what is called a "layer of human activity" under the sediment.
They found the old landscape, which is covered with
vegetation and trees, they have the underlying geology, and
above that they have "marine sediments which shows exactly
when the sea came in and how it did it, and we've got the
dates for that - - about 7,950 years ago," which is a direct
quote from Dr. Gary Momber, the head of archaeology of
the Isle of Wight.
>
> > > >> >It is toward the end of the program if you can find it.
>
> > > >> The physical evidence shows that this did not happen.
>
> > > >The physical evidence does show that this did happen.
> > > >That's why they explained it and put it in the documentary.
>
> > > No, that is not what the physical evidence says. I don't care what you
> > > think you heard on an entertainment show.
>
> > That's too bad Free Lunch, if you consider an
> > informative history program to only be "entertainment."
> > History was not formed for your entertainment.
>
> =========================
> Apparently history (and science) was formed for you to ignore all the
> scientific and historic content except a few things you can twist to
> your distorted view of the bible.
> ==============================
>
twisted or distorted because of a personal view. I have
quoted the History Channel's program and the words
of the scientists that are in charge of the underwater
archaeological find. I've even quoted in this post the
very words spoken by the archaeologist that is in
charge of this underwater excavation.
>
> > > >> >I saw it on Discovery International but I think it also appears
> > > >> >sometimes on the regular History Channel. It also mentioned
> > > >> >Yonaguni off the coast of Japan which is estimated to be
> > > >> >near 10,000 years old, which is under the sea now, of
> > > >> >course.
>
> > > >> Still doesn't help. I don't really care what you want your Bible to say
> > > >> or how import it is for you, your doctrine about the Flood is false. You
> > > >> repeat lies every time you claim that Noah's Flood happened. You cannot
> > > >> provide any evidence -- and entertainment shows are not evidence, even
> > > >> if they are on channels that occasionally have unreliable
> > > >> popularizations of science on them.
>
> > > >You make statements without any evidence, and
> > > >claims that are bogus, and you appear to not care
> > > >if anyone shows any evidence.
>
> > > You have been directed to the evidence many times. You have refused to
> > > look at it. You want to remain ignorant so you can justify lying about
> > > the Flood in your mind.
>
> > You don't give evidence. Just insults as here.
>
> ========================
> The evidence is out there in every library. Try visiting one and
> staying out of the 'religion' section.
>
on TV about an underwater structure of a village on the bottom
of the sea which is dated to nearly 8,000 years.
>
> > > First, you can start with the current distribution of plants and animals
> > > on earth. >>
>
> > The distribution of plants and animals on the earth
> > do not disprove a global flood.
>
> > > Second, you can look at what plants and animals can > survive
> > > brackish water for a year.
>
> > Another claim with no information. What about the brackish water for a
> > year? I might give you a gold
> > star if you explain your statement. : )
>
> ================================
> Ummm...you should ahve been able to understand it without explanation
> but...
>
> Plants and animals acclimated to fresh water cannot survive in
> brackish water (except for a very few). Plants and animals acclimated
> to salt water (except for a very few) cannot survive in brackish
> water.
>
> Look it up in that library.
>
speculation is as the earthly thinking about a heavenly
God who is all powerful and all knowing. I think he knows
a lot better than you can imagine how to preserve his own
creation.
>
> > > Third, you can look at the fact that there is
> > > no convenient time in Bible-Storyland for the Flood to > have happened
> > > that does not conflict with what we know about
> > > human cultures that
> > > continued to exist at the time.
>
> > Please develop this idea further.
>
> ============================
> No need, it has been done several times by both me and others.
> Remember those awkward timelines you want to dismiss?
>
>
> You mentioned that the China timeline mentions a dynasty that was
>
I did not say that. You need to read more carefully. I referred to
the ancient history of China that is preserved and ignored by
some, yet sets the basis for the Border Sacrifice that was
practised up until modern times.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
being so terribly ignorant. Now, suddenly you see me as being
completely "knowing what I am doing," in order to snip a post
to your detriment. Your accusations are not very kind, and I
can see that you don't know me very well.
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>Actually, I heard exactly what was said about this. Free Lunch
>seems to have taken out part of what I had said. Dr. Gary Momber
>is in charge of excavation at the Isle of Wight. They have found
>the ruins of a city on the ocean floor between the Isle of Wight
>and the south end of Britain. Kitchen tools were found of an ancient
>type which they say were buried in the silt that is in the submerged
>town. They have dated it to 7,950-8,000 years ago. They have
>evidence that the last time the ice caps on earth melted was about
>8,000 years ago. Europe and Britain were joined before the melting
>of the ice caps took place. Afterwards the English Channel was
>formed, and the town on the ocean floor there was submerged
>due to the flooding of the ancient seas. This area is called
>Solent Strait. You can read about it in other articles and this
>is one of the Ten top underwater sites people frequently are
>interested in. See #8 for a bit of information:
>http://heritage-key.com/blogs/sean-williams/top-10-underwater-archaeology-sites-around-world
>This was brought to my attention on the program in the History
>Channel that is calle "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Underwater
>Structures of the Deep."
>>
>As you can see, this area near the Isle of Wight is a real place,
>and not a metaphorical speculation. Often the History Channel
>will repeat these shows, but I don't know when this one will
>be on again.
More evidence that Noah's Flood did NOT happen.
Ralph
I know you only too well.
You are ignorant of science and biblical archeology. Those are the two
main areas we have discussed. Your past posting history is available for
all who wish to see, including available to you. You have literally
thousands of posts and together they give an excellent history of yourself.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> read more »
I have seen that show and others like it. Yes, it discusses Ye Floode
and goes on to show that all the suppossed evidence is evidence of
LOCAL floods and there is nothing showing a global flood. Once again
you cherry pick your information off of a program and ignore
everything else (almost 90 percent of the show) that shows the myths
are not true.
Harry K
harry k
> This was brought to my attention on the program- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Well, I see you are zeroing in on the creationists ONLY available
argument "Goddidit". All you have to do now is shut up and quit
trying to make the fables match the evidence - it can't be done.
Harry K
Suzanne
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:58:03 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >Actually, I heard exactly what was said about this. Free Lunch
> >seems to have taken out part of what I had said. Dr. Gary Momber
> >is in charge of excavation at the Isle of Wight. They have found
> >the ruins of a city on the ocean floor between the Isle of Wight
> >and the south end of Britain. Kitchen tools were found of an ancient
> >type which they say were buried in the silt that is in the submerged
> >town. They have dated it to 7,950-8,000 years ago. They have
> >evidence that the last time the ice caps on earth melted was about
> >8,000 years ago. Europe and Britain were joined before the melting
> >of the ice caps took place. Afterwards the English Channel was
> >formed, and the town on the ocean floor there was submerged
> >due to the flooding of the ancient seas. This area is called
> >Solent Strait. You can read about it in other articles and this
> >is one of the Ten top underwater sites people frequently are
> >interested in. See #8 for a bit of information:
> >This was brought to my attention on the program in the History
> >Channel that is calle "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Underwater
> >Structures of the Deep."
>
> >As you can see, this area near the Isle of Wight is a real place,
> >and not a metaphorical speculation. Often the History Channel
> >will repeat these shows, but I don't know when this one will
> >be on again.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
village found on the bottom of the ocean at the
certain location called Solent Strait, in the English
Channel area next to the Isle of Wight was dated to
have been destroyed by a sudden global-type flood that altered the
land, and which contains the ancient landscape, plus the detected and
dated presence of
the plant and animal life that attached themselves to
the ruins of the city, 7,950-8,000 years ago. This is
within a reasonable time for Noah's flood.
>
Suzanne
Gregory A Greenman
> On Dec 8, 5:56=A0am, Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:50:17 -0800 (PST), Suzanne wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:28:08 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.co=
> m>
> > > > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >
> > > > >On Dec 1, 9:11=3DA0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > >> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:30:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> > > > >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >:
> >
> > > > >> >On Nov 30, 7:22=3DA0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationi=
> sm
> > > > >> >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > >> >> <babecfbc-57b8-461d-8d21-09ef002a8...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
> com>=3D
> > > :
> >
> > > > >The Gospels are the word of God and are reliable historically.
> >
> > > > There is no evidence that God had anything to do with the Gospels.
> > > > That is a religious doctrine that you hold. The facts are still
> > > > clear. The Flood did not happen.
> >
> > > Here we go again. You are just making claims.
> >
> > There is more than plenty of evidence that the flood did not
> > happen. Here are a few:
> >
> > 1.
> > The arctic and antarctic ice sheets would have melted. Instead we
> > find, from ice cores, that they are over 50,000 years old.
> >
> > 2.
> > Assuming that all the animals somehow survived life on the ark,
> > they'd all become extinct soon after being let off. Think about it.
> > The two wolves would immediately eat the two deer. Now the deer are
> > extinct. A couple weeks later, having eaten the only two members of
> > their prey species the two wolves starve and they too are extinct.
> > Unless of course the deer get away. Then the wolves starve to death
> > a few days earlier. With no vegetation to eat, the deer also starve
> > to death.
> >
> You are assuming that an all powerful God, would have a global
> flood, save the animals and then not see to their needs after he
> saves them?
I'm reading the story in the bible. It does not say anything about
providing magical food for the animals after they debarked.
> I think he would have done OK by them, or he would
> not have saved them. You are assuming things from the human
> perspective, not from God's perspective.
Not at all. I'm reading the story and noting a reason why it cannot
possibly be true. If god gave the animals magical food after the
flood, then he should have said so in the story. He didn't so
there's no reason to believe that he did. Rather, this is a good
reason to believe that the story was written by fallible men who
just didn't realize that there was a problem with the story.
> > 3.
> > Many animals have specialized diets. Koalas pretty much only eat
> > eucalyptus leaves. Pandas pretty much only eat bamboo. You've
> > claimed that the animals came to Noah. So, did these animals carry
> > a stash of food with them?
> >
> The Lord would know what makes Koalas tick. He is the one
> who invented them. He would also know how to feed them.
But the fallible men who wrote this story didn't know what made
koalas "tick". They didn't even know that koalas or pandas existed.
So, they had no reason to put in magical allowances for their
specialized diets. If this really were a true story, that would be
an important point to include. In fact, if the story did mention
pandas and koalas and speak of god's magic providing food for them,
that would be pretty good evidence that god is real.
> > 4.
> > Many animals would not be able to survive travel from Ararat to
> > their present habitats. Kangaroos and the aforementioned koalas are
> > examples of this. Another is the sloth. Sloths are only found in
> > south and central America. They walk only about 1.2 miles per hour.
> > They don't swim. They live virtually their entire lives in trees.
> > How could the sloth have possibly crossed the Atlantic?
> >
> You speak as though you know the world after the flood.
> I don't think that you would know what the conditions
> would be afterwards.
Huh? Are you suggesting that maybe after the flood the conditions
included jet travel to South America for the species that live
there? What other conditions could there be that in your fantasy
world would allow sloths to get back to South America?
The fact of the matter is that we do know conditions 4000 years
ago. They were not substantially different than today. The
continents were pretty much where they are now. The Atlantic Ocean
and the Pacific Ocean were both there. They both presented a
formidable barrier to travel by most land dwelling species,
especially sloths.
> Still, you are using human reasoning,
> and you are not seeing things from God's point of view.
Your god is just a bronze age myth, so naturally I don't look at
things from its point of view.
We have evidence. We draw conclusions from the evidence. The
evidence says the flood did not happen. This item is one of those
pieces of evidence. If you can't show why the conclusion I draw
from it is unsupported by it, then you either have to accept the
conclusion or take the position that evidence doesn't matter. You
seem to be doing the latter. Of course, if evidence doesn't matter,
then we can't know anything.
> > 5.
> > The pyramids predate the flood. At least some of them do. The
> > pyramid of Djoser was built before 2600 BCE. The flood supposedly
> > occurred around 2100 BCE. Did Noah's descendents just move to Egypt
> > and pick up the culture of all the people that drowned there?
> >
> We are not told in the Bible why certain people went to whatever
> location, but we do have the story of the Tower of Babel and how
> the language was confounded,
The tower of babel is one of the stupidest stories in the bible. It
way outclasses the flood in that department. It is clearly a just
so story to explain why there are different languages. But we know
why there are different languages. Languages evolve over time. This
is not too dissimilar to biologic evolution. The English language
is much younger than the tower of babel. So are many (probably
most) current languages.
> and we do have the chapter that
> is called the "Table of Nations," showing where everyone moved.
> In my opinion, they really scattered on the face of the earth when
> the language was confounded and found others who spoke their
> own "new" language.
You know, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself for believing
such childish nonsense. I mean, really ashamed.
> However, there is a clue as to how this
> took place. God earlier told man to be fruitful and to multiply on
> the face of the earth. Instead of doing that, man banded together
> in the case of Nimrod in rebellion.
You believe there was a group of people that refused to have kids?
> The fact that people were
> scattered anyway, indicates to me that God had a reason that
> man does not understand, and was capable of bringing about
> the scattering of the people, in spite of their defiance. Next, the
> statement that in the days of Peleg the earth was divided, which
> indicates that in spite of man, God divided the people and he
> scattered them.
> >
> > > > >> >The ancestors of people all over the earth tell that it
> > > > >> >did happen.
> >
> > > > >> No, they do not. The facts are clear. There was no such flood.
> >
> > > > >Yes, they do.
> >
> > > > The facts are clear. The Flood did not happen. Old stories are never =
> as
> > > > reliable as physical evidence. The evidence has spoken. Your dogma is
> > > > false.
> >
> > > According to the Bible, which is a document that is
> > > written long, long ago, there was a flood. You have
> > > not presented such a document because you have
> > > no defense of your position.
> >
> > > > >> > There is evidence on the ocean floor between
> > > > >> >the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain, that
> > > > >> >shows evidence of a flood of biblical proportions that
> > > > >> >took place at least 8,000 years ago, according to the
> > > > >> >History Channel, on a show that aired just this evening.
> >
> > > > >> There is no such evidence. I don't really care what the History Ch=
> anne=3D
> > > l
> > > > >> may have claimed.
> >
> > > Stop lying. I have you the reference, the show, and
> > > when it was seen and what they said. You have not
> > > given anything.
> >
> > Personally, I wish Free Lunch wasn't so dismissive of The History
> > Channel. I like that channel alot. It has alot of good shows.
> > Further, I'm sure it did talk of flood evidence in the English
> > Channel.
> >
> I like the channel, too. Free Lunch did not see the program,
> probably, or hear what the scientists themselves have said.
I probably should also point out that The History Channel does
sometimes show credulous shows about christian mythology or about
ghosts or other nonsense. The show you saw may have fallen into
that category.
> > Suzanne, alot of people criticize you for being uneducated. I want
> > you to know that I think those people are completely wrong.
> >
> Thank you.
You're welcome. Just, please, stop telling people that you went to
UT.
> > ........I think
> > you have learned an impressive amount of information. The problem
> > is not the amount you've learned, it's your complete lack of
> > understanding of the information.
> >
> <grin>
> >
> > You seem to hear what you want to hear and fail to understand most
> > of the rest. The History Channel show is no doubt, an example of
> > this. There was a flood in The English Channel. It used to be dry
> > land. It is thought to have flooded over 180,000 years ago (not
> > 8,000). And it was not part of a worldwide flood. If they said the
> > flood was of biblical proportions, they meant that metaphorically.
> >
> > Think about it, if there was a worldwide flood, the English Channel
> > would already have been under water. So, how could there be flood
> > evidence there?
Okay, I'm going to have to correct myself here. I went back to the
wikipedia page on The English Channel. Many wikipedia pages are
well written and well presented. This one, OTOH, I think falls a
bit short.
In the "Geography" section, the page says that the Channel was
carved out 450k to 180k years ago. I read that part before writing
my comments above. Now, I've read more of the article. In the
"History" section it says that about 10,000 years ago Britain was
not an island - it was connected to mainland Europe. So, it is
possible that there was a ~local~ flood 8,000 years ago that
resulted in some coastal towns being submerged. Please note that
8,000 years ago is too old to have been Noah's flood.
> Actually, I heard exactly what was said about this. Free Lunch
> seems to have taken out part of what I had said. Dr. Gary Momber
> is in charge of excavation at the Isle of Wight. They have found
> the ruins of a city on the ocean floor between the Isle of Wight
> and the south end of Britain. Kitchen tools were found of an ancient
> type which they say were buried in the silt that is in the submerged
> town. They have dated it to 7,950-8,000 years ago. They have
> evidence that the last time the ice caps on earth melted was about
> 8,000 years ago.
The ice caps did not melt. Not entirely, at least. See item #1
above.
> Europe and Britain were joined before the melting
> of the ice caps took place. Afterwards the English Channel was
> formed, and the town on the ocean floor there was submerged
> due to the flooding of the ancient seas. This area is called
> Solent Strait. You can read about it in other articles and this
> is one of the Ten top underwater sites people frequently are
> interested in. See #8 for a bit of information:
> http://heritage-key.com/blogs/sean-williams/top-10-underwater-archaeology-s=
> ites-around-world
> This was brought to my attention on the program in the History
> Channel that is calle "Ancient Discoveries: Mega Underwater
> Structures of the Deep."
> >
> As you can see, this area near the Isle of Wight is a real place,
> and not a metaphorical speculation. Often the History Channel
> will repeat these shows, but I don't know when this one will
> be on again.
Ok, I agree. There seems to be evidence that there was a flood in
that area. Just keep in mind that this was a ~local~ flood. No one
claims that there were never any local floods. There have been
thousands, probably millions. OTOH, there has never been a
worldwide flood. Evidence of local floods is not evidence of a
worldwide flood.
Suzanne
you would see that I have not "cherry picked," as in
isolated only certain phrases of the program, but
have reported on the whole program, even quoting
the scientists. Earlier you said that it didn't mention
the flood (of Noah) when it did do that. This secular
program did not take the attitude that you are saying
at all. What the writers of the program had the
narrator to say is that the find of this verifiable 8,000
year old village on the bottom of the sea might hold
clues that will explain what many believe is only a
myth, which is the biblical flood.
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Dec 12, 7:26�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
No, it was not. You cannot even understand a television show that was
written for average viewers.
Suzanne
food. A person reasoned that the animals would
have nothing to eat and I reasoned that God would
have undoubtedly provided for what he already had
saved. But since you are reading the account, notice
that it took a year for the water to drain off entirely.
During that time, there would, I believe, be time for
many plants to grow while the ground was still very
marshy for months. A question was posed as to
what animals with unique food desires would do, such
as the Koala Bear that only eats Eucalyptus leaves.
I don't know what they would eat in that case, but it
doesn't worry me, since I believe God would have
provided what everyone needed. Genesis 9:3 does
mention that God created (anew?) the green herb,
if you are looking for food the animals can eat. No
one can tell you what that food was, if you are
looking for specific food. I'm sure the Lord provided.
>
> > I think he would have done OK by them, or he would
> > not have saved them. You are assuming things from the human
> > perspective, not from God's perspective.
>
> Not at all. I'm reading the story and noting a reason why it cannot
> possibly be true. If god gave the animals magical food after the
> flood, then he should have said so in the story. He didn't so
> there's no reason to believe that he did. Rather, this is a good
> reason to believe that the story was written by fallible men who
> just didn't realize that there was a problem with the story.
>
forcing things to be the way that you think they
should have been. Do you recall that God spoke
the words and trees and plants and land animals
and sea creatures and fowl in the air just sprang
into existence? Why are you limiting God? He
does not have to do things man's way.
>
> > > 3.
> > > Many animals have specialized diets. Koalas pretty much only eat
> > > eucalyptus leaves. Pandas pretty much only eat bamboo. You've
> > > claimed that the animals came to Noah. So, did these animals carry
> > > a stash of food with them?
>
> > The Lord would know what makes Koalas tick. He is the one
> > who invented them. He would also know how to feed them.
>
> But the fallible men who wrote this story didn't know what made
> koalas "tick". They didn't even know that koalas or pandas existed.
> So, they had no reason to put in magical allowances for their
> specialized diets. If this really were a true story, that would be
> an important point to include. In fact, if the story did mention
> pandas and koalas and speak of god's magic providing food for them,
> that would be pretty good evidence that god is real.
>
them to write. They didn't have to reason, just write
what he impressed in their hearts that he wanted
them to write. It was not a matter of what they
understood. If I tell you to write what I say to you,
do you have to understand it in order to use your
hand to write it? Of course not.
>
>
> > > 4.
> > > Many animals would not be able to survive travel from Ararat to
> > > their present habitats. Kangaroos and the aforementioned koalas are
> > > examples of this. Another is the sloth. Sloths are only found in
> > > south and central America. They walk only about 1.2 miles per hour.
> > > They don't swim. They live virtually their entire lives in trees.
> > > How could the sloth have possibly crossed the Atlantic?
>
> > You speak as though you know the world after the flood.
> > I don't think that you would know what the conditions
> > would be afterwards.
>
> Huh? Are you suggesting that maybe after the flood the conditions
> included jet travel to South America for the species that live
> there? What other conditions could there be that in your fantasy
> world would allow sloths to get back to South America?
>
taken to S. America and adapted to the climate?
Snakes didn't make it to Hawaii.
>
> The fact of the matter is that we do know conditions 4000 years
> ago. They were not substantially different than today. The
> continents were pretty much where they are now. The Atlantic Ocean
> and the Pacific Ocean were both there. They both presented a
> formidable barrier to travel by most land dwelling species,
> especially sloths.
>
> > Still, you are using human reasoning,
> > and you are not seeing things from God's point of view.
>
> Your god is just a bronze age myth, so naturally I don't look at
> things from its point of view.
>
you demand that he has to be according to your
ideas of who he sould be, and that he has to be a
bronze age myth. Your idea of God sounds too
small.
>
> We have evidence. We draw conclusions from the evidence. The
> evidence says the flood did not happen. This item is one of those
> pieces of evidence. If you can't show why the conclusion I draw
> from it is unsupported by it, then you either have to accept the
> conclusion or take the position that evidence doesn't matter. You
> seem to be doing the latter. Of course, if evidence doesn't matter,
> then we can't know anything.
>
you well. But in this case we are talking about
something a whole lot bigger than man's understanding.
Man has a finite mind. God does not reason as a man
does.
>
> > > 5.
> > > The pyramids predate the flood. At least some of them do. The
> > > pyramid of Djoser was built before 2600 BCE. The flood supposedly
> > > occurred around 2100 BCE. Did Noah's descendents just move to Egypt
> > > and pick up the culture of all the people that drowned there?
>
> > We are not told in the Bible why certain people went to whatever
> > location, but we do have the story of the Tower of Babel and how
> > the language was confounded,
>
> The tower of babel is one of the stupidest stories in the bible. It
> way outclasses the flood in that department. It is clearly a just
> so story to explain why there are different languages. But we know
> why there are different languages. Languages evolve over time. This
> is not too dissimilar to biologic evolution. The English language
> is much younger than the tower of babel. So are many (probably
> most) current languages.
>
you would take a swipe at it and call it stupid. I
answered, based on a question.
>
> > and we do have the chapter that
> > is called the "Table of Nations," showing where everyone moved.
> > In my opinion, they really scattered on the face of the earth when
> > the language was confounded and found others who spoke their
> > own "new" language.
>
> You know, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself for believing
> such childish nonsense. I mean, really ashamed.
>
can expect a biblical answer, so please refrain from
attacking the answer if it has to do with God or the
Bible or the flood, etc. After all, this thread is called
"Genesis 5," and the newsgroup is called
alt.talk.creationism.
>
> > However, there is a clue as to how this
> > took place. God earlier told man to be fruitful and to multiply on
> > the face of the earth. Instead of doing that, man banded together
> > in the case of Nimrod in rebellion.
>
> You believe there was a group of people that refused to have kids?
>
flood in order to "replenish" (repopulate) the earth.
For his own reasons, God wanted people living all
over the earth.
>
> > > Suzanne, alot of people criticize you for being uneducated. I want
> > > you to know that I think those people are completely wrong.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> You're welcome. Just, please, stop telling people that you went to
> UT.
>
Did you hear about our recent football game? We
won the big 12 championship in the last _second_ of
the game. Because of this, now we will play for the
national championship.
>
Suzanne
harry k
You do see that "might" in there? Once again and fro the umpteenth
time. There is no evidence that Ye Floode happened and it has been
looked for worldwide by theists who had to admit there is none.
There is tons (literally) in the case of the rocks that show it did
not happen.
Logic, as others keep showing you, says it could not have happened.
The ONLY way it could have happened is for your God to "Poof" it and
then erase all the evidence while substituting evidence it didn't
happen. If that is teh case, you then have to explain why he did
that. Care to provide som "creatoidiot" reasons for such an action?
Give it up and just say "goddidit".
Harry K
Gregory A Greenman
> On Dec 12, 8:50=A0pm, Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:58:03 -0800 (PST), Suzanne wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 5:56=3DA0am, Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:50:17 -0800 (PST), Suzanne wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:28:08 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmai=
> l.co=3D
> > > m>
> > > > > > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >
> > > > > > >On Dec 1, 9:11=3D3DA0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote=
> :
> > > > > > >> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:30:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationi=> > > > > > >> <136301ed-10ff-4ecb-aaec-6e5c05d6f...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups=
> .com=3D
> > > >:
> >
> > > > > > >> >On Nov 30, 7:22=3D3DA0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> w=
> rote:
> > > > > > >> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creat=
> ioni=3D> > > > > > >> >> <babecfbc-57b8-461d-8d21-09ef002a8...@s20g2000yqd.googlegro=
> ups.=3D
> > > com>=3D3D
> > > > > :
> >
> > > > > > >The Gospels are the word of God and are reliable historically.
> >
You suggested that god saw to the needs of the animals after the
flood. So, what is your explanation then? Did god turn off their
digestive systems so that they didn't need to eat for the several
years it would take for vegetation to regrow? Or, did he magically
make the vegetation regrow over night? I suspect that the reason
you won't tell me how god provided for them is because you refuse
to think too deeply on this.
Why don't you pray to god and ask him what the animals ate right
after they were released from the ark? Let us know what it says.
> A person reasoned that the animals would
> have nothing to eat and I reasoned that God would
> have undoubtedly provided for what he already had
> saved.
"A person" is me.
> But since you are reading the account, notice
> that it took a year for the water to drain off entirely.
> During that time, there would, I believe, be time for
> many plants to grow while the ground was still very
> marshy for months.
Nonsense. All the pre flood land plants would have died. (Most or
all of the water plants would have died too, but let's focus on
land for now.)
Even if plants immediately started to grow as soon as the flood
waters receded (where did the seeds come from?), many of them would
not support animal life for a few years. Most deer eat mostly
leaves, fruit and a few other things. It would take weeks before
you'd find much of those. At least deer can also eat grass, so that
could maybe grow in time to prevent their starvation. Koalas, OTOH,
are out of luck. I don't think eucalyptus trees grow over night.
Also, even if there is food for the deer, the wolves still starve.
They either eat the two deer (making the deer extinct) and then
starve to death a week or two later since there's no other prey, or
the deer get away and the wolves die a few days sooner. Other
predators will have the same problem. The lions either eat the two
zebra and manage to live a week or two or they don't and they die a
few days earlier.
> A question was posed as to
> what animals with unique food desires would do, such
> as the Koala Bear that only eats Eucalyptus leaves.
> I don't know what they would eat in that case, but it
> doesn't worry me, since I believe God would have
> provided what everyone needed. Genesis 9:3 does
> mention that God created (anew?) the green herb,
> if you are looking for food the animals can eat. No
> one can tell you what that food was, if you are
> looking for specific food. I'm sure the Lord provided.
So why did he forget to mention it in his book? If he provided
magical food or some other way for the animals to survive, he
should have said so.
Consider these two possibilities:
1. Your god really did kill almost everyone in a flood, and he did
have Noah rescue a few animals on an ark and he really did provide
magical food or some alternative, but he wasn't smart enough to
point that out, leaving an obvious hole in his story.
2. The flood story was written by fallible humans who didn't think
deeply enough to realize that this plot hole existed. The story is
fiction.
#2 seems to be consistent with the facts, so why would you pick #1?
> > > I think he would have done OK by them, or he would
> > > not have saved them. You are assuming things from the human
> > > perspective, not from God's perspective.
> >
> > Not at all. I'm reading the story and noting a reason why it cannot
> > possibly be true. If god gave the animals magical food after the
> > flood, then he should have said so in the story. He didn't so
> > there's no reason to believe that he did. Rather, this is a good
> > reason to believe that the story was written by fallible men who
> > just didn't realize that there was a problem with the story.
> >
> You sound like you are putting God in a box and
> forcing things to be the way that you think they
> should have been.
Really? Cause all I'm doing is reading the story as written and
comparing it to reality. Perhaps god decided to deceive us with
phony evidence. I have no idea why he would do that, but that seems
to be what you are suggesting. If there really is an all powerful,
all knowing god, and he's trying to deceive me I can't win. He'll
deceive me. But, if he's deceiving me, there's no reason to believe
that he's not deceiving you too.
> Do you recall that God spoke
> the words and trees and plants and land animals
> and sea creatures and fowl in the air just sprang
> into existence? Why are you limiting God? He
> does not have to do things man's way.
I'm just going by what the story says. It does not say that god
"spoke" anything into existence after the flood. If it did that,
why didn't it say so in the bible? When he supposedly did that in
the first couple chapters of genesis, he said so. So why not say so
if that's what he did after the flood? Also, if he was gonna just
speak things back into existence, why have Noah save the animals on
an ark? Why not speak the animals back into existence too?
> > > > 3.
> > > > Many animals have specialized diets. Koalas pretty much only eat
> > > > eucalyptus leaves. Pandas pretty much only eat bamboo. You've
> > > > claimed that the animals came to Noah. So, did these animals carry
> > > > a stash of food with them?
> >
> > > The Lord would know what makes Koalas tick. He is the one
> > > who invented them. He would also know how to feed them.
> >
> > But the fallible men who wrote this story didn't know what made
> > koalas "tick". They didn't even know that koalas or pandas existed.
> > So, they had no reason to put in magical allowances for their
> > specialized diets. If this really were a true story, that would be
> > an important point to include. In fact, if the story did mention
> > pandas and koalas and speak of god's magic providing food for them,
> > that would be pretty good evidence that god is real.
> >
> The men that wrote the Bible wrote what God told
> them to write. They didn't have to reason, just write
> what he impressed in their hearts that he wanted
> them to write. It was not a matter of what they
> understood. If I tell you to write what I say to you,
> do you have to understand it in order to use your
> hand to write it? Of course not.
Interestingly, what you suggest is pretty much the opposite of what
many other bible apologists say. When I ask why the bible doesn't
match reality, they say that it's because if the bible talked about
the Big Bang and evolution, ancient man would not have understood.
I don't buy that answer because I don't think ancient people were
stupid. If we can learn about science, so could they. The reason
they didn't is because the tools of science had not yet been
developed.
Anyway, you failed to address my point. My point was that if the
authors of the bible knew how the animals were able to survive
after the flood, they would have said so in the bible. They didn't
say so, so the authors must not have known. They didn't know, so
the authors were not all knowing gods. That means that they were
most likely just credulous people writing embellished stories that
were more fiction than fact. This happened alot back then. In fact,
it still happens.
> > > > 4.
> > > > Many animals would not be able to survive travel from Ararat to
> > > > their present habitats. Kangaroos and the aforementioned koalas are
> > > > examples of this. Another is the sloth. Sloths are only found in
> > > > south and central America. They walk only about 1.2 miles per hour.
> > > > They don't swim. They live virtually their entire lives in trees.
> > > > How could the sloth have possibly crossed the Atlantic?
> >
> > > You speak as though you know the world after the flood.
> > > I don't think that you would know what the conditions
> > > would be afterwards.
> >
> > Huh? Are you suggesting that maybe after the flood the conditions
> > included jet travel to South America for the species that live
> > there? What other conditions could there be that in your fantasy
> > world would allow sloths to get back to South America?
> >
> How about that some kind of early sloth was
> taken to S. America and adapted to the climate?
Huh? The question is how did it get there? The answer is that it
got there because the story is fiction so they never actually left.
> Snakes didn't make it to Hawaii.
Um, is there a point to this?
> > The fact of the matter is that we do know conditions 4000 years
> > ago. They were not substantially different than today. The
> > continents were pretty much where they are now. The Atlantic Ocean
> > and the Pacific Ocean were both there. They both presented a
> > formidable barrier to travel by most land dwelling species,
> > especially sloths.
> >
> > > Still, you are using human reasoning,
> > > and you are not seeing things from God's point of view.
> >
> > Your god is just a bronze age myth, so naturally I don't look at
> > things from its point of view.
> >
> From what you have said, you put God in a box,
> you demand that he has to be according to your
> ideas of who he sould be, and that he has to be a
> bronze age myth. Your idea of God sounds too
> small.
Nonsense. I am just going by what the story says and what reality
tells us. They don't match. Either the story is wrong or god is
deceiving us.
> > We have evidence. We draw conclusions from the evidence. The
> > evidence says the flood did not happen. This item is one of those
> > pieces of evidence. If you can't show why the conclusion I draw
> > from it is unsupported by it, then you either have to accept the
> > conclusion or take the position that evidence doesn't matter. You
> > seem to be doing the latter. Of course, if evidence doesn't matter,
> > then we can't know anything.
> >
> OK, and your evidence and reasoning usually serves
> you well. But in this case we are talking about
> something a whole lot bigger than man's understanding.
> Man has a finite mind. God does not reason as a man
> does.
So you're suggesting that god is stupid? Perhaps.
> > > > 5.
> > > > The pyramids predate the flood. At least some of them do. The
> > > > pyramid of Djoser was built before 2600 BCE. The flood supposedly
> > > > occurred around 2100 BCE. Did Noah's descendents just move to Egypt
> > > > and pick up the culture of all the people that drowned there?
> >
> > > We are not told in the Bible why certain people went to whatever
> > > location, but we do have the story of the Tower of Babel and how
> > > the language was confounded,
> >
> > The tower of babel is one of the stupidest stories in the bible. It
> > way outclasses the flood in that department. It is clearly a just
> > so story to explain why there are different languages. But we know
> > why there are different languages. Languages evolve over time. This
> > is not too dissimilar to biologic evolution. The English language
> > is much younger than the tower of babel. So are many (probably
> > most) current languages.
> >
> Look. I did not mention the Tower of Babel so that
> you would take a swipe at it and call it stupid. I
> answered, based on a question.
I'm sorry, but it's just a stupid story. I mean, come on. The
people are trying to build a tower tall enough that they will be
able to climb it and walk straight into heaven? And god is worried
that they'll succeed? People that believe this nonsense really
ought to be ashamed of themselves.
The fact that this story cannot possibly be true is obvious. We
have buildings today that are much taller than anything they could
have built way back then, and guess what? You cannot walk into
heaven from them. Also, no god appeared to try to stop us from
building them. Further, the pyramids were about the tallest
buildings that could have been built back then and god didn't seem
to stop the Egyptians from making them.
And how does giving people different languages stop them from
working together? Did god make them stupid too? So that no one
could learn a second language? I used to work for a construction
company and you know what? Lots of the people on the job sites did
not speak English. Amazingly, the buildings still got built.
And we know how languages evolve. The people back then didn't, so
they made up a just so story to explain it.
> > > and we do have the chapter that
> > > is called the "Table of Nations," showing where everyone moved.
> > > In my opinion, they really scattered on the face of the earth when
> > > the language was confounded and found others who spoke their
> > > own "new" language.
> >
> > You know, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself for believing
> > such childish nonsense. I mean, really ashamed.
> >
> Again, if you are asking something about God, you
> can expect a biblical answer,
Sure, but believing such a stupid one is just mind boggling. I'm
sorry, but it is just downright shameful to believe such an
obviously false story.
> so please refrain from
> attacking the answer if it has to do with God or the
> Bible or the flood, etc. After all, this thread is called
> "Genesis 5," and the newsgroup is called
> alt.talk.creationism.
So?
<snip the rest because there was little of substance>
Suzanne
happen, is not very good evidence. You can't prove
something didn't happen by the absence of evidence.
You say that scientists don't have evidence of a global
flood. The ones that I am speaking of do think they have
evidence, and that is what has been reported. All your
claims do not keep the village on the bottom of the ocean
near the Isle of Wight, will not go away. It's a fact that
the town was flooded by a great flood, and that flood has
been dated to have taken place around 8,000 years ago.
>
You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
global flood?
>
> There is tons (literally) in the case of the rocks that show it did
> not happen.
>
What is on your mind about what you see in the
rocks? ...or don't see?
>
> Logic, as others keep showing you, says it could not have happened.
>
than you have. They are not necessarily logical, either.
>>
> The ONLY way it could have happened is for your God to "Poof" it and
> then erase all the evidence while substituting evidence it didn't
> happen. If that is teh case, you then have to explain why he did
> that. Care to provide som "creatoidiot" reasons for such an action?
>
> Give it up and just say "goddidit".
>
or giving a reference to them.
>
Another question...If you were wrong, wouldn't you want
someone to let you know that you were wrong?
>
Suzanne
harry k
-------------------------
In the case of a global flood the absence of evidence that _would have
been left_ but isn't there IS evidence it didn't happen.
??keep the village on the bottom of the ocean?? Why wouldn't it stay
there? The ocean rose many hundreds of meters afer the end of the ice
age. Did you think that would have 'drained away? somewhere. It was
the ice sheets melting that raised the ocean level high enough to
flood that 'land bridege between England and the continent.
--------------------------------
> You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
> asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
> global flood?
>
---------------------
A layer of silt world wide that dates to your 'floode' time?
A gap in recorded history showing a sudden stop in occupation for
several centuries?
A biological bottle neck showing all persons decending from 7 people a
few thousand years ago?
Those are just a few for starters
--------------------
> > There is tons (literally) in the case of the rocks that show it did
> > not happen.
>
> Tons of rocks can be interpreted several ways.
> What is on your mind about what you see in the
> rocks? ...or don't see?
>
----------------------------------
Grand Canyon carved through solid rock? Try that in one year.
Fossils layered by _time_, i.e., most primitive (poor choice of words)
on the bottom and increasing in complexity as the rocks get younger.
Fossils not 'sorted by flooding', i.e., earliest and lightest should
be on top, dinosaurs (at least the big ones) should be on bottom, etc.
Again just a few
=========================
> > Logic, as others keep showing you, says it could not have happened.
>
> The "others" don't tend to given much more information
> than you have. They are not necessarily logical, either.
>
> > The ONLY way it could have happened is for your God to "Poof" it and
> > then erase all the evidence while substituting evidence it didn't
> > happen. If that is teh case, you then have to explain why he did
> > that. Care to provide som "creatoidiot" reasons for such an action?
>
> > Give it up and just say "goddidit".
>
> Again, you are making claims and not explaining them
> or giving a reference to them.
>
The references have been given you, they have been explained to you
times inumerable and you just ignore them and continue with your bible
bibble babble.
> Another question...If you were wrong, wouldn't you want
> someone to let you know that you were wrong?
So why don't you?
Harry K
Ralph
Wow, for an English major perhaps you need to reconstruct that sentence.
No Suzanne, when they speak of a flood of Noah they are referring to a
flood of great proportion but not a flood that lasted one year and rose
over the tops of all of the mountains. Most of the evidence of floods in
the area to which you refer and to other areas of the Mediterranean can
be traced to the last ice age(which for a creationist like you didn't
happen because it is dated beyond the time of Adam and Eve).
In your latest lie you have declared defeat by the old 'god can do
anything' BS. If you want to claim a global flood for which god left no
evidence, feel free to do so, just don't claim that you have physical
evidence for the flood of Noah becasue you don't!
This is
> within a reasonable time for Noah's flood.
> Suzanne
It might be, if you creationists settle on a definitive date for Noah's
flood, but it doesn't in reality.
Ralph
Quoting scientists from a TV show is rather difficult for most folks.
Tell me Suzanne, just how accurate do you think your memory is?
> Earlier you said that it didn't mention
> the flood (of Noah) when it did do that.
Again, this program didn't say that this flood was the flood of Noah. It
said that a flood of this size would cause people to think of a global
flood but it wasn't.
> This secular
> program did not take the attitude that you are saying
> at all.
They did, you're just too stupid to realize it.
> What the writers of the program had the
> narrator to say is that the find of this verifiable 8,000
> year old village on the bottom of the sea might hold
> clues that will explain what many believe is only a
> myth, which is the biblical flood.
> Suzanne
Yes Suzanne, this might be the flood about which the early settlers of
that area developed the idea of the flood of Noah but the flood wasn't
the flood described in the book of mythology that you call a holy book.
Ralph
Really? It is evidence that you couldn't refute. you finally conceded
that god could have done anything he wanted to do. Hardly a convincing
argument.
> You can't prove
> something didn't happen by the absence of evidence.
Of course you can. When you look for evidence in the places that would
have evidence if an evident occurred and you can find none, then you
have evidence that it didn't happen. Tell me again Suzanne, how did the
earth's surface withstand the weight of water which was on it for more
than a year.
> You say that scientists don't have evidence of a global
> flood.
They don't.
> The ones that I am speaking of do think they have
> evidence, and that is what has been reported.
They think they have evidence of a flood which might have started a
flood legend but they aren't saying this was even a global flood! You
lie through your teeth. Tell you what Suzanne, if you want to use this
as evidence to support your flood of Noah, you are going to have to
present evidence that is much more substantial than just your
recollections of a TV show, okay?
> All your
> claims do not keep the village on the bottom of the ocean
> near the Isle of Wight, will not go away.
So what?? The area was once on dry land! There was a bridge between the
continent and the British Isles. So f**king what????
> It's a fact that
> the town was flooded by a great flood, and that flood has
> been dated to have taken place around 8,000 years ago.
Yes, this is correct. Again, doesn't support your fish story in the least.
> You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
> asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
> global flood?
You have been told this many times but you always dodge it. There are
numerous things one would expect to see. You can find a few below from
Mark Isaac:
Geological effects of the flood:
* How were mountains formed? Many very tall mountains are composed
of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine
limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser,
1964].) If these were laid down during the flood, how did they reach
their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded
away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial
erosion, which is a slow process.
* How does a global flood explain angular unconformities, where one
set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted)
and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top? They
thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where
there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in
between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.
* When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into
older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces.
It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite
erode very quickly. [For example, see Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for
locations of contact between the South Mountain Batholith and the Meugma
Group of sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.]
* How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for
evolution? Ecological zonation and hydrodynamic sorting fail to explain:
1. the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least
one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
2. the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life.
(Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian
sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the
geological column?)
3. why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found
in many geologic strata.
4. why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar
hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still
perfectly sorted.
5. why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as
present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to
high ground?
6. how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were
preserved intact with other fossils below them.
7. why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas
fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
* How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively
detailed layering? One formation is six kilometers thick. If we grant
400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the
flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling *per day*. And yet
despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered,
with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few
centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting
process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15
meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high
carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square
kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low
carbonate deposition, followed by thirty minutes more of .... well, I
think you get the picture. [From: Bill Hyde; see also Kent & Olsen, 1992]
* How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River
formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves,
identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments
are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.
[From: bi...@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)]
* How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent"
geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and
nonradiometric dating methods? [Short et. al., 1991]
* Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? A
worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments,
noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from
buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and
probably other evidence. All such evidence is lacking in annual layers
dating back 40,000 years.
* How were limestone deposits formed? Limestone is made of the
skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are
thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the flood
started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils
in the deposits?
* How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up
of the bodies of planktonic animals 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter
[Bignot, 1985]. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec.
[Twenhofel, 1961] In a year of the flood, they could have settled about
half a meter. [From xde...@oryx.com (glenn r morton)]
* Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have
originated only on the surface, such as:
o rain drops;
o river channels;
o wind-blown dunes [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson &
Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984];
o beaches;
o glacial deposits [Eyles & Miall, 1984];
o burrows;
o in-place trees [Cristie & McMillan, 1991];
o soil [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1994];
o dessication cracks;
o footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17)
showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers
above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples,
including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
o How could these have appeared in the midst of a
catastrophic flood?
* How could a one-year flood deposit explain stratigraphic sections
showing a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other, all with
upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil? Such layers of
forests appear in many locations. One example, the Joggins section along
the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters thick (along a
48-km sea cliff) with multiple in-place forests, some separated by
hundreds of feet of strata, some even showing evidence of forest fires
[Ferguson, 1988]. For other examples, see Dawson, 1868; Cristie &
McMillan, 1991; Gastaldo, 1990; Yuretich, 1994.] Creationists point to
logs sinking in a lake below Mt. St. Helens as an example of how a flood
can deposit vertical trunks, but deposition by flood fails to explain
the roots, the soil, the layering, and other features found in such places.
* How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? Why weren't
the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalacians during the flood?
* How do you explain fossil mineralization - the replacement of the
original material with a different mineral?
o Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly
mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old
- a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian
geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time
of Moses aren't extensively mineralized.
o Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show
quite variable mineralization.
o Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
o Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in
different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different
materials.
o How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition
of remains in a single episode of global flooding? [From:
jj...@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)]
* How could the flood deposit layers of solid salt, sometimes
meters in width, interbedded with sediments containing marine fossils?
This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its fresh-water
intake cut off, and then evaporates. These layers can occur more or less
at random times in the geological history, and have characteristic
fossils on either side. Therefore, if the fossils were themselves laid
down during a catastrophic flood, there are, it seems, only two choices:
(1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same time, during
the heavy rains that began the flooding, or (2) the salt is a later
intrusion. I suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for a
theory of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils.
[From: mar...@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe). See also Jackson et
al., 1990]
* How were sedimentary deposits recrystalized and plastically
deformed in the short time since the flood? The stretched pebble
conglomerate in Death Valley National Monument (Wildrose Canyon Rd., 15
mi. south of Hwy. 190), for example, contains streambed pebbles
metamorphosed to quartzite and stretched to 3 or more times their
original length. Plastically deformed stone is also common around salt
diapirs [Jackson et. al., 1990].
* How were hematite layers laid down? Standard theory is that they
were laid down before Earth's atmosphere contained much oxygen. In an
oxygen-rich regime, they would almost certainly be impossible.
* How are the polar ice caps possible? Such a mass of water as the
flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps
off their beds. No way to drop them exactly back onto their original
location, or to regrow them. (In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not
regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.) [From: Bob
Grumbine rm...@psuvm.psu.edu]
* A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by
(1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different
grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope
ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a
massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
* When did impact craters on the earth occur? Geological evidence
indicates that they would have formed in sediments early enough for
erosion and crustal movements to partially erase them. Creationists
Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest they occurred during the year of Noah's
flood. But the heat from all those impacts concentrated in one year
would have vaporized the flood waters. [Fezer, pp 45-46]
* And before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and
interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the
geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by
creationists before Darwin even formulated his theory. (See, for
example, Moore [1973], or the closing pages of Dawson [1868], who was
cited above.)
These are only a few and doesn't even touch on the weight of the water
on the continental crust.
>> There is tons (literally) in the case of the rocks that show it did
>> not happen.
>>
> Tons of rocks can be interpreted several ways.
> What is on your mind about what you see in the
> rocks? ...or don't see?
Find the hundreds of millions of tans of rocks that say there was no
flood. They should be strewn throughout one segment of the earth's surface.
>> Logic, as others keep showing you, says it could not have happened.
>>
> The "others" don't tend to given much more information
> than you have. They are not necessarily logical, either.
Then why do you have to resort to 'goddidit'?
>> The ONLY way it could have happened is for your God to "Poof" it and
>> then erase all the evidence while substituting evidence it didn't
>> happen. If that is teh case, you then have to explain why he did
>> that. Care to provide som "creatoidiot" reasons for such an action?
>>
>> Give it up and just say "goddidit".
>>
> Again, you are making claims and not explaining them
> or giving a reference to them.
> Another question...If you were wrong, wouldn't you want
> someone to let you know that you were wrong?
> Suzanne
He isn't wrong, you're the one who is wrong. Aren't you glad that I can
show you are wrong and force you to give up the claim for physical
evidence and just claim 'goddidit'. You're just as dishonest as
'gabriel', 'I'll BeBauck', 'old man joe', and all of the other
creationist misfits. You think you know a great deal about the physical
world when in actuality you are nothing more than a bullshit artist.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>> You do see that "might" in there? �Once again and fro the umpteenth
>> time. �There is no evidence that Ye Floode happened and it has been
>> looked for worldwide by theists who had to admit there is none.
>>
>The evidence that you think you see that a flood did not
>happen, is not very good evidence.
It happens to be outstanding evidence, but you are to stubbornly
ignorant to learn anything about science that shows that you are wrong
in what you preach.
>You can't prove
>something didn't happen by the absence of evidence.
No, it is the physical evidence that is in conflict with the claim that
there was a global flood that proves that your doctrine is bogus.
>You say that scientists don't have evidence of a global
>flood. The ones that I am speaking of do think they have
>evidence,
There are no scientists who make that claim in any scientific journals.
You are making things up.
>and that is what has been reported. All your
>claims do not keep the village on the bottom of the ocean
>near the Isle of Wight, will not go away. It's a fact that
>the town was flooded by a great flood, and that flood has
>been dated to have taken place around 8,000 years ago.
You really need to learn to understand things instead of just picking
and choosing to accept or ignore whatever you feel like.
>You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
>asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
>global flood?
It doesn't matter to you because you don't care about evidence. You have
your own personal doctrine that you worship and you wouldn't change your
mind about it if God told you that you were wrong. If there were
evidence for a massive recent global flood it would be similar to the
evidence for local floods, but it would be everywhere and, because of
the details of the story, it would have destroyed all life on earth.
That clearly did not happen, but it doesn't stop you from ignorantly
denying reality.
>> There is tons (literally) in the case of the rocks that show it did
>> not happen.
>>
>Tons of rocks can be interpreted several ways.
>What is on your mind about what you see in the
>rocks? ...or don't see?
You don't care at all. You will tell any lie to hold desperately onto
the false doctrine that you worship. You are wrong. Live with your error
and go on.
>> Logic, as others keep showing you, says it could not have happened.
>>
>The "others" don't tend to given much more information
>than you have. They are not necessarily logical, either.
You have been directed to the evidence you lying fraud. It was your
choice not to learn about the geology and biology that show that your
doctrine is false.
>> The ONLY way it could have happened is for your God to "Poof" it and
>> then erase all the evidence while substituting evidence it didn't
>> happen. �If that is teh case, you then have to explain why he did
>> that. �Care to provide som "creatoidiot" reasons for such an action?
>>
>> Give it up and just say "goddidit".
>>
>Again, you are making claims and not explaining them
>or giving a reference to them.
You have made it very clear that you will not accept any evidence that
does not fit into your worldview.
>Another question...If you were wrong, wouldn't you want
>someone to let you know that you were wrong?
Clearly you do not want to know that you are wrong. Everyone has told
you that you are wrong and directed you to information that shows that
you are wrong, but you worship your errors and refuse to learn. You have
hubris, not humility.
Suzanne
that are scientists! So stop saying "there is no evidence,"
They found a village flooded by a great flood that they
could date to 8,000 years ago. They gave the geology
of how there was no English Channel and then the
great flood caused there to now be an English Channel,
separating the islands from the mainland. They have
the evidence of the land in the village (the trees, etc.)
before the great flood. This is evidence for a great
flood that happened in the vicinity of the time range
for Noah's flood!
>
> ??keep the village on the bottom of the ocean?? Why wouldn't it stay
> there?
>
bottom! I said keep the village, meaning the information
about it's being flooded in 8,000 B.C. by a great flood.
>
> The ocean rose many hundreds of meters afer the end of > the ice
> age. Did you think that would have 'drained away? somewhere. It was
> the ice sheets melting that raised the ocean level high enough to
> flood that 'land bridege between England and the continent.
>
scientists that have reported their find know all of that.
Are you trying to cover up and just dismiss what they
have said? I think you should listen to what they are
saying.
>
> > You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
> > asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
> > global flood?
>
>
>
to tell you again? When a flood of that proportion
would be draining off, it will not "seep" uniformly all
over the earth slowly into the interior of the earth. Some
of it would be violently rushing away, and in those
places there would not be a silt layer as you are saying.
Other places would seep so slowly that they would
form such as permian basins. Some terrain would be
swept away, cut into, and other terrain would not be.
Garstang looked for evidence of a flood at Ur, and
did not find it. Yet he moved to another location and
did find it.
>
> A gap in recorded history showing a sudden stop in occupation for
> several centuries?
>
on earth. The history that goes back the longest
is in the Middle East, and in the East. The oldest
rocks on earth are in Arizona. Noah and his sons
would know the Eastern and Mid.East history.
>
> A biological bottle neck showing all persons decending from 7 people a
> few thousand years ago?
>
> Those are just a few for starters
>
no bottleneck. According to science, there is a
bottleneck and they are trying to prove our connection
with archaic human types by way of head lice which
have their own family tree. In other words, they are
trying to bridge the gap of a claimed bottleneck that
you say doesn't exist.
>
> > > There is tons (literally) in the case of the rocks that show it did
> > > not happen.
>
> > Tons of rocks can be interpreted several ways.
> > What is on your mind about what you see in the
> > rocks? ...or don't see?
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> Grand Canyon carved through solid rock? Try that in one year.
>
within only one year for the ground in many places to
be free of water. There still would have been much
visible water, waterfalls, rivers, seas, etc. The Tethys
Sea is now not seen. It's underneath the Sahara Desert.
The Grand Canyon geology shows that the river, which
still exists there, was at one time part of the rushing
water that cut the shape of the Grand Canyon over years.
>
> Fossils layered by _time_, i.e., most primitive (poor choice of words)
> on the bottom and increasing in complexity as the rocks get younger.
>
> Fossils not 'sorted by flooding', i.e., earliest and lightest should
> be on top, dinosaurs (at least the big ones) should be on bottom, etc.
>
> Again just a few
>
was upon it. In the desert there, they have found
whales, baby whale groups, dinosaurs. It was on the
History Channel last night in the series called "How
The Earth Was Made." They will probably repeat it.
Look for the show entitled something like "Sahara."
>
> > > Logic, as others keep showing you, says it could not have happened.
>
> > The "others" don't tend to given much more information
> > than you have. They are not necessarily logical, either.
>
> > > The ONLY way it could have happened is for your God to "Poof" it and
> > > then erase all the evidence while substituting evidence it didn't
> > > happen. If that is teh case, you then have to explain why he did
> > > that. Care to provide som "creatoidiot" reasons for such an action?
>
> > > Give it up and just say "goddidit".
>
> > Again, you are making claims and not explaining them
> > or giving a reference to them.
>
> The references have been given you, they have been explained to you
> times inumerable and you just ignore them and continue with your bible
> bibble babble.
>
You are not intimidating or thwarting me away by saying
insulting things. Saying things such as "these have been
explained to you," and "references have been given to
you," and "your bible," are buzz words designed to
capture the audience that you want to stimulate, and
provoke the one that you - I suppose - want to go
away. If anything should be labled as "bibble babble,"
it's these phrases that you seem to consider effective,
but they don't really help points that you make.
>
> > Another question...If you were wrong, wouldn't you want
> > someone to let you know that you were wrong?
>
> So why don't you?
>
> Harry K
>
know the truth. The word for truth in Greek has the
connotation of being something arrived at in layers,
as peeling something like an onion. You get to certain
levels, think you have arrived at the central truth, only
to find that there is yet another layer that you have not
yet peeled to see what is revealed beneath it.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
sentence like some of the ones that I have read
in German or in Russian. Yes, I agree. It might've
sounded better in several sentences. : )
>
> No Suzanne, when they speak of a flood of Noah they are referring to a
> flood of great proportion but not a flood that lasted one year and rose
> over the tops of all of the mountains. Most of the evidence of floods in
> the area to which you refer and to other areas of the Mediterranean can
> be traced to the last ice age(which for a creationist like you didn't
> happen because it is dated beyond the time of Adam and Eve).
>
of this village that was on the
floor of the ocean by the Isle of Wight. There are
many claims in geology that have been reviewed
and changed now. The only problem is that it takes
time for things to show up in books, since books
have a tendency to remain on shelves for years
without you being notified of later findings. You
might look at the new series called "How The Earth
Was Made," on the History Channel. Your idea
about the English Channel has been revised. You
will find that some don't want to change their earlier
ideas.
>
Also, Noah's flood effects lasted longer than the
flood is mentioned in the Bible. In the Bible it
was for a year that the flood took to assuage.
But there were things still going on with the flood
even after that. The flood left dry ground after a
year. But undoubtedly there were still seas, rivers,
waterfalls, underground waters after the flood of
Noah.
>
> In your latest lie you have declared defeat by the old 'god can do
> anything' BS.
>
just lost all your gold stars. I have not lied to you
about the flood of Noah.
>
> If you want to claim a global flood for which god left no
> evidence, feel free to do so, just don't claim that you have physical
> evidence for the flood of Noah becasue you don't!
>
of a global flood by telling about what scientists say
is proof of a great flood 8,000 years ago with the
village they found on the sea floor by the Isle of Wight,
that makes you be untruthful about saying that I am
saying God left "no" evidence for a flood.
>
> This is
>
> > within a reasonable time for Noah's flood.
> > Suzanne
>
> It might be, if you creationists settle on a definitive date for Noah's
>
Ralph, I am not a "you creationists." I am one person.
I don't recall you ever asking me for a date for Noah's
flood. Some people have worked it out as being around
or in the vicinity of 8,000 years ago. There were some
calendar changes, though. Then there is also the year
zero to contend with if you want an exact date. But
according to how some have worked it out according
the the timing given in the Bible, it is difficult to discern.
>
There are other ways of figuring it, though. I have not
tried to figure it out, myself, so I don't really know the
date, but they allow for a plus or minus of 4,000 years.
If you figure it out from Adam and go forward, you
could have a genealogical problem. Some of the
genealogy lists have gaps in them when compared.
Yet Jesus' genealogy through Mary, listed in Luke,
going back to Adam does not have any gaps that I
know of.
>
Having said all that, if someone worked it out to the
exact date, it would not do any good to ignore a
scientist's take on the flood date, if he finds evidence
for a global flood 8,000 years ago if the Bible lists it
closer to 8,023 years ago, or anything within the
leeway of whatever the time was. One would do well,
just to pay attention to someone thinking he has
evidence for the flood, no matter what the exact date
is that he says, at least within reason.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
times I am close. Sometimes not. Depends upon
the level at which I am listening. But with this show, I
wondered if I still had the recording of it, and I did.
So when I quoted the scientist ver batim, I was
indeed quoting him. However, just because I thought
I might encounter someone that was skeptical of that,
I previously included the man's name and you can find
it on the Internet, and the name of the place in the
sea is the Solent Strait which is in the English Channel.
>
> > Earlier you said that it didn't mention
> > the flood (of Noah) when it did do that.
>
> Again, this program didn't say that this flood was the flood of Noah. It
> said that a flood of this size would cause people to think of a global
> flood but it wasn't.
>
the show that apparently didn't, was that the show did not mention the
flood. My reply to that person was that the
show did mention the flood, and in fact began the show
that way, and spoke of the evidence positively as being
evidence of that flood. And you are wrong. It said that
this may be evidence for the biblical flood. It was not
negative towards the global flood in the Bible, as you
are appearing to imply. You are beginning to sound like
a villain in a mystery movie who is trying to throw
doubt on a witness.
>
> > This secular
> > program did not take the attitude that you are saying
> > at all.
>
> They did, you're just too stupid to realize it.
>
>
> > What the writers of the program had the
> > narrator to say is that the find of this verifiable 8,000
> > year old village on the bottom of the sea might hold
> > clues that will explain what many believe is only a
> > myth, which is the biblical flood.
> > Suzanne
>
> Yes Suzanne, this might be the flood about which the early settlers of
> that area developed the idea of the flood of Noah but the flood wasn't
> the flood described in the book of mythology that you call a holy book.
>
History Channel narrator that were on this
program, and not "early settlers," Ralph. I'm just
the messenger.
Suzanne
harry k
> On Dec 13, 11:44 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 13, 7:27 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 11:25 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 12, 7:37 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
<snip for brevity>
That area was flooded at the end of the ice age that is known,
scientific fact. Same as the Bering Straight one. You fanciful
recollections of a TV show again has failed you. Even if that flood
_had_ happened 8,000 yiears ago it still wouild not be proof of a
Noahic flood. The proof you need is something found on dry land, not
under water.
> for Noah's flood!
>
> > ??keep the village on the bottom of the ocean?? Why wouldn't it stay
> > there?
>
> Harry, I didn't say to keep the village staying on the
> bottom! I said keep the village, meaning the information
> about it's being flooded in 8,000 B.C. by a great flood.
>
> > The ocean rose many hundreds of meters afer the end of > the ice
> > age. Did you think that would have 'drained away? somewhere. It was
> > the ice sheets melting that raised the ocean level high enough to
> > flood that 'land bridege between England and the continent.
>
> Harry, I don't care what you are saying because the
> scientists that have reported their find know all of that.
> Are you trying to cover up and just dismiss what they
> have said? I think you should listen to what they are
> saying.
>
Yes, Suzanne, we all know you don't give a damn about what anyone is
saying. You will stick with your deluded, fanciful distortions of
what you _think_ you saw on some popular TV show.
> > > You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
> > > asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
> > > global flood?
>
> > A layer of silt world wide that dates to your 'floode' time?
>
> I've shown how this would not exist. Do you want me
> to tell you again? When a flood of that proportion
> would be draining off, it will not "seep" uniformly all
> over the earth slowly into the interior of the earth. Some
> of it would be violently rushing away, and in those
> places there would not be a silt layer as you are saying.
> Other places would seep so slowly that they would
> form such as permian basins. Some terrain would be
> swept away, cut into, and other terrain would not be.
> Garstang looked for evidence of a flood at Ur, and
> did not find it. Yet he moved to another location and
> did find it.
Nice try but there would be lots of silt beds in the lower areas, they
are not there. No, I do not expect a _uniform_ layer but I do, as does
anyone with 2 brain cells, expect world widesilt beds dated to your
myth. They do not exist.
>
> > A gap in recorded history showing a sudden stop in occupation for
> > several centuries?
>
> You will find it difficult to say this about all nations
> on earth. The history that goes back the longest
> is in the Middle East, and in the East. The oldest
> rocks on earth are in Arizona. Noah and his sons
> would know the Eastern and Mid.East history.
>
And just how would a farmers family know all about China? I also gave
you a time-line for Mesopotamia and Egypt (or are those not Middle
East areas?) showing continual occupation right through your flood.
> > A biological bottle neck showing all persons decending from 7 people a
> > few thousand years ago?
>
> > Those are just a few for starters
>
> Please tell me the details of how you think there is
> no bottleneck. According to science, there is a
> bottleneck and they are trying to prove our connection
> with archaic human types by way of head lice which
> have their own family tree. In other words, they are
> trying to bridge the gap of a claimed bottleneck that
> you say doesn't exist.
>
How about you give us one SCIENTIFIC cite to that bit of asinine
nonsense? No, we are not going to accept a creatoidiot site.
> > > > There is tons (literally) in the case of the rocks that show it did
> > > > not happen.
>
> > > Tons of rocks can be interpreted several ways.
> > > What is on your mind about what you see in the
> > > rocks? ...or don't see?
>
> "Tons of rocks" is not answered.
>
Take a stroll down to your local library and look in the geology
section or visit any decent museum. Look at the progressive dating of
the fossiles in the rocks that have been scientifically dated. I
already point out to you how they do not match sorting by a flood.
> > ----------------------------------
> > Grand Canyon carved through solid rock? Try that in one year.
>
> All the water on earth does not have to have assuaged
> within only one year for the ground in many places to
> be free of water. There still would have been much
d> visible water, waterfalls, rivers, seas, etc. The Tethys
> Sea is now not seen. It's underneath the Sahara Desert.
> The Grand Canyon geology shows that the river, which
> still exists there, was at one time part of the rushing
> water that cut the shape of the Grand Canyon over years.
>
Creatoidiot hand waving trying to explain away and awkward fact.
> > Fossils layered by _time_, i.e., most primitive (poor choice of words)
> > on the bottom and increasing in complexity as the rocks get younger.
>
> > Fossils not 'sorted by flooding', i.e., earliest and lightest should
> > be on top, dinosaurs (at least the big ones) should be on bottom, etc.
>
> > Again just a few
>
> The Sahara yields all that from when the Tehys Sea
> was upon it. In the desert there, they have found
> whales, baby whale groups, dinosaurs. It was on the
> History Channel last night in the series called "How
> The Earth Was Made." They will probably repeat it.
> Look for the show entitled something like "Sahara."
And just how do those fossiles show a flood? that area was green and
lush back then with areas of lakes and seas. Lots of animal, plant
life that was fossilized just like in other currently arid areas.
>
> > > > Logic, as others keep showing you, says it could not have happened.
>
> > > The "others" don't tend to given much more information
> > > than you have. They are not necessarily logical, either.
>
> > > > The ONLY way it could have happened is for your God to "Poof" it and
> > > > then erase all the evidence while substituting evidence it didn't
> > > > happen. If that is teh case, you then have to explain why he did
> > > > that. Care to provide som "creatoidiot" reasons for such an action?
>
> > > > Give it up and just say "goddidit".
>
> > > Again, you are making claims and not explaining them
> > > or giving a reference to them.
>
> > The references have been given you, they have been explained to you
> > times inumerable and you just ignore them and continue with your bible
> > bibble babble.
>
> The kind of talk in this paragraph is not very scholarly.
> You are not intimidating or thwarting me away by saying
> insulting things. Saying things such as "these have been
> explained to you," and "references have been given to
> you," and "your bible," are buzz words designed to
> capture the audience that you want to stimulate, and
> provoke the one that you - I suppose - want to go
> away. If anything should be labled as "bibble babble,"
> it's these phrases that you seem to consider effective,
> but they don't really help points that you make.
>
Too lbad that my words ring truth like a siren in reference to you.
Those _have_ been explained to you innumerable times. You lie every
time you ask for them to be repeated.
> > > Another question...If you were wrong, wouldn't you want
> > > someone to let you know that you were wrong?
>
> > So why don't you?
>
> > Harry K
>
> I'm sure that it's because I care, Harry, for people to
> know the truth. The word for truth in Greek has the
> connotation of being something arrived at in layers,
> as peeling something like an onion. You get to certain
> levels, think you have arrived at the central truth, only
> to find that there is yet another layer that you have not
> yet peeled to see what is revealed beneath it.
>
> Suzanne
If you want people to know the truth, quit lying about not having been
given information.
Just how many hours a day _do_ you spend stomping your feet and
insisting you are right in spite of all the real evidence against it?
Harry K
harry k
> On Dec 13, 11:44 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 13, 7:27 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 11:25 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 12, 7:37 pm, Suzanne
<SNIP>
>
> Suzanne
Tired of your handwaving and lying. Here is the REAL story of that
flooded "village" and I think you even called it a 'city' once.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/features/newsreview/3671677.Secrets_of_the_Solent/
That is a news article written for popular consumption - it contains
links to the scientific papers if you wish to confirm it.
It is only artifacts of a middle stone age civilisation. Nothign
there at all about a massive world wide flood, just simple, SCIENTIFIC
evidence showing it having flooded due to the melting of the
glaciers. Note that the artifacts are stone tools, charcoal, and the
like. Note also that they are scientists making the claims and
backign them with evidence. Note also that there is a controversy
about their 'theory' but it only involves 'was the inlet they were
living on salt or fresh water'. Good example of science adding more
information to prior known facts (not myths).
Don't disappoint us, do some more hand waving, foot stomping and
insisting that your false memory of a tv show trumps all science.
Harry K
Ralph
Suzanne! Quit being disingenuous! We all agree that a flood occurred.
How do we know a flood occurred? By the evidence which it left. The
scientists and lay persons alike agree with the above geologic and
archaeological finds. No that you are a big supporter of flood evidence
perhaps you can see through your blinders and see that despite your
evasions there is no evidence for a global flood of the epic proportions
which are described in the Hebrew bible. Not the first piece of global
flood evidence.
>> ??keep the village on the bottom of the ocean?? Why wouldn't it stay
>> there?
>>
> Harry, I didn't say to keep the village staying on the
> bottom! I said keep the village, meaning the information
> about it's being flooded in 8,000 B.C. by a great flood.
So?
>> The ocean rose many hundreds of meters afer the end of > the ice
>> age. Did you think that would have 'drained away? somewhere. It was
>> the ice sheets melting that raised the ocean level high enough to
>> flood that 'land bridege between England and the continent.
>>
> Harry, I don't care what you are saying because the
> scientists that have reported their find know all of that.
> Are you trying to cover up and just dismiss what they
> have said? I think you should listen to what they are
> saying.
Harry is simple saying that a flood in any particular area is not
evidence of a global flood. Are you so blinded that you can't see this?
>>> You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
>>> asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
>>> global flood?
>>
>> A layer of silt world wide that dates to your 'floode' time?
>>
> I've shown how this would not exist. Do you want me
> to tell you again? When a flood of that proportion
> would be draining off, it will not "seep" uniformly all
> over the earth slowly into the interior of the earth. Some
> of it would be violently rushing away, and in those
> places there would not be a silt layer as you are saying.
> Other places would seep so slowly that they would
> form such as permian basins. Some terrain would be
> swept away, cut into, and other terrain would not be.
> Garstang looked for evidence of a flood at Ur, and
> did not find it. Yet he moved to another location and
> did find it.
To this i can only reply...bullshit! Any person with only a smattering
of knowledge about geology will call you on this.
>> A gap in recorded history showing a sudden stop in occupation for
>> several centuries?
>>
> You will find it difficult to say this about all nations
> on earth. The history that goes back the longest
> is in the Middle East, and in the East. The oldest
> rocks on earth are in Arizona. Noah and his sons
> would know the Eastern and Mid.East history.
In the first place it wouldn't have to be said about all nations, it
only needs to be said on one nation.
In the second place, the oldest rocks on earth are not found in Arizona.
I have finally determined how you debate. You sling as much shit as
you can on the wall and hope some of it sticks.
So far in this thread, it's all flowing down the wall.
>> A biological bottle neck showing all persons decending from 7 people a
>> few thousand years ago?
>>
>> Those are just a few for starters
>>
> Please tell me the details of how you think there is
> no bottleneck. According to science, there is a
> bottleneck and they are trying to prove our connection
> with archaic human types by way of head lice which
> have their own family tree. In other words, they are
> trying to bridge the gap of a claimed bottleneck that
> you say doesn't exist.
A genetic bottleneck exists but is is from the maternal side only and
the time frame destroys the idea of literal bible reading.
>>>> There is tons (literally) in the case of the rocks that show it did
>>>> not happen.
>>> Tons of rocks can be interpreted several ways.
>>> What is on your mind about what you see in the
>>> rocks? ...or don't see?
> "Tons of rocks" is not answered.
>> ----------------------------------
>> Grand Canyon carved through solid rock? Try that in one year.
>>
> All the water on earth does not have to have assuaged
> within only one year for the ground in many places to
> be free of water.
If the earth was flooded for a year it does. Which of the two versions
of the flood do you support?
>There still would have been much
> visible water, waterfalls, rivers, seas, etc. The Tethys
> Sea is now not seen. It's underneath the Sahara Desert.
No, the sea, once part of the Tethys Ocean is long gone.
> The Grand Canyon geology shows that the river, which
> still exists there, was at one time part of the rushing
> water that cut the shape of the Grand Canyon over years.
Over many years, you disingenuous POS.
>> Fossils layered by _time_, i.e., most primitive (poor choice of words)
>> on the bottom and increasing in complexity as the rocks get younger.
>>
>> Fossils not 'sorted by flooding', i.e., earliest and lightest should
>> be on top, dinosaurs (at least the big ones) should be on bottom, etc.
>>
>> Again just a few
>>
> The Sahara yields all that from when the Tehys Sea
> was upon it. In the desert there, they have found
> whales, baby whale groups, dinosaurs. It was on the
> History Channel last night in the series called "How
> The Earth Was Made." They will probably repeat it.
> Look for the show entitled something like "Sahara."
They weren't sorted by flooding. They was no 'sort' to it.
>>>> Logic, as others keep showing you, says it could not have happened.
>>> The "others" don't tend to given much more information
>>> than you have. They are not necessarily logical, either.
>>>> The ONLY way it could have happened is for your God to "Poof" it and
>>>> then erase all the evidence while substituting evidence it didn't
>>>> happen. If that is teh case, you then have to explain why he did
>>>> that. Care to provide som "creatoidiot" reasons for such an action?
>>>> Give it up and just say "goddidit".
>>> Again, you are making claims and not explaining them
>>> or giving a reference to them.
>> The references have been given you, they have been explained to you
>> times inumerable and you just ignore them and continue with your bible
>> bibble babble.
>>
> The kind of talk in this paragraph is not very scholarly.
Nor is your knowledge of science.
> You are not intimidating or thwarting me away by saying
> insulting things.
No, nothing can get through that thick skull of yours.
> Saying things such as "these have been
> explained to you," and "references have been given to
> you," and "your bible," are buzz words designed to
> capture the audience that you want to stimulate, and
> provoke the one that you - I suppose - want to go
> away.
Stay as long as you wish, you can join your awesome brothers in Christ
like Assman, IllBeBauck, gabriel, old man joe and all the others.
If anything should be labled as "bibble babble,"
> it's these phrases that you seem to consider effective,
> but they don't really help points that you make.
>>> Another question...If you were wrong, wouldn't you want
>>> someone to let you know that you were wrong?
>> So why don't you?
>>
>> Harry K
>>
> I'm sure that it's because I care, Harry, for people to
> know the truth. The word for truth in Greek has the
> connotation of being something arrived at in layers,
> as peeling something like an onion. You get to certain
> levels, think you have arrived at the central truth, only
> to find that there is yet another layer that you have not
> yet peeled to see what is revealed beneath it.
> Suzanne
You are so deluded that you wouldn't know the truth. Your 'truth' is the
servitude of mankind.
Ralph
That's a fact! What they reported is what I said above! Can you read?
Are you that damn stupid?
> There are
> many claims in geology that have been reviewed
> and changed now.
Science changes all of the time. Unfortunately for bible believing
Christians it always changes for the worst.
> The only problem is that it takes
> time for things to show up in books, since books
> have a tendency to remain on shelves for years
> without you being notified of later findings.
That is why I don't by a science book that isn't a new edition.
> You
> might look at the new series called "How The Earth
> Was Made," on the History Channel. Your idea
> about the English Channel has been revised. You
> will find that some don't want to change their earlier
> ideas.
I look at it a lot. I have several recent episodes recorded. You also
need to be wary of everything that appears on TV. It is impossible to
present all sides to an issue.
On how the English Channel was formed, I am not aware of anything in the
last few years that would change what is in current textbooks.
> Also, Noah's flood effects lasted longer than the
> flood is mentioned in the Bible. In the Bible it
> was for a year that the flood took to assuage.
> But there were things still going on with the flood
> even after that. The flood left dry ground after a
> year. But undoubtedly there were still seas, rivers,
> waterfalls, underground waters after the flood of
> Noah.
There were seas, rivers, waterfalls, underground waters before the
flood. Do you have a point?
>> In your latest lie you have declared defeat by the old 'god can do
>> anything' BS.
>>
> I see. You are going to just be another bully? You
> just lost all your gold stars. I have not lied to you
> about the flood of Noah.
I really don't care about gold stars from you. You have lied in the
sense that you insist the flood occurred as described in the bible and
you present no credible evidence that it occurred and you can't refute
statements made by others that show it couldn't have happened as
described in the bible.
>> If you want to claim a global flood for which god left no
>> evidence, feel free to do so, just don't claim that you have physical
>> evidence for the flood of Noah becasue you don't!
> Seeing as how I gave new information about proof
> of a global flood by telling about what scientists say
> is proof of a great flood 8,000 years ago with the
> village they found on the sea floor by the Isle of Wight,
> that makes you be untruthful about saying that I am
> saying God left "no" evidence for a flood.
No you didn't. The scientists said nothing about a global flood of Noah.
This is one of several mega-floods that have occurred in the area of the
Mediterranean. These floods are well known and they haven't been shown
to be a global flood! They haven't claimed this so why do you lie like a
running dog and say that they are?
>> This is
>>
>>> within a reasonable time for Noah's flood.
>>> Suzanne
>> It might be, if you creationists settle on a definitive date for Noah's
>> flood, but it doesn't in reality.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Ralph, I am not a "you creationists." I am one person.
> I don't recall you ever asking me for a date for Noah's
> flood. Some people have worked it out as being around
> or in the vicinity of 8,000 years ago.
Who has done this?
> There were some
> calendar changes, though. Then there is also the year
> zero to contend with if you want an exact date. But
> according to how some have worked it out according
> the the timing given in the Bible, it is difficult to discern.
Doublespeak again.
> There are other ways of figuring it, though. I have not
> tried to figure it out, myself, so I don't really know the
> date, but they allow for a plus or minus of 4,000 years.
I'll give you plus or minus a million years a and you still can't show
evidence of a global flood as described in the bible. Since you have
diarrhea of the mouth, why don't you give it a shot.
> If you figure it out from Adam and go forward, you
> could have a genealogical problem. Some of the
> genealogy lists have gaps in them when compared.
> Yet Jesus' genealogy through Mary, listed in Luke,
> going back to Adam does not have any gaps that I
> know of.
ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!! You don't know of any gaps in the chronologies??
How would you or anyone for that matter, know if there was a gap? How
does anyone even know that they are actual genealogies??
> Having said all that, if someone worked it out to the
> exact date, it would not do any good to ignore a
> scientist's take on the flood date, if he finds evidence
> for a global flood 8,000 years ago if the Bible lists it
> closer to 8,023 years ago, or anything within the
> leeway of whatever the time was.
They didn't find evidence of a global flood and they didn't say that
they had. You are nothing more than a damn 'liar for Jesus'.
One would do well,
> just to pay attention to someone thinking he has
> evidence for the flood, no matter what the exact date
> is that he says, at least within reason.
> Suzanne
One would do better to quit lying about the evidence.
harry k
Looks like she is off sitting in a corner sucking her thumb again.
It's been two days since I gave her the _real_ story on the Solent
flood. Not a peep out of her.
Harry K
Suzanne
had any "fanciful recollections of a TV show." I did not
report my recollections of a TV show at all. I reported
what the program taught, in full. I quoted accurately
what the archaologist in charge of the excavation said.
I reported what was said at the beginning of the show
by the narrator. It was not "what my fanciful recollects
of what he said" was. It was actually what was said on
the show.
>
>
> > for Noah's flood!
>
> > > ??keep the village on the bottom of the ocean?? Why wouldn't it stay
> > > there?
>
> > Harry, I didn't say to keep the village staying on the
> > bottom! I said keep the village, meaning the information
> > about it's being flooded in 8,000 B.C. by a great flood.
>
> > > The ocean rose many hundreds of meters afer the end of > the ice
> > > age. Did you think that would have 'drained away? somewhere. It was
> > > the ice sheets melting that raised the ocean level high enough to
> > > flood that 'land bridege between England and the continent.
>
> > Harry, I don't care what you are saying because the
> > scientists that have reported their find know all of that.
> > Are you trying to cover up and just dismiss what they
> > have said? I think you should listen to what they are
> > saying.
>
> Yes, Suzanne, we all know you don't give a damn about what anyone is
> saying. You will stick with your deluded, fanciful distortions of
> what you _think_ you saw on some popular TV show.
>
said and it is not working very well for you. People
can read that I quoted the people on the show and
did not give "what I think I saw...etc." I gave a
reference to the show, gave the name, the channel,
etc. I quoted them exactly and explained to you how
the show began exactly.
>
For you to add that you don't think I care about
anything that someone else is saying is sort of
strange. You are in a newsgroup with topics
about the Bible. This is alt.talk.creationism. If
you want to say things against the Bible, you
will likely encounter people that do not agree
with you. You are not going to get anywhere by
trying to belittle someone's contribution to the
thread.
>
> > > > You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
> > > > asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
> > > > global flood?
>
> > > A layer of silt world wide that dates to your 'floode' time?
>
> > I've shown how this would not exist. Do you want me
> > to tell you again? When a flood of that proportion
> > would be draining off, it will not "seep" uniformly all
> > over the earth slowly into the interior of the earth. Some
> > of it would be violently rushing away, and in those
> > places there would not be a silt layer as you are saying.
> > Other places would seep so slowly that they would
> > form such as permian basins. Some terrain would be
> > swept away, cut into, and other terrain would not be.
> > Garstang looked for evidence of a flood at Ur, and
> > did not find it. Yet he moved to another location and
> > did find it.
>
> Nice try but there would be lots of silt beds in the lower areas, they
> are not there. No, I do not expect a _uniform_ layer but I do, as does
> anyone with 2 brain cells, expect world widesilt beds dated to your
> myth. They do not exist.
>
should be a flood layer all over the earth and that you
don't see evidence of one. I replied that there is no
reason why one should find a flood layer in all places,
because in some places there would be rushing water
that would sweep away any layer from being laid down,
and this is logical reasoning. Now you are saying that you don't think
there should be a flood layer in all places. You will note that I can
mention all this without
reference to the number of brain cells that you have. : D
>
I'm not a geologist. I'm not an archaeologist. But I
did report some that have dated a place under the
English Channel on the ocean floor as being approx.
8000 B.C. What they have found and contributed
counters your claim that there is no evidence.
>
> > > A gap in recorded history showing a sudden stop in occupation for
> > > several centuries?
>
> > You will find it difficult to say this about all nations
> > on earth. The history that goes back the longest
> > is in the Middle East, and in the East. The oldest
> > rocks on earth are in Arizona. Noah and his sons
> > would know the Eastern and Mid.East history.
>
> And just how would a farmers family know all about China? I also gave
> you a time-line for Mesopotamia and Egypt (or are those not Middle
> East areas?) showing continual occupation right through your flood.
>
Iran and Iraq in the north part of their countries.
I've mentioned this several times previously. The
"border sacrifice" that all the Chinese emperors
have revered and taught each year, was first done
in that location at the northwest border of China.
>
> > > A biological bottle neck showing all persons decending from 7 people a
> > > few thousand years ago?
>
> > > Those are just a few for starters
>
> > Please tell me the details of how you think there is
> > no bottleneck. According to science, there is a
> > bottleneck and they are trying to prove our connection
> > with archaic human types by way of head lice which
> > have their own family tree. In other words, they are
> > trying to bridge the gap of a claimed bottleneck that
> > you say doesn't exist.
>
> How about you give us one SCIENTIFIC cite to that bit of asinine
> nonsense? No, we are not going to accept a creatoidiot site.
>
I was not kidding. It might sound strange to you that
scientists are looking to the family tree of head lice,
but the point is that they said there is a bottleneck,
and you said that there is no bottleneck.
whales and baby whales have been found in the
Sahara Desert. Science knows that at one time it
was all covered by the Tethys Sea. These were
visible only a few days ago, again on the History
Channel. It was in the series "How the Earth Was
Made," specifically the episode about the Sahara.
>
Suzanne
>
> > > > > Logic, as others keep showing you, says it could not have happened.
>
> > > > The "others" don't tend to given much more information
> > > > than you have. They are not necessarily logical, either.
>
> > > > > The ONLY way it could have happened is for your God to "Poof" it and
> > > > > then erase all the evidence while substituting evidence it didn't
> > > > > happen. If that is teh case, you then have to explain why he did
> > > > > that. Care to provide som "creatoidiot" reasons for such an action?
>
> > > > > Give it up and just say "goddidit".
>
> > > > Again, you are making claims and not explaining them
> > > > or giving a reference to them.
>
> > > The references have been given you, they have been explained to you
> > > times inumerable and you just ignore them and continue with your bible
> > > bibble babble.
>
> > The kind of talk in this paragraph is not very scholarly.
> > You are not intimidating or thwarting me away by saying
> > insulting things. Saying things such as "these have been
> > explained to you," and "references have been given to
> > you," and "your bible," are buzz words designed to
> > capture the audience that you want to stimulate, and
> > provoke the one that you - I suppose - want to go
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Suzanne
to me.
>
Your claims are not explanations to me. They are
laden with insults and claims that I do not speak
straight and that I imagine things when I've actually
made reports from what scientists have contributed.
>
> > > > Another question...If you were wrong, wouldn't you want
> > > > someone to let you know that you were wrong?
>
> > > So why don't you?
>
> > > Harry K
>
> > I'm sure that it's because I care, Harry, for people to
> > know the truth. The word for truth in Greek has the
> > connotation of being something arrived at in layers,
> > as peeling something like an onion. You get to certain
> > levels, think you have arrived at the central truth, only
> > to find that there is yet another layer that you have not
> > yet peeled to see what is revealed beneath it.
>
> > Suzanne
>
> If you want people to know the truth, quit lying about not having been
> given information.
>
you are trying to claim against what I've actually
said.
>
> Just how many hours a day _do_ you spend stomping your feet and
> insisting you are right in spite of all the real evidence against it?
>
> Harry K
>
of real evidence against anything. You have not
presented evidence, but rather you say that your
evidence is the absence of evidence. That leaves
the way open that someone can shine just one
little candle on your absence of evidence theory
and it will shed light in the darkness. The little
village on the floor of the ocean in the Solent
Strait in the English Channel by the Isle of Wight
is such a candle because it has been dated to
8000 B.C. as to when it was overwhelmed by
a great flood on the earth.
>
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
> That is a news article written for popular consumption - it contains
> links to the scientific papers if you wish to confirm it.
>
> It is only artifacts of a middle stone age civilisation. Nothign
> there at all about a massive world wide flood, just simple, SCIENTIFIC
> evidence showing it having flooded due to the melting of the
> glaciers. Note that the artifacts are stone tools, charcoal, and the
> like. Note also that they are scientists making the claims and
> backign them with evidence. Note also that there is a controversy
> about their 'theory' but it only involves 'was the inlet they were
> living on salt or fresh water'. Good example of science adding more
> information to prior known facts (not myths).
>
> Don't disappoint us, do some more hand waving, foot stomping and
> insisting that your false memory of a tv show trumps all science.
>
>
Sorry, Harry, but your claims do not undo the program that
has been related to the public on the History Channel. It
was reported accurately in spite of your tantrums. It stands,
and there is nothing that you can do about it because it can
be viewed again and again on the History Channel.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
> That is a news article written for popular consumption - it contains
> links to the scientific papers if you wish to confirm it.
>
> It is only artifacts of a middle stone age civilisation. Nothign
> there at all about a massive world wide flood, just simple, SCIENTIFIC
> evidence showing it having flooded due to the melting of the
> glaciers. Note that the artifacts are stone tools, charcoal, and the
> like. Note also that they are scientists making the claims and
> backign them with evidence. Note also that there is a controversy
> about their 'theory' but it only involves 'was the inlet they were
> living on salt or fresh water'. Good example of science adding more
> information to prior known facts (not myths).
>
> Don't disappoint us, do some more hand waving, foot stomping and
> insisting that your false memory of a tv show trumps all science.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
that I have a false memory of a TV show! Listen to this quote
of this TV show, which I still have recorded. I've told you
several times that I was not going by what you supposed was
a memory of the show (which could also have been accurate)
but by the actual show, itself, which is what I had reported in
the first place:
---------------------
"The evidence found at the site reveals a time before the
English Channel existed, and when Europe and Britain were
joined. But after the melting of the ice caps, which covered
most of northern Europe, sea levels started to rise, and the
settlement was buried beneath the sea. The Isle of Wight
site is strong evidence of human settlements being destroyed
by ancient floods. But these legends relate stories of whole
cities being destroyed. What evidence is there of ancient
mega cities being wiped out by floods or rising sea levels?"
(Excerpt from History Channel's presentation of
"Ancient Discoveries: Mega Structures of the Deep,"
to explore the remains of ancient structures at the bottom of
the sea. (Science & Technology)"
----------------------------
I don't lie to people. This is an accurate report from a
program which I have given the reference to above,
just as I did previously, which I have told you previously
that I have recorded. The program goes on to speak
of some other locations on the earth that are mega
cities on the ocean floor.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
If you wish to comment on my answer to Harry,
be accurate. He is saying that his evidence is that
there is no evidence that there was a flood. He
does not think there was a flood.
>
> How do we know a flood occurred? By the evidence which it left. The
> scientists and lay persons alike agree with the above geologic and
> archaeological finds. No that you are a big supporter of flood evidence
> perhaps you can see through your blinders and see that despite your
> evasions there is no evidence for a global flood of the epic proportions
> which are described in the Hebrew bible. Not the first piece of global
> flood evidence.
>
with the presence of evidence of cities that are on the
ocean floor that were covered up with a flood. You are
producing NO evidence. I have produced SOME
evidence. The presence of the evidence that I has bee
submitted counters yours and Harry's claim of no evidence.
The "submitted evidence" trumps your "no evidence."
>
The
> scientists and lay persons alike agree with the above geologic and
> archaeological finds
>
your idea that there is no flood, and the evidence
given shows that there was a flood.
>
> >> ??keep the village on the bottom of the ocean?? Why wouldn't it stay
> >> there?
>
> > Harry, I didn't say to keep the village staying on the
> > bottom! I said keep the village, meaning the information
> > about it's being flooded in 8,000 B.C. by a great flood.
>
> So?
>
You don't seem to have followed what was said.
>
> >> The ocean rose many hundreds of meters afer the end of > the ice
> >> age. Did you think that would have 'drained away? somewhere. It was
> >> the ice sheets melting that raised the ocean level high enough to
> >> flood that 'land bridege between England and the continent.
>
> > Harry, I don't care what you are saying because the
> > scientists that have reported their find know all of that.
> > Are you trying to cover up and just dismiss what they
> > have said? I think you should listen to what they are
> > saying.
>
> Harry is simple saying that a flood in any particular area is not
> evidence of a global flood. Are you so blinded that you can't see this?
>
though. Evidence is given and you both are
carrying on so.
>
> >>> You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
> >>> asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
> >>> global flood?
>
> >> A layer of silt world wide that dates to your 'floode' time?
>
> > I've shown how this would not exist. Do you want me
> > to tell you again? When a flood of that proportion
> > would be draining off, it will not "seep" uniformly all
> > over the earth slowly into the interior of the earth. Some
> > of it would be violently rushing away, and in those
> > places there would not be a silt layer as you are saying.
> > Other places would seep so slowly that they would
> > form such as permian basins. Some terrain would be
> > swept away, cut into, and other terrain would not be.
> > Garstang looked for evidence of a flood at Ur, and
> > did not find it. Yet he moved to another location and
> > did find it.
>
> To this i can only reply...bullshit! Any person with only a smattering
> of knowledge about geology will call you on this.
>
Sorry about that.
>
> >> A gap in recorded history showing a sudden stop in occupation for
> >> several centuries?
>
> > You will find it difficult to say this about all nations
> > on earth. The history that goes back the longest
> > is in the Middle East, and in the East. The oldest
> > rocks on earth are in Arizona. Noah and his sons
> > would know the Eastern and Mid.East history.
>
> In the first place it wouldn't have to be said about all nations, it
> only needs to be said on one nation.
>
> In the second place, the oldest rocks on earth are not found in Arizona.
> I have finally determined how you debate. You sling as much shit as
> you can on the wall and hope some of it sticks.
>
> So far in this thread, it's all flowing down the wall.
>
old, it is said.
>
> >> A biological bottle neck showing all persons decending from 7 people a
> >> few thousand years ago?
>
> >> Those are just a few for starters
>
> > Please tell me the details of how you think there is
> > no bottleneck. According to science, there is a
> > bottleneck and they are trying to prove our connection
> > with archaic human types by way of head lice which
> > have their own family tree. In other words, they are
> > trying to bridge the gap of a claimed bottleneck that
> > you say doesn't exist.
>
> A genetic bottleneck exists but is is from the maternal side only and
> the time frame destroys the idea of literal bible reading.
>
there is.
>
> >>>> There is tons (literally) in the case of the rocks that show it did
> >>>> not happen.
> >>> Tons of rocks can be interpreted several ways.
> >>> What is on your mind about what you see in the
> >>> rocks? ...or don't see?
> > "Tons of rocks" is not answered.
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> Grand Canyon carved through solid rock? Try that in one year.
>
> > All the water on earth does not have to have assuaged
> > within only one year for the ground in many places to
> > be free of water.
>
> If the earth was flooded for a year it does. Which of the two versions
> of the flood do you support?
>
> >There still would have been much
> > visible water, waterfalls, rivers, seas, etc. The Tethys
> > Sea is now not seen. It's underneath the Sahara Desert.
>
> No, the sea, once part of the Tethys Ocean is long gone.
>
drifted north, they've closed the Tethys Sea. Part of what
is left is the Mediterranean and under the Sahara is part
of it. There is supposed to be something like 4 billion
gallons of water under the Sahara.
(Kenneth J Hsu, "When the Mediterranean Dried Up," Scientific American
227 (December 1972): 27)
evidence that you and Harry can't refute.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
the flood didn't happen. It did happen and evidence
has been submitted of mega cities that SCIENTISTS
have said are datable to a great flood. But of course
from your point of view, it's the melting of the ice caps.
Of course you can't fathom that a global flood would
be what melted the ice caps. The salt in the sea would
have probably assisted in that.
>
> > There are
> > many claims in geology that have been reviewed
> > and changed now.
>
> Science changes all of the time. Unfortunately for bible believing
> Christians it always changes for the worst.
>
have been found, and that is what we are talking
about. Your claim of "no evidence" is trumped
by that find.
>
> > The only problem is that it takes
> > time for things to show up in books, since books
> > have a tendency to remain on shelves for years
> > without you being notified of later findings.
>
> That is why I don't by a science book that isn't a new edition.
>
By the time you pay for it and take it home, something
else has been launched that is newer.
>
> > You
> > might look at the new series called "How The Earth
> > Was Made," on the History Channel. Your idea
> > about the English Channel has been revised. You
> > will find that some don't want to change their earlier
> > ideas.
>
> I look at it a lot. I have several recent episodes recorded. You also
> need to be wary of everything that appears on TV. It is impossible to
> present all sides to an issue.
>
evidence that mega cities are on the floor of the
ocean, which are indeed there.
>
> On how the English Channel was formed, I am not aware of anything in the
> last few years that would change what is in current textbooks.
>
several theories.
>
> > Also, Noah's flood effects lasted longer than the
> > flood is mentioned in the Bible. In the Bible it
> > was for a year that the flood took to assuage.
> > But there were things still going on with the flood
> > even after that. The flood left dry ground after a
> > year. But undoubtedly there were still seas, rivers,
> > waterfalls, underground waters after the flood of
> > Noah.
>
> There were seas, rivers, waterfalls, underground waters before the
> flood. Do you have a point?
>
earth. It was spoken of as only
having effects that lasted for one year, due to the
story in the Bible, which tells about when the waters
had assuaged from the land so that it could be
walked upon, lived upon, etc. It did not cover the
lasting effects that still would be going on with the
changes in the terrain of the earth.
>
> >> In your latest lie you have declared defeat by the old 'god can do
> >> anything' BS.
>
> > I see. You are going to just be another bully? You
> > just lost all your gold stars. I have not lied to you
> > about the flood of Noah.
>
> I really don't care about gold stars from you. You have lied in the
> sense that you insist the flood occurred as described in the bible and
> you present no credible evidence that it occurred and you can't refute
> statements made by others that show it couldn't have happened as
> described in the bible.
>
the biblical text.
>
> >> If you want to claim a global flood for which god left no
> >> evidence, feel free to do so, just don't claim that you have physical
> >> evidence for the flood of Noah becasue you don't!
> > Seeing as how I gave new information about proof
> > of a global flood by telling about what scientists say
> > is proof of a great flood 8,000 years ago with the
> > village they found on the sea floor by the Isle of Wight,
> > that makes you be untruthful about saying that I am
> > saying God left "no" evidence for a flood.
>
> No you didn't. The scientists said nothing about a global flood of Noah.
> This is one of several mega-floods that have occurred in the area of the
> Mediterranean. These floods are well known and they haven't been shown
> to be a global flood! They haven't claimed this so why do you lie like a
> running dog and say that they are?
>
History Channel. Perhaps you will get to see
it some day. It's is not scheduled for the near future.
I didn't report it from memory, I have it recorded and
quoted them. Neither of you are getting anywhere with
me with respect to this program.
>
> >> This is
>
> >>> within a reasonable time for Noah's flood.
> >>> Suzanne
> >> It might be, if you creationists settle on a definitive date for Noah's
> >> flood, but it doesn't in reality.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Ralph, I am not a "you creationists." I am one person.
> > I don't recall you ever asking me for a date for Noah's
> > flood. Some people have worked it out as being around
> > or in the vicinity of 8,000 years ago.
>
> Who has done this?
>
>
> > There were some
> > calendar changes, though. Then there is also the year
> > zero to contend with if you want an exact date. But
> > according to how some have worked it out according
> > the the timing given in the Bible, it is difficult to discern.
>
> Doublespeak again.
>
> > There are other ways of figuring it, though. I have not
> > tried to figure it out, myself, so I don't really know the
> > date, but they allow for a plus or minus of 4,000 years.
>
> I'll give you plus or minus a million years a and you still can't show
> evidence of a global flood as described in the bible. Since you have
> diarrhea of the mouth, why don't you give it a shot.
>
"no evidence."
>
> > If you figure it out from Adam and go forward, you
> > could have a genealogical problem. Some of the
> > genealogy lists have gaps in them when compared.
> > Yet Jesus' genealogy through Mary, listed in Luke,
> > going back to Adam does not have any gaps that I
> > know of.
>
> ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!! You don't know of any gaps in the chronologies??
> How would you or anyone for that matter, know if there was a gap? How
> does anyone even know that they are actual genealogies??
>
ARE gaps in the genealogies. In the account that is
in Luke, which is Mary's genealogy, it goes all the
way back to Adam with no gaps. The other genealogies
do have gaps.
>
> > Having said all that, if someone worked it out to the
> > exact date, it would not do any good to ignore a
> > scientist's take on the flood date, if he finds evidence
> > for a global flood 8,000 years ago if the Bible lists it
> > closer to 8,023 years ago, or anything within the
> > leeway of whatever the time was.
>
> They didn't find evidence of a global flood and they didn't say that
> they had. You are nothing more than a damn 'liar for Jesus'.
>
there with my little remote control writing down a few
lines spoken word for word from the copy that I made
of the show.
>
> One would do well,
>
> > just to pay attention to someone thinking he has
> > evidence for the flood, no matter what the exact date
> > is that he says, at least within reason.
> > Suzanne
>
>
(Sigh)
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Dec 17, 1:49�pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Suzanne wrote:
...
>> > I am not the scientist who discovered and has presented the findings
>> > of this village that was on the
>> > floor of the ocean by the Isle of Wight.
>>
>> That's a fact! What they reported is what I said above! Can you read?
>> Are you that damn stupid?
>>
>I can read just find. What I read is that you say that
>the flood didn't happen. It did happen
No, it did not. You lie to us every single time you claim it happened.
We cannot stop you from lying. We cannot stop you from blaming God or
the Bible for your immoral behavior, but we don't have to accept your
lies as facts.
You have chosen to remain ignorant. You have chosen
>and evidence
>has been submitted of mega cities that SCIENTISTS
>have said are datable to a great flood.
More misleading claims from you. Does God really need you to lie for
Him?
>But of course
>from your point of view, it's the melting of the ice caps.
You have chosen to ignore all of the evidence that doesn't fit with your
false doctrine. We know there was no global flood. Those who insist that
it literally happened are lying.
We have the evidence, you have no excuse for your lies.
>Of course you can't fathom that a global flood would
>be what melted the ice caps. The salt in the sea would
>have probably assisted in that.
You really need to learn something rather than just picking and choosing
one fact in a thousand that you can misrepresent as evidence to support
your false claims.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Dec 17, 9:53�am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You really like to tell lies to defend your false doctrines.
Why would anyone accept any of your religious claims when you tell such
blatant lies about things that anyone can find the facts about?
Ralph Page
I didn't watch the program so I probably shouldn't comment but when I
read your transcription of the narration, it appears that they are
indicating that ice covering much of Northern Europe melted, causing
sea levels to rise sufficiently to cover land between Britian and
Europe that was previously dry.
While that is not particularly inconsistent with rain and fountains
from the deep causing a world-wide flood, it's hardly a 'smoking gun'
for a Noachian flood. It appears they are simply saying that melting
ice rasied the level of ocean.
Were there other references indicating that the sea level covered all
land, or evidence discussed about 'fountains of the deep' and lots of
rain causing the sea level change?
>I don't lie to people. This is an accurate report from a
>program which I have given the reference to above,
>just as I did previously, which I have told you previously
>that I have recorded. The program goes on to speak
>of some other locations on the earth that are mega
>cities on the ocean floor.
>>
>>
>Suzanne
>
>
-Ralph Page
remove pants to reply by email
Gregory A Greenman
Suzanne, that quote is quite clear in that it is talking about a
~local~ flood. No one questions that there have been local floods.
There have been alot of them. The thing we keep pointing out is
that there was never a worldwide flood.
It boggles the mind that you think that evidence of a local flood
is somehow evidence of a worldwide flood.
Gregory A Greenman
> On Dec 17, 12:01=A0am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 3:52=A0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 13, 11:44=A0pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec=
> 13, 7:27=A0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Dec 12, 11:25=A0pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On=
> Dec 12, 7:37=A0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > You say that you have no evidence for a flood. I have
> > > > > asked before. What would you think is evidence for a
> > > > > global flood?
> >
> > > > A layer of silt world wide that dates to your 'floode' time?
> >
> > > to tell you again? When a flood of that proportion
> > > would be draining off, it will not "seep" uniformly all
> > > over the earth slowly into the interior of the earth. Some
> > > of it would be violently rushing away, and in those
> > > places there would not be a silt layer as you are saying.
> > > Other places would seep so slowly that they would
> > > form such as permian basins. Some terrain would be
> > > swept away, cut into, and other terrain would not be.
> > > Garstang looked for evidence of a flood at Ur, and
> > > did not find it. Yet he moved to another location and
> > > did find it.
> >
> > Nice try but there would be lots of silt beds in the lower areas, they
> > are not there. No, I do not expect a _uniform_ layer but I do, as does
> > anyone with 2 brain cells, expect world widesilt beds dated to your
> >
> I believe you already did state that you thought there
> should be a flood layer all over the earth and that you
> don't see evidence of one. I replied that there is no
> reason why one should find a flood layer in all places,
> because in some places there would be rushing water
> that would sweep away any layer from being laid down,
> and this is logical reasoning. Now you are saying that you don't think
> there should be a flood layer in all places. You will note that I can
> mention all this without
> reference to the number of brain cells that you have. : D
Why would there be rushing water? Does the Earth have a giant drain
that got unplugged? You need to keep in mind that this was magical
water. So, no one can know how it disappeared. There is not enough
water on the planet for a worldwide flood so it would have had to
appear magically and disappear magically.
And, you know, even putting aside the fact that the story is
impossible without many, many unmentioned miracles occurring, does
it not bother you a little that the whole story makes no sense? God
is supposedly good and loving, yet he murders almost everyone, even
the animals. And, not only that, but he chooses to do it in a
rather roundabout way. Instead of just magically causing everyone
to die in their sleep, he floods the whole world.
If there really were an all powerful god, I'd expect him to use a
more direct method to kill everyone. OTOH, if this was a just so
story written by ancient, fallible man, to explain why floods
occur, then this story is pretty much what I'd expect.
> I'm not a geologist. I'm not an archaeologist. But I
> did report some that have dated a place under the
> English Channel on the ocean floor as being approx.
> 8000 B.C. What they have found and contributed
> counters your claim that there is no evidence.
Nonsense. Evidence of a local flood is not evidence of a worldwide
flood.
> > > > A biological bottle neck showing all persons decending from 7 people =
> a
> > > > few thousand years ago?
> >
> > > > Those are just a few for starters
> >
> > > Please tell me the details of how you think there is
> > > no bottleneck. According to science, there is a
> > > bottleneck and they are trying to prove our connection
> > > with archaic human types by way of head lice which
> > > have their own family tree. In other words, they are
> > > trying to bridge the gap of a claimed bottleneck that
> > > you say doesn't exist.
> >
> > How about you give us one SCIENTIFIC cite to that bit of asinine
> > nonsense? =A0No, we are not going to accept a creatoidiot site.
> >
> I did tell you of a scientific reference to a bottleneck.
> I was not kidding. It might sound strange to you that
> scientists are looking to the family tree of head lice,
> but the point is that they said there is a bottleneck,
> and you said that there is no bottleneck.
There was a bottleneck about 180,000 years ago, IIRC. That is not
at all consistent with a worldwide flood with only a handful of
survivors.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
So once again you will ignore any scientific evidence provided to you
in favor of a misremembered program? What a surprise. Please do
continue stamping your feet and repeatin "but I am right and the whole
rest of the world is wrong"
Harry K
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seems to me that quote is exactly what I pointed out. I notice at the
end of it you end it with "what evidence is there..."...
Gee, I wonder what their answer was. You wouldn't possibly have
dishonestly snipped it because it showed there is none?
You might also ponder on the _scietnific_ fact that the local flood is
dated to around 8,000 BC. That is back in the stone age. There were
no "cities", at best nomadic campsites or small clan gatherings.
Harry K
harry K
harry k
> On Dec 17, 11:16 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Suzanne wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 11:44 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Dec 13, 7:27 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
<Major snip>
by people
> > > that are scientists! So stop saying "there is no evidence,"
> > > They found a village flooded by a great flood that they
> > > could date to 8,000 years ago. They gave the geology
> > > of how there was no English Channel and then the
> > > great flood caused there to now be an English Channel,
> > > separating the islands from the mainland. They have
> > > the evidence of the land in the village (the trees, etc.)
> > > before the great flood. This is evidence for a great
> > > flood that happened in the vicinity of the time range
> > > for Noah's flood!
>
> > Suzanne! Quit being disingenuous! We all agree that a flood occurred.
>
> No, Ralph, all do not agree that there was a flood.
> If you wish to comment on my answer to Harry,
> be accurate. He is saying that his evidence is that
> there is no evidence that there was a flood. He
> does not think there was a flood.
>
YOu lying piece of shit! I have never claimed there was no flood. I
have gone way beyond patience trying to explain to a POS that there is
no evidence FOR A NOAHIC FLOOD. There is evidence of local floods all
over the earth and noone denies that.
> > How do we know a flood occurred? By the evidence which it left. The
> > scientists and lay persons alike agree with the above geologic and
> > archaeological finds. No that you are a big supporter of flood evidence
> > perhaps you can see through your blinders and see that despite your
> > evasions there is no evidence for a global flood of the epic proportions
> > which are described in the Hebrew bible. Not the first piece of global
> > flood evidence.
>
> The absence of evidence is not evidence. I've come up
> with the presence of evidence of cities that are on the
> ocean floor that were covered up with a flood. You are
> producing NO evidence. I have produced SOME
> evidence. The presence of the evidence that I has bee
> submitted counters yours and Harry's claim of no evidence.
> The "submitted evidence" trumps your "no evidence."
YOu are aware that ice cores go back somewhere asround 50,000 years?
That there is no evidence in them of a world wide flood? That is an
"lack of evidence" that IS evidence one did not happen.
It has been refuted by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_century_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Chinese_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_Mesopotamia
and the newpaper article I posted above that contains links to
scientific explanations of the LOCAL flood you are so enamored of (BTW
it happened long befere there were anything that could be called
cities.)
Harry K
osugeography
Hi Suzanne,
I've been lurking while vacationing, and missed much here, but I am
curious, and I hope you can clarify something for me. Did the
television show in question mentioning (or maybe focusing upon) the
submerged town or habitation / dwellings in the Channel near the Isle
of Wight suggest that the structures were what remained of a global
flood, as contrasted with a very large, though local one? Or was they
the remainder of dwellings, now submerged, because of sea level rise
following the most recent glacial maximum?
Thanks!
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
Gregory A Greenman
> There was a bottleneck about 180,000 years ago, IIRC. That is not
> at all consistent with a worldwide flood with only a handful of
> survivors.
That last sentence should read:
That is not at all consistent with a worldwide flood with only a
handful of survivors only a few thousand years ago.
Ralph
I say that the global flood of Noah as described never happened and you
can't refute the points I've made about the evidence that would have
been left if there had been a global flood of that magnitude.
Nice try Suzanne, it wasn't the flood that caused the ice caps to melt,
it was the warming of the global surface.
>>> There are
>>> many claims in geology that have been reviewed
>>> and changed now.
>> Science changes all of the time. Unfortunately for bible believing
>> Christians it always changes for the worst.
>>
> No it doesn't. Evidence of flooded mega cities
> have been found, and that is what we are talking
> about. Your claim of "no evidence" is trumped
> by that find.
My claim of "no evidence" was for a global flood, not a local flood as
this was.
>>> The only problem is that it takes
>>> time for things to show up in books, since books
>>> have a tendency to remain on shelves for years
>>> without you being notified of later findings.
>> That is why I don't by a science book that isn't a new edition.
>>
> It sounds about like trying to own the latest computer.
> By the time you pay for it and take it home, something
> else has been launched that is newer.
False analogy, Suzanne, just as most of what you say is false. Science
is open to change. New ideas are presented all of the time. If you read
an outdated science book you learn what may be old ideas.
>>> You
>>> might look at the new series called "How The Earth
>>> Was Made," on the History Channel. Your idea
>>> about the English Channel has been revised. You
>>> will find that some don't want to change their earlier
>>> ideas.
>> I look at it a lot. I have several recent episodes recorded. You also
>> need to be wary of everything that appears on TV. It is impossible to
>> present all sides to an issue.
>>
> I didn't present all sides of an issue. I submitted
> evidence that mega cities are on the floor of the
> ocean, which are indeed there.
Yes they are.
>> On how the English Channel was formed, I am not aware of anything in the
>> last few years that would change what is in current textbooks.
>>
> The archaeologist in the TV program I spoke of has
> several theories.
I don't give a rip
about the archaeologists of the program. They aren't in this
discussion. If you can't support the your statements, don't present them.
>>> Also, Noah's flood effects lasted longer than the
>>> flood is mentioned in the Bible. In the Bible it
>>> was for a year that the flood took to assuage.
>>> But there were things still going on with the flood
>>> even after that. The flood left dry ground after a
>>> year. But undoubtedly there were still seas, rivers,
>>> waterfalls, underground waters after the flood of
>>> Noah.
>> There were seas, rivers, waterfalls, underground waters before the
>> flood. Do you have a point?
>>
> We were talking about the effects of the flood's draining off on the
> earth. It was spoken of as only
> having effects that lasted for one year, due to the
> story in the Bible, which tells about when the waters
> had assuaged from the land so that it could be
> walked upon, lived upon, etc. It did not cover the
> lasting effects that still would be going on with the
> changes in the terrain of the earth.
So there were great changes in the contours of the earth. Which bible
tells of that?
>>>> In your latest lie you have declared defeat by the old 'god can do
>>>> anything' BS.
>>> I see. You are going to just be another bully? You
>>> just lost all your gold stars. I have not lied to you
>>> about the flood of Noah.
>> I really don't care about gold stars from you. You have lied in the
>> sense that you insist the flood occurred as described in the bible and
>> you present no credible evidence that it occurred and you can't refute
>> statements made by others that show it couldn't have happened as
>> described in the bible.
>>
> Yes, Ralph, very interesting evidence has been submitted that support
> the biblical text.
No Suzanne, they don't support a global flood that flooded all of the
earth.
>>>> If you want to claim a global flood for which god left no
>>>> evidence, feel free to do so, just don't claim that you have physical
>>>> evidence for the flood of Noah becasue you don't!
>>> Seeing as how I gave new information about proof
>>> of a global flood by telling about what scientists say
>>> is proof of a great flood 8,000 years ago with the
>>> village they found on the sea floor by the Isle of Wight,
>>> that makes you be untruthful about saying that I am
>>> saying God left "no" evidence for a flood.
>> No you didn't. The scientists said nothing about a global flood of Noah.
>> This is one of several mega-floods that have occurred in the area of the
>> Mediterranean. These floods are well known and they haven't been shown
>> to be a global flood! They haven't claimed this so why do you lie like a
>> running dog and say that they are?
>>
> Ralph, I have reported accurately on this program that was on the
> History Channel. Perhaps you will get to see
> it some day. It's is not scheduled for the near future.
> I didn't report it from memory, I have it recorded and
> quoted them. Neither of you are getting anywhere with
> me with respect to this program.
You have only reported what you wanted to hear but didn't. In no way was
this described as the Noachian flood.
>>>> This is
>>>>> within a reasonable time for Noah's flood.
>>>>> Suzanne
>>>> It might be, if you creationists settle on a definitive date for Noah's
>>>> flood, but it doesn't in reality.- Hide quoted text -
>>> Ralph, I am not a "you creationists." I am one person.
>>> I don't recall you ever asking me for a date for Noah's
>>> flood. Some people have worked it out as being around
>>> or in the vicinity of 8,000 years ago.
>> Who has done this?
>>
> It is in the program.
The program didn't mention a date for the global flood of Noah. The
program mentioned a date for the flood on which they were reporting.
>>> There were some
>>> calendar changes, though. Then there is also the year
>>> zero to contend with if you want an exact date. But
>>> according to how some have worked it out according
>>> the the timing given in the Bible, it is difficult to discern.
>> Doublespeak again.
>>
>>> There are other ways of figuring it, though. I have not
>>> tried to figure it out, myself, so I don't really know the
>>> date, but they allow for a plus or minus of 4,000 years.
>> I'll give you plus or minus a million years a and you still can't show
>> evidence of a global flood as described in the bible. Since you have
>> diarrhea of the mouth, why don't you give it a shot.
>>
> Some evidence has been given, and it trumps your
> "no evidence."
Wow! You gave evidence of a local flood in the Mediterranean area. This
region had several mega floods. They were in no shape, form or fashion,
a global flood.
>>> If you figure it out from Adam and go forward, you
>>> could have a genealogical problem. Some of the
>>> genealogy lists have gaps in them when compared.
>>> Yet Jesus' genealogy through Mary, listed in Luke,
>>> going back to Adam does not have any gaps that I
>>> know of.
>> ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!! You don't know of any gaps in the chronologies??
>> How would you or anyone for that matter, know if there was a gap? How
>> does anyone even know that they are actual genealogies??
>>
> No, you misunderstood. I said previously that there
> ARE gaps in the genealogies. In the account that is
> in Luke, which is Mary's genealogy, it goes all the
> way back to Adam with no gaps. The other genealogies
> do have gaps.
No, it isn't Mary's genealogy and you can't present evidence that it is.
We've been through this before.
>>> Having said all that, if someone worked it out to the
>>> exact date, it would not do any good to ignore a
>>> scientist's take on the flood date, if he finds evidence
>>> for a global flood 8,000 years ago if the Bible lists it
>>> closer to 8,023 years ago, or anything within the
>>> leeway of whatever the time was.
>> They didn't find evidence of a global flood and they didn't say that
>> they had. You are nothing more than a damn 'liar for Jesus'.
>>
> I have quoted the program, ver batim, and have sat
> there with my little remote control writing down a few
> lines spoken word for word from the copy that I made
> of the show.
You can present the entire show, Suzanne, and it won't support your
claim. You are hijacking a show by claiming that it is something other
than what it is.
>> One would do well,
>>
>>> just to pay attention to someone thinking he has
>>> evidence for the flood, no matter what the exact date
>>> is that he says, at least within reason.
>>> Suzanne
>> One would do better to quit lying about the evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> (Sigh)
> Suzanne
There are no sighs involved. It is nothing more than your disingenuous
behavior which has now reached the point of being called what it is,
trolling.
Ralph
Yes, he did mention the 'mythical' flood of Noah. He mentioned it in
just the same way that I said he would have many posts ago, as that this
might have been a flood that would have caused the global flood myth to
begin.
>>> Earlier you said that it didn't mention
>>> the flood (of Noah) when it did do that.
>> Again, this program didn't say that this flood was the flood of Noah. It
>> said that a flood of this size would cause people to think of a global
>> flood but it wasn't.
>>
> The statement put to me by one claiming to have seen
> the show that apparently didn't, was that the show did not mention the
> flood. My reply to that person was that the
> show did mention the flood, and in fact began the show
> that way, and spoke of the evidence positively as being
> evidence of that flood. And you are wrong. It said that
> this may be evidence for the biblical flood. It was not
> negative towards the global flood in the Bible, as you
> are appearing to imply. You are beginning to sound like
> a villain in a mystery movie who is trying to throw
> doubt on a witness.
Yes Suzanne, the show mentioned the mythical flood of Noah.
>>> This secular
>>> program did not take the attitude that you are saying
>>> at all.
>> They did, you're just too stupid to realize it.
>>
> You are completely wrong.
>>> What the writers of the program had the
>>> narrator to say is that the find of this verifiable 8,000
>>> year old village on the bottom of the sea might hold
>>> clues that will explain what many believe is only a
>>> myth, which is the biblical flood.
>>> Suzanne
>> Yes Suzanne, this might be the flood about which the early settlers of
>> that area developed the idea of the flood of Noah but the flood wasn't
>> the flood described in the book of mythology that you call a holy book.
>>
> These were modern scientists, and a modern
> History Channel narrator that were on this
> program, and not "early settlers," Ralph. I'm just
> the messenger.
>
> Suzanne
Yes you are the messenger and a rather stupid one at that. The show
hosts described this flood in just the way I said they did. They didn't
realize that the creationists watching would ignore the use of the
word'mythical' in their description. That only shows the naivety of the
scientists.
Ralph
No, nothing would indicate 'truth' to you.
> Your claims are not explanations to me.
Nothing would be an explanation to you.
> They are
> laden with insults and claims that I do not speak
> straight and that I imagine things when I've actually
> made reports from what scientists have contributed.
You do.
>>>>> Another question...If you were wrong, wouldn't you want
>>>>> someone to let you know that you were wrong?
>>>> So why don't you?
>>>> Harry K
>>> I'm sure that it's because I care, Harry, for people to
>>> know the truth. The word for truth in Greek has the
>>> connotation of being something arrived at in layers,
>>> as peeling something like an onion. You get to certain
>>> levels, think you have arrived at the central truth, only
>>> to find that there is yet another layer that you have not
>>> yet peeled to see what is revealed beneath it.
>>> Suzanne
>> If you want people to know the truth, quit lying about not having been
>> given information.
>>
> People can see the truth, Harry. They see what
> you are trying to claim against what I've actually
> said.
Yes they can and that shows you are wrong.
>> Just how many hours a day _do_ you spend stomping your feet and
>> insisting you are right in spite of all the real evidence against it?
>>
>> Harry K
>>
> I've spent very little time stomping my feet in spite
> of real evidence against anything.
You haven't presented any real evidence.
> You have not
> presented evidence, but rather you say that your
> evidence is the absence of evidence. That leaves
> the way open that someone can shine just one
> little candle on your absence of evidence theory
> and it will shed light in the darkness. The little
> village on the floor of the ocean in the Solent
> Strait in the English Channel by the Isle of Wight
> is such a candle because it has been dated to
> 8000 B.C. as to when it was overwhelmed by
> a great flood on the earth.
The little village on the ocean floor was overwhelmed by a change in sea
level resulting from the retreat of the last ice age. It is evidence of
a great local flood only.
Ralph
Tell me again Suzanne, how the announcers described this as the great
flood of Noah.
Suzanne
reported the melting of the ice caps, and didn't say it was
because of the flood, but just happened at the same time
the city was submerged. The most prominent thing that they
said was the dating of the town as being 8,000 years ago,
which would be within the time frame, more or less of the
flood of Noah, and the fact that it all supports some kind of
global flood, which they speculated at the beginning could
be the biblical flood.
>
Suzanne
>
> >I don't lie to people. This is an accurate report from a
> >program which I have given the reference to above,
> >just as I did previously, which I have told you previously
> >that I have recorded. The program goes on to speak
> >of some other locations on the earth that are mega
> >cities on the ocean floor.
>
> >Suzanne
>
> -Ralph Page
Suzanne
global, biblical flood and not a local flood. They spoke
of the raising of the sea levels, the melting of the ice
caps, which would only refer to a global flood and in no
way spoke of a local flood.
>
> It boggles the mind that you think that evidence of a local flood
> is somehow evidence of a worldwide flood.
>
a report that there might be evidence for a global biblical flood,
and it had nothing at all to do with any kind of a local flood.
They mentioned the raising of sea levels and the dating of the
town that is now on the bottom of the sea as being in the same
time area that a biblical global flood occurred. Sea level rising
would affect the entire globe.
>
Suzanne