Evidence Of A Global Flood

[curtjester1]

Evidence for a Global Flood




by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed

Email: laur...@unmaskingevolution.com

Webpage: www.unmaskingevolution.com

[Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]



In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a
local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough
rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent
discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a
much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded, with the resultant
volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These
details have demolished the main argument against a global flood, but
the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any
evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.



Here are over 100 evidences in support of a global flood, rather than
a local one.

FROM LOGIC.........[12 reasons]

(1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized
area is currently close to impossible.

(2) A rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood, indicating
a radical change in atmospheric conditions as a consequence of a
cataclysmic event.

(3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a
local flood.

(4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have
been local.

(5) To cover the mountains continually for 9 months, the flood could
not have been local.

(6) The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human beings. This
could only refer to a worldwide flood.

(7) If the flood was local, people living elsewhere in the world would
have escaped.

(8) The enormous size of the ark (equivalent to the capacity of 500
railroad freight carriages) would hold much more than local species of
animals.

(9) The purpose of the ark to "keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon
the face of the earth" is only rational if the flood was global.

(10) Noah and his family could have migrated to a locality away from
the local area to be flooded. There would have been no need to spend
120 years building an ark.

(11) Many of the animals in the flooding area could have easily
migrated to escape the deluge if the flood was local. There would have
been no need to build an ark to provide them with a safe haven.

(12) If God made a promise based on a lie (ie. that the flood being
local rather than global), then he can't be trusted to save us from
our sins.



FROM SCIENCE....... [45 reasons]

(13) There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.

(14) According to current archaeological evidence, civilization
appears to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region.

(15) The genealogical records of many of the European kings can be
traced back to Japheth, son of Noah.

(16) An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there
was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood.
This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.

(17) Human palaeontological evidence exists even in the earliest
geologic 'ages' (eg human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and
Cretaceous rocks). If the layers of rock were laid down by a global
flood and then interpreted as evolutionary long-ages, human remains
and artefacts would appear to be in such positions.

(18) The most ancient human artefacts date to the post-flood era. This
indicates that the earlier hardware could have been buried beyond
reach by a huge flood.

(19) Calculations have shown that there is nearly the same amount of
organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if
all the fossils were still alive (Morris p:685). This indicates the
demise of all living things in a single global event.

(20) Palaeontological evidence indicates that the early earth had a
warm/humid climate. This is consistent with the destruction of the old
atmosphere by the processes of a global flood as described in Genesis.

(21) The glacial period started very quickly. This would require a
cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid
climatic change.

(22) Similar geologic formations exist in rocks of all ages (eg rifts,
folds, faults, thrusts, etc.). These can just as easily be explained
as being created in the same cataclysmic global event.

(23) Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment
have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted
while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global
scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have
required a catastrophic global flood.

(24) Rocks of different geologic 'ages' have similar physical features
indicating that they could have been created by a single worldwide
event - such as a global flood.

(25) There is an absence of physical evidence that indicates a time
change between rocks of 'successive ages'. Sedimentary rock layers
worldwide appear to have been laid down very quickly, as by a global
flood.

(26) Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of
animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment.
Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits
wouldn't.

(27) All types of rocks (eg limestone, shale, granite, etc) occur in
all geologic 'ages'. This indicates a common formation on a global
scale - the situation that would have been created by the mixing of
sediment in a global flood.

(28) Many geological processes have a recent geological date. If the
long-age evolutionary time scale is ignored, these processes would
have occurred in the very recent past - ie. as a result of the flood
cataclysm.

(29) Recent volcanic rocks are distributed widely. (see last point
above)

(30) The uplift of the major mountain ranges are relatively young,
based on evolutionary chronology. If the long-age evolutionary time
scale is ignored, these processes would have occurred in the very
recent past - ie as a result of the flood cataclysm.

(31) There is a lack of correlation between radiometric 'ages' and
assumed palaeontological 'ages' (Morris p:686). A global flood could
easily create an illusion of geologic 'ages'. The consequent conflict
between dating methods confirms the illusion.

(32) Fossil 'graveyards' are found worldwide, and in rocks of all
'ages'. Only a catastrophic global flood could achieve this.

(33) The burial of fossil deposits worldwide had to have occurred in a
catastrophic event. Only massive flooding could bury in such a
fashion.

(34) Marine fossils can be found on the crests of mountains. Apart
from mountain uplifting, this can also be explained as the marine
animals being washed there and then buried. A global flood could do
this.

(35) There is a worldwide distribution of most of the fossil types,
indicating transportation on a global scale by a global flood.

(36) Fossils from different 'ages' are often found mixed. This
indicates a huge mixing of animal bones that is not consistent with a
local flood.

(37) Worldwide, fossils from different 'ages' are often found in the
wrong order. This indicates a global mixing of fossils as a
consequence of a global flood.

(38) Supposed evolutionary fossil sequences often parallel the
ecological zonation that occurs today (Morris p:686). If a global
flood mixed organisms from different areas, it would create the
illusion of a fossil sequence over time.

(39) Dinosaurs and many other prehistoric creatures died out suddenly.
A catastrophe such as a global flood could have produced this result.

(40) Polystrate fossils (viz. vertical fossil tree trunks) that are
found worldwide indicate turbulent or rapid deposition. A global flood
would be required to do this worldwide.

(41) Polystrate fossils also form when water-logged timber sinks in a
large body of water. A year long global flood could produce worldwide
polystrate fossils formed in this way.

(42) Animal tracks and other ephemeral markings (ripple-marks and
raindrop imprints) have been preserved throughout the geological
column. Rapid covering of these markings is required for this
preservation worldwide - ie. by a global flood.

(43) Meteorites are basically absent from the geologic column. With
the large number of meteorites hitting the earth each year, they
should be very plentiful throughout the sedimentary rocks - unless
much of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid down in one year.

(44) Sedimentary rocks contain fossil ripple-marks and raindrop
imprints, but no hail imprints. A global flood (with associated rain),
that was not caused by storms would not leave hail imprint marks.

(45) Some desert areas show evidence of 'recent' water bodies. Water
from a recent global flood would remain in large pools (bodies of
water) for some time before evaporating.

(46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A global
flood could easily have created this feature.

(47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when the
world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this
is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.

(48) Mountain-high water level marks found throughout the world are
consistent with the recession of a global flood.

(49) River terraces are found worldwide. (Morris p:685)

(50) There is a universal occurrence of rivers in valleys too large
for the present stream. Slow erosion over millions of years could not
have created these valleys as the mountains would have eroded, keeping
pace with the valley erosion. The drainage of global floodwaters from
the land surface could easily create such wide valleys in a short
period of time.

(51) Only modern sediments show any evidence of surface drainage
systems. If the majority of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid
down by a global flood there would not be any sign of drainage erosion
except for the top layers eroded during the recession of the flood
waters off the land.

(52) Hydrologic evidence points to the rapid deposition of sedimentary
rock layers. Therefore, the thousand's of metres of sediment must have
been deposited by a catastrophic global flood.

(53) Hydrologic evidence points to the world's sedimentary rocks being
deposited in one continuous episode. All the layers could have been
laid down by a single event, such as a global flood.

(54) Hydrologic experiments show that flowing sediment automatically
settles out in distinct layers. Therefore, sedimentary rock layers can
be just as easily explained as flood debris, as slow deposition.

(55) There is a worldwide occurrence of deep alluvial deposits and
sedimentary rocks consistent with a huge global flood.

(56) There is a near-random deposition of formational sequences.
(Morris p:685)

(57) Nowhere in the world is it possible to see the complete geologic
column as a single structure. It is always found in bits and pieces,
and mostly with pieces missing. Globally, a worldwide flood could
create the illusion of a geologic column.

(58) The oldest organisms still alive on Earth today, the Californian
Redwoods, Sequoias and Bristlecone Pines, are around 3,000-4,000 years
old. Nothing is older that the date of Noah's flood.



FROM THE GENESIS NARRATIVE........ [47 reasons]

(59) The account in Genesis speaks of the flood being a universal
event at least thirty times.

(60) God promised three times not to "smite [destroy - NKJ] every
living thing" by a flood (Gen 8:21; 9:11; 9:15). Three occurrences in
Scripture indicates absolute truth.

(61) Following the flood, Eden was no longer discussed geographically.
If it was a local flood, its general whereabouts would still be known.
The total obliteration of the whole earth's geography is therefore
inferred - such as by a global flood.

(62) The "waters above the firmament [earth - NKJ]" would not have
been localised into a small area. (Gen 1:7)

(63) No rain on the earth before the flood speaks of a worldwide
condition. (Gen 2:5)

(64) The whole earth was watered by a mist, prior to the flood. (Gen
2:6)

(65) The dawn of civilization had a high civilization (Genesis chapter
4). This was wiped out and did not recover for a long time.

(66) The long life spans of the pre-diluvial people indicates an
entirely different biosphere. (Gen 5:5; 5:8; 5:11; etc)

(67) The subsequent decline in life span following the flood indicates
a radically different biosphere. (Gen 23:1; 25:7)

(68) God described the pre-flood people as universally evil (Gen 6:5).
He never described the post-flood people as universally evil, so
something universal (ie. worldwide) must have happened to weed it out.

(69) Mankind had multiplied all over the earth (Gen 6:1), so the flood
had to be global to destroy them all.

(70) God was sorry that he created all living creatures, not just a
localised population of animal creatures. (Gen 6:6-7)

(71) The whole earth was seen by God as corrupt. (Gen 6:11-12)

(72) God decided to destroy the whole earth. (Gen 6:13)

(73) Everything that had breath was to die. (Gen 6:17)

(74) The purpose of the ark was to keep two of every breathing animal
(ie. worldwide species) alive. (Gen 6:19)

(75) Two of every kind of animal and bird came to Noah, not just local
fauna. (Gen 6:20)

(76) Noah had to collect samples of all food eaten, not just local
foodstuffs. (Gen 6:21)

(77) God wanted the ark "to keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon the
face of the earth". (Gen 7:3)

(78) God promised to destroy every living thing on the earth. (Gen
7:4)

(79) The Hebrew word for flood "mabbul" only refers to Noah's flood,
so it must have been different to all other floods. (Gen 7:10)

(80) All the "fountains of the great deep" broke up in one incident.
(Gen 7:11)

(81) The "fountains of the great deep" would not have affected a
simple, local land-based flood. (Gen 7:11)

(82) The opening of the windows of heaven (if this refers to "the
waters above the firmament") would had a global impact. (Gen 7:11)

(83) The double superlative, "all the high mountains under all the
heavens" ["all the high hills under the whole heaven" - NKJ],
indicates a global covering. (Gen 7:19)

(84) The highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits (6.75m) of water.
(Gen 7:20)

(85) The Hebrew word, "kasah", used to mean that the mountains were
covered has a meaning of "overwhelming". (Gen 7:20)

(86) Every human died on the whole earth. (Gen 7:21)

(87) All living things on dry land, with "nephesh" life in them, died.
(Gen 7:22)

(88) Every living thing on the earth was destroyed. (Gen 7:23)

(89) The floodwater remained at maximum height for 5 months. (Gen
7:24)

(90) The "fountains of the deep" were open for 5 months. (Gen 8:2)

(91) The "windows of heaven" were open for 5 months. (Gen 8:2)

(92) The floodwaters took 5 months to drain off the land. (Gen 8:3)

(93) The ark floated above the mountains for 5 months. (Gen 8:4)

(94) The waters receded for 2.5 months before the mountain tops were
visible. (Gen 8:5)

(95) The dove couldn't find solid ground until the water had receded
for 4 months. (Gen 8:9)

(96) Plants did not grow for 9 months. (Gen 8:11)

(97) Noah, his family, and the animals were in the ark for over a
year. (Gen 8:14)

(98) All current life came out of the ark. (Gen 8:19)

(99) God promised that he would not destroy all living things again in
the same way. (Gen 8:21)

(100) The current seasonal conditions date from the end of the flood
(Gen 8:22), indicating a radical change from the previous environment.

(101) God commanded Noah and his family to breed and fill the earth
with people again. (Gen 9:1)

(102) A flood will not be used by God to destroy the earth again. (Gen
9:11)

(103) The earth was re-populated from Noah's family. (Gen 9:19)

(104) Everyone spoke the same language after the flood (Gen 11:1),
indicating decent from a single ancestor.

(105) Everyone lived in the same area after the flood. (Gen 11:9)



FROM ELSEWHERE IN SCRIPTURE...... [9 reasons]

(106) The floodwaters overturned the earth. (Job 12:15)

(107) The floodwaters covered the whole earth. (Is 54:9)

(108) The flood took all people off the face of the earth. (Matt
24:39) - Jesus talking

(109) The flood destroyed all humans. (Luke 17:27) - Jesus talking

(110) The whole world was condemned. (Heb 11:7)

(111) God destroyed the old world. (II Peter 2:5)

(112) God flooded the whole world. (II Peter 2:5)

(113) The Greek word for flood, "kataklusmos", is only used to
describe Noah's flood. This indicates that it was vastly different
from any other flood. (II Peter 2:5)

(114) The old world perished by flood. (II Peter 3:6)





REFERENCES

H.M. Morris (1967) "The Genesis Record", Baker Book House: Grand
Rapids (USA), p:683-686

L Vardiman (1996) "Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth",
Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (USA), p:4-5

A McIntosh (1997) "Genesis for Today", DayOne Pub: Epsom (UK), p:
166-170

B. Cooper (1995) "After The Flood - The early post-flood history of
Europe traced back to Noah", New Wine Press: Chichester (UK)

J. Mackay (1992) "An Evening at Oxford: The evidence for Noah's
Flood", Creation Research Centre: Capalba (Qld) - video tape

(see also - B.C. Nelson (1968) "The Deluge Story in Stone: A history
of the flood theory in geology", Bethany Fellowship Inc. Pub:
Minneapolis (Minnesota, USA)

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
(in article
<4076e028-5d83-49f4...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):

> [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]

Enforcing this may prove... problematical. What _is_ it with creationists and
their rules, anyway?

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Boikat]

On Sep 15, 9:32�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
> (in article

> <4076e028-5d83-49f4-b709-cadbbfc35...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> Enforcing this may prove... problematical. What _is_ it with creationists and
> their rules, anyway?

They appear to have a problem with presenting actual evidence besides,
"It's in the Bible, so it's *true*".

Boikat

[Kermit]

On 15 Sep, 19:07, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> �Evidence for a Global Flood

>
> �by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>

> Email: laure...@unmaskingevolution.com

>
> Webpage:www.unmaskingevolution.com
>
> [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a
> local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough
> rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent
> discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a
> much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded,

there's no evidence that it was ever that flat (smooth). There is
evidence that it has not been anywhere near that flat since humans
have existed - and those of us in the realty-based community
understand that humans have been around a lot longer than you folks
believe.

> with the resultant
> volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These
> details have demolished the main argument against a global flood,

No, they haven't. In fact. the tectonic activity required to produce
our current surface topology would have generated enough heat to melt
the crust.

> but
> the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any
> evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.

Actually, most atheists are atheist for the opposite reason - there is
no evidence that there are any gods, let along whichever particular
one you are thinking of. Yahweh, I presume.

>
> Here are over 100 evidences in support of a global flood, rather than
> a local one.
>
> �FROM LOGIC.........[12 reasons]
>
> (1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized
> area is currently close to impossible.

But possible. Why is this evidence for a global flood?

>
> (2) A rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood, indicating
> a radical change in atmospheric conditions as a consequence of a
> cataclysmic event.
>

So the laws of physics worked differently then. If mist in the air did
not cause rainbows when sunlight shined through them at the right
angle, then how did eye lenses work?

And what evidence is there that the first rainbow was after a global
flood? This is grade school logic error. If we start with the
assumption that a literal reading of the Old Testament describes real
events, then guess what? It's evidence for real events!

Do you accept oral testimony from dead vikings that the gods live in
Valhalla?

> (3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a
> local flood.

These things didn't happen. You can't use myths as evidence for their
reality.

<shakes head sadly>

>
> (4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have
> been local.
>
> (5) To cover the mountains continually for 9 months, the flood could
> not have been local.
>
> (6) The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human beings. This
> could only refer to a worldwide flood.
>
> (7) If the flood was local, people living elsewhere in the world would
> have escaped.
>
> (8) The enormous size of the ark (equivalent to the capacity of 500
> railroad freight carriages) would hold much more than local species of
> animals.
>
> (9) The purpose of the ark to "keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon
> the face of the earth" is only rational if the flood was global.
>
> (10) Noah and his family could have migrated to a locality away from
> the local area to be flooded. There would have been no need to spend
> 120 years building an ark.
>
> (11) Many of the animals in the flooding area could have easily
> migrated to escape the deluge if the flood was local. There would have
> been no need to build an ark to provide them with a safe haven.
>
> (12) If God made a promise based on a lie (ie. that the flood being
> local rather than global), then he can't be trusted to save us from
> our sins.

All of these are references to statements in the collection of your
myths. You can't use them as evidence that they occurred.

>
> FROM SCIENCE....... [45 reasons]
>
> (13) There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.

No, there isn't. There are myths involving twins, floods, fires, wars,
giving birth, marriage, kidnapping, and all sorts of events which
humans witnessed. Flood myths exist, but are not universal, and most
of them are very different from the Babylonian/Jewish Flood story.

>
> (14) According to current archaeological evidence, civilization
> appears to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region.

There were stone age peoples living around the world. Civilization
started in Mesoamerica, the Near East, India, China, and numerous
other places.

>
> (15) The genealogical records of many of the European kings can be
> traced back to Japheth, son of Noah.

That's because they were Christian, and wanted to carry their king's
geneology back much father than they had actual records for.

In Japan, their emperor is descended from the Sun Goddess.

>
> (16) An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there
> was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood.
> This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.

Bullshit. There was a genetic bottleneck at one point. We are
descended from about 2000 breeding humans about 60,000 years ago. Are
you claiming that Noah had 2000 people on board, and the Flood was
50,000 years before the first cities?

>
> (17) Human palaeontological evidence exists even in the earliest
> geologic 'ages' (eg human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and
> Cretaceous rocks). If the layers of rock were laid down by a global
> flood and then interpreted as evolutionary long-ages, human remains
> and artefacts would appear to be in such positions.

No, there are no human footprints in Cambrian strata.

>
> (18) The most ancient human artefacts date to the post-flood era. This
> indicates that the earlier hardware could have been buried beyond
> reach by a huge flood.

There was no flood. The earliest human artifacts date back to before
we were (modern) human.

>
> (19) Calculations have shown that there is nearly the same amount of
> organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if
> all the fossils were still alive (Morris p:685). This indicates the
> demise of all living things in a single global event.

Untrue in both particulars.

>
> (20) Palaeontological evidence indicates that the early earth had a
> warm/humid climate. This is consistent with the destruction of the old
> atmosphere by the processes of a global flood as described in Genesis.
>

And a cold, frozen climate. Then a hot, humid climate, then a cool,
drier climate. It has changed greatly over several billion years.
Several times in the last 600,000,000 million years, it changed
*rapidly, and this was associated with a great die-off.

> (21) The glacial period started very quickly. This would require a
> cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid
> climatic change.

Why would a global flood trigger an ice age? A vast chain of volcanoes
can do it, and may be responsible for snowball Earth, but this was
long before humans.

>
> (22) Similar geologic formations exist in rocks of all ages (eg rifts,
> folds, faults, thrusts, etc.). These can just as easily be explained
> as being created in the same cataclysmic global event.

No. Read about the scablands in Eastern Washington state and Idaho
for descriptions of the geological consequences of a vast flood, And
those Missoula flood events were not anything on the scale that you
would require.

>
> (23) Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment
> have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted
> while they were still wet and soft.

No, they are bent under pressure, when the pressure is great and slow,
and the strata often soften from heat.

> For this to occur on a global
> scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have
> required a catastrophic global flood.

No, it would require tremendnous pressure from plate tectonics, the
sliding and ponderous crashing of continents over millions of years.

>
> (24) Rocks of different geologic 'ages' have similar physical features
> indicating that they could have been created by a single worldwide
> event - such as a global flood.

Christian geologists of the eighteenth century were the first
Westerners to realize that the flood could not have happened. They
were not seeing what you would expect to see from a global flood.

>
> (25) There is an absence of physical evidence that indicates a time
> change between rocks of 'successive ages'. Sedimentary rock layers
> worldwide appear to have been laid down very quickly, as by a global
> flood.

Storms, flash floods, broken dams, do not "lay down" sorted materials
into neat rows. They churn and crash and rip and wash away downstream.
They do not carefully make souffles or custard deserts. The scablands
floods tore the topsoil off, picked up huge boulders and carried them
downstream for hundreds of miles, shaped the hills around here, and
their churning waters and rocks carved out round pits the size of
football fields. And these floods were perhaps three days long, as the
natural ice dam broke, releasing all the water in Missoula Lake. This
happened over a dozen times, in the ice ages. There was no careful
laying down of anything. There was nothing like this on a global
scale, orders of magnitude greater.

>
> (26) Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of
> animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment.
> Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits
> wouldn't.

Well, depends on the sediments, doesn't it? Which sediments are you
thinking of - were they deserts then, was there life yet evolved which
could do this? Be specific.

<snip>

Getting bored.

Everything is either quoting from the myths as evidence for the myths,
or making false claims of scientific evidence - either the evidence
doesn't exist as described, or it is ignorant hogwash,

Kermit

[Harry K]

On Sep 15, 7:07�pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> �Evidence for a Global Flood

>
> �by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>

> Email: laure...@unmaskingevolution.com
>

<snip>

Epic fai. It starts with the asinine assumption that fables in the
babble are true.

Harry Kl

[Earle Jones]

In article
<4076e028-5d83-49f4...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Evidence for a Global Flood...

*
....followed by about 500 lines of jibberish and Biblical crap.

earle
*

[jillery]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:29:56 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
>(in article
><4076e028-5d83-49f4...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
>Enforcing this may prove... problematical. What _is_ it with creationists and
>their rules, anyway?

Odd. The OP appears in Google Groups but appears to not have appeared
on my news server. To my knowledged this is the first time that has
happened. Did the OP appear on other news servers besides Eternal
September?

[SkyEyes]

On Sep 15, 7:07�pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> �Evidence for a Global Flood

>
> �by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>

> Email: laure...@unmaskingevolution.com

> systems. If the majority of the world's sedimentary rocks were ...
>
> read more �

You know, I heard most of this crap growing up Baptist in the '50s and
60s. It was crap then, and it's crap now. The Flood is a *myth*.
The story is a *metaphor*. It's not meant to be taken literally.
Grow up and get over it.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Sunday, September 16, 2012 3:32:48 AM UTC+1, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
> (in article
> <4076e028-5d83-49f4...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> Enforcing this may prove... problematical. What _is_ it with creationists and
> their rules, anyway?

It isn't an unreasonable condition on a copyrighted document.
I think it may be harder to find people who want to copy it -
well, except for now, apparently.

What do the letters after the name mean? I suspect not as much as
you're supposed to think.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Yes, on the BTinternet news feed which comes from giganews.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[jonathan]

"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:19092d9a-c81c-4494...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

But all he's claiming is that six thousand years ago the earth
was much flatter that today. No big deal.





>
> Boikat
>

[Boikat]

No evidence of that, either, so it is a big deal as far as actual
geology goes.

Boikat

[chris thompson]

Except for everything we know about geology, not to mention eye-
witness accounts- which admittedly, are notoriously inaccurate for the
most part. But when a gazillion people all say "There were no
mountains there before, but now there's a huge bunch of mountains!" it
kind of strains credulity.

Chris

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Boikat

[ed wolf]

Am Sonntag, 16. September 2012 04:07:49 UTC+2 schrieb curtjester1:
> Evidence for a Global Flood

> (3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a
> local flood.

> (4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have
> been local.

> (13) There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.

Apart from your relaxed use of the word evidence,
I like this the best:
after one year under say 5138 m ( Mt Ararat plus 1m)
of water with the utter destruction of all life on
land an oral tradition of "natives" somehow surfaced.
This is evidence they are offspring of Sem, Ham and Japhet, or what?
ed wolf

[Frank J]

On 15 Sep, 22:07, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> �Evidence for a Global Flood
>

(snip)

So why has the DI not jumped on this? Why, in ~20 years of insisting
that "Darwinism" is dead, dying, falsified and unfalsifiable, has
their only reference to a global flood been Dembski's encouragement to
believe it *in spite of lack of evidence*? In a statement that was
blatant pandering to keep his other job at the seminary.

Are you posting at DI sites too?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 05:57:06 -0400, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote
(in article <d66977db-7b58-4ce7...@googlegroups.com>):

it means that he's a farmer, and has two diplomas in education, one at the
graduate level. See further the 'A&M' colleges, such as Texas A&M and Florida
A&M, set up to teach 'practical arts' in agriculture and engineering. IOW
he's a sort of engineer, and is Yet Another Example of the Salem Hypothesis.

[J. J. Lodder]

curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> (46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A global
> flood could easily have created this feature.
>
> (47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when the
> world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this
> is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.

You might wat to have a look at the evidence from the 'Grotte Cosquer'.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosquer_Cave>
or
<http://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/archeosm/fr/fr-medit-prehist.htm>
for some pictures. (including a 'penguin', actually a great auk)

Here we have pictures of ante-diluvian fauna,
found just above present day sea level.
Any rise in sea level would have destroyed the very fragile paintings.

Here we have direct proof (even by creationist logic)
that the sea level has never been higher than at present,
since ante-diluvian times (by creationist logic)
or since BP 20.000 (scientific version)

Anyway you look at it, it's direct evidence of no flood,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
> (in article
> <4076e028-5d83-49f4...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> Enforcing this may prove... problematical.

Of course, since it is a matter of copyright.
Postings to usenet are not in the public domain,
unless the author says so explicitly.
They can be quoted, also in part, on usenet,
in the context of on-going discussions.
They cannot be used for other purposes
without the author's permission, without violating copyright.
The mere fact that a text is generally available
(at no cost) does not bring it into the public domain.

Someone else publishing an anthology
of the collected usenet writings of J.J. O'Shea
violates your copyright.
Enforcing your rights, supposing you would want to do so,
will, as you said, be problematical indeed.

> What _is_ it with creationists and
> their rules, anyway?

This one has nothing to do with creationism,
per se,

Jan

--
This posting is Copyright JJL, 2012.
Literal quoting, in whole or in part,
with reference to the source, is permitted.
If the text is rephrased, condensed,
or modified in any other way
all reference to my person must be removed.

[raven1]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>(16) An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there
>was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood.
>This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.

How odd that the Chinese, Indians, and Egyptians, among others, seem
to have escaped not only this universal demise, but the flood itself.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 16, 8:52�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
>

> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >(16) An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there
> >was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood.
> >This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.
>
> How odd that the Chinese, Indians, and Egyptians, among others, seem
> to have escaped not only this universal demise, but the flood itself.
>
> ---
> raven1
> aa # 1096
> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> BAAWA Knight

They just did not notice they were underwater for a year, those
heathens!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com>:

> Evidence for a Global Flood

Snipping everything which isn't either religious assertions
presented as "evidence" (which they aren't), non sequiturs
from actual evidence to unrelated conclusions based on
religious beliefs, or facts taken out of context to support
religious beliefs (with no inclusion of the reasons why such
facts have other, observed and confirmed, explanations),
we're left with...

....nothing at all.

What a surprise.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle
<oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

How careless.

They should have told us how they survived unscathed.

[Greg G.]

On Sep 16, 10:52�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
>

> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >(16) An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there
> >was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood.
> >This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.
>
> How odd that the Chinese, Indians, and Egyptians, among others, seem
> to have escaped not only this universal demise, but the flood itself.
>
> ---
> raven1
> aa # 1096
> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> BAAWA Knight

The Chinese built a Great Wall to keep the Flood out. The Indians did
a rain dance backwards. The Egyptians lived in Pyramids and it is
common knowledge that pyramids can sharpen razor blades and repel
global floods.

[deadrat]

Don't be silly. Pyramids can't sharpen razor blades.

[Nick Keighley]

so the himalayas rose up in only a few thousand years? This I'd like
to watch- from off-planet.

we're also left with "where did the water come from?" because if the
earth were flat it would be permenently flooded. Did the contents sink
and the ocean basins rise in only *days*?!

[Christopher]

[snip]

As I read it, it seems the OP is writing to Christians, not non-believers, wanting to debunk that belief in a local flood is Biblical. Thus, the arguments from Scripture were never really addressed to most people here in the first place. It would be better just to address the arguments from science that are raised.

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:29:56 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
>(in article
><4076e028-5d83-49f4...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
>Enforcing this may prove... problematical. What _is_ it with creationists and
>their rules, anyway?

First, I apologize to all mathematicians.

It has always seemed to me that the YECs are more math based than
science based.
This list shows that. They postulate all the biblical "fact" as axioms
and then go on to "prove" the bible is true.

Axiom: The flood covered the highest mountains.
Therefore it could not have been a local flood.

Each sect has it's own set of axioms and therefore it's own geometry.
If they could close ten it would be a mathematicians dream.
Pure math with no earthly value or application.

[Mike Painter]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>so the himalayas rose up in only a few thousand years? This I'd like
>to watch- from off-planet.

Years?
They claim that the flood caused the mountains to grow and in some
cases (to solve getting all the animals to one place) for the
continents to move. So it happened in a year or less, depending on the
version of the story you want to believe.

All that water pressure did it - and don't point out that rocks and
dirt weigh more than water.

[Mike Painter]

>
>> (2) A rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood, indicating
>> a radical change in atmospheric conditions as a consequence of a
>> cataclysmic event.

The bible says a bow *in* the clouds, not a rainbow.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:14:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com>:

>On Sep 16, 11:47�am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:19092d9a-c81c-4494...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 15, 9:32 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
>> >> (in article
>> >> <4076e028-5d83-49f4-b709-cadbbfc35...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> >> > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>>
>> >> Enforcing this may prove... problematical. What _is_ it with creationists
>> >> and
>> >> their rules, anyway?
>>
>> > They appear to have a problem with presenting actual evidence besides,
>> > "It's in the Bible, so it's *true*".
>>
>> But all he's claiming is that six thousand years ago the earth
>> was much flatter that today. No big deal.
>
>so the himalayas rose up in only a few thousand years? This I'd like
>to watch- from off-planet.

That's what Noah et famille did. The heat generated by the
extremely rapid crustal deformation caused such massive
evaporation that the ensuing rain lasted 40 days and 40
nights. The Noahs, along with all the animals, were in the
Ark in LEO during the deformation process, where
hermetically sealed gopher wood kept them from suffocating.
(The hermetic seals were unfortunately sacrificed for this
purpose, but their close relatives the harbor seals carried
on the "kind").

>we're also left with "where did the water come from?" because if the
>earth were flat it would be permenently flooded. Did the contents sink
>and the ocean basins rise in only *days*?!

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 17, 11:52�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

<snip>

it is possible that River Tam has the best take...

<quoting "_Firefly_, Janestown"

RIVER
So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution
theory with God's creation of Eden. 11 inherent
metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven.
Important number. Prime number. One goes into
the house of 11 11 times, but always comes out
one. Noah's ark is a problem.

BOOK
Really?

RIVER
We'll have to call it "early quantum state
phenomenon." Only way to fit 5000 species
of mammal on the same boat.
(rips out page)

BOOK
Give me that. River, you don't...fix the Bible.

RIVER
It's broken. Doesn't make sense.

BOOK
It's not about making sense. It's about believing

</quote>

[Harry K]

On Sep 16, 11:27�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle

> <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

They didn't have pens that wrote underwater back then.

Harry K

[Will in New Haven]

On Sep 15, 10:07�pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> �Evidence for a Global Flood
>
> �by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>
> Email: laure...@unmaskingevolution.com
>
> Webpage:www.unmaskingevolution.com
>

> [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>

> In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a
> local flood,

Still do. Now shut the fuck up and sit down.

--
Will in New Haven

[Kermit]

On 15 Sep, 22:57, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sep 15, 7:07�pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > �Evidence for a Global Flood
>
> > �by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>
> > Email: laure...@unmaskingevolution.com
>
> > Webpage:www.unmaskingevolution.com
>
> > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> > In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a

> > local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough
> > rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent
> > discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a
> > much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded, with the resultant
> > volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These
> > details have demolished the main argument against a global flood, but
> > the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any
> > evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.
>
> > Here are over 100 evidences in support of a global flood, rather than
> > a local one.
>
> > �FROM LOGIC.........[12 reasons]
>
> > (1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized
> > area is currently close to impossible.

>
> > (2) A rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood, indicating
> > a radical change in atmospheric conditions as a consequence of a
> > cataclysmic event.
>

> > (3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a
> > local flood.
>
> > (4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have
> > been local.
>

> > (5) To cover the mountains continually for 9 months, the flood could
> > not have been local.
>
> > (6) The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human beings. This
> > could only refer to a worldwide flood.
>
> > (7) If the flood was local, people living elsewhere in the world would
> > have escaped.
>
> > (8) The enormous size of the ark (equivalent to the capacity of 500
> > railroad freight carriages) would hold much more than local species of
> > animals.
>
> > (9) The purpose of the ark to "keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon
> > the face of the earth" is only rational if the flood was global.
>
> > (10) Noah and his family could have migrated to a locality away from
> > the local area to be flooded. There would have been no need to spend
> > 120 years building an ark.
>
> > (11) Many of the animals in the flooding area could have easily
> > migrated to escape the deluge if the flood was local. There would have
> > been no need to build an ark to provide them with a safe haven.
>
> > (12) If God made a promise based on a lie (ie. that the flood being
> > local rather than global), then he can't be trusted to save us from
> > our sins.
>
> > FROM SCIENCE....... [45 reasons]

>
> > (13) There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.
>

> > (14) According to current archaeological evidence, civilization
> > appears to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region.
>
> > (15) The genealogical records of many of the European kings can be
> > traced back to Japheth, son of Noah.

>
> > (16) An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there
> > was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood.
> > This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.
>

> > (17) Human palaeontological evidence exists even in the earliest
> > geologic 'ages' (eg human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and
> > Cretaceous rocks). If the layers of rock were laid down by a global
> > flood and then interpreted as evolutionary long-ages, human remains
> > and artefacts would appear to be in such positions.
>
> > (18) The most ancient human artefacts date to the post-flood era. This
> > indicates that the earlier hardware could have been buried beyond
> > reach by a huge flood.
>
> > (19) Calculations have shown that there is nearly the same amount of
> > organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if
> > all the fossils were still alive (Morris p:685). This indicates the
> > demise of all living things in a single global event.
>
> > (20) Palaeontological evidence indicates that the early earth had a
> > warm/humid climate. This is consistent with the destruction of the old
> > atmosphere by the processes of a global flood as described in Genesis.
>
> > (21) The glacial period started very quickly. This would require a
> > cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid
> > climatic change.
>
> > (22) Similar geologic formations exist in rocks of all ages (eg rifts,
> > folds, faults, thrusts, etc.). These can just as easily be explained
> > as being created in the same cataclysmic global event.
>
> > (23) Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment
> > have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted
> > while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global
> > scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have
> > required a catastrophic global flood.
>
> > (24) Rocks of different geologic 'ages' have similar physical features
> > indicating that they could have been created by a single worldwide
> > event - such as a global flood.
>
> > (25) There is an absence of physical evidence that indicates a time
> > change between rocks of 'successive ages'. Sedimentary rock layers
> > worldwide appear to have been laid down very quickly, as by a global
> > flood.
>
> > (26) Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of
> > animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment.
> > Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits
> > wouldn't.
>
> > (27) All types of rocks (eg limestone, shale, granite, etc) occur in
> > all geologic 'ages'. This indicates a common formation on a global
> > scale - the situation that would have been created by the mixing of
> > sediment in a global flood.
>
> > (28) Many geological processes have a recent geological date. If the
> > long-age evolutionary time scale is ignored, these processes would
> > have occurred in the very recent past - ie. as a result of the flood
> > cataclysm.
>
> > (29) Recent volcanic rocks are distributed widely. (see last point
> > above)
>
> > (30) The uplift of the major mountain ranges are relatively young,
> > based on evolutionary chronology. If the long-age evolutionary time
> > scale is ignored, these processes would have occurred in the very
> > recent past - ie as a result of the flood cataclysm.
>
> > (31) There is a lack of correlation between radiometric 'ages' and
> > assumed palaeontological 'ages' (Morris p:686). A global flood could
> > easily create an illusion of geologic 'ages'. The consequent conflict
> > between dating methods confirms the illusion.
>
> > (32) Fossil 'graveyards' are found worldwide, and in rocks of all
> > 'ages'. Only a catastrophic global flood could achieve this.
>
> > (33) The burial of fossil deposits worldwide had to have occurred in a
> > catastrophic event. Only massive flooding could bury in such a
> > fashion.
>
> > (34) Marine fossils can be found on the crests of mountains. Apart
> > from mountain uplifting, this can also be explained as the marine
> > animals being washed there and then buried. A global flood could do
> > this.
>
> > (35) There is a worldwide distribution of most of the fossil types,
> > indicating transportation on a global scale by a global flood.
>
> > (36) Fossils from different 'ages' are often found mixed. This
> > indicates a huge mixing of animal bones that is not consistent with a
> > local flood.
>
> > (37) Worldwide, fossils from different 'ages' are often found in the
> > wrong order. This indicates a global mixing of fossils as a
> > consequence of a global flood.
>
> > (38) Supposed evolutionary fossil sequences often parallel the
> > ecological zonation that occurs today (Morris p:686). If a global
> > flood mixed organisms from different areas, it would create the
> > illusion of a fossil sequence over time.
>
> > (39) Dinosaurs and many other prehistoric creatures died out suddenly.
> > A catastrophe such as a global flood could have produced this result.
>
> > (40) Polystrate fossils (viz. vertical fossil tree trunks) that are
> > found worldwide indicate turbulent or rapid deposition. A global flood
> > would be required to do this worldwide.
>
> > (41) Polystrate fossils also form when water-logged timber sinks in a
> > large body of water. A year long global flood could produce worldwide
> > polystrate fossils formed in this way.
>
> > (42) Animal tracks and other ephemeral markings (ripple-marks and
> > raindrop imprints) have been preserved throughout the geological
> > column. Rapid covering of these markings is required for this
> > preservation worldwide - ie. by a global flood.
>
> > (43) Meteorites are basically absent from the geologic column. With
> > the large number of meteorites hitting the earth each year, they
> > should be very plentiful throughout the sedimentary rocks - unless
> > much of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid down in one year.
>
> > (44) Sedimentary rocks contain fossil ripple-marks and raindrop
> > imprints, but no hail imprints. A global flood (with associated rain),
> > that was not caused by storms would not leave hail imprint marks.
>
> > (45) Some desert areas show evidence of 'recent' water bodies. Water
> > from a recent global flood would remain in large pools (bodies of
> > water) for some time before evaporating.

>
> > (46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A global
> > flood could easily have created this feature.
>
> > (47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when the
> > world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this
> > is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.
>

> > (48) Mountain-high water level marks found throughout the world are
> > consistent with the recession of a global flood.
>
> > (49) River terraces are found worldwide. (Morris p:685)
>
> > (50) There is a universal occurrence of rivers in valleys too large
> > for the present stream. Slow erosion over millions of years could not
> > have created these valleys as the mountains would have eroded, keeping
> > pace with the valley erosion. The drainage of global floodwaters from
> > the land surface could easily create such wide valleys in a short
> > period of time.
>
> > (51) Only modern sediments show any evidence of surface drainage
> > systems. If the majority of the world's sedimentary rocks were ...
>
> > read more �
>
> You know, I heard most of this crap growing up Baptist in the '50s and
> 60s. �It was crap then, and it's crap now. �The Flood is a *myth*.
> The story is a *metaphor*. �It's not meant to be taken literally.
> Grow up and get over it.

But when Jesus told his followers to sell the shirts off their backs
and give the money to the poor, he didn't mean that *literally. Nor
when he said a rich man couldn't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Nor that
as they treated children, so did they treat him. And turn the other
cheek.

Only the crazy old stories are literally true. The difficult but
simple and possible moral teachings are just ...suggestions.

>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

Kermit

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1

<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip

As others have noted, this is a long llist of BS, so I'll just
choose five "evidences" at random and refute them.

>(26) Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of
>animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment.
>Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits
>wouldn't.

Bioturbation (burrows in the sediments before they became rocks) and
paleosols (ancient soils) are actually quite common in the geologic
column.

>(27) All types of rocks (eg limestone, shale, granite, etc) occur in
>all geologic 'ages'. This indicates a common formation on a global
>scale - the situation that would have been created by the mixing of
>sediment in a global flood.

A global flood would not be needed to produce limestone, shale, and
granite.

>(28) Many geological processes have a recent geological date. If the
>long-age evolutionary time scale is ignored, these processes would
>have occurred in the very recent past - ie. as a result of the flood
>cataclysm.

There is no reason to ignore the long-age evolutionary time scale.

>(29) Recent volcanic rocks are distributed widely. (see last point
>above)

This is well-explained by plate tectonics. A global flood isn't
needed to explain it.

>(30) The uplift of the major mountain ranges are relatively young,
>based on evolutionary chronology. If the long-age evolutionary time
>scale is ignored, these processes would have occurred in the very
>recent past - ie as a result of the flood cataclysm.

Again, there is no reason to ignore the long-age evolutionary time
scale.

[chris thompson]

On Sep 15, 10:07�pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> �Evidence for a Global Flood
>
> �by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>
> Email: laure...@unmaskingevolution.com
>
> Webpage:www.unmaskingevolution.com
>
> [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a
> local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough
> rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent
> discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a
> much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded, with the resultant
> volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These
> details have demolished the main argument against a global flood, but
> the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any
> evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.
>
> Here are over 100 evidences in support of a global flood, rather than
> a local one.
>
> �FROM LOGIC.........[12 reasons]
>
> (1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized
> area is currently close to impossible.
>

I did my undergraduate work at Oregon State University, in Corvallis.
If you think it never rained there 40 days in a row...I well remember
October through March weather, and it was 50F and raining.

Every. Single. Day.

Chris

"Last year, 22 people fell off their bicycles in Corvallis- and
drowned."

snip

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

He"s got to be kidding on that one. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsoon>

But I suppose that if your nation hasn't previously conquered places
where that happens - as mine has (we gave them back) - they you may
not know about that.

For instance, is there a monsoon in the Philippines? Well, yes,
there is.

[eridanus]

it was raining also for 180 days on the east side of the Sierra
Nevada?, or in Arizona for 180 days? I am trying to figure it
out raining for 180 days in the Sahara desert.

Eridanus

[Ron O]

On Sep 15, 10:22 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 15 Sep, 19:07, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Evidence for a Global Flood
>
> >  by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>
> > Email: laure...@unmaskingevolution.com
>
> > Webpage:www.unmaskingevolution.com
>
> > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> > In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a
> > local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough
> > rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent
> > discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a
> > much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded,
>

> there's no evidence that it was ever that flat (smooth).  There is
> evidence that it has not been anywhere near that flat since humans
> have existed - and those of us in the realty-based community
> understand that humans have been around a lot longer than you folks
> believe.

>
> > with the resultant
> > volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These
> > details have demolished the main argument against a global flood,
>

> No, they haven't. In fact. the tectonic activity required to produce
> our current surface topology would have generated enough heat to melt
> the crust.

>
> > but
> > the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any
> > evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.
>

> Actually, most atheists are atheist for the opposite reason - there is
> no evidence that there are any gods, let along whichever particular
> one you are thinking of. Yahweh, I presume.

>
>
>
> > Here are over 100 evidences in support of a global flood, rather than
> > a local one.
>
> >  FROM LOGIC.........[12 reasons]
>
> > (1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized
> > area is currently close to impossible.
>

> But possible. Why is this evidence for a global flood?

Or it could be just fiction.

>
>
>
> > (2) A rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood, indicating
> > a radical change in atmospheric conditions as a consequence of a
> > cataclysmic event.
>

> So the laws of physics worked differently then. If mist in the air did
> not cause rainbows when sunlight shined through them at the right
> angle, then how did eye lenses work?
>
> And what evidence is there that the first rainbow was after a global
> flood? This is grade school logic error. If we start with the
> assumption that a literal reading of the Old Testament describes real
> events, then guess what? It's evidence for real events!

Like I said, it could just be fiction. There isn't much logical about
his LOGIC statements.

>
> Do you accept oral testimony from dead vikings that the gods live in
> Valhalla?

>
> > (3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a
> > local flood.
>

> These things didn't happen. You can't use myths as evidence for their
> reality.
>
> <shakes head sadly>

>
> > (4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have
> > been local.
>
> > (5) To cover the mountains continually for 9 months, the flood could
> > not have been local.
>
> > (6) The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human beings. This
> > could only refer to a worldwide flood.
>
> > (7) If the flood was local, people living elsewhere in the world would
> > have escaped.

The logical inference taken from these last 4 statements would be that
the story is just plain wrong. There is no evidence that the highest
mountains were covered by flood water for 9 months a few thousand
years ago, and no evidence that all humans were wiped out a few
thousand years ago. How many people would have been alive to build
the pyramids after the flood? Who would have started the civilization
in China. You have to realize that Noah was 500 years old at the time
of the flood and he only had 3 sons. His sons had helped him build
the ark for around a century and they had no children. Reproduction
was not highly rated in that family.

KSJJ was claiming that the flood happened around 4500 years ago, so
where is the evidence that everyone was wiped out, and that the flood
was global?

Ron Okimoto

>
> > (8) The enormous size of the ark (equivalent to the capacity of 500
> > railroad freight carriages) would hold much more than local species of
> > animals.
>
> > (9) The purpose of the ark to "keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon
> > the face of the earth" is only rational if the flood was global.
>
> > (10) Noah and his family could have migrated to a locality away from
> > the local area to be flooded. There would have been no need to spend
> > 120 years building an ark.
>
> > (11) Many of the animals in the flooding area could have easily
> > migrated to escape the deluge if the flood was local. There would have
> > been no need to build an ark to provide them with a safe haven.
>
> > (12) If God made a promise based on a lie (ie. that the flood being
> > local rather than global), then he can't be trusted to save us from
> > our sins.
>

> All of these are references to statements in the collection of your
> myths. You can't use them as evidence that they occurred.

>
>
>
> > FROM SCIENCE....... [45 reasons]
>
> > (13) There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.
>

> No, there isn't. There are myths involving twins, floods, fires, wars,
> giving birth, marriage, kidnapping, and all sorts of events which
> humans witnessed.  Flood myths exist, but are not universal, and most
> of them are very different from the Babylonian/Jewish Flood story.

>
>
>
> > (14) According to current archaeological evidence, civilization
> > appears to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region.
>

> There were stone age peoples living around the world. Civilization
> started in Mesoamerica, the Near East, India, China, and numerous
> other places.

>
>
>
> > (15) The genealogical records of many of the European kings can be
> > traced back to Japheth, son of Noah.
>

> That's because they were Christian, and wanted to carry their king's
> geneology back much father than they had actual records for.
>
> In Japan, their emperor is descended from the Sun Goddess.

>
>
>
> > (16) An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there
> > was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood.
> > This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.
>

> Bullshit. There was a genetic bottleneck at one point. We are
> descended from about 2000 breeding humans about 60,000 years ago. Are
> you claiming that Noah had 2000 people on board, and the Flood was
> 50,000 years before the first cities?

>
>
>
> > (17) Human palaeontological evidence exists even in the earliest
> > geologic 'ages' (eg human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and
> > Cretaceous rocks). If the layers of rock were laid down by a global
> > flood and then interpreted as evolutionary long-ages, human remains
> > and artefacts would appear to be in such positions.
>

> No, there are no human footprints in Cambrian strata.

>
>
>
> > (18) The most ancient human artefacts date to the post-flood era. This
> > indicates that the earlier hardware could have been buried beyond
> > reach by a huge flood.
>

> There was no flood. The earliest human artifacts date back to before
> we were (modern) human.

>
>
>
> > (19) Calculations have shown that there is nearly the same amount of
> > organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if
> > all the fossils were still alive (Morris p:685). This indicates the
> > demise of all living things in a single global event.
>

> Untrue in both particulars.

>
>
>
> > (20) Palaeontological evidence indicates that the early earth had a
> > warm/humid climate. This is consistent with the destruction of the old
> > atmosphere by the processes of a global flood as described in Genesis.
>

> And a cold, frozen climate. Then a hot, humid climate, then a cool,
> drier climate. It has changed greatly over several billion years.
> Several times in the last 600,000,000 million years, it changed
> *rapidly, and this was associated with a great die-off.

>
> > (21) The glacial period started very quickly. This would require a
> > cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid
> > climatic change.
>

> Why would a global flood trigger an ice age? A vast chain of volcanoes
> can do it, and may be responsible for snowball Earth, but this was
> long before humans.

>
>
>
> > (22) Similar geologic formations exist in rocks of all ages (eg rifts,
> > folds, faults, thrusts, etc.). These can just as easily be explained
> > as being created in the same cataclysmic global event.
>

> No. Read about the scablands in Eastern Washington  state and Idaho
> for descriptions of the geological consequences of a vast flood, And
> those Missoula flood events were not anything on the scale that you
> would require.

>
>
>
> > (23) Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment
> > have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted
> > while they were still wet and soft.
>

> No, they are bent under pressure, when the pressure is great and slow,
> and the strata often soften from heat.

>
> > For this to occur on a global
> > scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have
> > required a catastrophic global flood.
>

> No, it would require tremendnous pressure from plate tectonics, the
> sliding and ponderous crashing of continents over millions of years.

>
>
>
> > (24) Rocks of different geologic 'ages' have similar physical features
> > indicating that they could have been created by a single worldwide
> > event - such as a global flood.
>

> Christian geologists of the eighteenth century were the first
> Westerners to realize that the flood could not have happened. They
> were not seeing what you would expect to see from a global flood.

>
>
>
> > (25) There is an absence of physical evidence that indicates a time
> > change between rocks of 'successive ages'. Sedimentary rock layers
> > worldwide appear to have been laid down very quickly, as by a global
> > flood.
>

> Storms, flash floods, broken dams, do not "lay down" sorted materials
> into neat rows. They churn and crash and rip and wash away downstream.
> They do not carefully make souffles or custard deserts. The scablands
> floods  tore the topsoil off, picked up huge boulders and carried them
> downstream for hundreds of miles, shaped the hills around here, and
> their churning waters and rocks carved out round pits the size of
> football fields. And these floods were perhaps three days long, as the
> natural ice dam broke, releasing all the water in Missoula Lake. This
> happened over a dozen times, in the ice ages. There was no careful
> laying down of anything. There was nothing like this on a global
> scale, orders of magnitude greater.

>
>
>
> > (26) Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of
> > animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment.
> > Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits
> > wouldn't.
>

> Well, depends...
>
> read more »

[eridanus]

El martes, 18 de septiembre de 2012 20:27:40 UTC+1, Kermit escribió:
> On 15 Sep, 22:57, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>

-------------- snipped -------------

> > You know, I heard most of this crap growing up Baptist in the '50s and
> > 60s.  It was crap then, and it's crap now.  The Flood is a *myth*.
> > The story is a *metaphor*.  It's not meant to be taken literally.
> > Grow up and get over it.

> But when Jesus told his followers to sell the shirts off their backs
> and give the money to the poor, he didn't mean that *literally. Nor
> when he said a rich man couldn't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Nor that
> as they treated children, so did they treat him. And turn the other
> cheek.
>
> Only the crazy old stories are literally true. The difficult but
> simple and possible moral teachings are just ...suggestions.
>

That was very good.
The most crapy parts of the bible want to prop it up as if it were
true; while some sensible parts from the NT that these you are
mentioning about the kids, and rich man, who could not enter
into the Heavens is considered a metaphor should be ignored.

The parts about treating with love the poor is a metaphor, but
the absurd parts of the creation of the Universe in six days or
the Universal Flood is literally true.

Eridanus

[Kermit]

Or myth, which isn't exactly fiction unless somebody claims that it's
literal truth.

Yes. Even if there were no scientific evidence supporting *or refuting
this, it would be impossible to reconcile with the numbers, with human
nature, with history, and any number of other problems.

>
> KSJJ was claiming that the flood happened around 4500 years ago, so
> where is the evidence that everyone was wiped out, and that the flood
> was global?

Covered up by more miracles of God! Proof!

> ...
>
> read more »

Kermit

[John Stockwell]

On Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:07:49 PM UTC-6, curtjester1 wrote:
> Evidence for a Global Flood
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed

Another datapoint supporting the hypothesis that there is a
"principle of maximum irony" operating in the world.
\begin{andy_rooney_voice}
Have you ever noticed that people, companies, or other institutions
that have the word "Smart" in their names, generally aren't
\end{andy_rooney_voice}

-John

>
>
>
> Email: laur...@unmaskingevolution.com

>
>
>
> Webpage: www.unmaskingevolution.com
>
>
>
> [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a
>
> local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough
>
> rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent
>
> discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a
>

> much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded, with the resultant

>
> volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These
>

> details have demolished the main argument against a global flood, but

>
> the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any
>
> evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Here are over 100 evidences in support of a global flood, rather than
>
> a local one.
>
>
>
> FROM LOGIC.........[12 reasons]
>
>
>
> (1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized
>
> area is currently close to impossible.
>
>
>

> (2) A rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood, indicating
>
> a radical change in atmospheric conditions as a consequence of a
>
> cataclysmic event.
>
>
>

> (3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a
>
> local flood.
>
>
>

> (4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have
>
> been local.
>
>
>
> (5) To cover the mountains continually for 9 months, the flood could
>
> not have been local.
>
>
>
> (6) The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human beings. This
>
> could only refer to a worldwide flood.
>
>
>
> (7) If the flood was local, people living elsewhere in the world would
>
> have escaped.
>
>
>

> (8) The enormous size of the ark (equivalent to the capacity of 500
>
> railroad freight carriages) would hold much more than local species of
>
> animals.
>
>
>
> (9) The purpose of the ark to "keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon
>
> the face of the earth" is only rational if the flood was global.
>
>
>
> (10) Noah and his family could have migrated to a locality away from
>
> the local area to be flooded. There would have been no need to spend
>
> 120 years building an ark.
>
>
>
> (11) Many of the animals in the flooding area could have easily
>
> migrated to escape the deluge if the flood was local. There would have
>
> been no need to build an ark to provide them with a safe haven.
>
>
>
> (12) If God made a promise based on a lie (ie. that the flood being
>
> local rather than global), then he can't be trusted to save us from
>
> our sins.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> FROM SCIENCE....... [45 reasons]
>
>
>
> (13) There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.
>
>
>

> (14) According to current archaeological evidence, civilization
>
> appears to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region.
>
>
>

> (15) The genealogical records of many of the European kings can be
>
> traced back to Japheth, son of Noah.
>
>
>

> (16) An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there
>
> was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood.
>
> This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.
>
>
>

> (17) Human palaeontological evidence exists even in the earliest
>
> geologic 'ages' (eg human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and
>
> Cretaceous rocks). If the layers of rock were laid down by a global
>
> flood and then interpreted as evolutionary long-ages, human remains
>
> and artefacts would appear to be in such positions.
>
>
>

> (18) The most ancient human artefacts date to the post-flood era. This
>
> indicates that the earlier hardware could have been buried beyond
>
> reach by a huge flood.
>
>
>

> (19) Calculations have shown that there is nearly the same amount of
>
> organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if
>
> all the fossils were still alive (Morris p:685). This indicates the
>
> demise of all living things in a single global event.
>
>
>

> (20) Palaeontological evidence indicates that the early earth had a
>
> warm/humid climate. This is consistent with the destruction of the old
>
> atmosphere by the processes of a global flood as described in Genesis.
>
>
>

> (21) The glacial period started very quickly. This would require a
>
> cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid
>
> climatic change.
>
>
>

> (22) Similar geologic formations exist in rocks of all ages (eg rifts,
>
> folds, faults, thrusts, etc.). These can just as easily be explained
>
> as being created in the same cataclysmic global event.
>
>
>

> (23) Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment
>
> have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted
>

> while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global

>
> scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have
>
> required a catastrophic global flood.
>
>
>

> (24) Rocks of different geologic 'ages' have similar physical features
>
> indicating that they could have been created by a single worldwide
>
> event - such as a global flood.
>
>
>

> (25) There is an absence of physical evidence that indicates a time
>
> change between rocks of 'successive ages'. Sedimentary rock layers
>
> worldwide appear to have been laid down very quickly, as by a global
>
> flood.
>
>
>

> (26) Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of
>
> animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment.
>
> Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits
>
> wouldn't.
>
>
>

> (27) All types of rocks (eg limestone, shale, granite, etc) occur in
>
> all geologic 'ages'. This indicates a common formation on a global
>
> scale - the situation that would have been created by the mixing of
>
> sediment in a global flood.
>
>
>

> (28) Many geological processes have a recent geological date. If the
>
> long-age evolutionary time scale is ignored, these processes would
>
> have occurred in the very recent past - ie. as a result of the flood
>
> cataclysm.
>
>
>

> (29) Recent volcanic rocks are distributed widely. (see last point
>
> above)
>
>
>

> (30) The uplift of the major mountain ranges are relatively young,
>
> based on evolutionary chronology. If the long-age evolutionary time
>
> scale is ignored, these processes would have occurred in the very
>
> recent past - ie as a result of the flood cataclysm.
>
>
>

> systems. If the majority of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid
>
> down by a global flood there would not be any sign of drainage erosion
>
> except for the top layers eroded during the recession of the flood
>
> waters off the land.
>
>
>
> (52) Hydrologic evidence points to the rapid deposition of sedimentary
>
> rock layers. Therefore, the thousand's of metres of sediment must have
>
> been deposited by a catastrophic global flood.
>
>
>
> (53) Hydrologic evidence points to the world's sedimentary rocks being
>
> deposited in one continuous episode. All the layers could have been
>
> laid down by a single event, such as a global flood.
>
>
>
> (54) Hydrologic experiments show that flowing sediment automatically
>
> settles out in distinct layers. Therefore, sedimentary rock layers can
>
> be just as easily explained as flood debris, as slow deposition.
>
>
>
> (55) There is a worldwide occurrence of deep alluvial deposits and
>
> sedimentary rocks consistent with a huge global flood.
>
>
>
> (56) There is a near-random deposition of formational sequences.
>
> (Morris p:685)
>
>
>
> (57) Nowhere in the world is it possible to see the complete geologic
>
> column as a single structure. It is always found in bits and pieces,
>
> and mostly with pieces missing. Globally, a worldwide flood could
>
> create the illusion of a geologic column.
>
>
>
> (58) The oldest organisms still alive on Earth today, the Californian
>
> Redwoods, Sequoias and Bristlecone Pines, are around 3,000-4,000 years
>
> old. Nothing is older that the date of Noah's flood.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FROM THE GENESIS NARRATIVE........ [47 reasons]
>
>
>
> (59) The account in Genesis speaks of the flood being a universal
>
> event at least thirty times.
>
>
>
> (60) God promised three times not to "smite [destroy - NKJ] every
>
> living thing" by a flood (Gen 8:21; 9:11; 9:15). Three occurrences in
>
> Scripture indicates absolute truth.
>
>
>
> (61) Following the flood, Eden was no longer discussed geographically.
>
> If it was a local flood, its general whereabouts would still be known.
>
> The total obliteration of the whole earth's geography is therefore
>
> inferred - such as by a global flood.
>
>
>
> (62) The "waters above the firmament [earth - NKJ]" would not have
>
> been localised into a small area. (Gen 1:7)
>
>
>
> (63) No rain on the earth before the flood speaks of a worldwide
>
> condition. (Gen 2:5)
>
>
>
> (64) The whole earth was watered by a mist, prior to the flood. (Gen
>
> 2:6)
>
>
>
> (65) The dawn of civilization had a high civilization (Genesis chapter
>
> 4). This was wiped out and did not recover for a long time.
>
>
>
> (66) The long life spans of the pre-diluvial people indicates an
>
> entirely different biosphere. (Gen 5:5; 5:8; 5:11; etc)
>
>
>
> (67) The subsequent decline in life span following the flood indicates
>
> a radically different biosphere. (Gen 23:1; 25:7)
>
>
>
> (68) God described the pre-flood people as universally evil (Gen 6:5).
>
> He never described the post-flood people as universally evil, so
>
> something universal (ie. worldwide) must have happened to weed it out.
>
>
>
> (69) Mankind had multiplied all over the earth (Gen 6:1), so the flood
>
> had to be global to destroy them all.
>
>
>
> (70) God was sorry that he created all living creatures, not just a
>
> localised population of animal creatures. (Gen 6:6-7)
>
>
>
> (71) The whole earth was seen by God as corrupt. (Gen 6:11-12)
>
>
>
> (72) God decided to destroy the whole earth. (Gen 6:13)
>
>
>
> (73) Everything that had breath was to die. (Gen 6:17)
>
>
>
> (74) The purpose of the ark was to keep two of every breathing animal
>
> (ie. worldwide species) alive. (Gen 6:19)
>
>
>
> (75) Two of every kind of animal and bird came to Noah, not just local
>
> fauna. (Gen 6:20)
>
>
>
> (76) Noah had to collect samples of all food eaten, not just local
>
> foodstuffs. (Gen 6:21)
>
>
>
> (77) God wanted the ark "to keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon the
>
> face of the earth". (Gen 7:3)
>
>
>
> (78) God promised to destroy every living thing on the earth. (Gen
>
> 7:4)
>
>
>
> (79) The Hebrew word for flood "mabbul" only refers to Noah's flood,
>
> so it must have been different to all other floods. (Gen 7:10)
>
>
>
> (80) All the "fountains of the great deep" broke up in one incident.
>
> (Gen 7:11)
>
>
>
> (81) The "fountains of the great deep" would not have affected a
>
> simple, local land-based flood. (Gen 7:11)
>
>
>
> (82) The opening of the windows of heaven (if this refers to "the
>
> waters above the firmament") would had a global impact. (Gen 7:11)
>
>
>
> (83) The double superlative, "all the high mountains under all the
>
> heavens" ["all the high hills under the whole heaven" - NKJ],
>
> indicates a global covering. (Gen 7:19)
>
>
>
> (84) The highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits (6.75m) of water.
>
> (Gen 7:20)
>
>
>
> (85) The Hebrew word, "kasah", used to mean that the mountains were
>
> covered has a meaning of "overwhelming". (Gen 7:20)
>
>
>
> (86) Every human died on the whole earth. (Gen 7:21)
>
>
>
> (87) All living things on dry land, with "nephesh" life in them, died.
>
> (Gen 7:22)
>
>
>
> (88) Every living thing on the earth was destroyed. (Gen 7:23)
>
>
>
> (89) The floodwater remained at maximum height for 5 months. (Gen
>
> 7:24)
>
>
>
> (90) The "fountains of the deep" were open for 5 months. (Gen 8:2)
>
>
>
> (91) The "windows of heaven" were open for 5 months. (Gen 8:2)
>
>
>
> (92) The floodwaters took 5 months to drain off the land. (Gen 8:3)
>
>
>
> (93) The ark floated above the mountains for 5 months. (Gen 8:4)
>
>
>
> (94) The waters receded for 2.5 months before the mountain tops were
>
> visible. (Gen 8:5)
>
>
>
> (95) The dove couldn't find solid ground until the water had receded
>
> for 4 months. (Gen 8:9)
>
>
>
> (96) Plants did not grow for 9 months. (Gen 8:11)
>
>
>
> (97) Noah, his family, and the animals were in the ark for over a
>
> year. (Gen 8:14)
>
>
>
> (98) All current life came out of the ark. (Gen 8:19)
>
>
>
> (99) God promised that he would not destroy all living things again in
>
> the same way. (Gen 8:21)
>
>
>
> (100) The current seasonal conditions date from the end of the flood
>
> (Gen 8:22), indicating a radical change from the previous environment.
>
>
>
> (101) God commanded Noah and his family to breed and fill the earth
>
> with people again. (Gen 9:1)
>
>
>
> (102) A flood will not be used by God to destroy the earth again. (Gen
>
> 9:11)
>
>
>
> (103) The earth was re-populated from Noah's family. (Gen 9:19)
>
>
>
> (104) Everyone spoke the same language after the flood (Gen 11:1),
>
> indicating decent from a single ancestor.
>
>
>
> (105) Everyone lived in the same area after the flood. (Gen 11:9)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FROM ELSEWHERE IN SCRIPTURE...... [9 reasons]
>
>
>
> (106) The floodwaters overturned the earth. (Job 12:15)
>
>
>
> (107) The floodwaters covered the whole earth. (Is 54:9)
>
>
>
> (108) The flood took all people off the face of the earth. (Matt
>
> 24:39) - Jesus talking
>
>
>
> (109) The flood destroyed all humans. (Luke 17:27) - Jesus talking
>
>
>
> (110) The whole world was condemned. (Heb 11:7)
>
>
>
> (111) God destroyed the old world. (II Peter 2:5)
>
>
>
> (112) God flooded the whole world. (II Peter 2:5)
>
>
>
> (113) The Greek word for flood, "kataklusmos", is only used to
>
> describe Noah's flood. This indicates that it was vastly different
>
> from any other flood. (II Peter 2:5)
>
>
>
> (114) The old world perished by flood. (II Peter 3:6)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> REFERENCES
>
>
>
> H.M. Morris (1967) "The Genesis Record", Baker Book House: Grand
>
> Rapids (USA), p:683-686
>
>
>
> L Vardiman (1996) "Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth",
>
> Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (USA), p:4-5
>
>
>
> A McIntosh (1997) "Genesis for Today", DayOne Pub: Epsom (UK), p:
>
> 166-170
>
>
>
> B. Cooper (1995) "After The Flood - The early post-flood history of
>
> Europe traced back to Noah", New Wine Press: Chichester (UK)
>
>
>
> J. Mackay (1992) "An Evening at Oxford: The evidence for Noah's
>
> Flood", Creation Research Centre: Capalba (Qld) - video tape
>
>
>
> (see also - B.C. Nelson (1968) "The Deluge Story in Stone: A history
>
> of the flood theory in geology", Bethany Fellowship Inc. Pub:
>
> Minneapolis (Minnesota, USA)

[Big Dick Hertz]

On 15 Sep, 22:07, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> �Evidence for a Global Flood
>
> �by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>

> Email: laure...@unmaskingevolution.com

> systems. If the majority of the world's sedimentary rocks were ...
>
> read more �

The water may not have been from rain. http://tinyurl.com/8lkyny7

[eridanus]

the interesting thing about global flood, would be,
where went so much water?

If you do some calculations, over the volume of water needed
to cover not only the higher mountains of the planet, but just
only mountains not higher than 12,000 feet. Even if all this
water would convert in ice, I would need to see where to put so
much water. 4.6 (10^37) cubic meters, or 4.6 (10^31) Km. cub.

It is is pretty much hide so much ice.

Eridanus

[Dexter]

"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90f0c9d0-77ea-479d...@googlegroups.com...

> On Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:07:49 PM UTC-6, curtjester1 wrote:
>> Evidence for a Global Flood
>>
>> by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>
> Another datapoint supporting the hypothesis that there is a
> "principle of maximum irony" operating in the world.
> \begin{andy_rooney_voice}
> Have you ever noticed that people, companies, or other institutions
> that have the word "Smart" in their names, generally aren't
> \end{andy_rooney_voice}
>
> -John

____________________________________________________

Damn, John, you posted 22kb of mostly white space just to add
a few lines? And you top posted to boot.

Have mercy on us, please.

Kindest regards,

-------------------| some snippage here |-------------------------

[curtjester1]

On Sep 16, 7:22 am, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 16. September 2012 04:07:49 UTC+2 schrieb curtjester1:
>
> > Evidence for a Global Flood

> > (3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a
> > local flood.

> > (4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have
> > been local.

> > (13) There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.
>

> Apart from your relaxed use of the word evidence,
> I like this the best:
> after one year under say 5138 m ( Mt Ararat plus 1m)
> of water with the utter destruction of all life on
> land an oral tradition of "natives" somehow surfaced.
> This is evidence they are offspring of Sem, Ham and Japhet, or what?
>  ed wolf

That's what is explicitly implied. One can look at Charles Martin's
publication that deals with the travelled accounts of the Flood as
well as the Tower of Babel for extensive thought and documentations.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Sep 16, 7:47 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 15 Sep, 22:07, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > Evidence for a Global Flood
>

> (snip)
>
> So why has the DI not jumped on this? Why, in ~20 years of insisting
> that "Darwinism" is dead, dying, falsified and unfalsifiable, has
> their only reference to a global flood been Dembski's encouragement to
> believe it *in spite of lack of evidence*? In a statement that was
> blatant pandering to keep his other job at the seminary.
>
> Are you posting at DI sites too?

No. I just posted an article of interest to sites that I thought
might be interested in it.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Sep 16, 9:47�am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > (46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A global
> > flood could easily have created this feature.
>
> > (47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when the
> > world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this
> > is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.
>

> You might wat to have a look at the evidence from the 'Grotte Cosquer'.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosquer_Cave>
> or
> <http://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/archeosm/fr/fr-medit-prehist.htm>
> for some pictures. (including a 'penguin', actually a great auk)
>
> Here we have pictures of ante-diluvian fauna,
> found just above present day sea level.
> Any rise in sea level would have destroyed the very fragile paintings.
>
> Here we have direct proof (even by creationist logic)
> that the sea level has never been higher than at present,
> since ante-diluvian times (by creationist logic)
> or since BP 20.000 (scientific version)
>
> Anyway you look at it, it's direct evidence of no flood,
>
> Jan

I didn't get a toehold on what you were trying to prove/assume. Is
the subject in something like this?

http://www.nwcreation.net/antediluviancivilizations.html

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Sep 16, 2:27�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by curtjester1
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com>:

>
> > Evidence for a Global Flood
>

> Snipping everything which isn't either religious assertions
> presented as "evidence" (which they aren't), non sequiturs
> from actual evidence to unrelated conclusions based on
> religious beliefs, or facts taken out of context to support
> religious beliefs (with no inclusion of the reasons why such
> facts have other, observed and confirmed, explanations),
> we're left with...
>
> ....nothing at all.
>
> What a surprise.

> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>
> - McNameless

All the assertions are gone into in a much more extensive detail in
sites, books, etc. It was copied to develop interest. Surely you can
understand.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Sep 16, 7:02 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sep 16, 6:47 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:19092d9a-c81c-4494...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Sep 15, 9:32 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
> > >> (in article
> > >> <4076e028-5d83-49f4-b709-cadbbfc35...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>

> > >> > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>

> > >> Enforcing this may prove... problematical. What _is_ it with creationists
> > >> and
> > >> their rules, anyway?
>
> > > They appear to have a problem with presenting actual evidence besides,
> > > "It's in the Bible, so it's *true*".
>
> > But all he's claiming is that six thousand years ago the earth
> > was much flatter that today. No big deal.
>

> Except for everything we know about geology, not to mention eye-
> witness accounts- which admittedly, are notoriously inaccurate for the
> most part. But when a gazillion people all say "There were no
> mountains there before, but now there's a huge bunch of mountains!" it
> kind of strains credulity.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Boikat

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures

CJ

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
snipping

>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>
> CJ
>

The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.


What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left
them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion. Any soft
muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.



If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths. That is not what is
seen. Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
top of mountains of volcanic origin.


A more reasonable, and testable explanation for the presence of sea
creature fossils inside the rocks on mountains is tectonic forces
lifting already fossil bearing rock into mountains.

DJT

[hersheyh]

On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:07:49 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> Evidence for a Global Flood
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>
>
>

> Email: laur...@unmaskingevolution.com
>
>
>
> Webpage: www.unmaskingevolution.com

>
>
>
> [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a
>
> local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough
>
> rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent
>
> discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a
>

> much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded, with the resultant

>
> volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These
>

> details have demolished the main argument against a global flood, but

>
> the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any
>
> evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Here are over 100 evidences in support of a global flood, rather than
>
> a local one.
>
>
>
> FROM LOGIC.........[12 reasons]
>
>
>
> (1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized
> area is currently close to impossible.
>

Then what is the probability of having *world-wide* conditions for
forty uninterrupted days of rain? Are you claiming that there was
complete, world-wide cloud cover containing enough water in the
form of vapor to produce forty days of uninterrupted rain?

What is "well beyond impossible"? stated as a Je-parody question.
>
[snip remainder of equally high/low quality arguments]

[UC]

On Sep 15, 10:07 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

If the world was flatter rain would not make any difference, dumbass.
Evaporation and rain would just move the water around.

Stupid fuckafaced fool.

[Harry K]

Since everyone died excet for Noah's groujp, how did a story about a
flood survive in other areas? There wasn't anyong to report about
it. But don't let logic and facts confuse you.

Harry K

[Nick Keighley]

A section from a previously unknown Dr Who episode? I bet all that
stuff from BOOK is to keep The Doctor from seeing SPOILERS

[curtjester1]

On Oct 13, 7:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> snipping
>
>
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>
> > CJ
>
> The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
> deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.
>
>    What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
> mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left

Why not? Do you think that the land and underneath would remain
undisturbed in that immense of a cataclysm?

> them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion.  Any soft
> muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
> certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.
>

Just being up there deserves an explanation.

>    If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
> way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
> origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths.   That is not what is
> seen.  Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
> top of mountains of volcanic origin.
>

And they are. They just use Everest or the Himalayas for elevation.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&qpvt=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&FORM=IGRE

>   A more reasonable, and testable explanation for the presence of sea
> creature fossils inside the rocks on mountains is tectonic forces
> lifting already fossil bearing rock into mountains.
>

Why, have you ever seen anything like that happening by mere
earthquakes? Wouldn't it take Tectonics '101' to get things moving
upward to such a high level? And if the marine fossils weren't all
underneath, what would it say for your erosion theory if it took
millions of years of mountains to inch upwards?

CJ

> DJT

[Harry K]

On Oct 14, 6:19 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 7:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > snipping
>
> > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>
> > > CJ
>
> > The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
> > deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.
>
> > What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
> > mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left
>
> Why not?  Do you think that the land and underneath would remain
> undisturbed in that immense of a cataclysm?
>

Becasue your "theory" requires the flood to have deposited living
creatures. Those do not fossilize in a few thosand years. Sounds
likeyou are now trying to waffle andclaim that the fossils were picked
up by a flood lower down and then deposited up thee. Won't wrk, they
are firmly embedded in the rock up there.

> > them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion. Any soft
> > muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
> > certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.
>
> Just being up there deserves an explanation.

Yes and it is known, tectonic activity. Too bad that science
overrules "wishful thinking".

>
> > If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
> > way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
> > origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths. That is not what is
> > seen. Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
> > top of mountains of volcanic origin.
>
> And they are.

Cite. This should be good.

 They just use Everest or the Himalayas for elevation.
>

> http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&...

>
> > A more reasonable, and testable explanation for the presence of sea
> > creature fossils inside the rocks on mountains is tectonic forces
> > lifting already fossil bearing rock into mountains.
>
> Why, have you ever seen anything like that happening by mere
> earthquakes?  Wouldn't it take Tectonics '101' to get things moving
> upward to such a high level?  And if the marine fossils weren't all
> underneath, what would it say for your erosion theory if it took
> millions of years of mountains to inch upwards?
>
> CJ
>

You are aware that tectonic activity is still raising mountains all
over the world even todya/

Harry K
>
> > DJT

[Harry K]

No answer? come on, give it a try.

Harry K

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/13/12 3:00 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by curtjester1
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>> Evidence for a Global Flood
>>
>> Snipping everything which isn't either religious assertions
>> presented as "evidence" (which they aren't), non sequiturs
>> from actual evidence to unrelated conclusions based on
>> religious beliefs, or facts taken out of context to support
>> religious beliefs (with no inclusion of the reasons why such
>> facts have other, observed and confirmed, explanations),
>> we're left with...
>>
>> ....nothing at all.
>>
>> What a surprise.
>>
>

> All the assertions are gone into in a much more extensive detail in
> sites, books, etc.

More length, certainly. More detail, maybe in one or two books. More
evidence, never. More validity, quite the opposite.

> It was copied to develop interest.

It was presented in a format that was pretty much guaranteed to stifle
interest. If you want to develop interest, choose *one* point and
present those more details about it.

And if you are honest, you would then stop using that point when it is
shown how utterly worthless it is, but I doubt you have such honesty.
Still, you might surprise me.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:17:42 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 13, 7:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> snipping
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>>
>> > CJ
>>
>> The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
>> deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.
>>
>>    What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
>> mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left
>
>Why not? Do you think that the land and underneath would remain
>undisturbed in that immense of a cataclysm?
>
>> them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion.  Any soft
>> muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
>> certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.
>>
>Just being up there deserves an explanation.

They were deposited in ancient seas and then uplifted by tectonic
forces.

>
>>    If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
>> way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
>> origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths.   That is not what is
>> seen.  Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
>> top of mountains of volcanic origin.
>>
>And they are. They just use Everest or the Himalayas for elevation.
>
>http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&qpvt=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&FORM=IGRE

These are just pictures of fossils. There's not anything about marine
creatures on volcanic mountain tops.

[Mark Buchanan]

From the article by Snelling:

"There is only one possible explanation for this phenomenon—the ocean
waters at some time in the past flooded over the continents."

Creationists don't often give any other explanations other than their
own. In this case the omission is particularly egregious. Snelling has a
PhD in geology, as such he knows the standard geological explanation. He
is either incredibly incompetent or deliberately being deceptive.

For a comprehensive analysis of Snelling's so called evidences see:

http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-1/

Mark

[curtjester1]

On Oct 13, 8:09 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:07:49 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> > Evidence for a Global Flood
>
> >  by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>

> > Email: laure...@unmaskingevolution.com

>
> > Webpage:www.unmaskingevolution.com
>
> > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> > In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a
>
> > local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough
>
> > rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent
>
> > discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a
>
> > much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded, with the resultant
>
> > volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These
>
> > details have demolished the main argument against a global flood, but
>
> > the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any
>
> > evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.
>
> > Here are over 100 evidences in support of a global flood, rather than
>
> > a local one.
>
> >  FROM LOGIC.........[12 reasons]
>
> > (1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized
> > area is currently close to impossible.
>
> Then what is the probability of having *world-wide* conditions for
> forty uninterrupted days of rain?  Are you claiming that there was
> complete, world-wide cloud cover containing enough water in the
> form of vapor to produce forty days of uninterrupted rain?
>
> What is "well beyond impossible"?  stated as a Je-parody question.
>
> [snip remainder of equally high/low quality arguments]

According to the Bible there were waters in the heavens and below the
earth's surface for the Flood. There's enough water on earth 'now' to
be a mile and a half high on a flat earth's surface. Also many other
things have been opined about the pre-Flood earth, like no rainbows,
and bigger animals and plant life.

CJ

[curtjester1]

it was started from the offspring of Noah. Might expect a strong
flood story early and watered down ones as people increased in
population and travelled. It's what the accounts earthwide seem to
indicate.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Oct 14, 11:24 am, Harry K <turn...@q.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 6:19 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 7:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > snipping
>
> > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>
> > > > CJ
>
> > > The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
> > > deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.
>
> > > What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
> > > mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left
>
> > Why not? Do you think that the land and underneath would remain
> > undisturbed in that immense of a cataclysm?
>
> Becasue your "theory" requires the flood to have deposited living
> creatures.  Those do not fossilize in a few thosand years.  Sounds

it really doesn't matter how fossilized you want things to be, and
they don't need a long time to fossilize as you might want to expect.
The reality is that creatures were buried together as might be
expected by onrushing waters and deposited in common graves which are
found earthwide.

> likeyou are now trying to waffle andclaim that the fossils were picked
> up by a flood lower down and then deposited up thee.  Won't wrk, they
> are firmly embedded in the rock up there.
>

Fossils were around before a global Flood...so......

> > > them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion. Any soft
> > > muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
> > > certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.
>
> > Just being up there deserves an explanation.
>
> Yes and it is known, tectonic activity.  Too bad that science
> overrules "wishful thinking".
>
>

Can you prove any slow, unfolding tectonic activity did anything
monumental in earth's geology/

>
> > > If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
> > > way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
> > > origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths. That is not what is
> > > seen. Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
> > > top of mountains of volcanic origin.
>
> > And they are.
>
> Cite.  This should be good.
>

One can get hits for Hawaiian volcanos, and there is Mt. Ararat which
is a volcano.

http://www.icr.org/books/defenders/211/

>   They just use Everest or the Himalayas for elevation.
>
>
>
> >http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&...
>
> > > A more reasonable, and testable explanation for the presence of sea
> > > creature fossils inside the rocks on mountains is tectonic forces
> > > lifting already fossil bearing rock into mountains.
>
> > Why, have you ever seen anything like that happening by mere
> > earthquakes? Wouldn't it take Tectonics '101' to get things moving
> > upward to such a high level? And if the marine fossils weren't all
> > underneath, what would it say for your erosion theory if it took
> > millions of years of mountains to inch upwards?
>
> > CJ
>
> You are aware that tectonic activity is still raising mountains all
> over the world even todya/
>

at exactly what pace? and can you show any time relevance in the
beginning of your theorized movements to the end product?

CJ
> Harry K
>
>
>
>
>
> > > DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/14/12 7:17 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 13, 7:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> snipping
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>>
>>> CJ
>>
>> The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
>> deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.
>>
>> What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
>> mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left
>
> Why not? Do you think that the land and underneath would remain
> undisturbed in that immense of a cataclysm?

Because even the most catastrophic flood is not going to embed living
creatures into solid rock. Also, a "immense cataclysm" strong enough
to push living things into rocks would make short work of a fragile
wooden ship such as Noah's Ark.

>
>> them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion. Any soft
>> muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
>> certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.
>>
> Just being up there deserves an explanation.

And the explanation I provide below is the most reasonable explanation.

>
>
>> If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
>> way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
>> origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths. That is not what is
>> seen. Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
>> top of mountains of volcanic origin.
>>
> And they are. They just use Everest or the Himalayas for elevation.
>
> http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&qpvt=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&FORM=IGRE

Those are just pictures of random fossils, without any indication they
were found at the top of volcanoes. The fact remains that igneous
rocks do not contain fossils. Only sedimentary rock is fossil bearing.
This would not be true if a flood were capable of leaving fossils in
mountain tops.

>
>> A more reasonable, and testable explanation for the presence of sea
>> creature fossils inside the rocks on mountains is tectonic forces
>> lifting already fossil bearing rock into mountains.
>>
> Why, have you ever seen anything like that happening by mere
> earthquakes?

Yes, earthquakes do cause uplift. However, tectonic activity is not
limited to just earthquakes. When two crustal plates collide, like in
southern central Asia, mountain ranges are pushed up. This is why
sedimentary rock that was once on the sea floor can be found nearly six
miles above sea level in the Himalayas. A global flood would not
cause this.

> Wouldn't it take Tectonics '101' to get things moving
> upward to such a high level?

No, just a collision between crustal plates.

> And if the marine fossils weren't all
> underneath, what would it say for your erosion theory if it took
> millions of years of mountains to inch upwards?

I don't know what you mean by "all underneath", but solid rock erodes a
lot slower than soft mud and slurry left behind by a flood. It doesn't
necessarily take millions of years for mountain uplift to take place. See:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v385/n6616/abs/385501a0.html
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/35/8/743.abstract


There's also the problem with the "flood model" of where all the
sediment came from, if the Earth is only 6000 years old. There wouldn't
be enough eroded material to form that much sediment, in just about 1000
years from the date of the creation to the date of the flood in YEC claims.


DJT

[curtjester1]

On Oct 14, 12:04 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/12 3:00 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 2:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by curtjester1
> >> <curtjest...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >>> Evidence for a Global Flood
>
> >> Snipping everything which isn't either religious assertions
> >> presented as "evidence" (which they aren't), non sequiturs
> >> from actual evidence to unrelated conclusions based on
> >> religious beliefs, or facts taken out of context to support
> >> religious beliefs (with no inclusion of the reasons why such
> >> facts have other, observed and confirmed, explanations),
> >> we're left with...
>
> >> ....nothing at all.
>
> >> What a surprise.
>
> > All the assertions are gone into in a much more extensive detail in
> > sites, books, etc.
>
> More length, certainly.  More detail, maybe in one or two books.  More
> evidence, never.  More validity, quite the opposite.
>

Any relatives in N. Dakota? I have a few Isaak's from there in the
family tree.

Well the evidence is what's important, and there would have to be much
more than marine life on mountains, and what is gone into usually is
the rapid burial of creatures and plants, rapidly deposited sediment
layers worldwide, the proof of sediment moved long distances, rapid or
no erosion between earth's strata layers, and that they are laid down
in rapid succession.

One thing that is picked on for long period stratus and the Ages, is
that sometimes they show evidence of the Flood within them, and don't
lay on each other like science wants from old to new. Sometimes they
are completely backwards or mixed up.

> > It was copied to develop interest.
>
> It was presented in a format that was pretty much guaranteed to stifle
> interest.  If you want to develop interest, choose *one* point and
> present those more details about it.
>

i am already a Bible believer and when Jesus Christ confirms
something, I consider it etched in stone. The science is just a nice
journey that should support it in many respects.

> And if you are honest, you would then stop using that point when it is
> shown how utterly worthless it is, but I doubt you have such honesty.
> Still, you might surprise me.
>

You need not be arrogant or opinionated to be so high-punitiative. i
don't even like the religion people in these sites have. i feel like
I just give the interest and form my own opinions the more I get
involved. Like most people, I wasn't there, and neither were the
theorists or geologists.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Oct 14, 1:19 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:17:42 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
>
>
>
>
>
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 13, 7:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >> snipping
>
> >> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>
> >> > CJ
>
> >> The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
> >> deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.
>
> >> What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
> >> mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left
>
> >Why not?  Do you think that the land and underneath would remain
> >undisturbed in that immense of a cataclysm?
>
> >> them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion. Any soft
> >> muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
> >> certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.
>
> >Just being up there deserves an explanation.
>
> They were deposited in ancient seas and then uplifted by tectonic
> forces.
>
>

Why couldn't they have had a global flood and tectonic forces going at
one time? I read once where a comet struck a place on earth and an
earthquake on the other side of the earth ensued.

>
> >> If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
> >> way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
> >> origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths. That is not what is
> >> seen. Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
> >> top of mountains of volcanic origin.
>
> >And they are.  They just use Everest or the Himalayas for elevation.
>

> >http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&...

>
> These are just pictures of fossils.  There's not anything about marine
> creatures on volcanic mountain tops.
>
>

Sorry, I just typed it in. You can find examples if you look.

CJ

[curtjester1]

> http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/six-bad-arguments-from-a...
>
> Mark

It's usually an arugment between uniformmitarianism (everything takes
a long time) and cataclysmic theory (violent acts of nature make it
happen in a short period of time). I would suggest anyone interested
in the subject, get acquainted with those terms and the people who
opine on them.

CJ

[Mark Buchanan]

So was Snelling lying or incompetent? Either way how can you trust what
he is saying? Why don't you defend your source?

Mark

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/14/12 12:15 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:24 am, Harry K <turn...@q.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 6:19 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 7:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>> snipping
>>
>>>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>>
>>>>> CJ
>>
>>>> The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
>>>> deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.
>>
>>>> What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
>>>> mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left
>>
>>> Why not? Do you think that the land and underneath would remain
>>> undisturbed in that immense of a cataclysm?
>>
>> Becasue your "theory" requires the flood to have deposited living
>> creatures. Those do not fossilize in a few thosand years. Sounds
>
> it really doesn't matter how fossilized you want things to be, and
> they don't need a long time to fossilize as you might want to expect.

That depends on the conditions involved. In any case, any sediment left
on a mountain side would have eroded away in a few years.

> The reality is that creatures were buried together as might be
> expected by onrushing waters and deposited in common graves which are
> found earthwide.

These "common graves" are actually areas where animals and plants were
deposited over many years, or in fairly large flash floods. They are
found in areas like remains of river bottoms, or sand bars, not on
mountain top areas, where any dead bodies would have been removed by
gravity and erosion.

>
>
>> likeyou are now trying to waffle andclaim that the fossils were picked
>> up by a flood lower down and then deposited up thee. Won't wrk, they
>> are firmly embedded in the rock up there.
>>
> Fossils were around before a global Flood...so......

Do you have any evidence to support either of your assumptions here?

>
>
>>>> them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion. Any soft
>>>> muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
>>>> certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.
>>
>>> Just being up there deserves an explanation.
>>
>> Yes and it is known, tectonic activity. Too bad that science
>> overrules "wishful thinking".
>>
>>
> Can you prove any slow, unfolding tectonic activity did anything
> monumental in earth's geology/

Nothing in science can ever be "proven", but there is plenty of good
evidence. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_formation

http://www.math.montana.edu/~nmp/materials/ess/geosphere/advanced/activities/mountain_build/index.html

>
>>
>>>> If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
>>>> way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
>>>> origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths. That is not what is
>>>> seen. Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
>>>> top of mountains of volcanic origin.
>>
>>> And they are.
>>
>> Cite. This should be good.
>>
> One can get hits for Hawaiian volcanos, and there is Mt. Ararat which
> is a volcano.

There are fossils on the sides of volcanoes, as the volcano has risen
through sedimentary layers, but no fossils in igneous rock.

It should also be noted that the mountain today known as Mt. Ararat is
not where Noah's Ark is supposed to have grounded according to the
Bible. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat

"The Bible says that Noah's ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. This
does not refer to any specific mountain or peak, but rather a mountain
range within the region of Ararat, which was the name of an ancient
proto-Armenian kingdom also known as Urartu.[6] Nonetheless, one
particular tradition identifies the mountain as Mount Masis, the highest
peak in the Armenian Highland, which is therefore called Mount Ararat.
(As opposed to the Armenian and European tradition, Semitic tradition
identifies the mountain as Judi Dagh located in Turkey near Cizre.)
According to the medieval Armenian historian Moses of Khoren in his
History of Armenia, the plain of Ayrarat (directly north of the
mountain) got its name after King Ara the Handsome (the great grandson
of Amasya). Here the Assyrian Queen Semiramis is said to have lingered
for a few days after the death of Ara. According to Thomson, the
mountain is called Ararat (Armenian: Արարատ) corresponding to Ayrarat,
the name of the province."

>
> http://www.icr.org/books/defenders/211/
>
>> They just use Everest or the Himalayas for elevation.
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&...
>>
>>>> A more reasonable, and testable explanation for the presence of sea
>>>> creature fossils inside the rocks on mountains is tectonic forces
>>>> lifting already fossil bearing rock into mountains.
>>
>>> Why, have you ever seen anything like that happening by mere
>>> earthquakes? Wouldn't it take Tectonics '101' to get things moving
>>> upward to such a high level? And if the marine fossils weren't all
>>> underneath, what would it say for your erosion theory if it took
>>> millions of years of mountains to inch upwards?
>>
>>> CJ
>>
>> You are aware that tectonic activity is still raising mountains all
>> over the world even todya/
>>
>
> at exactly what pace?

It differs in different locations. The fastest rising mountain right now
is rising at about 7 mm per year. Some uplift his happening faster, but
it's being matched by erosion.

> and can you show any time relevance in the
> beginning of your theorized movements to the end product?

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Himalaya

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/14/12 12:30 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 14, 1:19 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:17:42 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 7:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>> snipping
>>
>>>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>>
>>>>> CJ
>>
>>>> The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
>>>> deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.
>>
>>>> What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
>>>> mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left
>>
>>> Why not? Do you think that the land and underneath would remain
>>> undisturbed in that immense of a cataclysm?
>>
>>>> them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion. Any soft
>>>> muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
>>>> certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.
>>
>>> Just being up there deserves an explanation.
>>
>> They were deposited in ancient seas and then uplifted by tectonic
>> forces.
>>
>>
> Why couldn't they have had a global flood and tectonic forces going at
> one time?

There are a lot of reason why a global flood is not indicated by the
evidence. Please see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/limehash.htm

> I read once where a comet struck a place on earth and an
> earthquake on the other side of the earth ensued.

So?

>
>>
>>>> If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
>>>> way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
>>>> origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths. That is not what is
>>>> seen. Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
>>>> top of mountains of volcanic origin.
>>
>>> And they are. They just use Everest or the Himalayas for elevation.
>>
>>> http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&...
>>
>> These are just pictures of fossils. There's not anything about marine
>> creatures on volcanic mountain tops.
>>
>>
> Sorry, I just typed it in. You can find examples if you look.

You need to support your own claim.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

The modern idea of uniformitarianism is not "everything takes a long
time". It's "the present is the key to the past". Modern geologists
know that sudden events happen, and that large scale disasters can
affect the geology of a region.

> and cataclysmic theory (violent acts of nature make it
> happen in a short period of time).

While cataclysms can happen over a short period of time, they typically
don't affect more than a limited area. There's no way the very
extensive and intricate geological history of earth could have been
formed by a single catastrophic event. A global flood is ruled out by
the preponderance of the evidence.

> I would suggest anyone interested
> in the subject, get acquainted with those terms and the people who
> opine on them.

The 18th century dispute between "uniformitarians" and "catastrophists"
was settled quite a long time ago. Uniform processes over a long time,
interspersed with occasional larger scale events gives a much better
model to explain the findings of geology than either of the earlier two
positions.


DJT




>
> CJ
>

[Dana Tweedy]

However there is no evidence that this was correct.

> There's enough water on earth 'now' to
> be a mile and a half high on a flat earth's surface.

There's no evidence the Earth ever had a uniformly flat surface.

> Also many other
> things have been opined about the pre-Flood earth, like no rainbows,
> and bigger animals and plant life.

All of which turn out to be nonsense once they are looked into.

While there have been larger animals and plants in the past, there
was no period in which all plants and animals were larger than those
today. Even during the mesozoic, where large dinosaurs were common,
smaller creatures also lived. Some dinosaurs were about the size of a
turkey.

The largest animal that ever existed is alive today, ie the Blue Whale.

There's also no evidence that optics worked differently in the past,
so the idea there were no rainbows is just silly. Those claims are
usually tied to the idea of a "vapor canopy", which simply does not work.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

What evidence do you have of that? How did these "offspring of Noah"
evolve the genetic diversity seen in modern humans in only a few
thousand years? Where did all the labor required to build the Pyramids
come from, if they were built only a few hundred years after the
"flood"? How did American Indian populations get all the way to the
tip of South America in only a few thousand years?

> Might expect a strong
> flood story early and watered down ones as people increased in
> population and travelled.

Yet many cultures don't have such a story. The Egyptians don't have
such a flood story, and they wouldn't have had far to travel.

> It's what the accounts earthwide seem to
> indicate.

Actually, what the accounts worldwide seem to indicate is that memorable
floods are common occurrences, as most human civilizations grew up
around river valleys.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

There is quite a lot of evidence that many fossils were not rapidly
buried, but decayed, and were dismembered after death. It's very rare
to find skulls of most dinosaur fossils, because they tend to detach and
be swept away after decomposition. If fossils were buried rapidly in a
global flood, one would expect to find a great many more articulated
dinosaur fossils than one finds.

Another problem in areas of mass burials, one doesn't find a mix of
different eras. Dinosaur mass burials never have any large mammal
fossils, even though they would have been approximately the the same
size and weight. Although some dinosaurs were quite large, many were
about the size of modern megafauna. One would expect from hydrological
sorting, that some modern creatures, such as bison, or elephants, would
be found in the same sediments as camarasaurids, or hadrosaurs.
Furthermore, dinosaurs themselves are always found in the same set of
layers. Jurrasic species are never found in Cretaceous levels.
Triassic dinosaurs are never found in the Jurassic. If all dinosaurs
lived at the same time, one would expect to find Apatosaurus in the same
levels as Triceratops, once in a while.

> the proof of sediment moved long distances, rapid or
> no erosion between earth's strata layers, and that they are laid down
> in rapid succession.

Actually, there's quite a lot of evidence of erosion between strata
layers. Look up the term "unconformity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconformity

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Unconformities.topicArticleId-9605,articleId-9497.html

Unconformities are very common in geological layers.

>
> One thing that is picked on for long period stratus and the Ages, is
> that sometimes they show evidence of the Flood within them, and don't
> lay on each other like science wants from old to new.

Localized floods are also very common in geologic records. Areas where
younger formations are found on top of older strata are due to folding,
and overthrusts. These too are fairly common, and geologists are easily
able to identify where the geological formations have been disturbed.

> Sometimes they
> are completely backwards or mixed up.

Which are always in areas where there has been some kind of geological
upheaval, usually in areas where tectonic plates have collided, and
deformed the strata. In areas where there has been no such
disturbance, the strata are always in the correct order.

>
>>> It was copied to develop interest.
>>
>> It was presented in a format that was pretty much guaranteed to stifle
>> interest. If you want to develop interest, choose *one* point and
>> present those more details about it.
>>
> i am already a Bible believer and when Jesus Christ confirms
> something, I consider it etched in stone. The science is just a nice
> journey that should support it in many respects.

The problem is that science does not support your personal
interpretations of the Bible. Since the Bible is not a science book,
and Jesus was not a scientist, using the Bible, and Jesus as sources of
scientific knowledge is not wise.

>
>> And if you are honest, you would then stop using that point when it is
>> shown how utterly worthless it is, but I doubt you have such honesty.
>> Still, you might surprise me.
>>
> You need not be arrogant or opinionated to be so high-punitiative.

Yet you have shown yourself to be arrogant and opinionated, without any
basis for such high opinion of yourself.

> i
> don't even like the religion people in these sites have. i feel like
> I just give the interest and form my own opinions the more I get
> involved. Like most people, I wasn't there, and neither were the
> theorists or geologists.

The theorist and geologists don't have to be there. They can examine
the evidence, and draw reasonable conclusions from that evidence. That
is what science is all about. It beats just assuming what you like,
and ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

DJT

[Earle Jones]

In article
<5ad0eea6-2886-41f4...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

*
A "watered-down" story of a flood?

I wouldn't trust that!

earle
*

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:30:11 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 14, 1:19 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:17:42 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 13, 7:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 10/13/12 4:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> >> snipping
>>
>> >> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
>>
>> >> > CJ
>>
>> >> The AIG article in the link suggests that the presence of fossils of
>> >> deep sea creatures in mountains is "good evidence" of a global flood.
>>
>> >> What they authors don't seem to realize is that a flood covering the
>> >> mountain tops would not have left fossils inside the rocks, but left
>>
>> >Why not?  Do you think that the land and underneath would remain
>> >undisturbed in that immense of a cataclysm?
>>
>> >> them on the surface to be washed away by subsequent erosion. Any soft
>> >> muddy sediment left on mountain tops would not last very long, and
>> >> certainly not long enough to fossilize in place.
>>
>> >Just being up there deserves an explanation.
>>
>> They were deposited in ancient seas and then uplifted by tectonic
>> forces.
>>
>>
>Why couldn't they have had a global flood and tectonic forces going at
>one time?

Plate tectonics is a very slow process, like a few inches per year.
That wouldn't fit into a year-long flood.

> I read once where a comet struck a place on earth and an
>earthquake on the other side of the earth ensued.

I think you would need evidence for comet impacts for this idea to
work.

>> >> If fossils of bottom dwelling sea creatures had been left in that
>> >> way, we'd also expect to see such fossils left on mountains of igneous
>> >> origin, such as volcanoes, or volcanic lacolths. That is not what is
>> >> seen. Fossils only appear in sedimentary rock, and are not found on the
>> >> top of mountains of volcanic origin.
>>
>> >And they are.  They just use Everest or the Himalayas for elevation.
>>
>> >http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=marine+fossils+found+on+volcanos&...
>>
>> These are just pictures of fossils.  There's not anything about marine
>> creatures on volcanic mountain tops.
>>
>>
>Sorry, I just typed it in. You can find examples if you look.

I googled it and didn't find any.

snip

[UC]

You can't have a 'global flood'. It's impossible. The earth has only
so much water, and all rain is, is moving it from one place to
another. If we flattened all the continents and mountains I am willing
to wager the entire surface of the earth would be covered with water
(much shallower than the oceans, to be sure).

[Harry K]

So Noah's offspring somehow managed to repopulate Egypt, China and
many other places, cCome up with legends, concoct an entire written
record of the civilisations there but somehow forgot to mention that
everyone died in a flood?

You are aware that both China and Egypt, amongst others, have written
records that run right through the flood period? Odd that they don't
mention breathing water for a year.
Harry K

[Mark Isaak]

Sorry, no. Not even close. The ark story might have spread as far as
Greece and India, but beyond that the flood myths show not the slightest
indication of being related to the Middle Eastern flood myth. (I don't
count those stories spread by missionaries in the last five centuries.)

For example, here is a synopsis of a flood myth from the Sakalava of Africa:

The god Zanahary created the earth and then went to the sky.
Ratovoatany came from the ground and built a fire. Zanahary, surprised
to see signs of anyone on earth, sent another god to investigate.
Learning that Ratovoatany came from the earth unmade, Zanahary sent down
great showers upon the being and his fire. But Ratovoatany saw it
coming and created mountains on which to survive the flood. He stayed
in a high cave making statues. When the rain stopped, Zanahary saw
smoke again and went himself to visit Ratovoatany. He was impressed by
the lifelike statues that Ratovoatany had made and wondered that
Ratovoatany did not make them alive. "I can make their bodies, but
cannot give them life," he replied. After some dickering, they decided
that Ratovoatany would make the animals' bodies and get to keep the
bodies after they died, while Zanahary would give them life and get to
keep the souls.
[Charles Renel, 1930, _Contes de Madagascar_ vol. 3, 69-74.]

So: Yes, or No -- Does that really sound like a version of the story of
Noah?

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/14/12 11:26 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 14, 12:04 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 10/13/12 3:00 PM, curtjester1 wrote:

>> [...]

>>
>>> All the assertions are gone into in a much more extensive detail in
>>> sites, books, etc.
>>
>> More length, certainly. More detail, maybe in one or two books. More
>> evidence, never. More validity, quite the opposite.
>>
> Any relatives in N. Dakota? I have a few Isaak's from there in the
> family tree.

My family two generations back was from South Dakota. I believe
relatives exist in North Dakota.

> Well the evidence is what's important, and there would have to be much
> more than marine life on mountains, and what is gone into usually is
> the rapid burial of creatures and plants, rapidly deposited sediment
> layers worldwide, the proof of sediment moved long distances, rapid or
> no erosion between earth's strata layers, and that they are laid down
> in rapid succession.

Geologists have been examining that evidence for a while now, and they
concluded even before Darwin that a global flood was out of the
question. Erosion features almost everywhere show evidence of long,
steady erosion. There are enough exceptions that we know what
catastrophic flood erosion looks like, but those exceptions are all
relatively small scale.

Here is an example of flood-carved terrain:
http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2011/10/Mars-Mangala_Valles2-1024x644.jpg
You can see similar terrain in eastern Washington and, I think, under
the Mediterranean Sea, but not much elsewhere.

> One thing that is picked on for long period stratus and the Ages, is
> that sometimes they show evidence of the Flood within them, and don't
> lay on each other like science wants from old to new. Sometimes they
> are completely backwards or mixed up.

More often, they show sequences that cannot possibly admit of a flood.
For example, a stratum showing fossils from a mature forest upon a
stratum of shallow sea, upon another forest stratum, upon another sea
stratum, and so repeating for 40 or so layers. Easy to explain by
repeated gradual rising and falling of sea levels; impossible to deposit
all at once by any kind of flood.

>>> It was copied to develop interest.
>>
>> It was presented in a format that was pretty much guaranteed to stifle
>> interest. If you want to develop interest, choose *one* point and
>> present those more details about it.
>>
> i am already a Bible believer

So you believe in a flat earth? In a solid layer atop the sky?

> and when Jesus Christ confirms
> something, I consider it etched in stone. The science is just a nice
> journey that should support it in many respects.

The science in no way supports a global flood. Nor does God. You seem
to forget that the Bible was not his original work.

>> And if you are honest, you would then stop using that point when it is
>> shown how utterly worthless it is, but I doubt you have such honesty.
>> Still, you might surprise me.
>>
> You need not be arrogant or opinionated to be so high-punitiative.

I do not think it is logically possible to be more arrogant than you,
given what you said above.

> i don't even like the religion people in these sites have. i feel like
> I just give the interest and form my own opinions the more I get
> involved. Like most people, I wasn't there, and neither were the
> theorists or geologists.

The evidence is here. I have seen it. Your "wasn't there" excuse is
simply an excuse to avoid the evidence which came from God. You may be
a Bible believer, but you surely do not believe in God. Not a real one
anyway.

[ed wolf]

Am Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2012 22:19:06 UTC+2 schrieb Dana Tweedy:
This fine posting earns you this "Bienchen" for patience
with a stubborn mind.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Muttiheft_mit_Bienchen.jpg
I did not post anything after I learned Sem, Ham and Japhet
are the worlds ancestors and authors of "world wide flood myths".
I felt like laughing, screaming and swearing so I just went
elsewhere for a while.
regards
ed

Abusive language and swearing are a legacy of slavery,
humiliation, and disrespect for human dignity, one’s own
and that of other people.
Leo Trotsky

[eridanus]

El domingo, 16 de septiembre de 2012 03:42:48 UTC+1, Boikat escribió:

> On Sep 15, 9:32�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
>
> > (in article
>
> > <4076e028-5d83-49f4-b709-cadbbfc35...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >
>

> > > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> >
>

> > Enforcing this may prove... problematical. What _is_ it with creationists and
>
> > their rules, anyway?
>
>
>
> They appear to have a problem with presenting actual evidence besides,
>
> "It's in the Bible, so it's *true*".
>
>
>

> Boikat

boikat, it seems you had not seen the photos of the ark of Noak in Mount
Ararat.
google that. It must be in the Net.

Eridanus

[Ernest Major]

In message <k5g2q7$k8g$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes

One expects that a Christian believes that God created the universe, and
would place more weight on what they are supposed to believe are the
works of God, than on the words of men -

time to recommend "The Words of God" again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw

--
alias Ernest Major

[curtjester1]

On Oct 14, 5:59 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <5ad0eea6-2886-41f4-b271-d681373fe...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Why not? The same basic plotline occurs in all of them. A god
becomes angry and destroys the earth with a flood but preserves the
human reace by selecting a certain number of people to survive the
catastrophe. These people are saved from the flood by a vessel, which
carries them throughout the event, and has the task of repopulating
the earth after the duration of the event.

CJ

[curtjester1]

Not true as it spread to most all cultures earthwide. You can look up
some models online of that.

> For example, here is a synopsis of a flood myth from the Sakalava of Africa:
>
> The god Zanahary created the earth and then went to the sky.
> Ratovoatany came from the ground and built a fire.  Zanahary, surprised
> to see signs of anyone on earth, sent another god to investigate.
> Learning that Ratovoatany came from the earth unmade, Zanahary sent down
> great showers upon the being and his fire.  But Ratovoatany saw it
> coming and created mountains on which to survive the flood.  He stayed
> in a high cave making statues.  When the rain stopped, Zanahary saw
> smoke again and went himself to visit Ratovoatany.  He was impressed by
> the lifelike statues that Ratovoatany had made and wondered that
> Ratovoatany did not make them alive.  "I can make their bodies, but
> cannot give them life," he replied.  After some dickering, they decided
> that Ratovoatany would make the animals' bodies and get to keep the
> bodies after they died, while Zanahary would give them life and get to
> keep the souls.
> [Charles Renel, 1930, _Contes de Madagascar_ vol. 3, 69-74.]
>
> So: Yes, or No -- Does that really sound like a version of the story of
> Noah?
>

The importance is not to rely on differences. There has to be an
explanation for the same general story being the root of the Biblical
account. I sincerely doubt this episode would be used by anyone using
cultures as an example for a flood.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Oct 15, 12:19 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 10/14/12 11:26 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 12:04 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/12 3:00 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> >>> All the assertions are gone into in a much more extensive detail in
> >>> sites, books, etc.
>
> >> More length, certainly.  More detail, maybe in one or two books.  More
> >> evidence, never.  More validity, quite the opposite.
>
> > Any relatives in N. Dakota?  I have a few Isaak's from there in the
> > family tree.
>
> My family two generations back was from South Dakota.  I believe
> relatives exist in North Dakota.
>

Our's came from eastern Europe at the turn of the century (early
1900's). One N.Dak'an settled in S.D.

> > Well the evidence is what's important, and there would have to be much
> > more than marine life on mountains, and what is gone into usually is
> > the rapid burial of creatures and plants, rapidly deposited sediment
> > layers worldwide, the proof of sediment moved long distances, rapid or
> > no erosion between earth's strata layers, and that they are laid down
> > in rapid succession.
>
> Geologists have been examining that evidence for a while now, and they
> concluded even before Darwin that a global flood was out of the
> question.  Erosion features almost everywhere show evidence of long,
> steady erosion.  There are enough exceptions that we know what
> catastrophic flood erosion looks like, but those exceptions are all
> relatively small scale.
>

"Flat, knife-like boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous
deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For
example, there is no evidence of any "missing" millions of years (of
erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand
Canyon -- the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another
impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall
Limestone and strata beneath it." Pocket Guide to Global Flood pg. 25

> Here is an example of flood-carved terrain:http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2011/10/Mars-Mangala_Valles2-102...

> You can see similar terrain in eastern Washington and, I think, under
> the Mediterranean Sea, but not much elsewhere.
>

There is much more than just strata for flood and the potential
evidence left behind, but when thinking of general strata being on top
of another, wouldn't you have to consider how they 'landed'? How
would nature land a strata atop another, in any slow 'growing' way?

> > One thing that is picked on for long period stratus and the Ages, is
> > that sometimes they show evidence of the Flood within them, and don't
> > lay on each other like science wants from old to new.  Sometimes they
> > are completely backwards or mixed up.
>
> More often, they show sequences that cannot possibly admit of a flood.

And why would it if much strata were formed pre-Flood?

> For example, a stratum showing fossils from a mature forest upon a
> stratum of shallow sea, upon another forest stratum, upon another sea
> stratum, and so repeating for 40 or so layers.  Easy to explain by
> repeated gradual rising and falling of sea levels; impossible to deposit
> all at once by any kind of flood.
>

Which is fine, but does not preclude a global flood. That again could
have happened pre-Flood, or been the a new happening after the Flood.

> >>> It was copied to develop interest.
>
> >> It was presented in a format that was pretty much guaranteed to stifle
> >> interest.  If you want to develop interest, choose *one* point and
> >> present those more details about it.
>
> > i am already a Bible believer
>
> So you believe in a flat earth?  In a solid layer atop the sky?
>

i consider that an insult. To anyone interested, the Bible itself
speaks of the circle of the earth in the Psalms.

> > and when Jesus Christ confirms
> > something, I consider it etched in stone.  The science is just a nice
> > journey that should support it in many respects.
>
> The science in no way supports a global flood.  Nor does God.  You seem
> to forget that the Bible was not his original work.
>

Authoritarain figures of speech without any evidentiary support or
opinion is hardly worthy of consideration. While the Bible may not
have been his earliest work, Jesus Christ was...Prov. 8:30. All of
Christianity should back Jesu therefore backing God, and if done,
would corroborate with other Bible folk, that the Flood was an event
perpetrated by God, and confirmed by those chosen to speak directly by
His influence.

> >> And if you are honest, you would then stop using that point when it is
> >> shown how utterly worthless it is, but I doubt you have such honesty.
> >> Still, you might surprise me.
>
> > You need not be arrogant or opinionated to be so high-punitiative.
>
> I do not think it is logically possible to be more arrogant than you,
> given what you said above.
>

Simply, evidence rules, and I find what you say, not as evidentiary
stated, but as pontifically opined.

> > i don't even like the religion people in these sites have.  i feel like
> > I just give the interest and form my own opinions the more I get
> > involved.  Like most people, I wasn't there, and neither were the
> > theorists or geologists.
>
> The evidence is here.  I have seen it.  Your "wasn't there" excuse is

If you have seen the light, ye have not shown it. Flood evidence is
everywhere, from culture, from the Bible, and what a flood would do if
such on a grand scale to rise above all the mountain tops.

> simply an excuse to avoid the evidence which came from God.  You may be
> a Bible believer, but you surely do not believe in God.  Not a real one
> anyway.
>

We not only believe, but have experienced God even directly. We are
completely confident, while remaining humble to the details.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Oct 15, 5:39 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <k5g2q7$k8...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak

> >http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2011/10/Mars-Mangala_Valles2-102...

Yes. And even scientists have been known to have to give up what they
have believed in for long periods of time. And even in the case of
the falling of the World Trace Center buildings...scientists and all
sorts of military, firefightiing segments, architecture, and really
any group that can be thought of as scientific and uselful, to band
together to say the offical story has way too much 'scientific' fault.

CJ

[Friar Broccoli]

.

>Why not? The same basic plotline occurs in all of them. A god
>becomes angry and destroys the earth with a flood but preserves the
>human reace by selecting a certain number of people to survive the
>catastrophe. These people are saved from the flood by a vessel, which
>carries them throughout the event, and has the task of repopulating
>the earth after the duration of the event.

One obvious "Why not" is that only Noah and his immediate family (8
people survived). So why do so many aborigines in Africa and Asia not
believe in the Old testament God - or anything even remotely like him -
North American Indians for example believed in animal spirits and the
like.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[eridanus]

yeah. it probably refers to the supervolcano Toba explosion, that made
a flood on the stratosphere with fine volcanic cinder and sulfur dioxide;
this caused a great cold for several decades and the annihilation of most humans, except some few thousand Africans that must be the Noak family, that get out of Africa and populates all the planet. This flood occurred about
70,000 years ago.
Or it was not, but the extraterrestrials, that feared the planet was
overpopulated, then with their sophisticated technology provoked the
explosion of supervolcano Toba.

It sounds ok. Do you like it?

Eridanus





Eridanus

that populated the world.

[Harry K]

On Oct 15, 2:14 am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El domingo, 16 de septiembre de 2012 03:42:48 UTC+1, Boikat  escribi :

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 9:32 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:02:56 -0400, curtjester1 wrote
>
> > > (in article
>
> > > <4076e028-5d83-49f4-b709-cadbbfc35...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]
>
> > > Enforcing this may prove... problematical. What _is_ it with creationists and
>
> > > their rules, anyway?
>
> > They appear to have a problem with presenting actual evidence besides,
>
> > "It's in the Bible, so it's *true*".
>
> > Boikat
>
> boikat, it seems you had not seen the photos of the ark of Noak in Mount
> Ararat.
> google that.  It must be in the Net.
>
> Eridanus

Really? You're serious? Do you have an IQ more than 20? The
pictures you refer to have been debunked repeatedly as nothing but
natural rock outcroppings. All the reports of people having been to
the site, finding wood, etc. have all been revealed as frauds.


Harry K

[Harry K]

There also has to be logical, beleivable explanation how those few
people repopulated the remote regions of the earth, wrote records of
civilisations there that went right through the flood period and
didnt' mention ti, managed to change the morphology of their body from
semitic to all the any different "races", how all the animals got back
to their native lands.

After you come up with all that, tell us where all that water went.

I notice you didn't pick up my challenge to explain the written
records in China and Egypt that don't mention the flood. Having a
problem are you?

Harry K

[Harry K]

Odd, that is the way science works, modify (and even discard) existing
theory as new evidence and facts are found.

Religion works backward. Never question, never exam, never study.
Stick with dogma until dragged unwillingly, kicking and screaming "NO"
to have their face shoved into the facts before they will even
consider changing anything.

How many centuries passed before they would admit that the earth is
not the center of even the Solar System much less the universe after
it was already know by educated poeple everywhere.

Harry K

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/15/12 5:09 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 14, 5:59 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <5ad0eea6-2886-41f4-b271-d681373fe...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

>> [...]

>>>> Since everyone died excet for Noah's groujp, how did a story about a
>>>> flood survive in other areas? There wasn't anyong to report about
>>>> it. But don't let logic and facts confuse you.
>>

>>> it was started from the offspring of Noah. Might expect a strong
>>> flood story early and watered down ones as people increased in
>>> population and travelled. It's what the accounts earthwide seem to
>>> indicate.
>>

>> *
>> A "watered-down" story of a flood?
>>
>> I wouldn't trust that!
>

> Why not? The same basic plotline occurs in all of them. A god
> becomes angry and destroys the earth with a flood but preserves the
> human reace by selecting a certain number of people to survive the
> catastrophe. These people are saved from the flood by a vessel, which
> carries them throughout the event, and has the task of repopulating
> the earth after the duration of the event.

You are suffering from availability bias. In fact, that plotline occurs
in only 1-2% of flood myths worldwide.

The most widespread plotline is the punishment for inhospitality such as
in the Greek myth of Philemon and Bauchis. The same theme occurs on all
continents plus Pacific islands, although it refers to a local flood
more often than not. The most common is probably the flood as
punishment for the eating of a taboo snake (sometimes fish), with the
few (usually two) who did not eat it surviving in trees or on a
mountaintop. That myth is especially common in New Guinea and northern
South America.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/15/12 5:18 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:54 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 10/14/12 11:09 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>> it was started from the offspring of Noah. Might expect a strong
>>> flood story early and watered down ones as people increased in
>>> population and travelled. It's what the accounts earthwide seem to
>>> indicate.
>>
>> Sorry, no. Not even close. The ark story might have spread as far as
>> Greece and India, but beyond that the flood myths show not the slightest
>> indication of being related to the Middle Eastern flood myth. (I don't
>> count those stories spread by missionaries in the last five centuries.)
>>
> Not true as it spread to most all cultures earthwide. You can look up
> some models online of that.

With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about. I have
been looking up flood myths and anything to do with them, for decades.
There is zero evidence anywhere for cultural spread accounting for any
but a tiny portion of the world's flood myths.

>> For example, here is a synopsis of a flood myth from the Sakalava of Africa:
>>
>> The god Zanahary created the earth and then went to the sky.
>> Ratovoatany came from the ground and built a fire. Zanahary, surprised
>> to see signs of anyone on earth, sent another god to investigate.
>> Learning that Ratovoatany came from the earth unmade, Zanahary sent down
>> great showers upon the being and his fire. But Ratovoatany saw it
>> coming and created mountains on which to survive the flood. He stayed
>> in a high cave making statues. When the rain stopped, Zanahary saw
>> smoke again and went himself to visit Ratovoatany. He was impressed by
>> the lifelike statues that Ratovoatany had made and wondered that
>> Ratovoatany did not make them alive. "I can make their bodies, but
>> cannot give them life," he replied. After some dickering, they decided
>> that Ratovoatany would make the animals' bodies and get to keep the
>> bodies after they died, while Zanahary would give them life and get to
>> keep the souls.
>> [Charles Renel, 1930, _Contes de Madagascar_ vol. 3, 69-74.]
>>
>> So: Yes, or No -- Does that really sound like a version of the story of
>> Noah?
>>
> The importance is not to rely on differences. There has to be an
> explanation for the same general story being the root of the Biblical
> account. I sincerely doubt this episode would be used by anyone using
> cultures as an example for a flood.

In other words, if the data does not agree with your hypothesis, throw
out the data? You just discarded all of your credibility.

[Mark Isaak]

Good grief. You don't need a degree in geology to see that that claim
is complete bullshit. Why are you basing your conclusions on an obvious
instance of false witness? Doesn't the Bible says something about the
fruits of sin?

> For
> example, there is no evidence of any "missing" millions of years (of
> erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand
> Canyon -- the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another
> impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall
> Limestone and strata beneath it." Pocket Guide to Global Flood pg. 25

Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? Have you seen the remnants of
stream channels punctuating those same "flat" boundaries that that
passage talks about?

>> Here is an example of flood-carved terrain:http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2011/10/Mars-Mangala_Valles2-102...
>> You can see similar terrain in eastern Washington and, I think, under
>> the Mediterranean Sea, but not much elsewhere.
>
> There is much more than just strata for flood and the potential
> evidence left behind, but when thinking of general strata being on top
> of another, wouldn't you have to consider how they 'landed'? How
> would nature land a strata atop another, in any slow 'growing' way?

You could take a course in geology and learn the answer to those
questions in great detail. If it is any incentive, Steno, who pioneered
the field, was sainted.

>>> One thing that is picked on for long period stratus and the Ages, is
>>> that sometimes they show evidence of the Flood within them, and don't
>>> lay on each other like science wants from old to new. Sometimes they
>>> are completely backwards or mixed up.
>>
>> More often, they show sequences that cannot possibly admit of a flood.
>
> And why would it if much strata were formed pre-Flood?

Because those strata show fossil evidence of life changing over time.
I.e., evolution. For some reason, people who want a global flood have
problems with that.

>> For example, a stratum showing fossils from a mature forest upon a
>> stratum of shallow sea, upon another forest stratum, upon another sea
>> stratum, and so repeating for 40 or so layers. Easy to explain by
>> repeated gradual rising and falling of sea levels; impossible to deposit
>> all at once by any kind of flood.
>>
> Which is fine, but does not preclude a global flood. That again could
> have happened pre-Flood, or been the a new happening after the Flood.
>
>>>>> It was copied to develop interest.
>>
>>>> It was presented in a format that was pretty much guaranteed to stifle
>>>> interest. If you want to develop interest, choose *one* point and
>>>> present those more details about it.
>>
>>> i am already a Bible believer
>>
>> So you believe in a flat earth? In a solid layer atop the sky?
>>
> i consider that an insult. To anyone interested, the Bible itself
> speaks of the circle of the earth in the Psalms.

If I wanted to insult you, I would accuse you of believing in a global
flood. The physical evidence for a flat earth is better.

And the Bible also speaks of being able to see all the earth from one
high spot, and it repeatedly and unambiguously tells of the solid
firmament. If you do not believe in a flat earth and solid firmament,
you have no basis for claiming a biblical basis for a global flood.

>>> and when Jesus Christ confirms
>>> something, I consider it etched in stone. The science is just a nice
>>> journey that should support it in many respects.
>>
>> The science in no way supports a global flood. Nor does God. You seem
>> to forget that the Bible was not his original work.
>>
> Authoritarain figures of speech without any evidentiary support or
> opinion is hardly worthy of consideration. While the Bible may not
> have been his earliest work, Jesus Christ was...Prov. 8:30.

Proverbs 8:30 refers to a personification of Wisdom. Deification of
Wisdom is part of Gnosticism. Are you aware that most Christian
churches consider Gnosticism to be heresy?

> All of
> Christianity should back Jesu therefore backing God, and if done,
> would corroborate with other Bible folk, that the Flood was an event
> perpetrated by God, and confirmed by those chosen to speak directly by
> His influence.

Do you include, among "those chosen to speak directly by His influence",
Mohammed or Vyasa? If not, why not?

>>>> And if you are honest, you would then stop using that point when it is
>>>> shown how utterly worthless it is, but I doubt you have such honesty.
>>>> Still, you might surprise me.
>>
>>> You need not be arrogant or opinionated to be so high-punitiative.
>>
>> I do not think it is logically possible to be more arrogant than you,
>> given what you said above.
>>
> Simply, evidence rules, and I find what you say, not as evidentiary
> stated, but as pontifically opined.

I have pointed to more evidence than you have.

>>> i don't even like the religion people in these sites have. i feel like
>>> I just give the interest and form my own opinions the more I get
>>> involved. Like most people, I wasn't there, and neither were the
>>> theorists or geologists.
>>
>> The evidence is here. I have seen it. Your "wasn't there" excuse is
>
> If you have seen the light, ye have not shown it. Flood evidence is
> everywhere, from culture, from the Bible, and what a flood would do if
> such on a grand scale to rise above all the mountain tops.

Culture shows evidence against a global flood. The Bible shows evidence
only that rivers could flood in the Middle East. The earth's geology
shows that the evidence we would expect from a global flood (such as a
pulse of highly mixed sediments in all ocean basins) is simply absent,
everywhere and every way we look. The biosphere screams absence of
global flood.

The light is there. Do not be afraid to look at it.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<4914b33d-44a4-4659...@b9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Harry K <tur...@q.com> writes

I think you'll find that your sarcasm detector has failed.
>
>Harry K
>

--
Alias Ernest Major

[eridanus]

sorry, man. I have only an IQ of 10.
You do not liked the pictures? I was trying to make happy a fundy.
Perhaps you are not a fundy and had not seen the importance of
those pics.

Eridanus

[curtjester1]

Human nature at its worst. Usually ones who have the most energy to
put themselves on high, seem to lead the most astray. They just wanna
be number 1. I can think of Nimrod, who the Bible identifies as
someone of great influence, and yet was an opposer of Jehovah. in
general, the higher the person in the community, the more people are
likely to get influence, and that would be religion to myth to
whatever. Even the original Christians who worshipped the Hebrew God
would not have that carried on far, as the name of God was eliminated
when translated into the Greek very soon, even though some Greek
translations kept the name of God in their renderings of Hebrew
scripture. As Forrest said, 'IT happens.

CJ

[curtjester1]

it's 'ok', it's just the "probably" I have a tad of intrepeditation
on....:)

CJ