The Rocks Don't Lie

[TomS]

I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
discarded long ago.

David R. Montgomery
The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
New York: W. W. Norton, 2012
ISBN 9780393082395

There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia.


--
---Tom S.

[Ray Martinez]

True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
intelligent people know).

Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen. The
assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified
instantly.

Ray

[Prof Weird]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 4:33:09 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 1, 10:03�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and > discarded long ago. > > David R. Montgomery > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012 > ISBN 9780393082395 > > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia. > > -- > ---Tom S.

> True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and intelligent people know).

What would YOU know about what 'honest and intelligent people know' ?

Creationism has been on the run for centuries, vomiting up a wall of lies, misrepresentations, arrogance, ignorance and noise everytime REALITY shows it is wrong.

> Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FLOOD HAPPENED - honest Xtians centuries ago figured that out !

They observed the real world - and it did NOT bend to their views.

So, being honest folk, they altered their views to match reality.

You, on the other hand, bellow and scream that reality must bend to your master's (ie, Gene Scott's) delusional 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales.

And you are wrong - evolution does NOT begin with the assumption that the flood didn't happen. It begins with the REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS that living populations can change over time.

Initiating one of Ray's arrogant delusions of adequacy in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

> The assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified instantly. Ray

IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE FOR A WORLD-WIDE FLOOD, maybe.

Given there is no evidence for a flood (and much against it - LIKE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS), evolution is in no danger from glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, weak-kneed, feeble-bladdered, willfully stupid imbeciles like you.

The only way creator-isms come close to sounding valid is if one is ignorant of better, reality-based explanations.

You seem to 'think' it is a virtue to be willfully stupid, AND quite proud of the fact that you do it so well.

If creationism is so good, and evolution so weak, HOW, EXACTLY, DID EVOLUTION BECOME THE REIGNING EXPLANATION ?

Oh, right - the standard paranoid delusion of 'world-wide atheist Konspiracy !!!' or 'ANY WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE TOOLS OF SATAN, FOR ONLY ** I ** BE HOLY ENOUGH TO DISCERN DA TRUTH !!!!'

[Boikat]

On Nov 1, 3:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
> > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
> > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
> > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
> > discarded long ago.
>
> > David R. Montgomery
> > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
> > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012
> > ISBN 9780393082395
>
> > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia.
>
> > --
> > ---Tom S.
>
> True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> intelligent people know).
>
> Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.

What "flood"? The one that seems to be absent from the geological
record?

> The
> assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified
> instantly.

The "assumption" is "required" because there is no evidence of a world
wide flood. It's the same as "assuming" that there is no alien space
craft in my back yard because there is no evidence of an alien space
craft in my back yard. Now, if you want to propose it has a "cloaking
device", it's up to you do demonstrate there is a cloaked alien space
ship in my back yard.

Boikat

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 1, 1:53 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 4:33:09 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and > discarded long ago. > > David R. Montgomery > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012 > ISBN 9780393082395 > > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia. > > -- > ---Tom S.

> > True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and intelligent people know).
>
> What would YOU know about what 'honest and intelligent people know' ?
>
> Creationism has been on the run for centuries, vomiting up a wall of lies, misrepresentations, arrogance, ignorance and noise everytime REALITY shows it is wrong.
>

Only Evolutionists believe such things.

> > Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.
>
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FLOOD HAPPENED - honest Xtians centuries ago figured that out !
>
> They observed the real world - and it did NOT bend to their views.
>
> So, being honest folk, they altered their views to match reality.
>

Like when Professor Sedgwick threw in the towel?

Yet he remained convinced in the scientific veracity of special
creation.

19th century Christian scientists didn't know what we know today.

> You, on the other hand, bellow and scream that reality must bend to your master's (ie, Gene Scott's) delusional 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales.
>

Since I haven't initiated anything about Dr. Scott in a very long
time, your comment shows fear of his refutation of the ToE.

> And you are wrong - evolution does NOT begin with the assumption that the flood didn't happen.  It begins with the REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS that living populations can change over time.
>

A blatant lie.

Evolution begins with the assumption that the Bible and Creationism
are completely false. Miracles do not occur because no God exists.

> Initiating one of Ray's arrogant delusions of adequacy in 3.. 2.. 1.. :
>
> > The assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified instantly. Ray
>
> IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE FOR A WORLD-WIDE FLOOD, maybe.
>

Most of the Earth's surface is covered in water (an expectation if X
occurred).

Erratic boulders (another expectation if X occurred).

Seashells found on mountain tops (another expectation if X occurred).

A great flood account found in the writings of ancient civilizations.
The main common denominator: a catastrophic flood occurred (another
expectation if X ocurred).

> Given there is no evidence for a flood (and much against it - LIKE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS), evolution is in no danger from glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, weak-kneed, feeble-bladdered, willfully stupid imbeciles like you.
>

I'm not the least bit offended in being viewed as an imbecile by a
person who thinks apes morphed into Africans over the course of
millions of years.

> The only way creator-isms come close to sounding valid is if one is ignorant of better, reality-based explanations.
>
> You seem to 'think' it is a virtue to be willfully stupid, AND quite proud of the fact that you do it so well.
>

People who believe the super complex wonders of nature were produced
by chance should not be calling anyone stupid.

> If creationism is so good, and evolution so weak, HOW, EXACTLY, DID EVOLUTION BECOME THE REIGNING EXPLANATION ?
>

A certain Stanford Ph.D. already answered this question. Acceptance of
evolution, and its whacked out explanations, is actually a punishment
from God for denying Intelligent design. Since no evidence exists in
support of evolution (absolutely none) we have our answer to your
question.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[snip ranting....]

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/1/12 2:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
>> introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
>> regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
>> points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
>> discarded long ago.
>>
>> David R. Montgomery
>> The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
>> New York: W. W. Norton, 2012
>> ISBN 9780393082395
>>
>> There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia.
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
>
> True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> intelligent people know).

Ray, you know nothing about what honest, or intelligent people do.

If you claim that "evolutionists" lie, why is it that it's you who
always lies about "evolutionists"? Why do you keep running away from
the evidence, if what "evolutionists" say is a lie? Why do you feel
it's necessary to attack other person's religious positions, rather than
address the evidence, if you claim evolution is a lie? Why the need to
avoid discussing the fossil evidence of human evolution, if evolution is
a lie? Why do you run away whenever someone presents you with factual
statements?

>
> Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.

Your statement above is a lie. Evolution does not assume there was
no global flood. It's the evidence that shows there was no such flood.

> The
> assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified
> instantly.

How would the existence of a global flood falsify the theory of
evolution, Ray? Please be specific, and hold off on the lying for
once.


DJT

[pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:23:09 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 1, 1:53�pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote: > On Thursday, November 1, 2012 4:33:09 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote: > > On Nov 1, 10:03�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and > discarded long ago. > > David R. Montgomery > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012 > ISBN 9780393082395 > > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia. > > -- > ---Tom S. > > True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and intelligent people know). > > What would YOU know about what 'honest and intelligent people know' ? > > Creationism has been on the run for centuries, vomiting up a wall of lies, misrepresentations, arrogance, ignorance and noise everytime REALIT

Y shows it is wrong. > Only Evolutionists believe such things.

'Evolutionists' meaning 'people who accept reality for what it is', or just 'anyone that disagrees with His Inerrant Holiness, Lord Ray' ?

> > Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen. > > THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FLOOD HAPPENED - honest Xtians centuries ago figured that out ! > > They observed the real world - and it did NOT bend to their views. > > So, being honest folk, they altered their views to match reality.

> Like when Professor Sedgwick threw in the towel? Yet he remained convinced in the scientific veracity of special creation. 19th century Christian scientists didn't know what we know today.

Which is why creationism was ABANDONED - we gained knowledge about the real world, and most were too honest to try to make it conform to one peculiar interpretation of ancient morality tales.

> You, on the other hand, bellow and scream that reality must bend to your master's (ie, Gene Scott's) delusional 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales. > Since I haven't initiated anything about Dr. Scott in a very long time, your comment shows fear of his refutation of the ToE.

'Interesting' delusion there Ray !

And just what was his 'refutation' of the ToE ?

Oh, right - 'ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH MY DERANGED INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IS A TOOL OF SATAN !!!!!!1!!!!!!'

> And you are wrong - evolution does NOT begin with the assumption that the flood didn't happen. �It begins with the REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS that living populations can change over time.

> A blatant lie. Evolution begins with the assumption that the Bible and Creationism are completely false. Miracles do not occur because no God exists.

Wrong as usual Ray.

Evolution begins with the same assumptions all valid fields of inquiry do - the concept that evidence MEANS something. That ideas about the real world can be TESTED against the real world.

Creationism either fails every test, or remains untestable (for if you can invoke the unknowable whim of an unknowable being at any time to explain anything, there is nothing you cannot 'explain'.)

Or, as Henry Morris stated, "There is no scientific finding imaginable that cannot, one way or another, BE MADE TO FIT THE CREATION MODEL."

Sane and rational folk adjust their ideas to fit reality; you demand reality conform to your deranged ideas.

> Initiating one of Ray's arrogant delusions of adequacy in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

> > > The assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified instantly. Ray

Adjusted, yes. Falsified instantly ? No - that would require EVIDENCE THAT NOT ONLY DOES *YOUR* MAGICAL SKY PIXIE EXIST, BUT ALSO THAT HE/SHE/IT/THEY DID WHAT YOU *ASSERT* HE/SHE/IT/THEY DID.

You seem to be under the very common delusion that if anything doesn't fit YOUR silly 'understanding' of evolution, then YOUR ridiculous model must be true.

Doesn't work that way in the real world Ray. Never did.

> > IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE FOR A WORLD-WIDE FLOOD, maybe. > Most of the Earth's surface is covered in water (an expectation if X occurred).

RiiIIiiIIiight ! Where did all the extra water come from to flood the entire Earth ? Where did it all go afterwards ?

(invocation of miraculous violations of physics to 'explain' why reality does not conform to Ray's interpretation of ancient morality tales may begin now : )

> Erratic boulders (another expectation if X occurred).

What do you mean by 'erratic' ? Found in an odd place ?

Reality-based folk have known about LOCAL floods for centuries, Ray. You actually seem to think that everyone is as stupid as you are.

> Seashells found on mountain tops (another expectation if X occurred).

Those seashells are EMBEDDED IN SOLID ROCK, TWIT !

Exactly what you'd EXPECT if the sediments there were in turned to stone and were uplifted by geological processes.

> A great flood account found in the writings of ancient civilizations.

RiiIIiiIGHT ! As if local floods never happened !

> The main common denominator: a catastrophic flood occurred (another expectation if X ocurred).

Not all flood stories are like that Ray.

Again, twit : there are better, saner, more reality-based explanations than invoking a world-wide flood.

> Given there is no evidence for a flood (and much against it - LIKE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS), evolution is in no danger from glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, weak-kneed, feeble-bladdered, willfully stupid imbeciles like you.

> I'm not the least bit offended in being viewed as an imbecile by a person who thinks apes morphed into Africans over the course of millions of years.

A population of apes evolved into HUMANS over millions of years, according to all available real world data.

Oh, right - you are actually STUPID ENOUGH to 'think' that species are immutable, despite centuries of OBSERVATIONS showing that they can change.

> The only way creator-isms come close to sounding valid is if one is ignorant of better, reality-based explanations. > > You seem to 'think' it is a virtue to be willfully stupid, AND quite proud of the fact that you do it so well.

> People who believe the super complex wonders of nature were produced by chance should not be calling anyone stupid.

Are you actually STUPID enough to 'think' that anyone seriously claims 'wonders of nature' were produced PURELY BY CHANCE ? That living things fell together all at once ?

You seem to lack even the most infantile understanding of real world evolution and natural selection.

1. Populations have variations.
2. SOME VARIANTS ARE BETTER AT LIVING LONG ENOUGH TO REPRODUCE THAN OTHERS.
3. Those variants tend to become more common in the population until they may be the only variants in the population.

That process can generate complexity beyond your intentionally flaccid comprehension.

> If creationism is so good, and evolution so weak, HOW, EXACTLY, DID EVOLUTION BECOME THE REIGNING EXPLANATION ?

> A certain Stanford Ph.D. already answered this question. Acceptance of evolution, and its whacked out explanations, is actually a punishment from God for denying Intelligent design. Since no evidence exists in support of evolution (absolutely none) we have our answer to your question. Ray (species immutabilist) [snip ranting....]

In other words, YOU HAVE NO ANSWER OTHER THAN TO ASSERT THAT ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU IS A TOOL OF SATAN.

There is about 150+ years of evidence in support of evolution; but since you keep your head 3.26 feet up your own colon, you never 'see' it.

Since the REAL WORLD EVIDENCE shows creationism is wrong, all you can do is urinate on the whole concept of evidence.

"Since me state 'there be no evidence for evolution !!!', ** MY ** alternative - no matter how illogical, unsupported or outright stupid - MUST be true !!!"

If species were immutable, there would be no such thing as deleterious mutations (for that would require CHANGING something about the species, which would be IMPOSSIBLE if they were truly immutable).

Observation of animal husbandry over MILLENIA of work show that species are quite mutable - why do you think Darwin used pigeon breeds in the Origin of Species ?

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/1/12 3:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 1, 1:53 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 4:33:09 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and > discarded long ago. > > David R. Montgomery > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012 > ISBN 9780393082395 > > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia. > > -- > ---Tom S.
>
>>> True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and intelligent people know).
>>
>> What would YOU know about what 'honest and intelligent people know' ?
>>
>> Creationism has been on the run for centuries, vomiting up a wall of lies, misrepresentations, arrogance, ignorance and noise everytime REALITY shows it is wrong.
>>
>
> Only Evolutionists believe such things.

Except that you define "evolutionist" as anyone who calls creationists
on their lies.

>
>>> Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.
>>
>> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FLOOD HAPPENED - honest Xtians centuries ago figured that out !
>>
>> They observed the real world - and it did NOT bend to their views.
>>
>> So, being honest folk, they altered their views to match reality.
>>
>
> Like when Professor Sedgwick threw in the towel?
>
> Yet he remained convinced in the scientific veracity of special
> creation.

In that, he was shown to be wrong. He did show, though, that a global
flood wasn't possible with the evidence.

>
> 19th century Christian scientists didn't know what we know today.

Yes, they didn't know about evolution, yet they still discovered that
the global flood never happened.

>
>> You, on the other hand, bellow and scream that reality must bend to your master's (ie, Gene Scott's) delusional 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales.
>>
>
> Since I haven't initiated anything about Dr. Scott in a very long
> time, your comment shows fear of his refutation of the ToE.

Mr. Scott did not refute evolution, and no one "fears" his religiously
motivated claims. Whether or not you've "initiated" anything, your own
beliefs are still clouded by Mr. Scott's influence.

>
>> And you are wrong - evolution does NOT begin with the assumption that the flood didn't happen. It begins with the REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS that living populations can change over time.
>>
>
> A blatant lie.

No, that is a blatant truth. You really have not the ability to
distinguish between the two.

>
> Evolution begins with the assumption that the Bible and Creationism
> are completely false. Miracles do not occur because no God exists.

Wrong again, Ray. Evolution does not use any such assumptions.
Evolution, like any science, does not make assumptions about the
presence, or absence of supernatural beings, or the veracity of any
particular religious writings. It simply looks at the evidence, and
draws conclusions from that evidence.

>
>> Initiating one of Ray's arrogant delusions of adequacy in 3.. 2.. 1.. :
>>
>>> The assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified instantly. Ray
>>
>> IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE FOR A WORLD-WIDE FLOOD, maybe.
>>
>
> Most of the Earth's surface is covered in water (an expectation if X
> occurred).

The water that covers the Earth's ocean basins is not enough to cover
all the land areas. That's a falsification of "X".

>
> Erratic boulders (another expectation if X occurred).

Erratic boulders are produced by glaciers, which also leave features
like moraines, and eskers, which floods would not produce. Therefore
the presence of erratic boulders does not support "X".

>
> Seashells found on mountain tops (another expectation if X occurred).

As many people have been explaining in another thread, the presence of
sea shells inside the rocks on mountain tops would not be produced by a
global flood. Sediments form in basins and valleys, not on mountain
tops. Any sea shells that would have been left on mountain tops by a
flood would have long ago washed away, not left embedded in the rocks.

>
> A great flood account found in the writings of ancient civilizations.

In some cultures, but not all, and many ancient civilizations were in
existence at the time of a supposed global flood, and did not note such
an event. Egyptian and Chinese civilizations don't record such a flood
happening in the midst of their record keeping.

> The main common denominator: a catastrophic flood occurred (another
> expectation if X ocurred).

Catastrophic floods are fairly common occurrences, especially in river
bottoms where ancient civilizations were founded. That there are
stories of floods is not evidence of a single global flood.

>
>> Given there is no evidence for a flood (and much against it - LIKE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS), evolution is in no danger from glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, weak-kneed, feeble-bladdered, willfully stupid imbeciles like you.
>>
>
> I'm not the least bit offended in being viewed as an imbecile by a
> person who thinks apes morphed into Africans over the course of
> millions of years.

Ray, humans are apes, and remain apes. All humans are ultimately
"Africans", and no one claims that only present African populations are
descended from other ape species. That you are viewed as an imbecile
has nothing to do with the fact that humans evolved from apes, and
everything to do with your imbecilic claims.

>
>> The only way creator-isms come close to sounding valid is if one is ignorant of better, reality-based explanations.
>>
>> You seem to 'think' it is a virtue to be willfully stupid, AND quite proud of the fact that you do it so well.
>>
>
> People who believe the super complex wonders of nature were produced
> by chance should not be calling anyone stupid.

No one claims that natural complexity was produce by chance alone.
Evolution is not a chance process, but involves non random natural
selection.

>
>> If creationism is so good, and evolution so weak, HOW, EXACTLY, DID EVOLUTION BECOME THE REIGNING EXPLANATION ?
>>
>
> A certain Stanford Ph.D. already answered this question.

This "Standford Ph.D." had his own religious opinion, which does not
affect the truth. He was wrong, and continuing to cite him in his error
does him no favors.

> Acceptance of
> evolution, and its whacked out explanations, is actually a punishment
> from God for denying Intelligent design.

This claim is irrational, and is circular "logic". There is no reason
why any God worthy of worship would have used such a bizarre and
incoherent "punishment".

> Since no evidence exists in
> support of evolution (absolutely none) we have our answer to your
> question.

There is a massive amount of evidence that supports evolution. Your
denial of this fact merely shows the depth of your delusion.

DJT

[TomS]

"On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT), in article
<d68851d9-ab16-4fd8...@tr7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez stated..."

Do you have something to say about the book that I mentioned?


--
---Tom S.

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

On Thursday, 1 November 2012 20:33:09 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.
> The assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be
> falsified instantly.

No, it wouldn't. There are grounds to doubt that "Noah's flood"
happened (all present-day land species and birds being descended
from pairs of specimens collected and put in a gigantic wooden box
by an unreasonably elderly man a few thousand years ago), but
the evolution of species by natural selection in billions of
years /before/ Noah's flood is not intrinsically inconsistent
with the flood.

There are far too many, too different, genetically diverse species
to be descended from Noah's menagerie as described - he wouldn't
have had room for them all - but that is a challenge to the flood
"theory", not to Darwin's theory.

[Harry K]

On Nov 1, 1:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
> > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
> > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
> > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
> > discarded long ago.
>
> > David R. Montgomery
> > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
> > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012
> > ISBN 9780393082395
>
> > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia.
>
> > --
> > ---Tom S.
>
> True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> intelligent people know).

No point in reading further as you are not amongst the "honest and
intelligent" people. In fact you fail on both accounts.

<snip nonsense>

Harry K

[John Bode]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 3:33:09 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 1, 10:03�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
> > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
> > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
> > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
> > discarded long ago.
> >
> > David R. Montgomery
> > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
> > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012
> > ISBN 9780393082395
> >
> > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia.
> >
> > --
> > ---Tom S.
>
>
> True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> intelligent people know).
>
> Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.

=le sigh=.

Evolution begins with the *observation* that populations of
living things change over time. Period. End of story.

Whether or not there was a global flood four thousand years
ago (indefensible in the face of modern geology and archaeology,
but for the sake of argument we'll grant the point) *has zero
bearing* on the basic truth of evolution: reproduction is
imperfect, variation is introduced into a population via
genetic recombination and mutation, and some variants wind
up reproducing more successfully than their peers.

Put another way, evolutionary biologists don't *need* to
deny that the Flood happened in order to validate the
theory of evolution.

> The assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be
> falsified instantly.
>

Not at all. You can track evolutionary changes in any
living population.

You need to save your ire for GEOLOGISTS and ARCHAEOLOGISTS;
they're the ones who've pretty much debunked the notion
of a Flood, and neither of those disciplines really care
about evolutionary theory.

Read up on James Hutton. He's the one who drove the first
nail into the coffin of creationism, long before Darwin
came along.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 2, 3:23�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT), in article

> <d68851d9-ab16-4fd8-9cf1-d616b354e...@tr7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9999f80fb4a65ce?hl=en

"True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
intelligent people know)."

Ray

[Mark Buchanan]

Finished the book about a month ago and highly recommend it.

There is a very good history of the geology. He makes the claim that it
was YECs looking for evidence of the global flood who actually developed
the science. He says it was an early flood geologist who was the first
evidentialist.

He also makes the claim that Noah's flood was real. The biblical account
was based on Sumerian/Babylonian stories and is likely related to either
the filling of the Black see or the Mesopotamian flood plain. In either
case it's highly likely there was an actual local flood(s) that the
stories are based on.

He did a fascinating survey of flood stories from around the world. Most
of them are based on typical local flooding. Tsunami like stories from
pacific islands for example, and no stories from Africa.

It would make a great Christmas present for your favorite YEC.

Mark

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:43:50 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9999f80fb4a65ce?hl=en
>
>"True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
>intelligent people know)."

If that is a definition then about 99% of all scientists are neither
honest or intelligent.

I guess now that the secret is out the engineers will have to admit
that it is all magic.
With that in mind the only question is how does the magic spell that
makes vacuum bottles work know which is which?

(Ideas stolen from at least two sources.)
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[John Bode]

So, the answer would be "no", then (hint: geologist != evolutionist).

[Dana Tweedy]

You could have just said "no".


DJT

[Frank J]

On 1 Nov, 13:03, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
> introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
> regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
> points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
> discarded long ago.
>

I'm glad you pluralized "positions," because even YECs claim ages that
differ greatly. Then there's the YEC vs OE(young life)C vs OE(old
life)C vs "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" IDers.

That proponents of all those positions obsess over "Darwinism" and
"Darwinists" instead of testing their own "theories," or at least
refuting contradictory anti-evolution positions, tells me that they
too at least suspect that their "theories" deserve to be discarded.

[Frank J]

On 1 Nov, 16:33, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
> > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
> > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
> > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
> > discarded long ago.
>
> > David R. Montgomery
> > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
> > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012
> > ISBN 9780393082395
>
> > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia.
>
> > --
> > ---Tom S.
>
> True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> intelligent people know).
>
> Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.

It does not, and you know it.

> The
> assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified
> instantly.

And that would present much more exciting research opportunities for
biologists, geologists, paleontologists. So the last thing they would
ever do is assume that the Flood didn't happen. No, they *conclude*
it, just like many of your fellow evolution-*deniers*. And in many
cases, at least as grudgingly.

Are you that desperate that you have to throw a bone to the very YECs
that you can't stand?

>
> Ray

[MarkA]

Everybody lies, Skippy. If you say that you don't, well, you're a liar
about that, too.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[TomS]

The evolution of creationism
David R. Montgomery
GSA Today
volume 22 issue 11 (November 2012) pages 4-9
DOI: 10.1130/GSATG158A.1


--
---Tom S.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 2, 6:38 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1 Nov, 16:33, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
> > > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
> > > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
> > > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
> > > discarded long ago.
>
> > > David R. Montgomery
> > > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
> > > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012
> > > ISBN 9780393082395
>
> > > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia.
>
> > > --
> > > ---Tom S.
>
> > True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> > intelligent people know).
>
> > Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.
>
> It does not, and you know it.
>

Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago, and since it was
worldwide----wiping out the biosphere, if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
falsified immediately. This is why evolution embraces said assumption.

> > The
> > assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified
> > instantly.
>
> And that would present much more exciting research opportunities for
> biologists, geologists, paleontologists. So the last thing they would
> ever do is assume that the Flood didn't happen. No, they *conclude*
> it, just like many of your fellow evolution-*deniers*. And in many
> cases, at least as grudgingly.
>
> Are you that desperate that you have to throw a bone to the very YECs
> that you can't stand?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray

The Great Flood is a Biblical claim, not a YEC claim. In other words
the latter are supporters, not originators.

Ray (OEC)

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/7/12 7:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 2, 6:38 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 1 Nov, 16:33, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> [...]

>>
>>> Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen.
>>
>> It does not, and you know it.
>
> Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago, and since it was
> worldwide----wiping out the biosphere, if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
> falsified immediately.

Darwin's theory may be falsified by a recent Deluge, but not evolution.
In fact, if the biosphere was wiped out 5000 years ago, there would
need to be a humungous amount of evolution to get to today's
biodiversity. Martinez's theory would be falsified by a Great Flood.

> This is why evolution embraces said assumption.

Don't forget that said assumption (no deluge) was embraced *before*
Darwin was writing.

> [...]

> The Great Flood is a Biblical claim, not a YEC claim. In other words
> the latter are supporters, not originators.

Sorry, no. That is misleading enough to be false. From c. 2000 BCE to
1700 CE, the Great Flood was a Biblical claim (and a claim from
Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian myth before that), there being
nothing else saying otherwise. From c. 1700 to 1950, the Biblical claim
was that the flood was not literal, because there came a lot of evidence
that a great flood could not have happened, which means that if the
flood was literal, then the Bible had to be wrong. The Great Flood did
not become a Biblical claim again until after 1950, when YECs made it
one of their pets. To non-YECs, still a majority of Christians, the
Great Flood is still not a Biblical claim. In short, for the last
couple centuries, the Great Flood has been a YEC claim. They brought it
back from oblivion.

Disclaimer: Shifts in beliefs did not happen suddenly, so the dates
cited above are approximate to say the least. And YEC / non-YEC
distinctions are not hard and fast.

--
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

[Ray Martinez]

Mark: Your message/claims are SO whacked out, even beyond your usual
inanities.

Time to sober up.

Ray

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

On Thursday, 8 November 2012 03:17:49 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago, and since it was
> worldwide----wiping out the biosphere, if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
> falsified immediately. This is why evolution embraces said assumption.

You're ignoring my previous post on this point, so I guess I look like
a fool for trying for an answer again, but: if a Great Flood having
never happened up to now, but happening tomorrow, does not falsify
the theory of evolution, then why would a Flood happening 5,000 years
ago do that?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:52:26 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>Mark: Your message/claims are SO whacked out, even beyond your usual
>inanities.
>
>Time to sober up.

Given your lack of substantive response, posting "IS NOT!!!"
would have the twin advantages of honesty and brevity.

HTH.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[John Stockwell]

Not at all. The Flood was recognized as being unworkable by geologists, independent of discussions of evolution, and largely before Darwinian evolution became mainstream biology.





>
>
>
> Ray

-John

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 9, 7:12 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

Because the Genesis Flood was worldwide, destroying the biosphere,
diversity seen today could not have evolved from scratch in 5000
years. What exactly don't you understand?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 9, 10:22 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:52:26 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

Your point escapes my understanding. Perhaps it's time for you to
sober up too.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You've missed the point, which is: Diversity seen today could not have
evolved from aquatic life in a mere 5000 years; hence the reason why
the ToE assumes the Genesis Flood did not occur.

Ray

[TimR]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:57:43 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:37 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, November 1, 2012 2:33:09 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote: > > On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > > > > I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good > > > > introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with > > > > regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he > > > > points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and > > > > discarded long ago. > > > > David R. Montgomery > > > > The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood > > > > New York: W. W. Norton, 2012 > > > > ISBN 9780393082395 > > > > There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia. > > > > -- > > > > ---Tom S. > > > True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and > > > intelligent people know). > > > Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen. The > > > assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified >

> > instantly. > > Not at all. The Flood was recognized as being unworkable by geologists, independent of discussions of evolution, and largely before Darwinian evolution became mainstream biology. > > > > > Ray > > -John You've missed the point, which is: Diversity seen today could not have evolved from aquatic life in a mere 5000 years; hence the reason why the ToE assumes the Genesis Flood did not occur. Ray

But YECs claim the diversity seen today DID emerge in 5,000 years, from the lifeforms on the Ark. That required evolution at the rate of a new species every generation for animals, plants, etc.; while human evolution stood still.

[Ray Martinez]

Good point, Tim.

I am well aware of YEC nonsense.

Ray (OEC)

[John Stockwell]

No, you have missed the point. The fact, established by 150 years of geologic
investigation is that there is no evidence supporting the notion that
there was a worldwide flood. The sedimentary sections that we see worldwide
simply are not consistent with a flood deposition model. Some are, but
there are sections, such as aeolian sands, and anything deposited in an
oxidizing environment, anything with animal tracks, etc.

So, geology is consistent with the notion of evolution. The theory of evolution
explains the observations of geology, by explaining the law of faunal succession and the fact that taxonomic law extends to fossils consistently.

Again, the point is that geologic evidence stands alone from the theory
of evolution. The law of faunal succession is a general pattern of observation
of fossil occurrence. The fact of the consistency of biostratigraphy alone
casts extreme doubt on the notion of a single catastrophic event occurring
in a short time window as being an explanation of the state of geology.

So, basically, if you are going to do science, then the flood has to go. What
remains are some large post-glacial flood events that may have made it into
the collective mythology and that the bible account is derivative of that
thousands of years long oral tradition accounting one of those events. Or
maybe not.

>
>
>
> Ray

-John

[Ray Martinez]

John Stockwell hangs his entire case on the fact that a Genesis Flood
was rejected by science before Darwin published.

To whatever degree this is true the same misses the point. No
Evolutionist today has 19th century geology on his or her mind when
modern Flood claims/evidence is presented or argued. **These** claims
are rejected by starting assumption because if true the ToE is
falsified (diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in 5000
years).

Ray

[Burkhard]

On the contrary,it would require hyperevolution, evolution at a much
higher speed then we see today. Most creationists see for some reason
happy with that idea.

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

The point is simple. You are wrong and people are pointing this out.

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

You just keep on lying. Geologists had concluded that the Genesis
Flood did not occur long before the ToE existed. It is not assumed by
anyone. People have told you this many times but you always ignore it.

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

Lying again. Flood claims are rejected by geologists because they
contradict the evidence.

[Ray Martinez]

Hyperevolution?

No such thing exists; the same would be miracle, Creationism.

At some point the mutation rate cannot exceed a certain rate of speed;
if it does the same cannot be called "evolutionary" as understood
since Darwin.

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

> Mark: Your message/claims are SO whacked out, even beyond your usual
> inanities.
>
> Time to sober up.

Can you find evidence against particular points, or is the above just
your way of saying that you are in denial? Never mind, I think I know
the answer.

[Dana Tweedy]

You are ignoring that the Genesis flood was rejected because there isn't
any evidence to support such a flood. That it was rejected before
Darwin indicates it wasn't a prior commitment to "evolutionism" that
produced this rejection.

>
> To whatever degree this is true the same misses the point. No
> Evolutionist today has 19th century geology on his or her mind when
> modern Flood claims/evidence is presented or argued.

Perhaps because geology has progressed a great deal since the 19th
century. The same scientific method used by geologists in the 19, and
18th centuries, refutes the global flood, just as it refuted separate
creation of life.

> **These** claims
> are rejected by starting assumption because if true the ToE is
> falsified (diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in 5000
> years).

No, the claims of a global flood are rejected because they aren't
supported by any evidence. Since there is no evidence of any global
flood within the last 5000, or 10,000, or ever, the question of whether
or not present diversity could have developed in 5000 years is moot.

There simply isn't any evidence that indicates the current biosphere
was changed either recently, or in deep time. Ray's assumption of a
"young biosphere" is not supported by the evidence. Even the mass
extinction at the end of the Permian, which caused extinction of nearly
90% of all species, did not change the "biosphere", and some ancient
forms from that time still exist.

DJT

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

But all of the different species were carried through the Flood on
Noah's ark, so, it isn't a problem.

Evidently the ark is like the Feeding of the Five Thousand -
miraculously there is enough of it to go around for everybody.

And thus, evolution survives.

[Dana Tweedy]

There isn't any evidence of a catastrophic event that changed the
current biosphere 5000 years ago. Evidence shows that human
populations, and even human civilizations went along without disruption
during that period. The discovery of an undisturbed human body that
had lain under a glacier in the Italian Alps for over 5000 years is
compelling evidence that no global flood happened during that period.
http://www.iceman.it/en/node/226

In a similar vein, the discovery of mammoth and mastadon bones in a ice
age swamp near Snowmass Colorado shows that those bodies lain
undisturbed for over 12000 years, at 8900 feet elevation. A global
flood that covered all the mountains would have disturbed and washed
away such finds.
http://www.dmns.org/museum-news/snowmass-mammoth-excavation

The Earth has suffered from five major, and many minor, extinction
events in it's 3.8 billion year history of life. The most recent major
extinction event was the K/T event, at the end of the Cretaceous. The
most severe was the Permian/Triassic event, which led to the extinction
of 85 to 95% of all marine species. None of these five events totally
destroyed all life on Earth, and some of the most primitive life forms
are still around today.

> hence the reason why
> the ToE assumes the Genesis Flood did not occur.

The theory of evolution does not assume that no global flood occurred.
There simply is no evidence that leads one to assume it happened. The
theory of evolution doesn't take it into account, as there's no reason
to give global flood legends any credence.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/9/12 5:11 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:52 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 9 Nov, 19:52, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 9, 7:12 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>>
>>> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 8 November 2012 03:17:49 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago, and since it was
>>>>> worldwide----wiping out the biosphere, if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
>>>>> falsified immediately. This is why evolution embraces said assumption.
>>
>>>> You're ignoring my previous post on this point, so I guess I look like
>>>> a fool for trying for an answer again, but: if a Great Flood having
>>>> never happened up to now, but happening tomorrow, does not falsify
>>>> the theory of evolution, then why would a Flood happening 5,000 years
>>>> ago do that?
>>
>>> Because the Genesis Flood was worldwide, destroying the biosphere,
>>> diversity seen today could not have evolved from scratch in 5000
>>> years. What exactly don't you understand?
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> On the contrary,it would require hyperevolution, evolution at a much
>> higher speed then we see today. Most creationists see for some reason
>> happy with that idea.
>
> Hyperevolution?
>
> No such thing exists; the same would be miracle, Creationism.

Which is why creationism is not considered a science. Creationists
required hyper speed evolution to account for current diversity from the
pairs of animals supposedly brought on the Ark by Noah.

>
> At some point the mutation rate cannot exceed a certain rate of speed;

What support do you have for this assertion?

> if it does the same cannot be called "evolutionary" as understood
> since Darwin.

Since you don't know what is called "evolutionary", as understood since
Darwin, why would it matter to you?



DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

But your own "young biosphere" creation is just as nonsensical. There
is not any evidence that indicates the world, as we see it today, is the
result of a catastrophe a few thousand years ago.

Where do you draw a line between the 'old' biosphere, and the new one?
Are dinosaurs part of the "old" biosphere? If so, why do their
contemporaries, turtles, crocodillians, and lizards, not to mention
mammals, continue to survive today?

DJT

[Harry K]

Exactly which is why the diverstity seen today is not only additional
evidence that flood never happened but very powerful evidence it
didn't. Not that is needed as everything in natural sciences screams
that there never was such a flood.

Harry K

[Harry K]

And are you aware that your 'flood' is also nonsense?

Harry K

[Burkhard]

On 10 Nov, 00:12, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:52�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Nov, 19:52, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 7:12 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>
> > > orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 8 November 2012 03:17:49 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago, and since it was
> > > > > worldwide----wiping out the biosphere, if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
> > > > > falsified immediately. This is why evolution embraces said assumption.
>
> > > > You're ignoring my previous post on this point, so I guess I look like
> > > > a fool for trying for an answer again, but: if a Great Flood having
> > > > never happened up to now, but happening tomorrow, does not falsify
> > > > the theory of evolution, then why would a Flood happening 5,000 years
> > > > ago do that?
>
> > > Because the Genesis Flood was worldwide, destroying the biosphere,
> > > diversity seen today could not have evolved from scratch in 5000
> > > years. What exactly don't you understand?
>
> > > Ray
>
> > On the contrary,it would require hyperevolution, evolution at a much
> > higher speed then we see today. Most creationists see for some reason
> > happy with that idea.
>
> Hyperevolution?
>
> No such thing exists; the same would be miracle, Creationism.

No, why? Even in the s tankard model, some species evolve very
rapidly, such as microbes. Hyperevolution simply says that every
species evolved that fast as we observe today in microbes. No divine
intervention necessary

>
> At some point the mutation rate cannot exceed a certain rate of speed;

Really? Cn you give me a cite to the academic literature where a
absolute upper limit for mutations is postulated? As mutation rates
depend also on things such as cosmic x-rays, nothing more is needed,
in. theory, but a massive increase in radiation.

> if it does the same cannot be called "evolutionary" as understood
> since Darwin.

whyever not, Darwin did not know about mutation rates, so the way he
formulated his theory is obviously independent from it. Hyperevolution
is of course not what happened on earth, so it is simply wrong, but if
we counter factually assume that is has happened, it would be a for of
evolution. If you call it "Darwinian" is then mere semantic.


>
> Ray

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/9/12 4:11 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:52 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 9 Nov, 19:52, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 9, 7:12 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>>
>>> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 8 November 2012 03:17:49 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago, and since it was
>>>>> worldwide----wiping out the biosphere, if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
>>>>> falsified immediately. This is why evolution embraces said assumption.
>>
>>>> You're ignoring my previous post on this point, so I guess I look like
>>>> a fool for trying for an answer again, but: if a Great Flood having
>>>> never happened up to now, but happening tomorrow, does not falsify
>>>> the theory of evolution, then why would a Flood happening 5,000 years
>>>> ago do that?
>>
>>> Because the Genesis Flood was worldwide, destroying the biosphere,
>>> diversity seen today could not have evolved from scratch in 5000
>>> years. What exactly don't you understand?
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> On the contrary,it would require hyperevolution, evolution at a much
>> higher speed then we see today. Most creationists see for some reason
>> happy with that idea.
>
> Hyperevolution?
>
> No such thing exists; the same would be miracle, Creationism.

So you are saying that the Bible is wrong and Creation happened *after*
the Flood.

--

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/9/12 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> John Stockwell hangs his entire case on the fact that a Genesis Flood
> was rejected by science before Darwin published.
>
> To whatever degree this is true the same misses the point.

No, you are missing the point, or rather the points:

1) Pre-Darwin geologists had *good reasons* for rejecting a Genesis Flood.
2) Those reasons are still valid today.
3) Those reasons had nothing to do with evolution. You could even say
they were Bible-based.

> No Evolutionist today has 19th century geology on his or her mind when
> modern Flood claims/evidence is presented or argued.

Not true. Most of that 19th century geology is still valid, and still
devastating to Flood claims.

> **These** claims
> are rejected by starting assumption because if true the ToE is
> falsified (diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in 5000
> years).

That is pure fantasy of your own devising.

[Ernest Major]

In message <k7m232$v9d$2...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes

He's been saying that for a while. A typical YEC adopts a post-flood
hypervevolution to account for present-day diversity. Ray, instead of
being an occasionalist-evolutionist all the time (he still seems to be
an occasionalist-microevolutionist) seems to have adopted a position of
post-flood progressive creationism (including any recent speciation
event that didn't happen on camera).
--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:52:20 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

It's apparently in good company.

But just so you won't feel put-upon, my point was that
instead of addressing Mark's post you effectively abandoned
the discussion with a parting comment which reduced to the
aforementioned "IS NOT!!!"; i.e., a comment of zero
substance, only denial. Which, if you'll recall, is *not* a
river in Egypt.

> Perhaps it's time for you to
>sober up too.

"Oh, look! Everyone's out of step but Ray!"
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[Slow Vehicle]

On Nov 2, 12:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 3:23 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > <d68851d9-ab16-4fd8-9cf1-d616b354e...@tr7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > Martinez stated..."

>
> > >On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >> I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
> > >> introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
> > >> regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
> > >> points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
> > >> discarded long ago.
>
> > >> David R. Montgomery
> > >> The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
> > >> New York: W. W. Norton, 2012
> > >> ISBN 9780393082395
>
> > >> There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia.
>
> > >> --
> > >> ---Tom S.
>
> > >True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> > >intelligent people know).
>
> > >Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen. The

> > >assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified
> > >instantly.
>
> > Do you have something to say about the book that I mentioned?
>
> > --
> > ---Tom S.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9999f80fb4a65ce?hl=en

>
> "True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> intelligent people know)."
>

> Ray

Document one lie I have told, Ray-ray; just one.
(BTW, your disagreement with a statement does not make it a "lie"...)

[Slow Vehicle]

On Nov 7, 8:17�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago,

...an unsupported assumption on your part--physical evidence for such
a flood does not exist.

> and since it was worldwide

...another unsupported assumption on your part, for which no evidence
exists.
(Odd how civilizations that were thriving 5000 years ago did not
notice they had been destroyed in a flood...)

>----wiping out the biosphere,

..yet another unsipported assumption, for which supporting evidence
does not exist.

> if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
> falsified immediately.

...arguendo: are you truly claiming that IF there had been a "global
flood" that "wiped out the biosphere", then differential reproductive
success due to hereditable variations would not happen? If so, why do
we see exactly that happening in the lab and inthe real world?

>This is why evolution embraces said assumption.

I challenge you to demonstrate that ToE "embraces said assumption".
There is no evidence for a global flood.

<snip>

[Slow Vehicle]

On Nov 9, 12:52�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Because the Genesis Flood was worldwide, destroying the biosphere,
> diversity seen today could not have evolved from scratch in 5000
> years. What exactly don't you understand?

<snip>

...your desperate need to pretend that a "global flood" that "wiped
out the biosphere", for which there is no evidence, and against which
there is myriad evidence, actually happened...

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 9, 3:07�pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"

Angry point evasion.

Do you really think the modern Evolutionist hasn't already decided
against the Flood based on the fact that occurrence falsfies Darwin's
ToE?

Stop being naive.

The evo mind is locked and closed.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 9, 3:07�pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"

We disagree, John.

Their reputations and livelihood and everything they've ever published
is based on a non-occurring assumption.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 9, 3:02�pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"

Not true.

Evolutionists are evading and denying.

Ray (Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

Mark actually argued that the Flood is a YEC claim, as opposed to a
Biblical claim!

You deserved whatever I said.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 10, 9:27�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 11/9/12 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > John Stockwell hangs his entire case on the fact that a Genesis Flood
> > was rejected by science before Darwin published.
>
> > To whatever degree this is true the same misses the point.
>
> No, you are missing the point, or rather the points:
>
> 1) Pre-Darwin geologists had *good reasons* for rejecting a Genesis Flood.
> 2) Those reasons are still valid today.
> 3) Those reasons had nothing to do with evolution. �You could even say
> they were Bible-based.
>
> > No Evolutionist today has 19th century geology on his or her mind when
> > modern Flood claims/evidence is presented or argued.
>
> Not true. �Most of that 19th century geology is still valid, and still
> devastating to Flood claims.
>

The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
texts from around the world and their common denominator information.

And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC) did not come into existence until
after the Flood (3140 BC).

> > **These** claims
> > are rejected by starting assumption because if true the ToE is
> > falsified (diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in 5000
> > years).
>
> That is pure fantasy of your own devising.
>
> --
> 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

Since the ToE would be instantly falsified, the assumption is
necessary. Of course evos would never admit. The issue is about not
being naive, Mark.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/10/12 5:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>
>> The point is simple. You are wrong and people are pointing this out.
>
> Not true.
>
> Evolutionists are evading and denying.

Exactly what do you think is being "evaded" or "denied"?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

That an actual flood occurred is a YEC claim. The Bible relates a few
legends about a flood.

>
> You deserved whatever I said.

No, you merely were unable to respond appropriately.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/10/12 5:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip


>>

>> Lying again. Flood claims are rejected by geologists because they
>> contradict the evidence.
>
> We disagree, John.

But John is right, and you are wrong.

>
> Their reputations and livelihood and everything they've ever published
> is based on a non-occurring assumption.

If there was evidence of a global flood, any geologist would publish it.
There's no reason to deny such an event.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/10/12 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 10, 9:27 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 11/9/12 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> John Stockwell hangs his entire case on the fact that a Genesis Flood
>>> was rejected by science before Darwin published.
>>
>>> To whatever degree this is true the same misses the point.
>>
>> No, you are missing the point, or rather the points:
>>
>> 1) Pre-Darwin geologists had *good reasons* for rejecting a Genesis Flood.
>> 2) Those reasons are still valid today.
>> 3) Those reasons had nothing to do with evolution. You could even say
>> they were Bible-based.
>>
>>> No Evolutionist today has 19th century geology on his or her mind when
>>> modern Flood claims/evidence is presented or argued.
>>
>> Not true. Most of that 19th century geology is still valid, and still
>> devastating to Flood claims.
>>
>
> The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
> texts from around the world and their common denominator information.

Except that those "ancient texts" are mostly copied from Mesopotamian
flood legends, which tend to emphasize a destructive flood, as was
common in the Tigris/Euphrates valley. Other areas with flood stories
have major differences.

>
> And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC) did not come into existence until
> after the Flood (3140 BC).

This raises some interesting questions:

How did Noah and his family beget so many thousands of individuals that
made up the Egyptian civilization in just 140 years?

Why would the Egyptians forget all about Noah, and the flood in such
a short time, so that they never mention it in any of their mythology?

Most Egyptologists give around 3100 for when the two kingdoms of
Egypt were consolidated, while the oldest pre-dynastic civilizations
date back another 2000 years. How did all the pre-dynastic events in
the Nile valley happen in just the 40 years between the flood, and the
unification of the two kingdoms of Egypt?
http://archaeology.about.com/od/predynasticearlyperiods/qt/predynastic_egy.htm

The Longshan culture of China was active circa 3000 to 2000 BC. It
was preceded by the Yangshau culture. There's no sign of a global flood
happening during that time. Why did that civilization not notice a
flood happening?

http://archaeology.about.com/od/lterms/qt/longshan.htm

The Lauricocha Culture civilzation was active in Peru, from 5000 BC to
2500 BC. No global flood was seen to interrupt this period. Why not?

>
>>> **These** claims
>>> are rejected by starting assumption because if true the ToE is
>>> falsified (diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in 5000
>>> years).
>>
>> That is pure fantasy of your own devising.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> Since the ToE would be instantly falsified, the assumption is
> necessary.

The theory of evolution would not be falsified by a global flood, but
the lack of a global flood does falsify Ray's claims of a "young
biosphere". Of course, Ray ignores all falsifications of his claims.

> Of course evos would never admit.

Since there is nothing to "admit", why should one?

> The issue is about not
> being naive, Mark.

Ray, would you mind explaining why it's not naive to believe in a global
flood that never happened?


DJT

[Mark Isaak]

> Mark actually argued that the Flood is a YEC claim, as opposed to a
> Biblical claim!

Yes, today the Flood is a YEC claim, not a Biblical claim. You yourself
illustrate that fact with your rejection of the Bible re the time of
Creation.

Note also that word "argued". I made a case for my conclusion. You
have said nothing against it.

> You deserved whatever I said.

You didn't say anything.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/10/12 5:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 10, 9:27 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 11/9/12 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> John Stockwell hangs his entire case on the fact that a Genesis Flood
>>> was rejected by science before Darwin published.
>>
>>> To whatever degree this is true the same misses the point.
>>
>> No, you are missing the point, or rather the points:
>>
>> 1) Pre-Darwin geologists had *good reasons* for rejecting a Genesis Flood.
>> 2) Those reasons are still valid today.
>> 3) Those reasons had nothing to do with evolution. You could even say
>> they were Bible-based.
>>
>>> No Evolutionist today has 19th century geology on his or her mind when
>>> modern Flood claims/evidence is presented or argued.
>>
>> Not true. Most of that 19th century geology is still valid, and still
>> devastating to Flood claims.
>>
>
> The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
> texts from around the world and their common denominator information.

Then you should agree that the best evidence *against* a worldwide Flood
is the ancient texts from around the world and the *lack* of their
common denominator information. You have not read all the ancient
texts, so you do not recognize that the evidence is quite strongly
against your conclusion.

> And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC) did not come into existence until
> after the Flood (3140 BC).

So now you say that the ancient flood texts are wrong.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

<snip>

>The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
>texts from around the world and their common denominator information.

Agreed, that *is* the best evidence supporting a global
flood in historic times. Unfortunately for you, that "best
evidence" is very poor, and does not trump the physical
evidence which shows clearly that no such global flood
occurred.

>And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)

Wrong; 3100BCE...

http://www.eyelid.co.uk/dynasty1.htm

....and probably earlier in Mesopotamia:

http://exhibitions.nypl.org/treasures/items/show/120

> did not come into existence until
>after the Flood (3140 BC).

No records exist which describe an actual global flood. And,
as has been noted for you, the Bible is allegory, not
science and not a history lesson, even though *some* of the
described history matches reality.

<snip>

[Ernest Major]

In message
<bed734bb-254a-4f2f...@jj5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

Do you really that the modern "Evolutionist" hasn't already decided
against the Fire (the worldwide fire of 1054AD) based on the fact that
occurrence falsifies Darwin's ToE?

Do you really think the modern "Evolutionist" hasn't already decided

against the Freeze (the global subzero temperatures of 650BC) based on
the fact that occurrence falsifies Darwin's ToE.

You don't? Then why would you think that the alleged Noachian Flood
would be any different?

Also, did you decide against the Creation of 4004BC based on the fact
that occurrence falsifies Darwin's ToE? Then why would you think that
"Evolutionists" would be any different?
>
>Stop being naive.

Stop bearing false witness. You're no good at mindreading.

>
>The evo mind is locked and closed.
>
>Ray
>

--
Alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 11, 11:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> <snip>
>
> >The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
> >texts from around the world and their common denominator information.
>
> Agreed, that *is* the best evidence supporting a global
> flood in historic times. Unfortunately for you, that "best
> evidence" is very poor, and does not trump the physical
> evidence which shows clearly that no such global flood
> occurred.
>

The textual corresponds with the physical. The evo interpretation of
the rocks is the problem. And how many comprehensive studies have been
done showing how rocks behave and settle in churning water?

> >And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)
>
> Wrong; 3100BCE...
>

Quibbling over a mere hundred years?

There is plently of good evidence confirming the appearance of
Egyptian civilization to have occurred post Flood.

> http://www.eyelid.co.uk/dynasty1.htm
>
> ....and probably earlier in Mesopotamia:
>
> http://exhibitions.nypl.org/treasures/items/show/120
>
> > did not come into existence until
> >after the Flood (3140 BC).
>
> No records exist which describe an actual global flood. And,
> as has been noted for you,

Bob repeats his false claim.

> the Bible is allegory, not
> science and not a history lesson,

All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
false.

Standard (and well known) Atheist opinion.

> even though *some* of the
> described history matches reality.
>

Not some, all; and that's why were are Christians. Faith is based on
the truth of God's word.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The accusation that you have lied, is one.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/13/12 4:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip


>>

>> Document one lie I have told, Ray-ray; just one.
>> (BTW, your disagreement with a statement does not make it a "lie"...)
>
> The accusation that you have lied, is one.

No, Ray, the accusation that SV lied is one of YOUR lies.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/13/12 4:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 11, 11:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
>>> texts from around the world and their common denominator information.
>>
>> Agreed, that *is* the best evidence supporting a global
>> flood in historic times. Unfortunately for you, that "best
>> evidence" is very poor, and does not trump the physical
>> evidence which shows clearly that no such global flood
>> occurred.
>>
>
> The textual corresponds with the physical.

Unless it does not.

> The evo interpretation of
> the rocks is the problem.

Why is it a problem, Ray? It was Christians who came up with that
interpretation at least 100 years before Darwin. How could they be
"evos"?

> And how many comprehensive studies have been
> done showing how rocks behave and settle in churning water?

Rocks don't settle in churning water, Ray. Neither do fine grained
silt, and mudstones.

>
>>> And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)
>>
>> Wrong; 3100BCE...
>>
>
> Quibbling over a mere hundred years?

How did that civilzation get started without any people, Ray? Where
did the thousands of people who made up the civilization come from if
all humans but eight were wiped out in a flood just 100 years earlier?

>
> There is plently of good evidence confirming the appearance of
> Egyptian civilization to have occurred post Flood.

Except for the "flood" part. Egyptian civilizations occurred, but no
evidence of a global flood at that time.

>
>> http://www.eyelid.co.uk/dynasty1.htm
>>
>> ....and probably earlier in Mesopotamia:
>>
>> http://exhibitions.nypl.org/treasures/items/show/120
>>
>>> did not come into existence until
>>> after the Flood (3140 BC).
>>
>> No records exist which describe an actual global flood. And,
>> as has been noted for you,
>
> Bob repeats his false claim.

Where are those records, Ray? The flood stories are not first hand
descriptions, and none of the civilizations that existed at that time
show any record of a flood.

>
>> the Bible is allegory, not
>> science and not a history lesson,
>
> All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
> false.

If one is foolish enough to treat it like a science, or history text, it
is.

>
> Standard (and well known) Atheist opinion.

It's not an opinion, and it's not limited to atheists.

>
>> even though *some* of the
>> described history matches reality.
>>
>
> Not some, all;

What about the parts that don't match?

> and that's why were are Christians. Faith is based on
> the truth of God's word.

Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Your own beliefs are
based on what you've been told, not what's true.



DJT

[Slow Vehicle]

So, now you are going to try meta-lies?
Does this mean that, in your mind, I am not an "evolutionist"?
Does this mean that your statement that "evolutionists sure (lie)" is
not true?
You accused me, by implication, of being dishonest. I suggest you
demonstrate why, or retract it.

Further, you have never, not once, answered my question about what you
would consider "evidence" of ToE, or of natural selection in
action...your avoidance of this issue certainly makes your boasts of
certainty, and of throwing away your bible if ever presented with
evidence, look a bit...dishonest, at best...

What physical evidence do you believe demonstrates that a global flood
happened exactly as it is described in the Old Testament?

[John Stockwell]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 12:52:43 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:12�am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 8 November 2012 03:17:49 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
>

> > > Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago, and since it was
>
> > > worldwide----wiping out the biosphere, if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
>

> > > falsified immediately. This is why evolution embraces said assumption.
>
> >
>
> > You're ignoring my previous post on this point, so I guess I look like
>
> > a fool for trying for an answer again, but: if a Great Flood having
>
> > never happened up to now, but happening tomorrow, does not falsify
>
> > the theory of evolution, then why would a Flood happening 5,000 years
>
> > ago do that?
>
>
>

> Because the Genesis Flood was worldwide, destroying the biosphere,
>
> diversity seen today could not have evolved from scratch in 5000
>
> years. What exactly don't you understand?

I don't understand why you cling to this absurd notion. The flood
is an absurdity. That's right, what we have is a the claim of
a worldwide flood that you alleged "destroyed the biosophere" 5000
years ago. Yet, we have no evidence supporting that notion. Indeed,
the preponderance of geological evidence not only does not support this
notion, but also shows it to be an absurdity.


>
>
>
> Ray

-John

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:10:21 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Nov 11, 11:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
>> >texts from around the world and their common denominator information.
>>
>> Agreed, that *is* the best evidence supporting a global
>> flood in historic times. Unfortunately for you, that "best
>> evidence" is very poor, and does not trump the physical
>> evidence which shows clearly that no such global flood
>> occurred.
>>
>
>The textual corresponds with the physical.

There is no physical evidence of a global flood.

> The evo interpretation of
>the rocks is the problem. And how many comprehensive studies have been
>done showing how rocks behave and settle in churning water?

Many; that's what scientists "do". And when their
observations contradict a literal interpretation of an
allegorical document they're accused of "misinterpreting"
the data.

>> >And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)
>>
>> Wrong; 3100BCE...

>Quibbling over a mere hundred years?

Why not? You quibble over nearly everything which refutes
the literal accuracy of the Bible.

>There is plently of good evidence confirming the appearance of
>Egyptian civilization to have occurred post Flood.

Cites, please. No evidence I've seen about Egypt even
mentions floods other than the annual one on the Nile.

>> http://www.eyelid.co.uk/dynasty1.htm
>>
>> ....and probably earlier in Mesopotamia:
>>
>> http://exhibitions.nypl.org/treasures/items/show/120

No comment?

>> > did not come into existence until
>> >after the Flood (3140 BC).
>>
>> No records exist which describe an actual global flood. And,
>> as has been noted for you,
>
>Bob repeats his false claim.

It's not a "false claim". It *has* been noted for you, many
times. And there are *no* records describing a global flood
from any source other than the Bible, which is not a history
or science text. Many records of local floods; none of
global ones.

>> the Bible is allegory, not
>> science and not a history lesson,
>
>All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
>false.

Nope, it says literal accuracy is irrelevant to an allegory
written to codify and teach behavior.

>Standard (and well known) Atheist opinion.

....and non-atheist opinion held by most mainstream religious
organizations; let's not forget that.

>> even though *some* of the
>> described history matches reality.

>
>Not some, all

Nope, some. There was no Noachian Flood; it's allegory.
Genesis contains two contradictory accounts of the six days
of Creation, common for allegorical writings. And there are
many more examples, but two are sufficient to refute your
assertion.

>; and that's why were are Christians. Faith is based on
>the truth of God's word.

Yes. And God paints His words in His Creation, not in texts
written by men.

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

Totally and completely false. As pointed out, and ignored by you,
geologists concluded the Genesis Flood did not occur long before the
ToE existed. Nothing has happened in geology since to change those
conclusions. That is reality. It is not changed by your lies or mental
illness.

[John Stockwell]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:22:43 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:07 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > No, you have missed the point. The fact, established by 150 years of geologic
>
> > investigation is that there is no evidence supporting the notion that
>
> > there was a worldwide flood. The sedimentary sections that we see worldwide
>
> > simply are not consistent with a flood deposition model. Some are, but
>
> > there are sections, such as aeolian sands, and anything deposited in an
>
> > oxidizing environment, anything with animal tracks, etc.
>
> >
>
> > So, geology is consistent with the notion of evolution. The theory of evolution
>
> > explains the observations of geology, by explaining the law of faunal succession and the fact that taxonomic law extends to fossils consistently.
>
> >
>
> > Again, the point is that geologic evidence stands alone from the theory
>
> > of evolution. The law of faunal succession is a general pattern of observation
>
> > of fossil occurrence. The fact of the consistency of biostratigraphy alone
>
> > casts extreme doubt on the notion of a single catastrophic event occurring
>
> > in a short time window as being an explanation of the state of geology.
>
> >
>
> > So, basically, if you are going to do science, then the flood has to go. What
>
> > remains are some large post-glacial flood events that may have made it into
>
> > the collective mythology and that the bible account is derivative of that
>
> > thousands of years long oral tradition accounting one of those events. Or
>
> > maybe not.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Ray
>
> >
>
> > -John
>
>
>

> John Stockwell hangs his entire case on the fact that a Genesis Flood
>
> was rejected by science before Darwin published.
>
>
>

> To whatever degree this is true the same misses the point. No

>
> Evolutionist today has 19th century geology on his or her mind when
>

> modern Flood claims/evidence is presented or argued. **These** claims

>
> are rejected by starting assumption because if true the ToE is
>

> falsified (diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in 5000
>
> years).

The flood died as a scientific theory 150 years ago. It isn't coming back.
This fact is independent of any theories of biology. So, really Ray,
there isn't any modern "evidence for a worldwide flood". Basically
any so called "flood evidence" is always local, and never has
an extent over the entire earth.


>
>
>
> Ray

-John

[Boikat]

On Nov 9, 1:52�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:12 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 8 November 2012 03:17:49 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago, and since it was
> > > worldwide----wiping out the biosphere, if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
> > > falsified immediately. This is why evolution embraces said assumption.
>
> > You're ignoring my previous post on this point, so I guess I look like
> > a fool for trying for an answer again, but: if a Great Flood having
> > never happened up to now, but happening tomorrow, does not falsify
> > the theory of evolution, then why would a Flood happening 5,000 years
> > ago do that?
>
> Because the Genesis Flood was worldwide,

Then why is the evidence missing?

> destroying the biosphere,

There is no evidence that the biosphere has been destroyed any time in
the recent geological times. Where is your evidence?

> diversity seen today could not have evolved from scratch in 5000 years.

That would be a data point against the supposed world wide flood
destroying the biosphere 5000 years ago.

> What exactly don't you understand?

Why idiots insist tat there was a world wide flood a few thousand
years ago, whenn there is no evidence to support it, and a pile of
evidence that demonstrates that there was no such flood, ever.

Boikat

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 14, 8:17�am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 12:52:43 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 7:12 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>
> > orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, 8 November 2012 03:17:49 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > Since the Great Flood occurred about 5000 years ago, and since it was
>
> > > > worldwide----wiping out the biosphere, if it occurred Darwin's ToE is
>
> > > > falsified immediately. This is why evolution embraces said assumption.
>
> > > You're ignoring my previous post on this point, so I guess I look like
>
> > > a fool for trying for an answer again, but: if a Great Flood having
>
> > > never happened up to now, but happening tomorrow, does not falsify
>
> > > the theory of evolution, then why would a Flood happening 5,000 years
>
> > > ago do that?
>
> > Because the Genesis Flood was worldwide, destroying the biosphere,
>
> > diversity seen today could not have evolved from scratch in 5000
>
> > years. What exactly don't you understand?
>
> I don't understand why you cling to this absurd notion. The flood
> is an absurdity.

The attitude displayed supports my contention that Evolutionists
**assume** the Flood did not occur; for if it did (and we know that it
did) then the biosphere was completely destroyed: current diversity
could not have evolved from aquatic life in 5000 years. Said
assumption (a necessity for the survival of the ToE) interprets all
physical evidence against occurrence.

John Stockwell would have us believe that Darwinists have the unique
ability to disengage their bias when their livelihood is on the line.
Anyone who believes that would also believe there is a bridge in
Brooklyn for sale.

> That's right, what we have is [...] the claim of

> a worldwide flood that you alleged "destroyed the biosophere" 5000
> years ago. Yet, we have no evidence supporting that notion. Indeed,
> the preponderance of geological evidence not only does not support this
> notion, but also shows it to be an absurdity.
>

Most of the Earth's surface is covered in water. The fact is
consistent with occurrence. And since no one knows for sure how
different types and sizes of rocks behave in catastrophic churning
waters, and how they settle, the geological surface of the Earth does
not contradict a Genesis Flood. This is WHY the textual evidence
exists: to preserve facts that would otherwise be lost.

For the record: We contend that Darwinists interpret non-textual
evidence to support the needs of their evolution theory. Its an
expectation if one is not naive.

Ray

[Slow Vehicle]

Ray-ray:

The first time you claim a world-wide flood, it can be a mistake--you
may have been taken in; your understanding of geology may be shallow
enough that the utter lack of evidence of a 5000-year-old global
catastrophe is not clear to you. Continuing to claim that there is,
in fact, evidence for what there is not; claiming that "evolutionists"
assume away the flood-for-which-there-is-no-evidence; mis-stating ToE
to pretend that it is ToE that "needs" to deny a global flood (instead
of realizing that it is the utter lack of evidence that disproves the
flood); these techniques look more an more dishonest as you raise them
more and more stridently.

There is no evidence for a global flood.

There is much evidence against a global flood, including such
inconvenient things as sand-dune strata (which could not form under
water, much less in turbulent water), animal tracks in strata (which
could not form under water and would have been destroyed by
turbulence); fine-grained seasonal varves; uninterrupted
dendrochronology; the utter lack of evidence for universal genetic
bottlenecks; the existence of civilizations with populations in the
hundreds of thousands just 140 years (by your 'chronology') after
there were only 8 humans total on the entire planet; to name but a
very few.

Not one of those lines of evidence is driven by, dependent upon, or
necessary to, ToE.

Honesty would require you to provide evidence in support of your
claims--and if no such evidence can be presented, to admit that your
claims were wrong, and stop repeating them.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 13, 7:57�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/12 4:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 11:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
> >>> texts from around the world and their common denominator information.
>
> >> Agreed, that *is* the best evidence supporting a global
> >> flood in historic times. Unfortunately for you, that "best
> >> evidence" is very poor, and does not trump the physical
> >> evidence which shows clearly that no such global flood
> >> occurred.
>
> > The textual corresponds with the physical.
>
> Unless it does not.
>
> > The evo interpretation of
> > the rocks is the problem.
>
> Why is it a problem, Ray? �It was Christians who came up with that
> interpretation at least 100 years before Darwin.

Why would **Christians** come up with **that** interpretation (one
that contradicts Scripture)?

Your fact actually supports a claim that **these** Christians were
genuinely confused. Assuming your fact is true, this is why we reject
their interpretation.

> How could they be
> "evos"?
>

Of course they could not. I was talking about modern day
Evolutionists: those who interpret new data as favoring non-
occurrence. And why would any Christian favor a non-occurrence
interpretation? Since we are talking about **interpretation** it
doesn't make sense for Christians to accept non-occurring
interpretations. Any rebuttal by you will most likely evade and/or
change the issue away from interpretation.

> > And how many comprehensive studies have been
> > done showing how rocks behave and settle in churning water?
>
> Rocks don't settle in churning water, Ray. �Neither do fine grained
> silt, and mudstones.
>

How do various types of rocks of various sizes behave in churning
water and then settle? We don't know because a cataclysm like a
worldwide flood cannot be duplicated. Isn't that true?

>
>
> >>> And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)
>
> >> Wrong; 3100BCE...
>
> > Quibbling over a mere hundred years?
>
> How did that civilzation get started without any people, Ray?

Straw man.

> Where
> did the thousands of people who made up the civilization come from if
> all humans but eight were wiped out in a flood just 100 years earlier?
>

Where did you obtain the idea that 1000s of people started Egyptian
civilization? History says one person started Roman civilization. One
person started Hebrew civilization.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On Nov 14, 8:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 7:57 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/13/12 4:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 11:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST), the following
> > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > >> <snip>
>
> > >>> The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
> > >>> texts from around the world and their common denominator information.
>
> > >> Agreed, that *is* the best evidence supporting a global
> > >> flood in historic times. Unfortunately for you, that "best
> > >> evidence" is very poor, and does not trump the physical
> > >> evidence which shows clearly that no such global flood
> > >> occurred.
>
> > > The textual corresponds with the physical.
>
> > Unless it does not.
>
> > > The evo interpretation of
> > > the rocks is the problem.
>
> > Why is it a problem, Ray?  It was Christians who came up with that
> > interpretation at least 100 years before Darwin.
>
> Why would **Christians** come up with **that** interpretation (one
> that contradicts Scripture)?

Yes, honest ones would. They knew that truth cannot contradict truth,
and if their findings contradict an interpretation of scripture, the
interpretation must be wrong, not the evidence.

>
> Your fact actually supports a claim that **these** Christians were
> genuinely confused. Assuming your fact is true, this is why we reject
> their interpretation.
>

Those Christians were honest, and in fact were the ones who developed
British Natural Theology.

You reject the correct interpretation of the evidence because you
won't admit your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

> > How could they be
> > "evos"?
>
> Of course they could not. I was talking about modern day
> Evolutionists: those who interpret new data as favoring non-
> occurrence.

The current day scientists are interpreting the data exactly the same
way their 19th century predecessors did. The reason why it "favors"
non occurrence of a flood is that the evidence is not consistent with
a flood.

> And why would any Christian favor a non-occurrence
> interpretation?

Because they were honest, and good scientists.

>Since we are talking about **interpretation** it
> doesn't make sense for Christians to accept non-occurring
> interpretations.

Unless that is what the evidence shows.


>a ny rebuttal by you will most likely evade and/or

> change the issue away from interpretation.
>

Why? I've never evaded before, why would I start now? Their
interpretation of the evidence was scientific, as befits men of
science. You hate, and reject science, so you act dishonestly toward
the evidence.

> > > And how many comprehensive studies have been
> > > done showing how rocks behave and settle in churning water?
>
> > Rocks don't settle in churning water, Ray.  Neither do fine grained
> > silt, and mudstones.
>
> How do various types of rocks of various sizes behave in churning
> water and then settle?

Rocks silt,and mud settle outnof calm waters, Ray. Cohurning water
keeps everything in suspension.

> We don't know because a cataclysm like a
> worldwide flood cannot be duplicated. Isn't that true?
>
>

Like the sun can't be duplicated, but one can repeat observations.
From what is known about how water flows, and how silt precipitates
out of suspension, plus, what is known about evaporites, and the slow
accumulation of chalk and limestone, on can confidently state there
was no single global flood,ever. It can't have happened in 3140 BC
because, not only is there no evidence of such a flood, there are
written records of civilizations that go back farther than that.

It would be impossible for the two kingdoms of upper and lower Egypt
to have formed, and then combined into one larger kingdom with
thousands of inhabitants in just 100 years. Other civilizations
also existed at that time in China, Peru, and India. Where did all
those people come from? How did they get to those places so fast?

>
> > >>> And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)
>
> > >> Wrong; 3100BCE...
>
> > > Quibbling over a mere hundred years?
>
> > How did that civilzation get started without any people, Ray?
>
> Straw man.
>

How is this a strawman Ray? We're there, or were there not only
eight survivors after the flood? How did thoose eight individuals
produce so many people in such a short time?

> > Where
> > did the thousands of people who made up the civilization come from if
> > all humans but eight were wiped out in a flood just 100 years earlier?
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that 1000s of people started Egyptian
> civilization?

From the historical records of the time. Do you really think a few
dozen people established an entire civilization???

> History says one person started Roman civilization. One
> person started Hebrew civilization.
>

Both stories are legend, Ray, not history.

It's neither rational or possible for one individual to start an
entire civilization. There has to be a certain number of individuals
to form a sedentary community, much less a civilization, with the
inherent division of labor it requires. This is not to mention that
a breeding population of just eight would not be anywhere near
sufficient to explain the genetic diversity seen in modern day
populations.

Then there is the problem of the building projects the Egyptians
undertook. they are not possible without a massive labor force. Even
if one were to assume, without evidence, that these people had some
advanced technology, the labor requirements are just too great.

Furthermore, what about all those people in Peru, China, and
India? What about the Ice Man mummy found in the Alps, who would
have been washed away by a global flood?

Face facts, Ray, the evidence is just too much to maintain a global
flood as anything but a legend.


DJT

[Harry K]

Well, I have read most of the thread. You have gone from a
creationist who lies to a plain troll. Not something to be proud of.

Why don't you spend your time writing that book?

Harry K

[RMcBane]

Ray,
you never answered my question years ago about the Great Pyramid. Back
then you claimed that it was built before the flood. So I asked how do
you explain the thousands of feet of sediments and fossils contained in
those sediments, below the Pyramid. Obviously they had to have been
there before the Pyramid was built. Many creationist would claim that
those sediments were deposited by the flood, but that's not possible if
the Great Pyramid was built before the flood. How can that be, how did
all those thousand of feet of sediments and fossils that the GP is built
on get deposited if not by the flood?

And now it seems that you are claiming that much of the sediment seen
around the world was deposited by the flood. If so, how do you explain
that the Great Pyramid was left uncovered by the flood with those sediment?



--
Richard McBane

[Dana Tweedy]

Actually, Ray there is no evidence tha t the Earths biosphere was ever
totally destroyed, at least not within the last 3.8 billion years.
Modern geologists do not assume there was no global flood, they can
tell there wasn't such flood by looking at the rocks themselves.
Current biodiversity did not have to evolve in just 5000 years, as
even the most dire extinction event that ever happened, at the end of
the Permian, did not destroy all life. Nothing in particular happened
to biodiversity 5000 years ago.

> John Stockwell would have us believe that Darwinists have the unique
> ability to disengage their bias when their livelihood is on the line.

Scientists livelyhood depends on being up to date, not on being
beholden to some idea.

> Anyone who believes that would also believe there is a bridge in
> Brooklyn for sale.
>

Ray is still trying to unload that bridge he bought....

> > That's right, what we have is [...] the claim of
> > a worldwide flood that you alleged "destroyed the biosophere" 5000
> > years ago. Yet, we have no evidence supporting that notion. Indeed,
> > the preponderance of geological evidence not only does not support this
> > notion, but also shows it to be an absurdity.
>
> Most of the Earth's surface is covered in water.

Likewise, a goodly,portion is not covered in water. The land area of
Northern Canada show no sign of ever being under water.

> The fact is
> consistent with occurrence.

That fact is also consistent with no global flood. What's more is
there are other facts that contradict a global flood.

> And since no one knows for sure how
> different types and sizes of rocks behave in catastrophic churning
> waters,

Geologists know. There is no reason water would behave differently in
a global flood than a localized flood. Churning water is still
churning water. It doesn't pick up any special qualities just because
there is more.


> And how they settle, the geological surface of the Earth does

> not contradict a Genesis Flood.

Actually, it does contradict a global flood. That was figured out by
good Christian scientist over 200 years ago.

> This is WHY the textual evidence
> exists: to preserve facts that would otherwise be lost.

Except the text here is contradicted by reality. If the rocks did
show signs of a global flood, why would you need the text?

>
> For the record: We contend that Darwinists interpret non-textual
> evidence to support the needs of their evolution theory. Its an
> expectation if one is not naive.

Poor Ray, talking I the plural again. The evidence is what matters,
and the evidence show that the text is not to be taken as literal
events. Ray would rather make God a liar than admit Ray is wrong.


DJT
>
> Ray

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:40:34 -0500, RMcBane wrote
(in article <k81ro6$kvv$1...@dont-email.me>):

The pyramids are actually Goa'uld spaceships. They landed _after_ the Flood.
They came here from Rigel, carrying 'seeding' packages to establish life on
Earth. See how this addresses multiple problems?

1 the Flood killed everything, and flash-fossilized 'em all.

2 Noah didn't have to carry everything in the Ark, the Goa'uld hand-delivered
a lot. So there's no need for hyperevolution to explain where all the various
diverse forms of life came from, they came from Rigel.

3 the pyramids only look to poor primitive humans as though they were
constructed of stone; they're really magic tech starships. And the Sphinx is
a statue of one of the _real_ builders of the pyramids.

4 repent now, or Apophis will get medieval on your ass.

>
> And now it seems that you are claiming that much of the sediment seen
> around the world was deposited by the flood. If so, how do you explain
> that the Great Pyramid was left uncovered by the flood with those sediment?

Goa'uld magic tech, baby.



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

[Burkhard]

On 15 Nov, 03:27, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 7:57 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > Where
> > did the thousands of people who made up the civilization come from if
> > all humans but eight were wiped out in a flood just 100 years earlier?
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that 1000s of people started Egyptian
> civilization? History says one person started Roman civilization.

Two persons and a wolf to be precise. it is what is known as a "fable"
or "foundation myth".

> One
> person started Hebrew civilization.

ibidem

>
> Ray
>
>
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:18:11 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Nov 14, 8:17�am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> I don't understand why you cling to this absurd notion. The flood
>> is an absurdity.

>The attitude displayed supports my contention that Evolutionists
>**assume** the Flood did not occur

"Evolutionists" have nothing to do with it (other than
noting that no massive extinctions happened in historical or
late prehistoric times). The evidence that the Noachian
flood is a myth predates Darwin's work by decades, and was
accepted by believers who also happened to be scientists.
It's also now accepted by all major Christian religions. Get
over it.

<snip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:57:47 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>On 15 Nov, 03:27, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 7:57 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > Where
>> > did the thousands of people who made up the civilization come from if
>> > all humans but eight were wiped out in a flood just 100 years earlier?
>>
>> Where did you obtain the idea that 1000s of people started Egyptian
>> civilization? History says one person started Roman civilization.
>
>Two persons and a wolf to be precise. it is what is known as a "fable"
>or "foundation myth".

Which, to Ray, are synonyms for "history".

[Harry K]

On Nov 15, 9:52 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:57:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard

> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>:

>
> >On 15 Nov, 03:27, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 13, 7:57 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Where
> >> > did the thousands of people who made up the civilization come from if
> >> > all humans but eight were wiped out in a flood just 100 years earlier?
>
> >> Where did you obtain the idea that 1000s of people started Egyptian
> >> civilization? History says one person started Roman civilization.
>
> >Two persons and a wolf to be precise. it is what is known as a "fable"
> >or "foundation myth".
>
> Which, to Ray, are synonyms for "history".
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>
> - McNameless

And in "Ray speak" 2 persons plus wolf = one person.

Harry K

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 15, 9:47�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:18:11 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >On Nov 14, 8:17�am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I don't understand why you cling to this absurd notion. The flood
> >> is an absurdity.
> >The attitude displayed supports my contention that Evolutionists
> >**assume** the Flood did not occur
>
> "Evolutionists" have nothing to do with it (other than
> noting that no massive extinctions happened in historical or
> late prehistoric times). The evidence that the Noachian
> flood is a myth predates Darwin's work by decades, and was
> accepted by believers who also happened to be scientists.
> It's also now accepted by all major Christian religions. Get
> over it.
>

Where did our Evolutionist obtain the idea that Christians accept the
falsity of a major Biblical claim?

Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
veracity of major Biblical claims.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Burkhard]

Not all interpretations are equally plausible, and we typically have
good and objective reasons to decide between two competing
interpretations. Completeness ("which interpretation explains more of
the data?"), internal coherence ("does it at least makes sense on its
own terms?" and external consistency ("does it "fit" with other things
we know to be true) are the main ones. The flood interpretation
falls down badly on 1 and 3, and I woudl say also on 2.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/15/12 2:43 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 15, 9:47 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:18:11 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>> On Nov 14, 8:17 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> I don't understand why you cling to this absurd notion. The flood
>>>> is an absurdity.
>>> The attitude displayed supports my contention that Evolutionists
>>> **assume** the Flood did not occur
>>
>> "Evolutionists" have nothing to do with it (other than
>> noting that no massive extinctions happened in historical or
>> late prehistoric times). The evidence that the Noachian
>> flood is a myth predates Darwin's work by decades, and was
>> accepted by believers who also happened to be scientists.
>> It's also now accepted by all major Christian religions. Get
>> over it.
>>
>
> Where did our Evolutionist obtain the idea that Christians accept the
> falsity of a major Biblical claim?

From actual examples of Christians accepting the falsity of a major
Biblical claim.

>
> Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
> veracity of major Biblical claims.

Ray, you know nothing about "straight thinking". Christians, if they
are honest, accept the truth, even if it contradicts what they want to
believe. If the facts contradict your interpretation of the Bible,
it's your interpretation of the Bible that is wrong.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 14, 9:27�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:10:21 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 11, 11:27�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
> >> >texts from around the world and their common denominator information.
>
> >> Agreed, that *is* the best evidence supporting a global
> >> flood in historic times. Unfortunately for you, that "best
> >> evidence" is very poor, and does not trump the physical
> >> evidence which shows clearly that no such global flood
> >> occurred.
>
> >The textual corresponds with the physical.
>
> There is no physical evidence of a global flood.
>

A necessity for the ToE because diversity could not have evolved from
aquatic life in a mere 5000 years.

> > The evo interpretation of
> >the rocks is the problem. And how many comprehensive studies have been
> >done showing how rocks behave and settle in churning water?
>
> Many; that's what scientists "do".

How were the conditions of the catastrophe duplicated? Did they rent
Universal Studios? LOL!

> And when their
> observations contradict a literal interpretation of an
> allegorical document they're accused of "misinterpreting"
> the data.

No, it is observed that their observations are beholden to a necessary
assumption. How could any Evolutionist even so much as entertain the
idea of a global flood when the same falsifies the ToE instantly
(diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in a mere 5000
years)? Everything these persons have said and published, along with
their predecessors, would go down the drain. What, exactly, don't you
understand, Bob?

>
> >> >And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)
>
> >> Wrong; 3100BCE...
> >Quibbling over a mere hundred years?
>
> Why not? You quibble over nearly everything which refutes
> the literal accuracy of the Bible.
>

Let's say 3100 BC is correct. I and my sources have always dated the
Flood to have occurred in 3140 BC.

> >There is plently of good evidence confirming the appearance of
> >Egyptian civilization to have occurred post Flood.
>
> Cites, please. No evidence I've seen about Egypt even
> mentions floods other than the annual one on the Nile.
>

How could Egyptian records mention a Flood that occurred before they
existed?

> >>http://www.eyelid.co.uk/dynasty1.htm
>
> >> ....and probably earlier in Mesopotamia:
>
> >>http://exhibitions.nypl.org/treasures/items/show/120
>
> No comment?
>

Make a point.

> >> > did not come into existence until
> >> >after the Flood (3140 BC).
>
> >> No records exist which describe an actual global flood. And,
> >> as has been noted for you,
>
> >Bob repeats his false claim.
>
> It's not a "false claim". It *has* been noted for you, many
> times. And there are *no* records describing a global flood
> from any source other than the Bible, which is not a history
> or science text. Many records of local floods; none of
> global ones.
>

All this says is to repeat the standard evo misrepresentation of
ancient flood texts. These records say nothing about local floods. The
assumption against occurrence is clearly seen in the
misrepresentation.

Very boring, Bob.

Imagine that; all these ancient civilizations thought it worthy to
preserve the memory of small local floods!

> >> the Bible is allegory, not
> >> science and not a history lesson,
>
> >All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
> >false.
>
> Nope, it says literal accuracy is irrelevant to an allegory
> written to codify and teach behavior.
>

Again, Bob's comment says major scientific claims in Scripture are
false (not to be taken literally). We disagree. These claims are true.

> >Standard (and well known) Atheist opinion.
>
> ....and non-atheist opinion held by most mainstream religious
> organizations; let's not forget that.
>

When Christians agree with Atheists against the Bible, the former
cannot be genuine.

> >> even though *some* of the
> >> described history matches reality.
>
> >Not some, all
>
> Nope, some. There was no Noachian Flood; it's allegory.
> Genesis contains two contradictory accounts of the six days
> of Creation, common for allegorical writings. And there are
> many more examples, but two are sufficient to refute your
> assertion.
>

Very predictable secular beliefs.

> >; and that's why were are Christians. Faith is based on
> >the truth of God's word.
>
> Yes. And God paints His words in His Creation, not in texts
> written by men.
> --

I didn't know you were a Deist, Bob.

Why is that?

Ray

[Slow Vehicle]

On Nov 15, 2:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Where did our Evolutionist obtain the idea that Christians accept the
> falsity of a major Biblical claim?
>
> Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
> veracity of major Biblical claims.
>
> Ray (anti-evolutionist)

Ray-ray: this is exactly the kind of thing I pointed out to you
earlier.

The _first_ time you imply that christians all believe that there was
a global flood, exactly as described in Genesis, it might be a
mistake; after all, you might not be aware of the christian sects, and
denominations, that do not insist on a literalist approach to biblical
stories. You might not be aware of the multitude of christian
scholars that accept the truth of ToE.

However, once presented with evidence:

http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood
http://biologos.org/about
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
(and individuals such as Kenneth Miller)

...it is no longer honest to imply that only non-christians accept
evolution, and deny a global flood. Repeating the claim n the face of
the evidence becomes, in fact, a lie: there _are_ christian scholars,
and christian lay-people, who disagree with your characterization.

I suspect that your response (if you bother to respond at all) will
involve some version of "no true Scottsman"; that is, that you will
say it is not a lie to imply that all christians accept a global flood
and deny evolution because, to you, anyone who denies the global flood
or accepts evolution is not "really" a christian...which is a position
that is inherently untenable, not to mention fundamentally arrogant
and hubristic.

What physical evidence do you claim supports a global flood 5K years
ago?

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/14/12 6:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> John Stockwell would have us believe that Darwinists have the unique
> ability to disengage their bias when their livelihood is on the line.
> Anyone who believes that would also believe there is a bridge in
> Brooklyn for sale.

Scientists have three things for reducing bias that few other fields
have, and no other field (that I can think of) has all three.

First, they have institutionalized tools to reduce known sources of
bias. For example, peer review, double-blind tests, statistics.

Second and more important, they have diverse and competing views.
Science is international and multicultural. Any bias by one researcher
will be countered by an opposing bias or by lack of bias in another
researcher. No bias gets by unchecked for long.

Third and still more important, they have an ultimate test for all
questions that arise: everything has to square with reality.

Contrast that with what Ray Martinez has. He has only his own view; he
makes no effort to reduce bias in that view, and fitting his own bias is
the only test he uses.

>> That's right, what we have is [...] the claim of
>> a worldwide flood that you alleged "destroyed the biosophere" 5000
>> years ago. Yet, we have no evidence supporting that notion. Indeed,
>> the preponderance of geological evidence not only does not support this
>> notion, but also shows it to be an absurdity.
>
> Most of the Earth's surface is covered in water. The fact is
> consistent with occurrence. And since no one knows for sure how
> different types and sizes of rocks behave in catastrophic churning
> waters, and how they settle, the geological surface of the Earth does
> not contradict a Genesis Flood. This is WHY the textual evidence
> exists: to preserve facts that would otherwise be lost.

First, people *do* know how different types and sizes of rocks behave in
churning waters, and the earth's surface contradicts a global flood.
Second, you already rejected a global flood when you rejected evolution.
A global flood in the relatively recent past would be a giant
billboard saying that evolution has occurred, and it was super-fast.

--
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

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/15/12 1:43 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
> veracity of major Biblical claims.

Why? You don't.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/15/12 2:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> All this says is to repeat the standard evo misrepresentation of
> ancient flood texts. These records say nothing about local floods.

That is so very, very wrong. I could give you hundreds of myths and
legends from all over the world about local floods. I have not kept
track of more simply because they are so common as to be uninteresting.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 14, 7:17 am, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 4:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:17 am, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 12:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 2, 3:23 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > > <d68851d9-ab16-4fd8-9cf1-d616b354e...@tr7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > > > > Martinez stated..."

>
> > > > > >On Nov 1, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> I just came across this book, which looks like it would be a good
> > > > > >> introduction to geology and especially the history of geology with
> > > > > >> regard to religious questions. I particularly liked the way that he
> > > > > >> points out that the standard YEC positions were considered and
> > > > > >> discarded long ago.
>
> > > > > >> David R. Montgomery
> > > > > >> The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
> > > > > >> New York: W. W. Norton, 2012
> > > > > >> ISBN 9780393082395
>
> > > > > >> There is a bio of the author on Wikipedia.
>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> ---Tom S.
>
> > > > > >True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> > > > > >intelligent people know).
>
> > > > > >Evolution begins with the assumption that the Flood didn't happen. The
> > > > > >assumption is required because Darwin's theory would be falsified
> > > > > >instantly.
>

> > > > > Do you have something to say about the book that I mentioned?
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > ---Tom S.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9999f80fb4a65ce?hl=en

>
> > > > "True, rocks don't lie....but Evolutionists sure do (as all honest and
> > > > intelligent people know)."
>

> > > > Ray
>
> > > Document one lie I have told, Ray-ray; just one.
> > > (BTW, your disagreement with a statement does not make it a "lie"...)
>
> > The accusation that you have lied, is one.
>
> > Ray
>
> So, now you are going to try meta-lies?
> Does this mean that, in your mind, I am not an "evolutionist"?
> Does this mean that your statement that "evolutionists sure (lie)" is
> not true?
> You accused me, by implication, of being dishonest.  I suggest you
> demonstrate why, or retract it.

Don't feel slighted, all Darwinists are dishonest. Darwinists are not
dishonest because they do dishonest things; rather, they do dishonest
things because they are dishonest.

>
> Further, you have never, not once, answered my question about what you
> would consider "evidence" of ToE, or of natural selection in
> action...your avoidance of this issue certainly makes your boasts of
> certainty, and of throwing away your bible if ever presented with
> evidence, look a bit...dishonest, at best...
>

If the Darwinist could provide any evidence supporting the existence
of species owing their existence in nature to (listen closely) natural
causation, then we are falsified. It's that simple.

> What physical evidence do you believe demonstrates that a global flood
> happened exactly as it is described in the Old Testament?

Three quarters of the Earth's surface covered with water.

Ray

[Boikat]

On Nov 15, 8:07�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What physical evidence do you believe demonstrates that a global flood
> > happened exactly as it is described in the Old Testament?
>
> Three quarters of the Earth's surface covered with water.

That is not evidence of the Biblical flood.

Boikat