++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (C) Copyright 1991 by the Religion & Ethics RoundTable of GEnie. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to not-for-profit groups to print this in its entirety AS IS provided that this notice is included: To sign up for GEnie, follow these steps: 1. With your computer and modem, dial 1-800-638-8369 2. When you connect, type HHH and press the RETURN key 3. The computer will respond U#= 4. You respond by typing the following: XTX99669,GENIE 5. Now answer the questions on the screen and you will be able to use GEnie the next working day. Have your credit card or checking account number handy. ======================================================== ************ Topic 10 Mon Aug 21, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:47 EDT Sub: Scientific Evidences of the Flood Many Christian scientists believe in the Biblical story of the flood during Noah's time. What are the scientific evidences for such a flood. Share some solid evidences with us. 278 message(s) total. ************ ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 1 Mon Aug 21, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:56 EDT Closely related to the issue of Creation and Evolution which is the topic of intense discussion on this Bulletin Board is the matter of the Noachian flood. From a Christian perspective, the flood story is very important because it provides the answer to many of the questions about the theory of origins of the earth. For example, many of the evidences given for the development of man over millions and billions of years can be explained by the ravages of the worldwide flood. The importance of this point is made clear by the fact that what we consider to be a long time frame for certain natural phenomenon is actually the result of vast upheavals in nature which mask the age of the earth. In other words, what seems to have occurred over a very long period of time was actually accomplished in a very short time frame. What do you think about this view? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 2 Tue Aug 22, 1989 CHERNOFF [Paul] at 20:22 EDT 19th Century geologists spent their time looking for evidence of the flood. They eventually came to the conclusion that there was way too much evidence against the flood described in the Bible. If the flood did occur, we would expect to see very different sedementary formations. Paul ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 3 Tue Aug 22, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 21:02 EDT OK, if you want it that way.... What are some of the evidences for there not being a flood? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 4 Tue Aug 22, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 21:27 EDT For the benefit of those who have not read the Bible story of the flood, let me quote some of the relevant verses: These selected verses are taken from Chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.... "And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. "And the waters prevailed and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered. "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days..." "...and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; "The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped and the rain from heaven was restrained; "And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.. "And the ark rested in the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen..." ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 5 Tue Aug 22, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:26 EDT Paul, (et al) I think the most convincing evidence for the flood is the findings of mammoths in Siberia and above with food in their mouths. These beasts normally would not live in such a fridgid area and their death was caused by a "quick freeze" which literally preserved their bodies in a state that the meat would still be edible today. When Noah left the ark, mention was made of winter and summer continuing forever. These seasons were as new to Noah's family as the rainbow and rain. The reason the earth was warm throughout was because the larger portion of the oceans were contained far above where our clouds are today. These clouds produced a "greenhouse" effect which scientists are afraid of happening in the near future. As an aside the massive amounts of water wrapping the earth as a swaddling band on an infint also protected men from hazardous cosmic rays-- which is the reason that we live shorter lives now, and why the vegetation alone is not truly enough to support our diets, requiring meat to be eaten after the flood. Yes, of course the book I suggested above is published by the Watchtower society. The above information and much more can be found therein. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 6 Wed Aug 23, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 00:25 PDT The mammoths you mention were don't found in pluvial deposits. Assuming the flood did occur, there should be a near world-wide layer of pluvial deposition all dated to the same time period. This does not occur. When, according to biblical scholars, did the flood occur? PS The bit about the flowers in the mouths of the mammoths is a myth. Folage was present in the stomach, but elephant digestion is very very slow. In that area of the world, glaciers continue to exist year round. The best explanation so far presented is that the mammoths fell into a glacial crevice during spring or summer. d 6 ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 7 Thu Aug 24, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 00:16 EDT I must admit that the current thinking among some Creation scientists is that the mammoth remains are not necessarily the result of the Genesis Flood. Some reasons: (1) Many of the mammoth deposits show evidence of modern day surface features and climatic conditions. (2) Many fossils show evidence of accumulations other than by flood waters. (3) Many of the mammoth remains show evidence of having been killed by humans, I realize that the mammoth argument has been used by believers in the Flood as evidence of this phenomenon and I would like to believe it too but even some Christian scientists are questioning this line of thinking. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 8 Wed Aug 23, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 21:51 PDT Which brings us to the question- What is the evidence for a flood? Archaeological evidence is still lacking. How does the biblical flood explain the fossil record and why is it that a flood would some how throw off radiometric dating? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 9 Thu Aug 24, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:20 EDT The catastrophic destruction of men and animals by an overwhelming flood in the days of Noah took place in 2370 B.C.E. The Greek word Jesus used was Ka.ta.kly.smos', a cataclysm. (Luke 17:27) It lasted more than a year. With the deluge great changes came, for example, the lifespan of humans dropped very rapidly. Some have suggested that prior to the flood the waters above the expanse shielded out some of the harmful radiation and that, with the waters gone, cosmic radiation genetically harmful to man increased. However, the Bible is silent on the matter. Incidentally, any change in radiation would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 to such an extent as to INVALIDATE all radiocarbon dates prior to the flood. Certainly a good reason for scientists to say it was just a myth. With the sudden opening of the "floodgates of heaven," untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the earth's crust. This shifting may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to "2 tons per square inch," sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.--See "The Biblical Flood and Ice epoch, by D.Patten, 1966, p. 62. There is also evidence for the flood in the fact that every civilization has its own flood legend in its mythological history, even the unchristian ones. But the main evidence for the flood of Noah's day is the fact that Jesus believed that it happened. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 10 Thu Aug 24, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 20:20 PDT I wasn't aware that Jesus spoke Greek. Are you aware that there are trees on the earth that are older than the flood, yet whose tree rings show no evidense of a flood? You really should study your science lessons. Carbon-14 is useful as an archeological tool, but not a paleontological one. Fossilization is not accomplished by "pressure" but by quick burial and slow decay- long enough for impressions to be left in rocks. Pressures such as the ones you describe would destroy remains, not preserve them. I read Pattens book and it is absolute hogwash. The man doesn't know sedimentary form metamorhpic rock. Your flood account doesn't explain the pattern of fossil deposition. It doesn't account for the lack of any evidence in the planetary straitigraphy of such a worldwide flood. Is it not possible that the the story is metaphorical or allegorical? Why do you insist that it is literally true. Another question. Why did you guys cancel topic 7? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 11 Fri Aug 25, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:41 EDT I don't know what happened to topic 7...sometimes this happens and we have to inform the programmers and they get it fixed the next day. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 12 Thu Aug 24, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:15 PDT I find it interesting (but not unexpected) that that topic just disappeared. I don't understand why God would cause such a flood to occur, then hide the evidence, ,making it look as if uniformitarian processes are responsible for the current geomorphology. This does not seem to be the behavior of a supreme being to me. It sounds more like the trickster of indian folklore. Speaking of folklore, my cultural anthrpologist friends tell me that a creation myth is universal, but that a flood myth is by no means a universal. The Chinese do not have a flood myth. Neither do the ancient greeks (I'm not sure of this one, however). Once again, I think it is important to realize when metaphor or allegory is being employed by the authors of the bible, and when what this means. As you are aware, the flood is part of the Torah, and is much older than christianity. Jesus, a jew, would have indeed believed in the flood. Whether he believed it literally is not known. There are many parts of the bible that must be taken as metaphor. For example, when Jesus says that peter is the rock , he of course does not mean that Peter is a rock. He is speaking metaphorically. Part of the reason for all the divisions in christianity is the disagreement among different groups as to what parts of the bible might be literal and what parts might be allegory. This topic, however, is titled "Scientific Evidence for the Flood." Since there is no scientific evidence for a universe flood, the proportions of which you describe, perhaps we must consider the possiblity that the flood is a hebrew allegory adopted by christians and not a literal desciption of a historical event. Can you consider this possiblity? If not, then you must present some specific scientific evidence that the flood occurred, something that can be verified. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 13 Fri Aug 25, 1989 DRMIKE at 07:11 EDT Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic (daily) and Hebrew (for prayer). ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 14 Fri Aug 25, 1989 DRMIKE at 13:19 EDT Herm, The waters above the expanse? Are we now to be expected to believe that in the past God somehow suspended sheets of water above the air (yet sunlight came through), a technique he has given up? And what on earth does external radiation do to indigenous decay of carbon 14? Herm, if you are going to challenge science, you are first going to have to study it. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 15 Fri Aug 25, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:48 EDT It has been said that if all the moisture in the atmosphere were suddenly released as rain it would not amount to even a couple inches if spread over the earth's surface. So from what source was this vast deluge of NOah's day? According to the Genesis account, God said to Noah: "Here I [YHWH] am bringing the deluge [or heavenly ocean"; Heb., mab.bul'] of waters upon the earth." (Ge 6:17) Describing what happened the next chapter says: "All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of ther heavens were opened." (Ge 7:11) So overwhelming was the Deluge that "all the mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered."--Ge 7:19. Where did this heavenly ocean come from? The Genesis account of creation tells how on the second "day" God made an expanse about the earth, and this expanse (called "Heaven") formed a division between the waters below it, that is, the oceans, and the waters above it. (Ge 1:6-8) The waters suspended above the expanse evidently remained there from the second "day" of creation until the Flood. This is what the apostle Peter was talking about when he recounted that there "by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water." Those "heavens" and the waters above and beneath them were the means that God's word called into operation, and "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." (2 Peter 3:5,6) Evidently there was a time when the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans. As to the present situation, it is said that "there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep." (National Geographic, Jan 1945, p. 105) So after the flood waters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to cover "all the tall mountains," as the inspired record says.--Gen 7:19. As to the protection this heavenly ocean caused I take you to Job 38:9 "When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it." Here God was humbling Job for his self righteousness, and asking Job if he was around when God did these things. He here calls the heavenly ocean a swaddlingband. A swaddlingband is a cloth wrap mothers put around their infant to protect it from the sun, etc. The earth (and people) were thus protected by this band of water around it. This is probably why there were no rainbows before the flood--even at a natural waterfalls--because there was no direct sunlight, only a brighter disk by day than by night. Within this cloud of gloom was the temperature on earth held to an average making the weather predictable and non-violent. Moses recorded that Adam took counsel from God "at the breezy time of day" showing that weather was a regular routine. (Ge 3:8). Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 16 Fri Aug 25, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 23:40 EDT Dr. Mike, I stand corrected on Jesus' language. It is probable that he did speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, or a mixture thereof. The account which I quoted was recorded in Greek though, sorry. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 17 Fri Aug 25, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:27 PDT The bible, a wonderful book, is not scientific evidence. The topic is "Scientific Evidences ofthe Flood." Why must the bible be all books- not only a religious book, but apparently a textbook of biology, geology, geomorphology and meterology? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 18 Sat Aug 26, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 08:14 EDT The Bible is not so much a textbook of science as a revelation of a Creator, a Redeemer, a Savior, an eminently greater Being than any of us can imagine. The insights of such a Being as revealed to humans are contained in this Book. Thus while the Book does not deal with all facets of human knowledge (and we should not make it seem so), it does reveal to us partially the mind of God. If we accept this view (and we don't expect everyone else to), then what the Bible says about human nature and our world cannot be in contradiction to "science" because God Himself is the author of every imaginable science known to man. The reason why I place the word "science" and "scientists" in quotes is because truly there should be no contradiction between "science" and religion. True religion and true science complement each other because they emanate from the same Omniscient, Omnipotent Being - God. My premise is that true science illuminates the Biblical story of Creation. As we look at the evidence of various sciences, we find that they corroborate the Biblical story of Creation. The problem arises when so-called scientists deliberately attempt to disprove the Biblical story and denigrate the efforts of Christian or religious scientists who report findings which corroborate the Biblical story of the Flood and Creation. A good example of what I am saying is Robert Gentry's explanation of polonium halos. Instead of trying to understand what he is propounding, he is being written off as just another "Creation Scientist." ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 19 Sat Aug 26, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 15:42 EDT Phil, I realize you do not put much credence in the Bible. My last message was directed to DR.Mike, who I feel has at least some respect for the Hebrew scriptures. One of the scientific evidences found and accepted recently is that the different families of man has come from one area or common ancestor. Also that this common ancestor was around the area of where Turkey is today. From that point man and religions spread out to once again fill the earth. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 20 Mon Aug 28, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 20:51 CDT Herm: You do not stand corrected by Dr. Mike about Jesus' language. Why shouldn't he have spoken Greek. Remember, Greek was the universal language of the day, as the lingua franca was later to become, followed much later by English. The gospels were written in Greek also. If his disciples knew a little Greek, why shouldn't Jesus? I can also point out that the inscription on Jesus' cross had Greek on it. In addition, Palestine was a occupied country. You don't think the Romans would have learned too much Hebrew, do you? Look at our own day, and you will see that the Vietnamese had to learn English; as the Lithuanians had to learn Russian. So there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Jesus did not know Greek, and there is plenty in the historical circumstances to indicate that he would have had at least a passing knowledge of it. My apologies to the Topic Police. -- Chris. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 21 Mon Aug 28, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:41 EDT Chris, There is much debate at what Jesus used, but I do know that the Romans spoke Latin. When Jesus hung on the stake he spoke in Hebrew and some seemed shocked that he spoke thus. But the Gospel of Matthew was recorded in Hebrew which seems to suggest that it was at least the language of the Orthodox Jews. But, then we are getting off the subject like you said, aren't we? ;) Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 22 Mon Aug 28, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:30 PDT The Bible may or may not be inspired by God. If it is, it has been f filtered over the years by human interpretation. My background is jewish. Jews will argue forever over the interpretation of the Torah (which forms part of the christian bible as well). This is all besides the point. If I claim that there is no scientific evidence for a universal flood, I am not disproving the bible. I am, rather, oftering a reason to believe that one interpretation of this part of the bible (or Torah) is incorrect, and that this may indeed be a part of the bible that should be intepreted as allegory. Most of the worlds religions have seen the danger of using the bible to challange science. The world council of churches has declared creationism to be bad religion. Someone above said that religion and science are complementary. Consider what this means. It means that the two are different, yet are parts of the same whole. It is wrong to try and use science as a platform for denouncing religion. Science cannot be used to speak to the issue of what is the nature of god. By that same token, religion should not be used as a platform for denouncing the discoveries made by science about the natural world or history. The catholic church tried it and though they were able to silence Galileo for awhile, they did not stamp out his ideas. In the minds of intelligent men, the church lost. Various established churchs attempted to stamp out evolution in the late 1800's, and they lost also. Each time religion loses, humanity in general loses. Once again the Gentry articles are brought up. Gentry is now becoming a martyre for creationists on his board. I suggest you go back to Nature (the Journal) and read some of the commentary on his findings. It is not that Gentry was ignored, or that no one takes time to understand Gentry, or that Gentry is just dismissed as a creationist. Gentry was wrong. His intepretation of the data he collected was one of many possible intepretations, and subsequent study has show it was the wrong interpretation. I know you seem to think that if you repeat this long enough, it may become true, but that is not how science works. I dont think that is how religion works either. I think that those who insist on narrow intepretations of a book as complex as the bible are in danger themselves of a heresy. The presume to speak for God when, in fact, they have no authority to do so. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 23 Tue Aug 29, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 20:54 EDT What really baffles me is when so-called scientists categorically say so-and- so is "wrong" or such-and-such is "wrong." With our finite knowledge we cannot say that the the proof of polonium halos is wrong. We might say that at the present time, it seems that Gentry's explanation of the short half-life of Polonium 218 (half-life of three minutes) cannot conceivably be explained because it contradicts the established findings of reputable scientists. But to say that he is "wrong" is naive at best and arrogant at worst. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 24 Tue Aug 29, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 19:17 PDT So, Harry--could the same be said about you? You claim evolution is "wrong" because, according to your interpretation, the Bible opposes it. Isn't that "naive at best and arrogant at worst", to use your words? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 25 Tue Aug 29, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:18 EDT I agree Phil that religion should not be used to prove science wrong or vice- versa. In actuality they should be in agreement, and many times original understandings are replaced with ones that are in agreement. I differ from the "Creationists" in that they suggest that the universe, etc. were all created in six literal days. The reason I differ is manifold, but also because the Bible does not say that the words of Genesis 1:1 are part of the following 6 "days" or epics. Genisis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Then it goes on to talk about how the earth was made habitable. The first thing He did was allow light to reach the earth. Certainly the first thing that would be necessary for life is to remove the dust and opaque gasses to allow light from the sun to reach the earth. Whether he did this scientifically aka. by a windstorm, or snowstorm or whatever is probable. The point is that this would be the scientific thing to do to make the earth habitable. This clearing of the atmosphere was the only thing he did the "first day!" We know that God existed eons of time before he decided to do this, and it was probably a little less time before that he made the Laws that caused the universe to come to be. On the "second day" God arranged the waters on earth and in the sky in such a way to allow land and water animals (and plants) to exist. On the "third day" he introduced a living thing into the world: Plants! On the "fourth day" God cleared the heavens a little more, now you could make out some luminaries in the sky, above the gloom. Now the earth could possibly support a little more than just plants. As an aside, it is possible that the large growth of plants producing oxygen had a lot to do with this "clearing" of the atmosphere. The plants continued to proliferate another "day" till the "fifth day." On the "fifth day" God introduced aquatic, and flying creatures: animals! On the "sixth day" the biological food chain was well enough to support mammals, these the last part of "creation" were crowned by the greatest mammal: Man!---and thus the sixth day ended with the "making" of Eve. Now looking back, do you see anything which contradicts with anything scientifically proven? The problem lies, especially in your example of Galileo, in persons READING MORE INTO the inspired record than is there. Everything God does is scientifically explainable because He created the laws, many of which have not been discovered yet. We do not know exactly how God created each individual living thing, but we do know that God DIRECTLY created Adam, and he did this last as the scientific record shows. If Moses had made this up he certainly would think that man was created first, being the most prominent, but this is not the case. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 26 Tue Aug 29, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 22:23 EDT I believe that God is the supreme scientist! Thus science rightly interpreted will not contradict what God has inspired through holy men via his Word. I don't try to prove evolution "wrong," just to show that creationism has scientific validity. So your remark is moot, Arnie! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 27 Sat Sep 02, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 18:28 PDT I understand now! HJOHN, you yourself have not read Gentry's articles! You've just read his little creationist book! You yourself gave me the references, why don't you look in Science and Nature yourself. Then again, why bother, right. You have already decided that Gentry is right because he agrees with your religious perspective. No need to go back and try to understand the crticisms, right! I suppose that you are enough of an expert on physics and radioactivity to dispose of those arguements anyway. Someone in the earlier conference made an excellent point. God doesn't need people to lie to help prove his/her existence. So the real question, HJOHN, is why do you keep it up? Either you don't understand the data something you should perhaps admit to, or you are purposefully bringing this up so that others will be convinced of your position. In effect, you are lying. Gentry is not wrong because he disagrees with someone. Disagreement is what makes science go, but if you are going to do it, you have to be shape. Gentry is wrong because he made several mistakes of a very tech- nical nature. As radioactivity is not my field, I sought the advice of a friend who has a degree in physics, who explained Gentry's mistake to me. It is very long, very involved but rather significant. Go forth and look, not at Gentry, but at the criticism in the very next issue of Science and the SAME issue of Nature. The maybe you "so-called" christians will stop sinning against yourselves. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 28 Sun Sep 03, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 08:31 EDT Isn't it interesting that you chose to make a personal attack rather than deal with the real issue. I hope you are not characteristic of most evolutionary scientists. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 29 Sun Sep 03, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 11:41 PDT It is not a personal attack. It is rather a personal observation. It is you who cannot deal with the real issue. You keep bring up gentry and I have said that Gentry's work is rejected. You assume that this is because he disagrees with scientific orthodoxy. You refuse to entertain the possiblity that he is wrong, that his work was slopy and that his interpretation was one of several possible and was not even the one that fit his own data best. Read the literature, Harrison. I know that is something creationists don't like to do, but if you want to gain some crediblity, show me that you at least know what you are talking about. Don't just read Gentry, read the critiques of Gentry. That is how science works. If you have an idea, your peers must review it. If your peers find an error, you have to answer those peers or accept their interpretation. You don't go of and publish a little book to try and do an end run around them. You don't vote on which ideas are best, they have to stand up and support themselves or they are worthless. Gentry didn't do that. Now, for the personal attack. If you continue to lie about this things, I will continue to accuse you of being a liar. I have posted factual information over and over again, but all you say is "What about Gentry." You accuse me of being biased and the who scientific community of being deceitful. Is that not a personal attack? Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black? There is no scientific evidence for the flood. You started the topic, yet you have failed to produce anything. You have also failed to produce any evidence for creationism. Your approach, shared by many of your so-called "christians" (to distinguish you from christians who don't feel they have to lie in order to maintain their faith in God) is to produce alot of bogus critique of evolution. Even if you manage to disprove evolution, and it is entirely possible that evolutionary theory will be replaced someday, what makes you think crea creationism will replace it? Creationism as a theory was rejected more th 100 years ago. Whatever replaces evolution will be something new developed by people on the cutting edge of biology and not by people who cannot even master the details of their own discipline and certainly not by religions zealot engineers (like Morris) posing as scientists. You guys lost, and you just can't accept that. Most christians accept evolution. Why can't you? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 30 Sun Sep 03, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 15:04 EDT Phil, I think you will find the statement "Most Christians accept evolution" to be quite in error. I speak to persons everyday in my house to house ministry and am in fact offering the book aformentioned and have yet to find a person who calls himself a Christian who says evolution is fact. I spoke to a person today who says he is a scientist, and it is interresting to note that he believes in the creation account! In fact if you care to check the beliefs of most of the prominant scientists in history and presently including Einstein and Newton, you will find that they very much believed in an intelligent designer of the universe and the living organisms within. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 31 Sun Sep 03, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 19:49 PDT I think what he meant, Herm, is that most Christians believe in a Creator who uses the evolutionary process, rather than a "Shazam! It's a horse!" technique of creation. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 32 Sun Sep 03, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 23:29 EDT Then why would Moses only record 8 generations back from Noah to Adam and say that Adam had NO parents? Was Moses a great inspired Liar? Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 33 Sun Sep 03, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:20 PDT That you would find no one in you ministry is not surprising. However, the World Council of Churches, representing some 90% of all christian denominations, has recently declaired creation science to be bad religion. It is difficult to get a diverse group like that to agree on something, so when they do, it is impressive. Morris is a "scientists" of sort, a hydrolic engineer. I will wager that you friend is not a biologist or paleontologist. Why should Christians accept evolution? Remember what happened to the Catholic church when it punished Galileo for his belief? When religion begins to challenge science on its own ground and insisting that the literal truth of the bible be taken at faith, rather than the evidence with our own eyes, religion suffers. Denying evolution makes God a deceitful being and this is certainly against any christian teachings. You are in effect denying the right to think. You are saying "Forget what your eyes tell you, believe the WORD." The evidence of geology and paleontology speak of a long history for the earth and the life on it. Why would a creator be deceitful in making the world look like this? Are all the biologists, geologists and paleontologists mistaken? Have we all been mislead? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 34 Mon Sep 04, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 13:38 EDT Shrieking at each other is not going to be very productive. Let each present its facts and let others make up their own minds about creation and evolution. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing sacrosanct about Evolution! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 35 Mon Sep 04, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 13:32 PDT Herm, you seem to be saying that only eight generations passed between Noah and Adam, and that Adam was the first man on earth. How do you account for the presence of people in China, North America, Australia, and other remote parts of the world? In eight generations, it would seem impossible for people to spread from "Eden" all over the world. And then there's that nasty problem of obvious racial differences between people all over the world. If all men are descended from Adam, and if only a handful of generations has passed since his time, these differences seem inexplicable. Care to try explaining this? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 36 Mon Sep 04, 1989 R.DANIELSON at 18:13 EDT As far as I can see, there are two distinct views being propounded on this board: (1) The universe and all it contains came into being as a result of pure chance processes, extending over a period of several billions (or tens of billions) of years. (2) The universe was brought into existence by the simple utterance of God's command at a time between seven to ten thousand years ago. Is there any possibility that any of you may recognize a third alternative, to wit: (3) The universe is so complex and marvelous that I cannot consider it the result of blind chance. However, for that VERY REASON I cannot consider that it was all created for the benefit of one species upon one planet of one star, in one galaxy. It staggers my imagination to think that God put those trillions of suns out there just to light the skies of Earth. I believe that the universe was created, yes. But I accept the creation myths of no Earthly religion. Now, does this make me a "creationist" or not? Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 37 Mon Sep 04, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 18:18 EDT Arnie, Please read my message more carefully. I said there were 8 from Adam to Noah, (Luke 3). The families spread from the sons of Noah accross the world and 2500 years since the flood. There is ample evidence that this did happen. See the aforementioned "Newsweek." Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 38 Mon Sep 04, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 18:26 PDT I'd still like to hear your explanation for how one set of parents can produce all the different races in just a few thousand years. Did they "evolve"? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 39 Mon Sep 04, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:46 EDT I ask please that no one feel that I am prejudice against any race in any way, my next statements are for knowledge only. Arnie, Have you noticed that "Blacks" in the USA are much lighter than Blacks in Africa? This is not caused by inbreeding. The major factor is the environment they are exposed to. If you go to africa you will find th at the "native" whites are darker than their own family blood in England or whereever. People do changhe with their environment, and these changes or adaptations are inherent to their offspring. The problem is you have been hearing the "millions and millions of years" scenario so much it is hard to im agine that this change could take place in just 200 years. I do not understand the science involved to get a Ccker spaniel pup from a german shepherd, but yes, all different types of dogs are within the genes of either other type. Does this suggest evolution? Well the word could be used to explain the changes, but down the line you will always find that no matter how they adapt, they will still be the same family. Blacks will always be human, the different species of dogs, etc. will always be the same type creature. This is a law that is also inherent in the Genes, although variety is gained by randomness within the family. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 40 Mon Sep 04, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:54 EDT R. Danielson, Although I believe in creation, I do believe the Universe is at least 15 Billion years old. The Genesis account only speaks of preparation for of the earth for human habitation. I have recently been reading a book called "Cosmic Coincidences" by John Gribbon which explains that it is very necessary for the universe to be at least 15 billion years old for there to be not only a sun of just the right temperature and duration as ours, but also a planet which contains the rich minerals, etc. which ours has to support life. It says that ] the heavier elements were manufactured within stars and when the collapsed these same nutrients were spewed out into the universe to be collected into our earth. The logic which flows here is that if an intelligent "creator" had set up the laws which we observe within our part of the known universe and wanted to make a planet that was inhabited by the life forms you know so well, it would not only take a universe of at least 15 B. years old, but in the process the billions of galaxies would be a result. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 41 Mon Sep 04, 1989 R.DANIELSON at 23:04 EDT Herm: I agree with you regarding the age of the universe. May I ask two questions of you, Harrison, and the other creationists here on the board? First, how would you classify an individual who believes that there was a "first cause" to the universe, but does not accept any particular religion's text as to the origins of the universe and of life? Would he (I) be a creationist, an evolutionist, or something else? Second, is belief in the exact sequence of events and chronology as set forth in Genesis a pre-requisite to Christian belief? In other words, can an individual accept Christ as savior fully and yet hold that Genesis is to a greater or lesser extent allegorical. Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 42 Mon Sep 04, 1989 R.DANIELSON at 23:14 EDT One other thing, Herm, I do not think you are on altogether solid ground with regards to the skin color of blacks in the USA and Africa. I have visited South African cities and met with Afrikaners whose families have been there for nearly 250 years. There is no observable change in their pigmentation. And I would like to know your rational for the statement that the lighter skin color of American blacks is not due to interbreeding (what I presume you meant by "inbreeding"). It was a well-kept secret in the antebellum South that there were a lot of children begotten upon female slaves by their masters. This had produced a large light-skinned black population as early as 1800. Check any of the histories of slavery in the Americas for confirmation of this. Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 43 Tue Sep 05, 1989 DRMIKE at 05:20 EDT Who was "Mrs. Cain", as Darrow so aptly put it at the Scopes trial? Was there "a second creation in the next county?" ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 44 Tue Sep 05, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 20:07 CDT Oh, Dr. Mike, I can't believe that you asked a silly question like that. A short perusal of the Bible shows that Adam lived a long, long time, and "begat sons and daughters", and they did likewise. It is a simple conclusion that Cain married a relative. Darrow lost the case, by the way. -- Chris ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 45 Tue Sep 05, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 21:11 PDT Herm, I think you're on pretty shaky ground when you claim that American blacks just "lightened up" naturally over the past two hundred years because they were no longer in Africa. We don't see Caucasians turning black because they have lived in the deserts of the western United States for comparable periods of time. More to the point though, your response ignores the non-color differences between the races. Let's compare the Asiatics with the black Africans. I'm no anthropologist, but there are some rather obvious structural differences between the average Zulu warrior and the average Chinese! Yet if we are to believe the Biblical account of creation, both of these groups were descended from a couple of honkies (Adam and Eve WERE white, weren't they???), and all of the differences in body size, facial characteristics, skin color, and so on, occurred due to environmental influences over just a few thousand years. This is a Catch-22 proposition for creationists. If the world and the human race were created the way it says in the Bible, then drastic and rapid evolutionary changes must have taken place over the past few thousand years to explain the world as we see it today. But that couldn't possibly be true, since "evolution isn't true", and we don't see evolution occurring on that scale today, even among animals. I'd also be interested in hearing an explanation for why the peoples of the world don't speak a common language, if everyone emigrated from the Garden of Eden only a few thousand years ago. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 46 Tue Sep 05, 1989 R.LEE11 at 23:15 CDT Immanuel Velikovsky revisited....The Flood The Christian bible discusses a former civilization which was destroyed by flood. Many societies from various places around the globe in antiquity have mythology referring to a greatly sophisticated and highly technical society which came to destruction by inundation. Typically this previous civilization in present nomenclature is known as "Atlantis." Certain esoterica alledges that the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built by these "Atlanteans" and that early Egypt, a place where a sophisticated and skilled civilization suddenly appeared full bloom and which consistently decline after its sudden appearance, was an outpost of this Atlantean civilization. The extremely precise measurements found in the Pyramid which correspond to modern important numbers, e.g., pi, phi, as well as the geologic orientation of the pyramid and literally thousands of other phenomenon about it testify to the advanced mathematical abilities of its creators. A simple question should serve to assist the current topic. Was there a previous "age" before this one, i.e., a previous high civilization before this one? Yes or No? If No then how to account for same topic mythology across cultures across the ancient world of a great technical civilization destroyed by flood? The mythology exists from the Greeks to the Aztecs -- independent sources. If No then how to account for the appearance of ancient Egyptian civlization full bloom and the precise mathematics displayed by the great pyramid? If Yes then what caused the disappearance of that high civilization? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 47 Tue Sep 05, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:50 PDT I am not shrieking. I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. I do some calmly, as I have encountered your kind before. I wish all on this board seeking information that your statements on Gentry and the Fossil Record are wrong and that I think you are deliberately distorting facts. I still have yet to see anyone present any scientific evidence for the flood. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 48 Wed Sep 06, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 18:31 EDT Right you are, Chris, Caine did marry his sister, and as a matter of fact so did Adam since Eve was made from him. Arnie, The present races have actually separated not from Eden but from Noah after the global flood, some 2000 years after the first man was created. There is not mention of differing races before the flood, (except the Nephilim), and this is logical since the world was mostly the same temperature throughout. The examples you have seen of those not showing any change is because they did not change their own life habits, such as living in a jungle in Africa, if white. There was some interbreeding within the black race in the USA, but not total! Certainly you would find some blacks as dark as in Africa, but the consensus is that ALL are lighter. As to what color Adam and Eve were, I don't know, I would think the same as Noah, who was Semitic, (actually his son Shem was the first Semitic), the Jewish people, I would say are kind of "in between" on the race scale, being middle eastern as well as central on the north/south scale. If you can call the changes in races evolution, then yes things can happen fast! Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 49 Wed Sep 06, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 19:36 CDT Arnie: As for the genesis of various languages, and why, the reason may be found in the story of the tower of Babel, where God "confounded" the languages (the story indicates that the world was drawing together as one, and challenging God, which was not in his "gameplan"). Even if one considers the story as symbolic, the truth of it is evident in the science of philology, where one can trace English, German and French back to orginal tongues, and etc. with other tongues, including Sanskrit. With regard to creationists using some principles of evolution, I think that they accept, and use, the theory of evolutionary change _within_ species. They disagree with the theory of evolutionary change to produce _new_ species. -- Chris. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 50 Wed Sep 06, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 23:27 EDT Herm, I'm a bit confused here. You mentioned that you have no problem with the Big Bang theory and see it as a tool of God. From what I've read here and in other sources, the creationist leaders say that the Earth is very young and are working on proving this (Morris, Gentry, Barnes, Slusher, etc..). Where and why do you draw the line? If one takes the Bible literally, one would believe in the geocentric view of the Universe, and that makes me wonder why more creationists aren't geocentricists (sp?). If you can accept the Big Bang as a tool of God what prevents you from accepting evolution as a tool of God? Please don't take this as an attack, I'm really curious! --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 51 Wed Sep 06, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 23:30 EDT The following is a quote from "The Creation of Matter" by Harald Fritzsch, Professor of Physics at the University of Munich, and at the Max Planck Institute. This is a serious (no 'New-Age' stuff here) book on current theories in the field of cosmology and particle physics written for the layman. (well, as of 1983, anyway) "The world of belief and the world of science are complementary worlds. To draw a sharp dividing line between them, as many theologians have done in the past and still do today, is absurd. I see no dirrect contradiction between the Christian churches and science. But problems of interpretation of religious symbols do exist. These symbols do not represent immutable, everlasting values. Like the concepts of science, religious symbols and rites are an expression of our desire to overcome the inadequacy of language in our quest for the sublime. The historical nature of Christianity's beliefs cannot be ignored. The bible, too is primarily a historical document subject to reinterpretatation. Given the discoveries of Darwin and Einstein, of Hubble and Gamow, of molecular boilogists, astrophysicists, and particle physicists, such interpretation is badly needed. What we lack are the theologians willing to undertake the task... ...We are the first in time to know where we stand in the universe. Modern science has given us the humility appropriate to sentient beings on a small planet near the galactic Virgo cluster. My knowledge of the cosmos has not only made me humble but has also given me a measure of composure and pride. We know that our position in the cosmos is not unique. No longer caught up in the myths of the past, we now know where we stand and what we are. Each one of us is unique. Each one of us plays a role, however minor it may seem. There are no extras on our stage." I felt a need to pass that quote along. Harald Fritzsch put my feelings into a nutshell. Science doesn't negate God, it reinforces his power. It humbles us. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 52 Thu Sep 07, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:10 EDT Mark, I can understand your confusion on my stand. I stated earlier that I (and Jehovah's Witnesses), are NOT the same. The people who take the creative days as literal 24 hour creative days are misled because the Bible many times uses the word "day" to mean an era or epoch. The Bible never mentioned that the 7th creative day had ended and the apostle Paul mentioned that we need to "enter into God's rest", meaning that 7th day. This is what the Jewish sabbath day rest represented and will be fulfilled. Since the seventh day never ended yet, and we are in the 6000th year of human history, and we have yet a 1000 year period before the earth will be cleansed that comes to the 7th day being 7000 years long. If all the "creative days" were 7000 years long then life came to exist on the earth 34,000 years ago. Now the age of the earth is much greater because the creative days only outlined the "preparation" of the earth for habitation by man. The first verse of Genesis (1:1) was not part of the first day of creation-- the removing dust and clouds for light to reach the surface is what happened on the first day. God's creating the universe is all covered in Genesis 1:1 and it does not go into detail. The fact that scientists see a "beginning" of the universe suggests creation, whereas a scenario of everlasting universe would be more in evolution's proof. I differ with evolution only in one main point---> The Bible says that God directly created a man. This man was alone for a while--which means he had NO family. Later that man named the ape which was not considered kin to him from some long lost parents. As to the way the animals were brought forth I have no idea, other than God caused it to happen. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 53 Thu Sep 07, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 20:38 EDT Herm, That was a senerio that I haven't heard before, but you missed my point. What confuses me is the way that creationists say that everything in the Bible is true, but disassociate themselves from geocentrists even though there are passages in the Bible that state that the earth is immovable. What is it about the Biblical account of creation that makes it so credible, and what causes the geocentric passages to be taken less seriously? This is the source of my confusion, the seemingly random picking and choosing of what parts of the Bible are true. By the way, what do you think of 'Cosmic Coincidences'? --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 54 Thu Sep 07, 1989 R.LEE11 at 21:46 CDT {_}iGeocentric universe... I am confused how a good scientist would come to the conclusion that the religious books of the Judeo/Christian faith speak of a geocentric universe. A very little research into the area would yield: Secrets of Enoch, Chapter 13 "Those men bore me away to the east, and placed me at the sun's gates, where the sun goes forth according to the regulation of the seasons and the circuit of the months of the whole year, and the number of the hours day and night. And I saw six gates open, each gate having sixty-one stadia and a quarter of one stadium, and I measured them truly, and understood their size to be so much, through which the sun goes forth, and goes to the west, and is made even, and rises throughout all the months, and turns back again from the six gates according to the succession of the seasons; thus the period of the whole year is finished after the returns of the four seasons." Secrets of Enoch, Chapter 14 "And again those men led me away to the western parts, and showed me six great gates open corresponding to the Eastern gates, opposite to where the sun sets, according to the number of the days three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter. Thus again it goes down to the western gates, and draws away its light, the reratness of its brightness, under the earth; for since the crown of its shinning is in heaven with the Lord, and guarded by four hundred angels, while the sun goes round on wheel under the earth, and stands seven great hours in night, and spends half its course under the earth, when it comes to the eastern approach in the eighth hour of the night, it brings its lights, and the crown of shining, and the sun flames forth more than fire." Secrets of Enoch, Chapter 16 "Those men showed me the other course, that of the moon, twelve great gates, crowned from west to east, but which the moon goes in and out of the customary times. It goes in at the first gate to the western places of the sun, by the first gates with thirty-one days exactly, by the second gates with thirty-one days exactly, by the third with thirty days exactly, by the fourth with thirty days exactly, by the fifth with thirty-one days exactly, by the sixth....etc....And it goes through the western gates in the order and number of the eastern, and accomplishes the tree hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days of the solar year, while the lunar year has three hundred and fifty four, and there are wanting to it twelve days of the solar circle, which are the lunar epacts of the whole year. Thus, too, the great circle contains five hundred and thirty-two years. The quarter of a day is omitted for three years, the fourth fulfills it exactly... Not to bad for a bunch of primitives, I'd say. Of course the view was ethnocentric but the observations are consistent with an interpretation agreeing with Galileo -- strangely, this Book of the Secrets of Enoch existed before the birth of Christ -- Enoch was the seventh generation after Adam according to the Bible. I wonder where Copernicus and Galileo got their ideas? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 55 Thu Sep 07, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:49 EDT Mark P, What is it about the Biblical account that makes it so credible? One answer: Jesus said it was so: Mt. 19:4 "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female?" To doubt the creation account would be calling God's "Anointed One" a liar. Now aside from this, really the idea of creation is more logical! One cannot deny that there is SOMETHING out there, unseen and powerful. The small amount of what we have seen of the universe both macroscopic and microscopic have shown incredible order and design. There are too many "little" things that even our own bodies have been given which shows more than chance could give. For example: more hair where our bodies would give off more odor and heat, the size of our bodies not being too large that a fall would be fatal, eyebrows to shield sun from our eyes, natural affection for our children...shall I go on? The book "Cosmic Coincidences" reminds me a lot of the Issac Asimov softbacks, which he would explain deep scientific discoveries in laymen's terms. I read most of them and enjoyed them, this will be something I will like to continue learning/studying/teaching in the paradise if I am priviledged to be there. Although I have not finished the book, I am fascinated that the person doesn't mind considering a more rounded outlook on "Who Are We?" He seems to be one who will listen to others and not just push his "current" theory. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 56 Thu Sep 07, 1989 R.LEE11 at 21:51 CDT Geocentric universe... I am confused how a good scientist would come to the conclusion that the religious books of the Judeo/Christian faith speak of a geocentric universe. A very little research into the area would yield: Secrets of Enoch, Chapter 13 "Those men bore me away to the east, and placed me at the sun's gates, where the sun goes forth according to the regulation of the seasons and the circuit of the months of the whole year, and the number of the hours day and night. And I saw six gates open, each gate having sixty-one stadia and a quarter of one stadium, and I measured them truly, and understood their size to be so much, through which the sun goes forth, and goes to the west, and is made even, and rises throughout all the months, and turns back again from the six gates according to the succession of the seasons; thus the period of the whole year is finished after the returns of the four seasons." Secrets of Enoch, Chapter 14 "And again those men led me away to the western parts, and showed me six great gates open corresponding to the Eastern gates, opposite to where the sun sets, according to the number of the days three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter. Thus again it goes down to the western gates, and draws away its light, the reratness of its brightness, under the earth; for since the crown of its shinning is in heaven with the Lord, and guarded by four hundred angels, while the sun goes round on wheel under the earth, and stands seven great hours in night, and spends half its course under the earth, when it comes to the eastern approach in the eighth hour of the night, it brings its lights, and the crown of shining, and the sun flames forth more than fire." Secrets of Enoch, Chapter 16 "Those men showed me the other course, that of the moon, twelve great gates, crowned from west to east, but which the moon goes in and out of the customary times. It goes in at the first gate to the western places of the sun, by the first gates with thirty-one days exactly, by the second gates with thirty-one days exactly, by the third with thirty days exactly, by the fourth with thirty days exactly, by the fifth with thirty-one days exactly, by the sixth....etc....And it goes through the western gates in the order and number of the eastern, and accomplishes the tree hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days of the solar year, while the lunar year has three hundred and fifty four, and there are wanting to it twelve days of the solar circle, which are the lunar epacts of the whole year. Thus, too, the great circle contains five hundred and thirty-two years. The quarter of a day is omitted for three years, the fourth fulfills it exactly... Not to bad for a bunch of primitives, I'd say. Of course the view was ethnocentric but the observations are consistent with an interpretation agreeing with Galileo -- strangely, this Book of the Secrets of Enoch existed before the birth of Christ -- Enoch was the seventh generation after Adam according to the Bible. I wonder where Copernicus and Galileo got their ideas? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 57 Thu Sep 07, 1989 R.LEE11 at 22:22 CDT More science and Judeo/Christian religious writings... Book of the Secrets of Enoch, Chapter 48 "That the sun go along the seven heavenly circles, which are the appointments of one hundred and eighty-two thrones, and it go down on a short day, and again one hundred and eighty-two, that it go down on a big day, and he has two thrones on which he rests, revolving hither and thither above the thrones of the months, from the seventeenth day of the month Tsivan it goes down to the month Thevan, from the seventeenth of Thevan it goes up. And thus it goes close to the earth, then the earth is glad and makes grow its fruit, and when it goes away, then the earth is sad, and trees and all fruits have no florescence. All this he measured, with good measurment of hours, and fixed a measure by his wisdom, of the visible and the invisible. From the invisible he made all things visible, himself being invisible. Thus I make known to you, my children, and distribute the books to your children, into all your generations, and amongst the nations who shall have the sense to fear God, let them receive them, and may they come to love them more than any food or earthly sweets, and read them and apply themselves to them. And those who understand not the Lord, who fear not God, who accept not, but reject, who do not receive them (the books), a terrible judgement awaits these. Blessed is the man who shall bear their yoke and shall drag them along, for he shall be released on the day of the great judgement." I'd say if he got the part about the length of the year and the two solstices and length of time between them as well as knowing that the sun, itself, revolves that it's a pretty fair bet that the last part of the passage it right too. At least it bears thinking pretty seriously about it from a scientist's perspective. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 58 Fri Sep 08, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:06 EDT There are also some "more Biblical" references which show the scientificity? of the Bible...Is 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...". The Hebrew word here translated as "circle" also has the meaning 'sphere.' Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." The references to the earth being immovable were showing that the earth is created for a purpose--its not going anywhere. For example Is. 45:18 "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 59 Thu Sep 07, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:59 PDT Scientific evidence indicates that our species was African in Origin. This is based both on paleontology and comparative biochemistry. This would mean that the original pigmentation of humanity was dark skin, not light skin. Herm, We Jews do not consider Jesus to be an anointed one. Your version of creationism is the product of fundemntalist christian religious belief. You exclude many christians who have reconciled their belief with that of scientific discovery. Is this not a rather bigoted viewpoint? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 60 Fri Sep 08, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 18:29 EDT Phil, I explained why the Biblical "creation story" is believable to me personally. I realize that many do not put faith in it as I do, but I was asked a personal question above. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 61 Fri Sep 08, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 17:35 CDT Phil: Why is Herm bigoted but you are not? Let's turn your statement to Herm around and see what you think: "Phil, "We Jehovah's Witness consider Jesus to be an anointed one. Your version of creationism is the product of liberal jewish religious belief. You exclude many jews who have reconciled their belief with that of scientific discovery. Is that not a rather bigoted viewpoint?" ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 62 Fri Sep 08, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:55 EDT When an attempt was made to present scientific evidences for the Flood, some people on this Board got rather hysterical and began making personal attacks. Nevertheless, I will and I am sure others will continue to present evidence as time goes by. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 63 Sun Sep 10, 1989 R.DANIELSON at 08:52 EDT There's no doubt that the priests and scholars of 2500 years ago understood a tremendous amount about the APPARENT movements of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. But to say that this means that they had discarded the geocentric world view is stretching it a little. The most obvious example is the sun "standing still" for Joshua. Surely this passage if written by Copernicus or Kepler would have said the earth ceased to revolve.. :-) Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 64 Sun Sep 10, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 14:18 EDT R.LEE11, I never claimed to be a scientist, much less a good one. I'm not familiar with Enoch, so I can't comment on that. But why do geocentrists and flat-earthers use biblical references to advance their positions? Chris, Though I agree with Phil, I think that 'bigoted' was not a good choice of words. Herm's view of creation (which I appreciated hearing) is biased in that it excludes non-christians or more specifically, non-Seventh Day Adventists (I believe that is Herm's faith, but I may be mistaken). Creationism, being a christian fundamentalist movement, excludes not only Jews, but _all_ non-christians, including the _Billions_ of people who practice the eastern religions. Also, how can you say that evolution "is the probuct of liberal jewish religious belief"? That statement is absolutely false! Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with any religion. BTW, Phil, Thanks for the info on the neanderthals. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 65 Sun Sep 10, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 14:20 EDT Herm, Re "Cosmic Coincidences": I'm about half done with the book, and so far I'm enjoying it. I'm a little uncomfortable, though, with certain claims that the authors make, ie., the agreement of cosmologists of the flatness of the universe. That isn't true, the universe certainly _looks_ flat, but far more work has to be done in that field before anyone can say anything with reasonable certainty. The last I've heard is that the evidence is pointing to an open universe. I'm also uncomfortable with the Anthropic Cosmology angle of the book. I've read very little on the subject, but it seems more of a topic for philosophers than scientists. I plan to read more on the subject, though, so I may revise my opinion. Your examples of evidence for an unseen all-powerful guiding force can easily be explained by natural selection. A human too large to survive a fall would have a tough time surviving to breeding age, and therefore not be able to pass along his genes. Parents who didn't have affection for their children would probably not care if their children survived. If one's children don't survive, one's genetic material doesn't get passed into the gene pool. BTW, I find it interesting that you admire the open-mindedness of the authors of "Cosmic Coincidences". --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 66 Sun Sep 10, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 15:44 EDT Mark, Many times I myself may sound "close-minded" resulting in your last remark. However the reason I stay on the Biblical view is because of the respect I and the apostles of Jesus put in the Bible account. I feel that as science learns more and more they will slowly prove the Biblical accounts truer and truer. This will not come about if scientists and researchers continue to consider only evidence and information which support their own particular theories. The authors of "CC" do not say that they believe that this or that is the way it happened, but recognize that there are many conflicting data. I feel that science is looking through a cloudy mirror on the past and sadly they also have to deal with deception also, even in their own ranks. This is the situation with Christian religions also today, because many have profited from the same type of deception. The open mindedness that I admire is where one will gather ALL data on a particular subject no matter how little a bearing it might have on the subject, and present their argument from that standpoint. I see too much being swept under the proverbial rugs today! Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 67 Sun Sep 10, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 13:15 PDT Harrison accuses me of hysteria, I accuse him of lying. I point out again, that the topic is SCIENTIFIC evidence for the flood. Witnessing for your faith in Jesus does not count as scientific evidence. Claiming that I should accept the biblical account of creation because I would be calling Jesus ( a fellow jew and perhaps the first rabbi of a reformed movement of Judiaism) is also not scientific evidence. Harrison says that others will present scientific evidence. That sure would be a change here. Let's see it. We havent so far. All we get is scripture. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 68 Sun Sep 10, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 18:07 EDT A rather popular stance taken by many so-called evolutionists on this board is to immediately attack and discredit whatever Creation scientists have to say. First they attack Gentry, then they attack Gish; whoever you quote, they attack. If this is the scientific method, God help us! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 69 Sun Sep 10, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 15:20 PDT A rather popular stance taken by so-called "christians" is to dance around and accuse scientists of now being 'fair' to poor old creationists when asked to present evidence to back-up the theory. Thus we have an illustration of the creationist authoritarian mindset. Anyone who disagrees is "attacking." We are not allowed to question the writings of Gentry and Gish, because when we do so we see that they don't really stand-up to a critical analysis. Sorry Harrison, but in science a person who proposes something new must be prepared to defend their work. Gentry is a good illustration that a person can publish creationist articles in scientific journals. What Gentry did not do is stand by his work. After one round of criticism, he gave up and published his ideas in a creationist press. This is called peer review, Harrison. It is how the scientific method works. In science, you are ALLOWED to question someones conclusions and the interpretation of the data they present. That is not called an attack, that is called a critique, and if you can't stand the heat, you should, perhaps, not venture into the kitchen. That is how science is done, and God won't help you, because you are wrong. Of course, you could present some evidence for your positions. That certainly would be something new. No, I am not hysterical. I am laughing my ass off. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 70 Sun Sep 10, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 20:56 PDT Harry, I'd like to ask you a question. You seem to be claiming that virtually the entire scientific community is out to discredit Gentry, Gish, and the other so-called creation scientists and to suppress any evidence that evolution might be false. My question to you is, why? Why would they do this? What's in it for them? The scientists I know are interested in truth. If the scientific evidence supported the creationist position, they would accept that as fact and continue their studies from that point. To suggest that all these reputable scientists are deliberately avoiding or misrepresenting the truth is to suggest that these scientists are going against the very principles of science, the "creed" of their "religion", if you will. That's not only an illogical assumption, it's unproductive as well. Covering up the truth benefits no one. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 71 Mon Sep 11, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:23 EDT Arnie, Most scientific research is done through the bestowal of grants from Commercial, Educational, and Political organizations. These grants are given on grounds different from what reasons scientists may have for their work. In order to recieve these grants scientists have to play the same type of ball as those who are offering them. There is much problem right now of falsification of documents and research data and it will probably only get worse. In order to recieve the larger grants a person has to become well known for a particlular reason and disproving creation is one way to get such credit. I do not feel that all scientists have succumbed to this sort of problem, but this area is an area of paranoia indeed. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 72 Mon Sep 11, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 18:27 PDT Then you are suggesting that there are Powerful and Rich Organizations who like to give money to people who will attack creationism?? Who, for example? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 73 Mon Sep 11, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:30 EDT For one thing, if evolution is proven as fact, then they have no one to answer to. God becomes non-existant, or at least unc aring. People would like to have no one to answer to although their consciences tell them that this is untrue. It is easy to ignore consciences. Now I am not saying that this is the thrust of the scientific research. But, this is how scientists get to become well known. By this means they will be a recognized name in the world and would more likely recieve a grant for their area when one is available. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 74 Mon Sep 11, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 22:43 EDT Arnie: I'm sorry that I gave the impression that ALL scientists attack personalities etc. rather than discussing the issues. As you know there have been some on this board. I am referring to them. It would be naive of me to say what you assert in your last message! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 75 Mon Sep 11, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 23:59 EDT Herm, You make it very hard to reply to your messages. I feel like I'm attacking your faith, and that isn't my intention by a long shot! When I was an atheist I was still very well aware of right and wrong. I didn't need the fear of God's wrath to make me do what was right. My conscience did and still does guide me in my actions. Without my trying to explain my belief system to you... what do you think of this: God gave us a free will to do right or wrong, but the threat of His wrath was always there in the Bible if we didn't do what was right. That was a test. Maybe we passed that test (How we did that, I don't know :-)). Now maybe we're being tested again; more free will; no more threat of hell; will we still do what's right? Would you still believe in God if the Bible didn't exist? I don't believe in the Bible, but I _do_ believe in God (although my picture of God is probably quite different from yours) --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 76 Tue Sep 12, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 00:27 EDT Herm, The only reason (in my opinion) scientists even notice creationists is because creationists are trying to pass creationism off as a science. Disproving the creationist theories isn't exciting enough to put a feather in a scientist's cap. Creationist theories are, in general, on pretty shaky ground, in that the creationists don't seem to realize that they aren't only attacking evolution. When they claim that the universe is only a few thousand years old, (I know _you_ don't claim that) they are attacking cosmology, astronomy, and other areas of physics including quantum mechanics (when they attack dating methods that are based on redioactive decay) which is _THE_ most accurate scientific theory to date! To have their theories considered credible, the creationists would have to put together a body of science that didn't disprove the theories they are attacking, but include them as a subset of their science. They would have to come up with an alternate theory that would agree 100% with the observed facts. Until they do this their theories don't have a chance. Since you're reading CC, a good parallel is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics vs the many-worlds interpretation. The Many-Worlds interpretation predicts the _exact_ same things as the Copenhagen interpretation. Many physicists don't like the Many-Worlds interpretation, but since it does agree with the observed facts, they don't treat it the same way as they treat creation "science" which though it refutes quantum mechanics, it offers no replacement that agrees with the observed facts. That's just poor science. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 77 Tue Sep 12, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:55 EDT Mark, That is true, and the main reason I don't wish to get too involved with the evolution topic is because I would be classed with "creationists." The name sounds good, but the way it has been categorized as one person's interpretation of the Genesis account does not look appealing. I think that Bible believers would just do well in learning more about the Bible. The domain of theories are for scientists. It seems there is enough discussion on even how to worship God, and what kind of "person" God is. I believe that much more could have been recorded by Moses, but as it was passed to him from Adam, there was a lot of information lost. The reason I mention the Big Bang, is the same reason I think that evolutionists will still come around to admitting that an intelligent force had to arrange all things to get to where they are today. Just as something had to put that lump of matter there to become the "Big Bang" so someone needed to bring matter to life. There is too much faith put into speculation. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 78 Tue Sep 12, 1989 TSG1 at 01:05 EDT I think that the recent Cold Fusion story casts is a good example how science works. What was promised was incredable, a source of cheap energy that would change our entire economic structure and way of life. Everyone was excited. Everyone WANTED to belive in it. Scientest all over the world started working on it. Turned out to be a fraud. (Most likely not an intentional one.) There was a little evidence that it might work, but that quickly proved to be little more than wishfull thinking. As badly as science would have liked it to be true, they published the truth. I've always thought that evolution was pretty clever. A God that designs a world where things can adapt and evolove is much more creative than one who says: Zap! A horse. Zap! A banana. Zap! A bird. Evolution does not disprove the existance of God. (In fact, it's impossible to prove that ANYTHING does not exist.) ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 79 Mon Sep 11, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:19 PDT I do not know of anyone who has made a name for themselves by attacking creationism. I don't know of anyone who has received a grant specifically to do anti-creationist research. Creationism is not a scientific issue anymore, and hasn't been for 100 years. Creationism is a political and educational issue, however. Now I am going to surprize you. I do believe in a creator of sorts, in much the same way that Einstein did ( I am not comparing myself toEnsteine, however). God is the embodiment of natural law and acts threw natural law to implement design. The creator is the prime mover in the universe, the first cause or primary causality. The creator is the deeper meaning transcending the physical and material reality that we concern ourselves with in science. Evolution is the embodiment of the creator, the visible manifestation of the properties of living matter. When I study evolution, I am also studying the mind of the creator which is reflected in the rich history of life on our planet. I am, as Einstein put it, getting a small glimsp of the mind of god. When I teach evolution in my school, I leave out any reference to a creator This is something you cannot teach. I object to and resist any attempt to introduce the vulgar literalism of fundementalist creationism into the content of my science class. I will resign before I treat it as a alternative because this story does not leave us any room to question or to comtemplate. There is no wonder left. We are robed of our past and the only way to obtain our future is by blind obedience to the authoritarian dictates of their humorless deity. Recently, I have been reading the transcript of the 1982 Arkansas trail that struck down the "Balanced Treatment" Act. It is interesting to note that among the plantiffs (those seeking to have this law overturned were the following: Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches. Southern Baptists and Presbyterian clergy, the American Jewish Congress, the National Coalition for Public Education and Religious Libert, other Presbyterian and United Methodist Clergy, All of these religious groups came out against the law. Why? Because they see the law, and creationism, as an attempt to foster a particular religious believe in the public schools. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 80 Sun Sep 17, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:16 PDT Gee, still no evidence for the flood. Sort of speaks for itself. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 81 Mon Sep 18, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:44 EDT OK, some evidence: I already explained from "where" the flood waters came from--in the atmosphere. To start of I would like to consider if this could have been possible. In the book "The Genesis Flood" by Professor Henry Morris of Va, Polytech Institute he examines the possibility of a water canopy above the earth: "The region above about 80 miles is very hot, over 100 degrees F. and possibly rising to 3000 degrees, and is in fact called the thermosphere for this reason. High temperature, of course, is the chief requisite for retaining a large quantity of water vapor. Furthermore, it is known that water vapor is substantially lighter than air. There is thus nothing physically impossible about the concept of a vast thermal vapor blanket once existing in the upper atmosphere." Next, the Bible says that all the tall mountains were covered by water up to about 22 feet. Living on land as most of us do this may be difficult to conceive. But we should not forget that 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. Did you realize that while the average height of the land surface is only 1/2 mile above sea level, the average depth of the oceans is two and a half miles! In fact it has been shown that if you flattened the earth out throughout the globe making the land volume a perfect sphere the earth would be covered by water 8000 feet deep. Abundant evidenc can be found of marked changes in the earth's surface. Even in recent times sharp adjustments of land levels have taken place. So, when the Bible says that the flood waters covered the highest mountains, we are not to think of water sufficient to cover Mount Everest today, before the weight of the oceans we here to "push" the mountains up they were much lower. What about the ocena depths, Have they also undergone changes? In the past decades have been discovered great numbers of 'seamounts,' which are nothing but drowned islands out in the middle of the ocean. They give abundant evidence of having once been above the surface. Deposites of corals that grow only in shallow water (because of the need for sunlight) have been found on deeply submerged undersea ranges. Commenting on this, marine geoligist Edwin L. Hamilton writes in "The Scientific Monthly": "For some reason that is not known, probably having to do with [gravitational pressure] adjustment or subcrustal forces, the whole great undersea range sank and, initially, sank fast enough to kill the reef coral when the cortal dropped below its life zonein the upper waters." So with the above evidence it is easy to see how the waters now on earth could account for a global flood. There is another scripture in the Bible which explains the deluge also it is Psalm 104:6-8 "Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment:the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke the fled:at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. (9) Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 82 Mon Sep 18, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:35 PDT If the amoung of water vapor you suggest was suspended in the atmosphere for any length of time, it would have a dramatic effect on the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth. That much water (according to a meterologist friend of mine) would reduce the amount of solar radiation by 45-55% (just a guestamate). This would have a pronounced effect on plant and animal life. The question also remains, how come we don't see such concentrations of water vapor today? (sound familiar?) Changes in the geomorphology of the earth are due to uniformitarian processes that occur today- weathering, plate tectonics, vulcanism, seismic activity, etc. None of the features you mention require a catastrophic flood. These ideas don't "hold water." ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 83 Tue Sep 19, 1989 R.LEE11 at 17:36 CDT Flood evidence? Beats me... Not quite sure if this is "flood evidence" but it is rather remarkable geological data that seems without clear explanation... "South America bears evidence of glaciation in Argentina and southeastern Brazil, even within 10 degrees of the equator. In the northern hemisphere, peninsular India, within 20 degrees of the equator, was the chief scene of glaciation, with the ice flowing north (or from the tropics to higher latitudes)." -- Dunbar, C. O. "Historical Geology." pp. 298-299 "The icecap covered practically all of southern Africa up to at least latitude 22 degrees South and also spread to Madagascar." -- ibid, pp. 298 "Bones of whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal- Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level." -- ibid, pp. 453 "In Georgia marine deposits occur at altitudes of 160 feet above sea level and in northern Florida at altitudes of at least 240 feet above sea level." - - Flint, R. F. "Glacial Geology and the Pleistocene Epoch." pp 294-95 "Pleistoscene [Ice Age] marine features are present along the Gulf coast east of the Mississippi River, in some places at altitudes that may exceed 200 feet above sea level." -- ibid, pp. 294-295 "Marine deposits of land identified with both glacial and interglacial ages or containing animals of Arctic and of temperate latitudes exist along both Arctic and Pacific coasts in places extending more than 200 miles inland." -- ibid, pp. 362 "in Quaternary times [in the age of man], an island not more than about 800 feet, or less high, which rose by successive stages to its present height. It is more than probable, however, that at some time before it settled at that level, the whole of the area was upheaved to such an extent that a land passage was formed to the African coast..." (Speaking about a sea line mark on Rock of Gibraltar 700 feet above the present water line; the "rock" is now 1370 feet in height) -- Prestwich, "On Certain Phenomenon" pp. 47 Now I report these as they are. It is left for specialists in this area to explain how these things came to be as they are. Either this seems to be evidence for some type of flood or evidence for cataclysmic phenomenon occurring in relatively recent times. I wonder which one, if either, these data support? Any explanations for these data? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 84 Tue Sep 19, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 20:59 EDT Phil, That is correct about the water vapor being suspended in the air, but you miss two points I mentioned: First the vapor was way out in the thermosphere, which as a globe would be a much larger area than if it was in the biosphere. Second the vapor while it was up there created the effect of a greenhouse which would "trap" much of the heat entering the vapor. This would concentrate the amount of heat and less would be needed. If you are concerned about whether any light would be able to penetrate such a blanket consider: If it were pure water without any dust which is found in our own clouds and which is needed for the vapor to form droplets the water mass would be nearly clear. Now Robert makes some good points about areas which have been found on heights which should have been on much lower terrain. Many times the "glaciation" is blamed for many things we see, but I do not feel that glaciers were the cause of many things especially those found around the equator. Sure there was a quick freezing which happened when the thermal blanket dropped to the earth, but more importantly the vast amount of water which was released during the flood would have "cut" many of the rifts quickly, but they are now blamed on slow-moving glaciers and this is what creates the paradox because scientists will not accept the fact of a "recent" global flood. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 85 Tue Sep 19, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 18:19 PDT This may be a dumb question, but if there was all that water vapor in the "thermosphere" which condensed into major rainfalls, where did all of the excess water go? Obviously the earth's water levels are not high enough today to account for the surplus, and the excess water isn't "out there" either. Polar icecaps? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 86 Tue Sep 19, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:00 EDT Arnie you will have to go back a few messages to see, but I did answer that . I really don't want to type it all in again but if I must... ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 87 Wed Sep 20, 1989 R.LEE11 at 17:00 CDT I presented just a tiny portion of the massive amounts of anamolous findings in both the geologic and fossil records which are not well accounted for in regard to this discussion, i.e., what we are talking about in this category, I believe, is catastrophism. Would any who asked that evidence of catastrophism be supplied please attempt to account for the presented evidence by using uniformitarianistic explanations? Thanks. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 88 Wed Sep 20, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 18:38 PDT Herm, I re-read your messages, and I don't see the explanation of what happened to all the water vapor you claim was responsible for the flood. If I missed it, just tell me where to look--no need to retype it all. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 89 Wed Sep 20, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 19:13 PDT I should your examples, Lee, to a geologists friend of mind. His reply was that all of the examples you site are explained by uniformatarian geology. Plate tectonics often push layers of sedimentary rock upward, so that simply saying that they are above sea-level doesn't work. The question is, where were they when they were formed. If the whale, for example, was not found among other marine fossils, that would be something. In fact, it is perfectly consistent with other fossils from those deposits. One must study the folding of the layers of rock, something done fairly easily, to know their history. I am not against the idea of catastrophic changes. It is looking more and more like a meteoeor did in the dinosaurs.. On the whole, I am incline to see catastrophic changes as the exception to the rule. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 90 Wed Sep 20, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:31 EDT Arnie: Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear as I should have been. The water vapor is now our oceans. The earth's oceans at the time of the man's creation were much smaller and shallower than they are now. The mountains were also lower. On the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6), God caused the waters to be separated from the waters on earth and to be held aloft. At his rebuke they collapsed to the earth. The fact that Noah built the Ark and was the only one saved shows that others living at that time did not have large boats with ample provisions for a world cruise. Noah was fully prepared on the other hand for this catastrophy. Phil: The main point which Lee's quotes are not explained away by your friend are the fact that the glaciers MOVED NORTH. This would not be possible for a large mass of ice, but it would be possible for a large amount of water falling around the equator. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 91 Wed Sep 20, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:23 PDT My friend is a pleistocene (ice age) geologists and knows his stuff. Where else are glaciers going to go, if not north? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 92 Thu Sep 21, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:31 EDT Well Phil, which way do most rivers flow? Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 93 Fri Sep 22, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 19:04 PDT It depends on what hemisphere you are in, and the geology of the area the river is in. The Nile flows north, the Mississippi flows south, the Amazon flows east and the Zambesi flows west. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 94 Sat Sep 23, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:41 EDT Those rivers are flowing in a direction from higher elevation to lower elevation. The problem with the glaciers doing this is that the glaciers had to originate from the colder regions and flow to warmer regions. whereas evidence places their origin at the equator. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 95 Sat Sep 23, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 15:19 PDT What evidence is that? Also, glaciers can originate in mountains, not just at the poles. Where else are glaciers going to go if now south, especially when they already cover all of the northern latitudes. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 96 Sat Sep 23, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 20:03 EDT but these glaciers did NOT follow the known north flowing rivers! They are falling in lower terrain and flowing to higher terrain. The only thing which would have caused this is a large amount of ice deposited at a particular cite and spreading OR a large amount of water flooding from the equator to the rest of the world. What proof do scientists have that the so called glaciers were ice? There is none. The only reason scientists believe there was an ice age is because of those mammoths with vegataion in their teeth which you said was fraudulent. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 97 Mon Sep 25, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 02:08 PDT Herm, Glaciers are, by definition, made of ice. Glaciers do not form at the equator. They form in the polar regions or on the tops of mountains in temperate regions. There are no records of glaciers anywere close to the equator. I might be wrong, of course. If you have a reference, let be see it (a valid scientific reference please, not something from the ICR). The mammoths in question did have vegetation in their stomachs. The plants in the mouths were fraudulent. It is believe that these mammoths were trapped in an avalanche or fell into a crevice. Herm, you have to calm down. Your postings are becoming difficult to read and you are asserting alot of things as true that are silly. Go easy, ok? One question at a time. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 98 Mon Sep 25, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 21:34 EDT "...either the Biblical record of the Flood is false and must be rejected or else the system of historical geology which has seemed to discredit it is wrong and must be changed. The latter alternative would seem to be the only one which a Biblically and scientifically instructed Christian could honestly take, regardless of the "deluge" of scholarly wrath and ridicule that taking such a position brings upon him. "But this position need not mean at all that the actual observed data of geology are to be rejected. It is not the facts of geology, but only certain interpretations of those facts, that are at variance with Scripture. These interpretations involve the principle of uniformity and evolution as a framework for the historical evaluation of the geologic data..." "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications," John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, Baker Book House, 1961. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 99 Mon Sep 25, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 23:01 EDT I am not referring to Glaciers that are in existence today. I am referring to land erosion found around the world that has been explained to be glacial activity. When in fact it was caused by the global flood. I will get some refernces soon. Phil, did I get excited? Sorry, I will try to be more calm in the future. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 100 Mon Sep 25, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:04 PDT Brady On what grounds? Is it possible that something IS holy to the celebrated agnostic? Drummond Yes! The individual human mind. In a child's power to master the multiplication table there is more scanctity that all you shouted "Amens!", "Holy,Holies!" and "Hosannahs!" An idea is a greater monument to a cathedral. And the advance of man's knowledge is more of a miracle trhan any sticks turned to snakes or the parting of waters. But are we now to halt the march of progress because Mr. Brady [or Harrison] frightens us with a fable? Gentleman, progress has never been a bargain. You've got to pay for it. Sometimes I think there is a man behind a counter who says, "Alright, you can have a telephone; but you'll give up privacy, the charm of distance. Madam, you many have the vote, but at a price; you lose the right to retreat behind a powder-puff or petticoat. Mister, you may conquer the air; but the birds will lose their wonder, and the clouds will smell of gasoline!" "Darwin moved us forward to a hilltop, where we could look back and see the way from which we came. But for this view, this insight, this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis. [From act II scene II of the play "Inherit the Wind" by Jerome Larwence and Robert E. Lee] You quote Morris, Harrison, like you were quoting scripture. "You would have us reject the last 150 years of advances in geology and biology, knowledge wrung from the earth itself by countless individuals just to accommodate your own interpretation of the book of genesis- an interpretation not shared by all or even most christians. You want us to reject what our own eyes and minds tell us to be true, all because it doesn't jive with the way you chose to translate some ancient hebrew fables. I find it to be the height of close-mindedness and a prelude to bigotry." Philip Nicholls, Religion and Ethics Roundtable, 9/24/89 Question authority, Harrison. It's good for the soul. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 101 Tue Sep 26, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:04 EDT I along with many reputable scholars HAVE questioned the authority of Evolution - and that has made some people mad! So mad, in fact, that they will not consider the issues that are being brought up. For example, one evidence for the large number of fossils in sedimentary rock has been attributed to moving waters. Why can't this be attributed to the Genesis Flood? Also, how does one explain the vast submarine canyons which exist under the sea? These canyons match canyons at land level. One way to explain their existence is to read the Flood story. Here's how two Creationists explain this phenomenon: "...As the lands were uplifted and the ocean basins depressed at the close of the Deluge period, the great currents streaming down into the ocean depths would quickly have eroded great gorges in the still soft and unconsolidated sediments exposed by the sinking of the basins. Then, as these gorges were themselves submerged by the continuing influx of waters from the rising continental blocks, it may well have been that the turbidity currents entering the canyons may have deepened and extended them still further, a process which has continued on a smaller scale throughout the centuries since." - THE GENESIS FLOOD, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris [quoted earlier] ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 102 Tue Sep 26, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:39 PDT Have you every questioned Whitcomb and Morris? Have you every asked yourself, "Do these guys know what they are talking about?" as often as you seem to question evolution? Doesn't it bother you that neither one of them is a geologist or oceanographer? Haven't you every asked yourself, "If this evidence is so compelling, why don't they write it up and submit it to a scientific journal?" Too bad your questioning runs only in a single direction. Your discussion of ocean canyons might be more compelling if the the geologists couldn't explain it. Plate tectonics not only accounts for these canyons very well, it offers a testable explaination as may of them are still in the process of being formed. Re: sedimentary fossils. Have you every wondered why aquatic organisms (which make up most of the fossils in the first 200 million years of the cambrian) should be present if such fossils were formed by a flood? How do you drowned a fish? Why would these fossils, formed during the flood, be arranged in order of complexity? Please don't hand me the old chestnut about hydrolic sorting. Even Morris has recanted on that one. It is not your questioning of evolution that makes me made. It is your use of "facts" that I feel you have to know are false. It is your use of distortion and deception to trick the uniformed into thinking you have a case when, in fact, you really do not. Is this the way a christian conducts himself? I hope not. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 103 Wed Sep 27, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 07:55 EDT Phil I see no intended deception on Harry's part! He is only doing what you re doing--reading a book and quoting it. So you don't belive in his books, well he doesn't believe in yours either. The subject of fossils in sedimentary rocks is very important in this discussion because of the vast number of fossils there are. Now answer a question honestly: "Are there any fossils being placed in any rocks today?" Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 104 Thu Sep 28, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 00:30 PDT No, the difference is that I doubt that Harry has every seen a fossil in his life outside of a museum. The difference is that Harry's books are written by people who don't know beans about geology or paleontology. When I quote someone, it is always someone who KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. The difference is that I am talking about the most current interpretations of the geological and paleontological evidence. Harry is talking about an interpretation that was rejected more than 150 years ago by geologists who had previously subscribed to the genesis account but who, when faced with the evidence, rejected it in favor of Lyell's uniformatarianism. In answer to your question, no. Fossils are not placed in rocks. Organisms die and are buried before they have a chance to decay. The rocks form around them and preserve something of their shape and structure. Today's lake beds will someday be fossil beds. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 105 Thu Sep 28, 1989 TSG1 at 10:43 EDT Quoting old, outdated information is common among creationists. Nearly every creationist book I've ever seen refers to piltdown man, the famous and clever fraud that combined the scull of a man and the jaw of an ape. What they fail to realize is that the fraud was discovered because it did not fit in with the rest of the fossil record. And far from blindly accepting it, scientests subjected it to enough study that is was found to be a fraud. If anything, it shows the vaildity of the scientific method. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 106 Thu Sep 28, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 18:12 PDT You gotta be kidding! Creationists still believe the Piltdown man was real??? Proof of divine creation??? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 107 Thu Sep 28, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 19:29 PDT No, they use it as an example of what is wrong with evolution. Interestingly, the don't mention that it was not creationists who discovered the fraud, but scientists themselves. Lately, it has been suspected the the skull and jaw were placed their by none other then Sir Conan Doyle to discredit one of the anatomists at the British Museum. I still have not gotten a response to any of the materials I posted on transitional forms. It appears that creationists here are unwilling to check references. Leonard Radzinsky's _The Evolution of Vertebrate Design_ is a wonderful book for anyone without a background in anatomy. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 108 Sat Sep 30, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 08:28 EDT Isn't it interesting that the Creationists are always wrong! NOt only are they wrong, they are also "liars!" And all this claptrap from so-called empirical scientists on this board! Well, I don't think any creationist has stooped to such behavior on this board and I hope they don't! Let's deal with another proof for the flood: If you read the Bible account carefully, you will note that there were massive upheavals of the earth's surface such as caused by volcanoes. This is significant. From a biblical perspective this massive volcanic activity resulted in the vast amounts of igneous rocks found on our planet today. As Whitcomb and Morris state ("The Genesis Flood"): "...the only modern process at all pertinent to these phenomena is that of volcanism, which in its present character could not possibly have produced these great igneous formations. There are perhaps 500 active volcanoes in the world, and possibly three times that many extinct volcanoes. But nothing ever seen by man in the present era can compare with whatever the phenomena were which caused the formation of these tremendous structures. The principle of uniformity breaks down completely at this important point of geologic interpretation. Some manifestation of catastrophic action alone is sufficient." ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 109 Sat Sep 30, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 13:17 CDT Another Science/Creation debate? Well, look out, the Sloth is stalkin it now! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 110 Sat Sep 30, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 15:30 PDT Neither Whitcomb or Morris are geologists, so there is no reason to accept anything they say unchallanged. I know challanging the written word seems somehow wierd to creationists, but in science it is done all the time. The Morris and Whitcomb claim that nothing witnessed thus far can account for the massive formations of igneous rock, yet even within the last 50 years we have witnessed the formation of whole islands, the destruction of cities -all as a result of vulcanism. What is even more significant is that igneous rock can be dated using Potassium-Argon ratios. The various igneous formations were formed at various times over the last 4 billion years. There is recorded period of worldwide volcanic upheaval. Uniformatarianism says that the geomorphology of the earth was formed by processes that are working today: sedimentation, plate tectonics, vulcanism erosion, etc. Occasionally a catastrophic even occurs, but they are rare. Creationists arrive at their conclusions by assuming the bible is correct and then looking backwards for anything that might support that assumption. Science looks at the empirical evidence, forms a hypothesis, makes pr predictions based upon that hypothesis and then tests those predictions against future observations. Most of what creationists assume cannot be tested scientifically (the actions of a supernatural being, for example, are not subject to scientific tests). Those that can be used to make predictions which can be tested have been disproven. The idea of a worldwide deluge was rejected more than 150 years ago- not by evolutionists but by former supporters of flood geology who found they could no longer defend it against empirical evidence. Reverend Adam Sedgwick and Reverend William Buckland published a book in 1824 called Reliquinae Diluvianae (Relics of the Flood) in which they claimed that scientific geology supported the bible's claim of a worldwide flood. In 1831, Sedgwick (who was Darwin's geology professor) in his presidential address to the Geological Society of London, abandoned flood geology because it was inconsistant with the empirical data. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, tuhs publicaly to read my recantation. There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surfact of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. Yet, in the very book that Harrison quotes, Sedgwick is often cited in support of flood geology. Morris and Whitcomb are well aware of Sedgwick's recantation. Yet they chose to decieve the readers by not referring to it and instead quoting only from Sedgwick's earlier works. To me, this is lying. It is more then just being wrong. There is honor in being wrong. One can learn as much from a hypothesis which is proven wrong as one can from a hypothesis which is supported by the evidence. Morris and Gish and the rest (and perhaps Harrison) are not just wrong. They are deliberately misusing, misquoting, distorting and otherwise attempting to delude the general public who are mostly unschooled in the sciences. They would have the general public believe that evolution is under attack by scientists themselves, more and more of whom are beginning to dobut that it ever took place. This is utter nonsense. 72 Nobel Laureates signed an amicus curiae brief for a Supreme Court case in defense of evolution. Evolution is no more controversial than gravity. Yet, creationist still do not give up. The continue to try to win with political force what they have not been able to win intellectually. Lies and distortion do not make good science. Good science comes from careful consideration of the evidence and by the rejection of assumptions that cannot be verified. Everytime I challange the assumptions of creationists here, I am referred to as a "so-called" empirical scientists. It seems that anytime I say "you are wrong, the evidence doesn't support you," I have my credentials questioned. Well, Harrison, that is the way science is done. If you are going to make an unsubstantiated claim, I will call you out on it. If you are going to continue to use subterfug and sophistry instead of observation and evidence, I am going to call you what you are - a liar. Or, perhaps more accurate, a creationists. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 111 Sat Sep 30, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 18:46 PDT And Harry, I fail to see that your remarks regarding volcanoes, even if correct, "prove" anything at all about a flood! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 112 Sun Oct 01, 1989 R.LEE11 at 11:30 CDT CATASTROPHISM -- THE "NEW" THINKING... From Gould, S. J., "An Asteroid to Die For." _Discover_ 10:10, pg. 60-65; October, 1989. "This theme of unpredictable good fortune looms even larger for the happier flip side of mass extinction -- rapid episodes of proliferation. The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time. In a sense everything since then has been so many variations on a set of themes. (Admittedly, some of these variatons, including the evolution of human consciousness just a geologic minute ago, have had some remarkable consequences.) Traditional gradualists tended to treat these bursts of organization as they had rationalized mass extinctions. They argued that the bursts were artifacts of imperfect evidence and were actually more spread out in time. For the Cambrian explosion, in particular, they held that a long period of unpreserved ancient life must have preceded the first Cambrian fossils, leading to a predictable and insensibly gradual way from single-celled ancestors to the first multicellular fossils. Two discoveries of the 1980s, not nearly so widely known as the Alvarez hypothesis but every bit as important, have suggested that themes of the new catastrophism -- rapid and unpredictable change followed by stabilization -- may be as valid for organizations as for extinctions, and may therefore be even more important for the history of life in general... Therefore, the history of basic anatomical plans for life is not a tale of gradual introduction, increase, and improvement, but an opposite story of an initial whoosh followed by a profound decimation." Now I would like to direct your attention to a book called, _Earth in Upheaval_, by Immanuel Velikovsky, written in 1955. Again -- written in 1955. In this book Velikovsky discusses cataclysmic evolution and says, for all intents, THE SAME THING AS STEPHEN JAY GOULD, only Velikovsky said it 34 years ago. Gradualism is out guys, get with the program, i.e., Catastrophism. The mythology of MANY cultures speak to the notion of repeated and periodic endings of world ages followed by the beginnings of new world ages. The Mayan's mythology states the cause of endings of earth ages to be, in succession, water (innundations), earthquake, hurricane, and fire. The Bible speaks of the end of one age by flood and, in 2 Peter 3:10, states, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works therein shall be burned up." Second Thessalonians 1:8 states, "In flaming fire taking vengence on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Second Peter 3:7 says, "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." Let's assume, for the purposes of debate, that the "reserved unto fire" circumstance is to be the end of this present age. What could cause this to happen? Here are some of the possibilities: 1) Divine fiat by God 2) Unprecedented volcanism 3) Local region supernova 4) Global thermonuclear war 5) Runaway greenhouse effect 6) Some unprecedented solar irradiation 7) Other. In Revelations, we see in Chapter 16:8-9 the following, "And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory." In verse 18-21 we see, "And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so might an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in rememberance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fieceness of his wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great." If it is, as many Christians believe, very near to the end of the age, there should be now measureable the beginnings of what would end the age. The description of natural events in Revelations appears to suggest escalating environmental collapse followed by a pole shift. The present environmental crisis is already well known, but what of the possibility for a pole shift, i.e., "the earth reeling to and fro like a drunkard?" Scientists out there -- any data suggesting increasing perturbation in earth's geomagnetic fields and/or core distribution anomalies? Anybody with plate tectonics background? Anyone with data concerning the planetary alignment occurring in 5/5/2000 A.D. that has not been seen last since about 1460 B.C., the time of the Exodus which was a time of intense geologic activity? Let's get with it.... catastrophism is the NEW geology and seems to be part of the NEW biology. Any comments, folks? Interestingly, the same issue of Discover talks about anomalies in the Sun being observed... ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 113 Sun Oct 01, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 17:31 CDT Dang node is havin problems. WARNING!! BIG MESSAGE AHEAD!!! And I didn't think I would have anything to say because this would all be a bunch of geo/archeo stuff. Boy was I wrong. ~ Let me start with this. If you want to say that physics didn't work before such&such a date go ahead. But if you do there is no reason to take part in this discussion because all you will answer is that "physics didn't work the same way back then so it was possible." Personally I think you would be changing faith into foolishness but that is your own business. ~ With that aside let me go on to the debunking. Read message #5. If you believe that then our school system needs one heck of a work over. First of all, the little statement about rainbows not existing before the Flood takes you directly back to the last paragraph about not believing physics worked back then. Oh! Now I see, we just didn't have direct sunlight before the Flood. OK biologists, how do plants fair in indirect light? ~ Second, the statement about all the waters of the Flood orbiting around the Earth. Can I borrow your book so I can throw up all over it? That is about THE stupidest thing I have ever heard out of any pseudo-science group! We are talking about some 1000000000000000000000000 grams of water here if you want to bring the water level up around 20,000 feet or so. That's about 1% the mass of the entire Earth. To get all that down in 40 days it would have to rain about one inch PER MINUTE the entire time. If the water around the Earth was making a greenhouse effect and saving mankind from harmful cosmic rays (hate to tell you this but most people don't die from cosmic rays) it will also be blocking out all those harmful visual rays (ie, the earth would be mighty dark). I bet I could think up a bunch more things if you really want me to, but it just seems so obviously bogus that I won't waste your time (ie $$) going on about it. [Note: These are "order of magnitude" calculations. This means the number of zeros is (I think:) correct but the first digit could be a bit off. It could be 2x10^24 grams] ~ Herm decided to go on about it some more in message #9. I said it was raining 4"/min. That is if it comes down evenly. I suppose you could drop the water extra hard in some areas. The flood is getting tricky however. To go mountain bashing you would have to get the water down very fast and do something to make sure it didn't evaporate when the air friction heated it. We are definitely talking major divine intervention here. ~ OK, it looks like you are going to go on and on about the water in orbit. Let me assure you that much water would be "optically thick." That means that very little light would be getting through. We are talking night time all the time. Of course this means much of the life on Earth would be dead soon after they were created. WOOOOPS!!! I'm afraid that that zilches the greenhouse effect as there is no visible light to power it (see a book on the effect). Oh dear, I'm afraid that we are getting little heat from the infrared band also. Seems this band of water will make it mighty cold also, certainly below the freezing point of water. [Note: See below] ~ We need a geneticist to come in and talk about this super fast evolution of races. 10 to 1 he/she says it has NO scientific support whatsoever. ~ In message #55. Doubting Genesis would be calling Jesus a liar. Close but no cigar. It would be calling Jesus mistaken. Do you believe Jesus to be infallible? If he was then you can't really say that he was human, as humans often make mistakes and suffer the results thereof. ~ In the same message Herm hit the nail right on the head. Love for children and such DO need something more than random chance. It's called evolution. WAKE UP folks. ~ ~ Herm, do you have any idea what happens to a scientist if he/she falsifies data in order to advance some sort of theory? It is one sure way to become a ditch-digger real fast because NOBODY is going to give you money any more. There are exceptions to this rule. If you happen to be lying in order to advance scientific creationism, for instance, you can get all sorts of funding from the more radical churches! ~ This entire debate on scientist telling funders just what they want to hear needs a bit a perspective. You are saying that most all biologists, geologists, astronomers and physicists are doing this just so they can earn funding. Well, I suppose it could be so, but it sounds more like paranoia to me. Scientists are searching for the truth in how the universe works, not just trying to earn a buck. ~ Lets take me as an example. Why am I here responding to this stuff? Nobody but you folks know that I am here responding to this stuff so I can't be trying to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Nobody is paying me anything to do this, I am paying GEnie. I am doing this to try to increase the understanding of all who read this. Too many times I have seen people confused by the BS put out by Gish and friends and it annoys me so much I am willing to pay to help in the cause against it. ~ Mark's message #76 is a very good one. Any of you lot that are reading messages 100-XXX had best get that one. ~ Message #81. Retaining water vapor in the thermosphere? Morris is showing his ignorance nicely! The thermosphere is essentially the beginning of space! Water isn't "retained" up that high, it is in orbit! ~ If you retain that the water was 80miles up my figuring above is not valid. I assumed that you would keep the water much nearer the Earth. However, water that high has some other problems, namely staying water. I believe (ask a atmospheric physicist if you can find one) that water that high would fall apart into hydrogen and oxygen. Gravity can't hold on to hydrogen unless it chemically bonds to something else and with the energy bombardment (photons and radioactive) at that altitude that would be very hard to do. We also have a problem with angular momentum of the water. In order to stay that high it would have to be in orbit. When it fell to Earth it would still have that momentum and would be spinning awful fast when it fell. I don't think it would be enough to move mountains but I think it would kill off any exposed life mighty fast as the water would "driving" at something like 1000 miles an hour. Hugo's rain was probably only going 100 miles an hour! ~ Herm, are you sure that the ocean is an average of 2.5 miles deep? I seem to recall that the deepest point in the ocean is 2.5 miles deep. Could someone look up real quick how deep the ocean is on average? If someone has the _Gueniss Book of World Records_ look under deepest point in the ocean. ~ Finally I get to message 108. Yes Harrison, isn't it funny how the creationists are always wrong! Then he follows with another quote from _The_Genesis_Flood. Haven't we shown you enough LIES in that book to make you throw it away yet? Well, eventually you will have quoted the entire book and we will have commented on all of it. Maybe then... ~ Anyway, I am no geologist so I can't really say that the volcanoes can account for the formations we see today. I wish you would say what "these great igneous formations" are, then I might have a chance. ~ Now for an overall point. Why do you folks keep referring to the Bible? You arn't going to prove the Flood theory scientifically using that! Next time you are about to quote it ask yourself if it is in any way going to help prove the Flood proved by science. ~ Phil, could you take that list of "delimas" to your geologist friend and ask him to write up just what is going on with them. I'm afraid we won't hear the end of them until you do. [Better yet get him in on this discussion full time, we need a geologist in a bad way!] It was message #83. ~ As to the numerous complaints about accusing creationists of lying, well, what are we supposed to say? In my first message (over in the humanism topic) I went after the creationist claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves evolution can't happen. The guy who told you that was lying because the 2nd law says no such thing. Now, whether he was misinformed himself or whether he was deliberately trying to fool you is another matter, but he (or she) was lying like a rug! ~ Whew! This message took 8 hours to make. I surely hope this helps the debate going on here. Somebody else is using 'Bob' so I shall sign as I do in the Games RT: Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 114 Sun Oct 01, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:44 CDT Has anyone ever seen the book _Fads_&_Fallacies_ by Martin Gardner? It is a rather old book (1957) that hits varius PSEUDO sciences hard. He is a bit nasty but what he says is correct. He has plenty of stuff on this Velikovsky character. ~ He is the "astrophysicist" that claims that a comet stopped the Earth from rotating for awhile and then started it up agian. If he really is an astrophysicist then he is a VERY STUPID one. See his book _Worlds_In_Collision_ if you feel like a good laugh. Gardner's book calls him "an almost perfect textbook example of the pseudo-scientest" He has no degree and makes use of legends as scientific evidence. ~ Now he seems to have ventured into geology. I hope you didn't pay good money for that book because Velikovsky is as qualified in geology as anybody you stop on the street. ~ Oh look! Velikovsky seems to have come back under the name of R.Lee11. First of all the legends of MANY other cultures say nothing of the sort. Second, and most important, you can't take primative legends as scientific evidence. ~ OHMYGOSH!! Planetary alignment Lee?? Look, the total extra force from all the planets aligning isn't even going to raise the tides noticably. Please find some SCIENCE books and stop wasting good money on the BS from the occult. ~ The name of this debate is "Scientific Evidences for the Flood." Biblical quotes and ancient Indian legends have no place under that name. If you want to debate if the Bible supports the Flood then go ahead, but change the name of the topic. ~ After reading all the messages in this topic I found only geological evidence for the Flood, and most of that questioned HEAVILY. I strongly suspect that if we could get a geologist (or geophysicist or whatever) in here you wouldn't even have that. Is this all you guys have to stand on? Is this the sort of arguments that are trying to Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 115 Sun Oct 01, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:45 CDT Forgot to mention, since when is Discover considered a scientific journal? I see it is a very recent quote, I wonder what the "Letters to the Editor" section will be saying. Me Again ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 116 Sun Oct 01, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 19:57 PDT I don't have an average ocean depth, but the deepest spot is the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean, at 30,000 -odd feet, nearly six miles. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 117 Sun Oct 01, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 22:51 CDT I probably got my figures mixed up then. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 118 Mon Oct 02, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:57 EDT Sloth, I was glad when you finally got to message #81! Yes, the thermosphere! I did not say that the water was retained up there, I said it was placed there earlier and by some cause it was released into the atmosphere. Yes it would have been at least vapor, and not formed any actual clouds if it did not have any dust particles to "cling" to. Speculatively there could be a number of things that could happen to disrupt the balance and cause it to collapse to the earth. The introduction of enough blasted lava from an erupting volcanoe or a rather large meteor, I don't know. The point is that this COULD have happened. As for the speed which the water would fall, remember that there is a physical law which disallows anything to increase past a given speed per weight. such that a ton of bricks fall as fast as a ton of feathers. The rain would fall as fast as any other rain according to the size of the drops of water(or hail). I wonder about your calculation of 4" of rain per minute needed to drop 75% of the water in the oceans in 40-24hr days? Are you considering that it rained at every spot on the earth at the same time? I appreciate the hard work you put into your messages and wish to thank you for the fact that it was done for our sakes only. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 119 Mon Oct 02, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 01:48 PDT Oh my god, not Velikofski! Lee, don't let Gould hear you saying that he and V are saying the same thing. He is likely to sue you for defamation of character. Isn't it enough that creationists constantly misquote him, now V- ites are at it as well? Check out the book _Scientists Confront Velikovsky_ for the last word on the V-man. Catastrophism is hardly new thinking. It is as old, or older, than creationism. You have no evidence to back it up, guy. Sorry. Ancient myths do not constitute scientific evidence. I'll have a much longer reply later. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 120 Mon Oct 02, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:16 CDT I've found a few quotes in Gardner's book ~ "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path toward error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened." Darwin. ~ "The idea of a sun millions of miles in diameter and 91,000,000 miles away is silly. The sun is only 32 miles across and not more than 3000 miles from the earth. It stands to reason it must be so. God made the sun to light the earth, and therefore must have placed it close to the task it was designed to do. What would you think of a man who built a house in Zion [Illinois, on Lake Michigan] and put the lamp to light it in Kenosha, Wisconsin?" Voliva ~ "the so-called fundamentalists...strain out the gnat of evolution and swallow the camel of modern astronomy" Voliva ~ "To pick flaws in this theory is about as easy - and as pleasant - as gathering Japanese beetles from an infested flowerbed." Willy Ley on WEL (Cosmic Ice Theory) ~ "...if nobody looks up, or checks up, what the astronomers tell us, they are free to tell us anything that they want to tell us." Charles Fort ~ Some drill and bore The solid earth, and from the strata there Extract a register, by which we learn That He who made it, and revealed its date To Moses, was mistaken in its age! -William Cowper ~ "If there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast, which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere... Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." E.G. White, _Spiritual_Gifts_ (1864) ~ "It very often happens there is some question as to the earth or sky, or other elements of this world...respecting which, one who is not a Christian has knowledge...and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide from the mark a east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing." St. Augustine ~ I'm starting to like this book more and more. I think everyone should read the first chapter at least. You don't have to buy the thing (though it only costs $6 or so) but just check it out from a library. It gets to be awful booring reading after a time but it does make for a good referance. Once again, that's Martin Gardner's _Fads_&_Fallacies_in_the_Name_of_Science_ published by Dover Books. Replies to new messages on the way... Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 122 Mon Oct 02, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:33 CDT Hmmm, I thought I changed the 4"/min to 1"/min but appearantly not. To get my numbers I assumed that we needed the water to be some 20,000ft deep so I figured the volume of a spherical shell with inner radius the same as the Earth and outer radius equal to the Earth's plus 20,000 feet. To get the 4"/min figure I did use the 40 24hr days figure. I then reduced it to 1"/min to take into account the implication of having low mountains (only 5000ft high at best). As I remember, Herm, you didn't use 24hr days, so this wouldn't be so much to you, but it is to the strict literalists. Or do you? Oh yes, this is also assuming that the water is falling down at a steady rate throughout. ~ You didn't say the water was retained, your quote did. ~ I'm trying to think of a way to get the water from orbit to ground. We also have to make sure it can turn into water or ice. Actually I am disinclined to think about it much as the water up there would soon fall apart into oxygen and hydrogen and the hydrogen would then escape the Earth's gravity and head off into space. Poof! No more water. ~ Hmmm, the angular momentum thing is a bit tricky. The atmosphere will slow it down some, but that will also add heat to the water making it steam again. (Dang, I am thinking about how to get it down arn't I?) That means the water is just going to have to come down slowly. Perhaps the water was not in a stable orbit? But that means that God planned on his creation going bad at just that time. Perhaps a meteor pulled it down? Naw, God must have put the meteor there to pull it down and he may as well just bring it down himself. I'm affraid the only thing I can think of is that God just pulled this band down Himself. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 123 Mon Oct 02, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:51 EDT Sloth, Yes for the flood I do figure 40-24 hr. days. This took place during Noah's lifetime and he documents the years he lived and said that he was only in the ark for about 1 year. The epochs I mentioned were only for the "creation periods" where the earth was being prepared for habitation--Genesis 1:2-25. 1 inch/minute, hmmm, that would be torrential! Note that there was already much water on the earth forming seas and rivers, though not the vast oceans. I cannot say for surety that this is what exactly happened it is speculation and an amalgamation of scriptural references. It will be nice to ask Noah if I make it to the "new earth" where the ressurection will take place. ;) Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 124 Mon Oct 02, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 19:43 PDT You don't need to ask Noah, Herm. Just ask God to show you His home movies! :-) ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 125 Mon Oct 02, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 22:47 EDT Another evidence for the flood: How does one account for the tremendous crustal movements that are in evidence all around us such as in the large mountain ranges, e.g., the Rocky Mountain chain? These natural earth structures show a "very involved assortment of gigantic faults, folds, and thrusts..." Such phenomena are found all over the world. Furthermore, these phenomena exist not only on land but also under the sea, where we now have evidence of "great fractures, scarps, and rifts..." Another interesting thing about these earth masses is that they contain human fossil evidence. So they are not millions or billions of years old. Geologically, they are of recent age! [ Whitcomb and Morris, "The Genesis Flood"] The Bible student finds this significant. Because as he reads the Biblical story of the Flood, it becomes apparent to him that when the "fountains of the great deep" were broken, they caused such a massive upheaval that the phenomenon we see today resulted from that wrenching of the earth. The Bible story of the Flood provides a clean, elegeant explanation of the phenomena we see around us today but man has "sought out many inventions" to explain all this. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 126 Mon Oct 02, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:22 PDT Another, more scientific explanation lies in something called plate tectonic, which is a subfield of geology. By the way, how do you reason from "these earth masses contain human fossils." to, "they are of recent age." Once again, neither Morris or Whitcomb are geologists. You may as well quote my six year old daughter. Try learning some geology. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 127 Tue Oct 03, 1989 R.LEE11 at 14:53 CDT The notion that Velikovsky is a nerd is just plain silly. Have you, who criticize his works, read his works? Have you looked at his references? Like I said, Immanuel had predated said Gould by 34 years. Read the book, "Earth in Upheaval" then tell me a valid opinion, i.e., your opinion rather than some twit's that is making a buck of running genius down. I am reminded of the relationship between Nicholas Tesla and Thomas Edison. The "Wizard of Menlo Park" was a dolt who just played good politics; the genius was Tesla's. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 128 Tue Oct 03, 1989 TSG1 at 17:27 EDT Velikosvsky was not a nerd. He was a crackpot. Belongs right up there with Mr. Chariots of the Gods. Tesla was a genus, but too strange to appeal to the public. Edison was also a genus, who understood public relations as well. It's not an either or situation, they were both brilliant. Anyone who thinks Velikosvsky is a genus and Edison was a dolt does not know enough of science to carry on a worthwile conversaiton about it. As to the idea that incorrect ideas stick, and stick hard: What's the first thing that comes into your mind when you see the question: "What is the moon made of?" ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 129 Tue Oct 03, 1989 R.LEE11 at 16:29 CDT BIG MESSAGE BUT DIRECTLY RELEVANT WITH REFERENCES INCLUDED. A good dose of skepticism about "science" is healthy... To wit: We KNOW that Columbus discovered America. In reality that is plain hogwash. Well, ummm, we KNOW that Leif Erickson discovered America. In reality that, too, is plain hogwash. Well, ummmmmm, ahhhhh, WHO discovered America then, wise guy? From, _America B.C. - Ancient Settlers in the New World, by Barry Fell, Pocket Books, NY, 1976... Egyptian heiroglyphs have been discovered in the U.S. in Iowa and Maine. Ancient Libyan relics have been unearthed in Iowa, Arkansas, Kentucky, Virginia, and Georgia. Celtic relics have been recovered in New Hampshire and Arkansas. Old Phoenecian artifacts have also been recovered in the same approximate areas. Clearly colonists from Egypt, Libya, Tarshish, etc. (all ancient civilizations discussed in the Old Testament) had made their way to North America. "These remarkable and hitherto unsuspected facts have come to light this past summer (of 1975) in the course of an archeological survey of New Hampshire and Vermont [concerning the Celts]. The hundreds of inscriptions among the ruins attest the vitality of Celtic civilization in pagan times, and tell a wonderful story of how Europeans lived in the Bronze Age. Our first season's work has yeilded only hints of the fate of the Celtic kingdoms, but this book relates what we have been able to find out of the first thousand years or so of their settlements in North America.... Further south, Basque sailors came to Pennsylvania and established a temporary settlement there, leaving however no substantial monuments other than grave markers bearing their names. Further south still, Libyan and Egyptian mariners entered the Mississippi from the Guld of Mexico, penetrating inland to Iowa and the Dakotas, and westward along the Arkansas and Cimarron Rivers, to leave behind inscribed records of their presence. Norse and Basque visitors reached the Gulf of St. Lawrence, introducing various mariner's terms into the language of the northern Algonquin Indians. Descendents of these visitiors are also to be vound apparently among the Amerindian tribes, several of which employ dialects derived in part from the ancient tongues of Phoenicia and North Africa." "During the past hundred years the belief that no European settled America before Leif Eriksson or Columbus has brown from an hypothesis into a firmly rooted dogma..." Interestingly, the Sacred Creation Chant of the Pima Indians is discussed in this book (pg. 173). The Pima Indian language shares many similarities to those of the ancient Celtiberians; i.e., what is now Spain and part of the British Isles. "The Creation Chant then goes on to deal with the Creation of the Moon, the celestial vault or atmosphere, premonitory warnings of an impending Flood, the Flood itself, referred to as a submergence or subsidence, and the eventual salvation of chosen beings who survived the Flood." The Pima indians live in the Southwestern United States. The full text of the Creation Chant may be found in the "Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, D.C.; published in 1908. From Immanuel Velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval" page 95-97, excerpts: "In Jusly 1947 a Swedish deep-sea expedition left Goteborg on the Albatross for a fifteen-month journey around the world to investigate the bottom of the seas on the seventeen thousand miles of the ship's course with the help of a newly constructed vacuum core sampler. Climatic catastrophes, which piled thousands of feet of ice on the higher latitudes of the continents, also covered the oceans with icebergs and ice fields at lower latitudes and chilled the surface waters even down to the Equator. Volcanic catastrophes cast rains of ash over the sea." This ash is preserved in the sedimentary bottom of the oceans. Tectonic catastrophes raised or lowered the ocean bottom hundreds and even thousands of feet, spreading huge tidal waves which destroyed plant and animal life on the coastal plains..." ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 130 Wed Oct 04, 1989 R.LEE11 at 18:03 CDT Hmmm.... someone appears to have edited my message. Any reason? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 131 Wed Oct 04, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:16 CDT Probably has to do with why the topic was 'unavailable' yesterday The 1"/min figure was mighty easy to calculate. 5000ft of rain (to cover up all those hills) in 40 days (40*24*60=57600min 5000*12=60000inches) means an average of about 1"/min. I let the decimals go to cover water coming up from springs and whatnot. 60"/hr is not torrential, it's down right deadly! And for as long as 40 days straight, we are talking serious erosion here. AH HA!!! I think we can make a prediction here that should be provable or disprovable. ~ Lots of the plants, like trees for instance, should have no problem floating on the water, even with the super rains. They should, therefore, be found particularly often up on the new mountains and should be the deepest kind of fossils up at the high elevations. Ooops, I forgot, you are making fossils via high pressure (total BS by the way, fossils are made of rock, high pressure doesn't make rock it makes powder) so the trees would just turn to dirt. If some seeds hit it real fast it could hold up there, but the rain probably washed away all the seeds. But I think we do find fossils of trees, don't we? Well, maybe the trees (not sticks, I mean big 'ol oaks and cottonwoods) managed to get waterlogged faster than I had guessed. There is no question that many trees would float at first, the heavy rains would wash the dirt right out from under them in no time. ~ Now, what about the animals? The plants are all washing away fast and the water level is rising. I would guess that most of the animals would stay close to the water even as it rose. [Hmmm, all that life would go higher and higher until eventually the water got too high and they drowned. Pretty cruel death isn't it? Sorta makes you want to worship God out of fear aye?] Now, we also have _massive_ volcanism going on with big mountains popping in some regions. The new volcanos should have some very interesting marks on them what with the rain coming down so hard and all. Does geography confirm this? Well, anyway, the animals are going to higher and higher elevations trying to keep from drowning. Eventually the water gets too high and they all die. Now, it seems to me that the better floaters (I'm getting gross again, but I feel it is needed to find the truth) would be found further away from the higher elevations. They then fall in and make fossils. Can we see this effect in the distribution of fossils, or can we tell very well how good a creature is/was at floating? ~ Now, what about the fish? I remember seeing lots of fossils of fish that were perfectly capable of swimming up 1"/min. Fish may not be very bright, but they will certainly be able to figure out that they need to climb if the pressure gets annoying. Some sea creatures, however, are not capable of getting off the floor of the ocean. There should be plenty of fossils of the kinds of sea-dwellers that are stuck on the bottom mixed in with an occasional fish that just happened to die at nearly the same time as the fossilization of the bottom dwellers. Do we see an occasional full-blown fish mixed in with a really massive layer of bottom dwellers? ~ Now we have some questions that could disprove the Flood. If the questions come out in favor of the Flood then we increase our confidence in the Flood theory. If it doesn't (and the questions are valid) then we have to go back and fiddle with the Flood theory until it does work. If the Flood simply can't be reconciled with the data then we take our "science fiction" stamp out. [Sometimes the science fiction theories will come back, but barely rarely] ~ Please remember that I know nearly nothing about geology and even less about biology, so the above questions could easily be invalid ones. Well, on to Harrison's message. ~ Harrison, have you ever heard of plate tectonics? You know, drifting continents sometimes smashing together? There was a show on PBS just recently talking about the formation of the Appalachians (sp?) and some other good stuff on the shaping of continents. It seemed to explain things very elegantly. As to the quote from _The Genesis Flood_, I have read some of the book. What I did understand (mainly physics stuff) was such absolute BS that I decided not to waste my time with the rest. They obviously didn't have the faintest idea what they were talking about when they talked about physics, why should I believe their geology? ~ Harrison, how do you account for delicate cave structures in the Rocky Mountains? Why are there so many more caves in the Ozarks (the place is practically honeycombed) than in the Rockys? If I remember correctly, stalactites (and mites) have rings and that the stalactites in the East (like the Ozarks) have far more rings than in the Rockys. Is this true and if so, how does Flood theory account for the difference? Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 132 Wed Oct 04, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:26 CDT OK, if you keep bringing Velokovsky up I will just have to wail on him. ~ Velokovsky claims to be an astronomer. He published a book in 1950 called _Worlds_In_Collision_ where he claimed that Jupiter expelled a large mass that bacame a comet. This comet happened by Earth around 1500 B.C. and slowed down the Earth's rotation drastically, causing all manner of mountain moving and sea parting. The comet returned 2 months later to give sound effects and lighting to Moses as he recieved the ten commandments. When the Earth passed through the comet's tail several years later carbohydrates rained on the Jews. ~ The comet returned again some 52 years later and was responsible for making the sun and moon appear to stop in the sky. Velokovsky isn't sure if the Earth stopped again or if it was an illusion caused by the Earth tilting. This, like the last major visit, caused massive volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and the like. The earthquakes to awhile to die down and one of the later ones toppled the walls of Jericho. ~ The story goes on with the comet causing Mars to sweep near Earth and cause more earthquakes. Finaly the comet settles down into a nice orbit and we now call it Venus. ~ Do I really need to go into why this is major big time BOGUS? There is an 8 part problem in my freshamn Physics book as to why a few aspects are very silly. If Velokovsky wrote this soon after the geocentric universe was refuted, but in 1950? And this is Velokovsky's chosen profession! Do you honostly believe he was a genius?!?! ~ Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 133 Wed Oct 04, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 20:19 PDT I did not say that Velikovsky was a nerd or a crackpot. Certainly the fact that the AAAS accorded him a forum to defend his theories is an indication that he is not a nerd or a crackpot. It is his followers I have problems with. I did read "Worlds" or at least a good part of it. I also read the AAAS publication _Scientists Confront Velikovsky_, which it seems you, LEE, have not. This is typical of those who for some reason have a fanatical devotion to his ideas. Velikovsky is not a nerd or a crackpot. He is simply wrong. His positions have most all been falsified and those predictions that were correct have been accounted for by other mechanisms than interplanetary traffic jams. You anthropology is all wet. There are no egyptian hieroglypics in the new world. Please site the actually archaeological record on this and I will show you where you have made your mistake. I repeat, there are not now, nor have their every been a single discovery of egyptian hieroglypics in the new world. Your ethnology is also extremely oversimplified. You neglect to mention many aspects of the Pima Chant that does not agree with you preconceived interpretation. The Pima, for example, like many other north american peoples, believe that human beings lived in a world below this one, which was flooded. Usually a means of climbing up to the sky is developed (arrow chain being a very common one). Lee, if you want to challange the orthodoxy, that's wonderful. Before you do that I suggest that you expand the depth of you knowledge in these fields. I might ask also, have you read any of the following? Origin of Species by Charles Darwin Principles of Geoogy Charles Lyell Ontogeny and Phylogeny Stephen Jay Gould Scientists Confront Velikovsky AAAS ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 134 Wed Oct 04, 1989 R.LEE11 at 22:27 CDT (PART OF MY MESSAGE WHICH DIDN'T GET IN YESTERDAY...) (CONTINUED FROM MY LAST ENTRY ON 10/3/89) From Immanuel Velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval" page 95-97, excerpts: "In Jusly 1947 a Swedish deep-sea expedition left Goteborg on the Albatross for a fifteen-month journey around the world to investigate the bottom of the seas on the seventeen thousand miles of the ship's course with the help of a newly constructed vacuum core sampler. Climatic catastrophes, which piled thousands of feet of ice on the higher latitudes of the continents, also covered the oceans with icebergs and ice fields at lower latitudes and chilled the surface waters even down to the Equator. Volcanic catastrophes cast rains of ash over the sea." This ash is preserved in the sedimentary bottom of the oceans. Tectonic catastrophes raised or lowered the ocean bottom hundreds and even thousands of feet, spreading huge tidal waves which destroyed plant and animal life on the coastal plains..." Page 169: "In many places all around England and Wales [part of ancient Celtiberia] there are submerged forests which are dated as 'probably Post-glacial or Recent.' On the other hand, their submersion did not take place "within the past 2500 years." Some of the submerged forests have the stumps of their trees 'rooted on the spot.' The list of these forests is long." Here is the list given by Velikovsky as he recorded others' scientific documentation: Off Cardunock, on the Solway, at the Alt mouth, Great Cosby, in Poolvash Bay, Cardigan Bay at Llandrillo Bay, St. Brides Bay, At Holly Hazle, near Sharpness, at Stolford, near the mouth of the Parret, in Porlock Bay, in West Somerset, on the coasts of Devon, at Braunton Burrows, at Blackpool, at North and South Sands, in the Salcombe estuary, in Bigsbury Bay, and in Cornwall, at Looe, Fowey, Mounts Bay and in other places -- including near Greenland, just off the east coast of America. Interestingly, some of these ancient submerged forests have been found, along with human artifacts, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NORTH SEA. See E. Janssens, "Histoire ancienne de la Mer du Nord." (2nd ed.; 1946). Hmmm....Right in the area of ancient Celtiberia -- submerged forests in the sea and along the coast with human artifacts recovered AND an Indian Tribe -- of apparent Celtiberian origin in Southwestern U.S. with a "Creation Chant" which describes their land being submerged in a great cataclysm. The cataclysm is called a FLOOD. Well, well. Did Leif Eriksson discover America? Is the story of the Great Flood a bunch of poppycock? Certainly it would appear that the dogma of certain disciplines precludes discovery of the truth. I'm glad Mr. Gould has decided to deal, finally, with cataclysmic evolution . I quote Dr. Gould in the recent issue of Discover, "Many more questions have been raised than answered, many more puzzles revealed than resolved, on the subject of catastrophically triggered mass extinction. But each ferment is characteristic of fruitful and exciting science in its infancy." [pg. 63, Discover, October, 1989, by Stephen Jay Gould]. Please! No more dogma, ok. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 135 Wed Oct 04, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:36 PDT And what is you continued quoting from Velifovski if it is not dogma? Dogma is taking something on faith, unquestioned. Is that not what you are doing with Velikofsky's work? Do you question the accuracy of the information he reports? If someone challanges it, you accuse them of being dogmatic. Once again, Velikovsky had his opportunity to defend his theory. It didn't stand up. I have read the transcript of that session. There is no firm scientific evidence to support his theories. None of the evidence he presented could not be better and more eligantly explained by current theories of astronomy and geology. elikovsky sounds very convincing, but in the end, he has nothing to back-up any of his claims. This is nodogmatism, this is what science is all about. You have to have the evidence and it has to do a better job of explaining observations than existing theory. Lastly, while it may sound nice to quote form the anthropological record, anthropology itself is not a hard science. Folklorist have hundreds of ways to interpret folktales. The danger encountered by literally interpreting a folktale is that it is difficult to decide what is literal and what is metaphor. I am still waiting for documentation as to you claim of egyptian hieroglypics in the new world. I want archaeological site reports. That's not being dogmatic either. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 136 Thu Oct 05, 1989 R.LEE11 at 16:04 CDT Data concerning the recovery of Egyptian heiroglyphs in North America archeology is supplied by the work of Dr. Barry Fell, a professor from HARVARD. Far be it from me to say that these egyptian relics were not discovered in the U.S. Check out his book. There are pictures and a whole lot more information. A very good book. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 137 Thu Oct 05, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:26 PDT The name of the book would be most helpful. Especially since there is no one listed by that name at Harvard right now. There is also no one by that name teaching in any department of anthropology at any college in the US. (Note according to my 1989-90 Guide to Departments of Anthropology). If, of course, Dr. Fell is the only one who seems to think that these are hieroglypics, that must be due to the dogmatic nature of modern science, right? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 138 Fri Oct 06, 1989 R.LEE11 at 01:16 CDT The name of the book is "America B.C.:Ancient Settlers in the New World" by Barry Fell, published by Pocket Books, NY. ISBN:0-671-55503-0. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-36269. Copyright 1976. He said in the introduction that he was at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. People to whom he gives credit in the book include: Walter J. Fewkes, A.W. Crompton, Norman Totten, James P. Whittall II, Fernando Lanhas, to name a few. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 139 Fri Oct 06, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:40 EDT MOre proof for the flood: "Fossils give striking evidences of rapid burial by water transported sediments. The mass burial of great numbers of sea organisms around Cincinnati in southern Ohio is striking. To satisfy the requirements for collecting a great mass of sea animal remains 100 miles wide and several hundred feet deep almost demands a catastrophe. Modern mud flats and sea bottoms do not accumulate large numbers of marine animals in good preservations over great depths." Harold Coffin, "Origin by Design," Review & Herald Publishing Company, 1983. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 140 Sat Oct 07, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 14:24 CDT Couldn't a large lake drying out over a few centuries cause the same thing? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 141 Sat Oct 07, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:54 EDT You said yourself Sloth, that fossil formations from pressure alone is bogus. In actual fact fossils are made from a whole creature being encased alive in silt. A dying fish will rot away before it has time to be covered enough by silt to later have all its atoms replaced by calcium deposites and thus become a fossil. What Harry is suggesting is "quick burial" (because of the flood), which encased the remains in deep layers of silt, (and organisms), before any bacteria has time to break down the body making it possible to become a fossil. Glacial activity is too slow for this and volcanic activity is too centralized to account for the large area involved. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 142 Sat Oct 07, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 23:16 CDT I wasn't thinking of the pressure, rather that there would be a massive population of fish for a rather small lake. One good drought and most die. Dunno about fish rotting before they can get turned to stone. Bones would last longer though. Phil, this sounds like your area (I hope). Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 143 Sun Oct 08, 1989 R.LEE11 at 15:06 CDT Cataclsym... In the book of Revelation, a book describing the end of the present age, we see reference to a "great earthquake." (Rev. 16:18) This earthquake is described as being of such intensity that it is to be worse than ANY OTHER since man has been on the planet. In the book of Isaiah, a book of prophecy dealing partially with the end of the present age, we see reference to this "great earthquake." (Isaiah 24:19- 23). The passage says, "The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously." In Luke 21:11 we see that this cataclysmic event will be preceded by a growing number of earthquakes around the globe. "And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven." Luke 21:25 yields additional information: "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity..." In geological terms, what we seem to be seeing here is that the earth is to undergo a period of increasing geologic instability which shall culminate in the displacement of the current axis of rotation of the earth; i.e., a pole shift. This pole shift shall result in the destruction of the present civilization; moreover, the pole shift occurs during a time when the earth is undergoing a period of great famine and pestilence and the nations of the earth are in great distress. From a scientific approach, IF the aforementioned scripture is true and IF, as many Christians surmise, we are in the period immediately preceding this tribulation THEN there should be anomolous atypical data now appearing in measurements concerning the sun, moon, stars, and other astronomic bodies, i.e., asteroids and comets. There should be an upward trend in frequency of earthquake activity around the globe. It is a given that famine is on the increase and that there is distress among nations with perplexity, e.g., the breakup of the Soviet empire, the unification of Europe, the instability of the global economy. In 1989 there has been 6 near misses of the earth by Apollo asteroids -- an unprecedented number. The solar cycle is expected to reach a maxima in the next year at a peak which has not been seen for about 240 years. There are other data in the equation which you, yourself, may provide. Hypothesis: Geophysical, astronomical, and sociopolitical systems are displaying congruity with prophecy describing the beginning of the end of the age. Hypothesis: Data should reveal that geophysical conditions are displaying behaviors consistent with a pole shift (as compared to data gathered concerning previous pole shifts). Scientific enough? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 145 Sun Oct 08, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:55 CDT Great R.Lee11 (or can I just call you eleven?:), that's exacty what to do. You even provided data! Now, let's examine the data. ~ Is the scripture true? Dunno, that's what we are trying to prove. When you assume the hypothesis is true then the only thing you can prove is that the hypothesis is, in reality, false by bringing up a counterdiction. Assuming it is true and then showing that it brings up no counterdiction, however, does raise confidance. ~ Is the end of the world just around the corner? Again, dunno. Christians (and many others) have been predicting the end of the world from Jesus on. If you like you can make up your own theories on exactly when the date should be. This is, then, an assumption. ~ Now, is famine on the increase? Well, remember to devide out the fact that the overall population is on the increase. Unfortunatly I have no idea if the percentage of people who are starving is on the increase or not. ~ Nations in distress? Gads, they have always been in distress! This one is going to be true for sure! ~ Six near misses by asteroids? Well, I only remember one myself. Probably has to do with how near a near miss is. I really have no idea how many asteroids come near the Earth per year but 6 could be atypical. ~ The sun getting near the worst cycle in 240 years. That is NOT atypical. Note the word 'cycle'! It is also the first I have heard of any cycles beyond the normal 11 year cycle. But anyway, this is not at all an atypical situation. It happens every 240 years or so! ~ Now, I myself wouldn't call a quick rise in the near misses by asteroids (if indeed it is a rise) all by itself as a sign from God the the end is near! If there were some other signs in the heavens then maybe, but I know of none. ~ Now we have found some data that seems to counterdict the conclusion you gave. That means that either the world is not near enough to its end for the signs or that the scripture is wrong. It could also be that there is another assumption that is wrong and we forgot to list it off. Now you are supposed to either show me that the situation in the heavens is indeed atypical or go off and change you theory so that it fits all the given data. ~ Now a few hints on fixing it. You seem to be getting confused on your poles. The magnetic poles do seem to switch (actually, that is the cause of the 11 year cycle in the sun) every once in a great while. The poles at the axis of rotation, however, do not! Moving those poles will take fantastic energy, not only killing all life on Earth, the force will likely break up Earth entirely! This goes well with the Isaiah quote at first but doesn't do to well with the "to and fro" part. The Luke quote also makes specific referance to signs in the stars. Not _a_ star, nore a planet (they did know the difference at the time), nore an asteroid, but stars. ~ There is also another problem, that of appeasing the topic police. Your theories have nothing to do with the flood. I don't mind myself but future readers may be annoyed at the digression from the topic's title. ~ Sorry for the spelling, I'm doing this without WP. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 146 Sun Oct 08, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 20:13 PDT Doesn't it every bother anyone that fish would be the one type of animal least affected by a flood? As for quick burial, this is not a problem. Most ocean floor has enough silt already built up to bury most anything rather quickly. Bones tend to last along time, hundreds of years sometimes. Lee, Can you possible wonder why it is that a professor of zoology should be considered authoritative on archaeological questions? The same problem is found with most creationists who claim to be scientists. None of them are trained in biology or geology. Morris, for example, is a hydrolic engineer, which explains why he is so pro-flood :-) You can`t use prophesy in a scientific test, Lee. That is not a hypothesis. There is now way to test a prophesy, it is too inspecific. This is not science. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 147 Mon Oct 09, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 19:55 CDT Sloth: Do you call that a scientific response to R.Lee's data? I don't. R.Lee gives data that he claims was predicted in a book written over 1000 years ago. Although you seem to agree with his data, you disagree with his conclusion based on your apparent (and unsupported) bias that the world will go on forever with no cataclysmic occurences. Do you really propose that it is impossible for the world to end as predicted in Revelation? If so, state your hypothesis and attempt to prove it. -- Chris ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 148 Mon Oct 09, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 21:22 CDT The SOURCE of your theory is not relavent! You can pick it out of the air if you like. Granted, some sources fair far better than others, but I maintain that R.Lee's method was a good shot at being scientific. Note that his DATA did NOT come from the bible, only his theory. I agree (or have no idea which I let default to agree) with the first few data points, but then I hit one that I did not agree with. That killed the theory until it can be fixed. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 149 Mon Oct 09, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 21:47 CDT Ok, Chris. Rev 8:8 states that a mountain of fire (or something like one) was thrown into the waters making the water turn to blood. No way can a mountain of fire do that. Now, you could say the power of God was the real force in changing the water to blood or you could say that the verse is symbolism for something else. Where is the limit to that proccess though? I could prove the entire chapter wrong and you could just say "God made it so" or "That's what it says but it really means such&such" so the proofs would be never ending. ~ That is what we mean when we say something is not a theory because it can't be proved wrong. If you take Revelations in such a way that it can be proved wrong then maybe I could (should?) take a shot at it. Perhaps there is a literalist that believes the Rev story will happen with no power of God involved? ~ Arg! I said "No way" didn't I? Well, I meant to say "There is no reasonable doubt that a mountain could not do that," but I got lazy. I do this from time to time, if I ever sound absolutly certain please take it as being Very, but not absolutly, certain. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 150 Wed Oct 11, 1989 R.LEE11 at 17:39 CDT I uploaded a file to the Library called GENEWARS.TXT that might be of interest to you all. It does suggest a possible scientific test to ascertain the validity of the Old Testament. A bit provocative - but, then, that's what I like to do. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 151 Wed Oct 11, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 22:29 CDT Da Sloth: You are limiting the future to the restraints of the present, a very precarious thing. 200 years ago you would have been laughed to scorn if you said man would fly, or that he would travel to the moon. You are also assuming that your personal understanding of modern physics, geology, and seismology, is the be-all and end-all of human achievement in that area. It could be that you are wrong (or at least only partially correct), and that such a thing is somehow possible even today. -- Chris. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 152 Thu Oct 12, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:11 CDT Chris, sorry it has been a bit. I'll assume you are talking about me saying that the mountain could not change water to blood. ~ You must have missed out on my "beyond a reasonable doubt" messages. It could be that we will discover a way for a mountain to do just that in the next year. It is, however, _VERY_ unlikely as it would mean that most all of science is dead wrong. It could be that this is true but, as the theories supporting scientific claims have been EXTENSIVELY tested, I see it as very unlikely. ~ The name of the game is SCIENTIFIC evidence for the flood. If you want to believe that the flood happened DESPITE scientific evidence you will find no scientific quarell from me (though I may object on theological grounds) or any other scientist. ~ Whatever happend to those predictions I made if the Flood were true. I still think that a Flood would sort the fossiles by how well they float. Well, are the fossiles sorted that way or not? ~ (From the RTC) "Why didn't the alligators evolve into man?" Harrison, I really think you should go and read just what evolutionary theory IS before you go saying it is wrong. This question indicates a basic (and not at all uncommon) misunderstanding about evolution. Bush, you are the education president. GET A MOVE ON! ~ "...Nature is solicitous about a handful of reproductive cells in each individual, and the rest can go hang." Stanislaw Lem on Natural Selection from _The_Star_Diaries_ (21st Voyage). This, by the way, is a great humor/science fiction book. He even gets into the future of religion. Good stuff! Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 153 Thu Oct 12, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:32 EDT Sloth, On the idea of better floaters being the "top" fossils... As I said before fossils do not form by laying on the ground. They have to be quick compacted and preserved from bacterial and acidic breakdown. Else we would see partial fossils forming today, (which we do not!) Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 154 Thu Oct 12, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 22:58 EDT The following events took place during the Flood: (1) The "foundations" of the earth were shaken (2) Rain came down like mighty cataracts (3) Great erosions and deposition occurred (4) Earthquakes shook the crust of the earth (5) Water covered the entire land area (6) Forests of trees were buried by geological activity All these activities will have a bearing on explanations that will be provided which will show strong proof that the Flood caused much of the phen Cmena we see all around us in nature today. Six points summarized from "Origin by Design" by Harold Coffin. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 155 Thu Oct 12, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:27 PDT Funny how geologists don't see it that way. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 156 Fri Oct 13, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:51 CDT As I understand it, then, we could make fossiles now if we simulate a Flood environment in the lab. Has this been done? The pressures would be high but doable. Could you tell me where I could read about this experiment? ~ Phil, do you or do you not find partially fossilized animals? ~ (Gonna have to go to the library tomorrow and get some books!) Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 157 Fri Oct 13, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:56 EDT Sloth I did not say the pressures caused fossilization, I said they were necessary during the time it takes for fossilization to occur. The elements still have to break down and slowly be replaced by minerals. This takes time and I doubt that it could be simulated in the laboratory. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 158 Sat Oct 14, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 01:53 PDT Mineral replacement is but one way to form a fossil, and by no means the most common. Most fossils, especially invertebrate fossils, are either molds or casts formed form molds. Molds do not require long periods of time to form. Fossils are not sorted by size in the fossil record. The largest lan animals are actually not toward the beginning, but more towrd the end. Morris Morris's "hydrolic sorting" is all wet. Pressure has nothing to do with it. Climate and antibacterial environments are more important. Why would fish die and be fossilized by flood waters? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 159 Sat Oct 14, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 08:44 EDT Phil, You suggested that a mold is one of the forms of a fossil, but even as a mold you have to have silt becoming conglomerate or stratified rock. In order for this to happen pressure is necessary. The pressure can be provided by either a large quantity of water or many layers of additional silt and organic compounds. If you would find a fossil mold just laying on the ground, wouldn't it be supposed that it was formed under the ocean and brought up or such like? Herm *s ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 160 Sat Oct 14, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 14:38 PDT The pressures are required to change the sediments into rock. This takes pressure, but not the kind provided by a large amount of water. There is unconglomerate silt on the ocean floor today. It takes several million years to form rock. Oceans are not the only bodies of water in which fossils form. It is possible, also, to have fairly quick burial on land also. Swamps, for example, are future fossil beds. Organisms that die in swamps often don't decay because of acidity inthe water. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 161 Sat Oct 14, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 18:56 EDT "Several million years" or the right conditions! Don't you always say that life has been on the earth for several million years? then why should swamps be 'future' fossil beds? Really, something you say that takes a million years, cannot be proved that it could not happen in just 20,000 or 30,000 years. They are both big numbers, but scientists like everything to be impressive so the use the M word. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 162 Sun Oct 15, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 00:59 CDT Now who's callin who names Herm? I notice you are now saying we are liars! We are doing it to impress folks maybe? I'll tell you right now we could get far more $'s and fame if we could show that all the Christians (or any other big religion) were correct! People would fund us out the ears if we just told them that all they have believed is actually true. ~ Why can't the fossilization of the Flood be done in a lab? It couldn't take more than 200 days or so (40days to rain + 150 to clear off as I remember, give 10 days just to be nice) and the pressure could be simulated by putting the expirement under a mountain or perhaps just put it in a tank squeeze with some good hydrolics. If the water was 10,000ft deep that would amount to some 1000 atmospheres. Nothing you can do at home but it should be do-able none the less. So why don't they get some $'s from some nice rich Christian type and DO IT? ~ Really guys, you keep putting up "scientific" reasons and we keep blasting them. Are we going to have to kill every argument before you give up on scientific reasons? (probably 3 or 4 times each) ~ Oh, we can figure out reaction times you know Herm, and there arn't always "right conditions" that will make them go faster. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 163 Sun Oct 15, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 13:22 EDT Even at that Sloth, it will take at least 1-2000 years for a fossil to form. Herm PS. I call no one liars, I just say the "million-year" figures are without substantiation. It IS possible for these things to happen in much shorter periods of time. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 164 Sun Oct 15, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 12:49 PDT I'd like to hear the fundamentalists who believe the earth has only been here for 10,000 years to explain how fossils can even exist! Or, maybe God created fossils just to fool us...:-) ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 165 Sun Oct 15, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 15:22 CDT Hold it! Do you have 1 or 2 thousand years to form fossiles? I thought all the water had collected (according to your theories) into the oceans inside of a year? That does it, I'm going to the library right now. My HW will suffer but 2 bad. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 166 Sun Oct 15, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 17:59 CDT Let me just take this oppertunity to kick myself. I've had an anti-flood example staring me in the face and I didn't even see it. ~ What about SLOTHS!! Any world-wide floods are going to kill them off MIGHTY fast as they move very slow and simply can not swim. There are plenty at lower altitudes. Thus, by Flood theory, they should be at or near the BOTTOM of the heap. They arn't though, not a one. They are in what Morris calls the "post-flood" layers. ~ Flood theory prediticts that sloths should be at the bottom and they are found at the top. A direct counterdiction. So, Flood Scientists, what is the reason?? I'm liable to just keep saying "But what about the sloths?" for awhile unless you answer. Da SLOTH ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 167 Sun Oct 15, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:51 EDT Sloth, My dictionary definition of sloths is: "n. group of edentate mammals of S. America which cling mostly to branches of trees." Maybe they held on long enough to reach the top of the hills! ;) Seriously though I do not feel that fossils have formed from the deluge or since. The only thing that the deluge had to do with fossils was bringing them to the tops os mountains from the bottoms of seas when the mountains were formed after and during the flood. I think it would actually take more than 2000 years to form a fossil and you are right (Arnie),this is good proof that world has been here WITH life for more than 20,000 years,(42,000 to be exact). Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 168 Sun Oct 15, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 20:47 PDT Maybe Noah got hold of two sloths? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 169 Mon Oct 16, 1989 TSG1 [Dave Hitt] at 00:29 EDT Two sloths would have been easy. I want to know where he put the 250,000 distinct seperate "kinds" of beetles that are in the world today. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 170 Mon Oct 16, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:15 CDT Two sloths aint that easy. The things would have to have started on the journey to Noah many years in advance. They sleep 23hrs a day on average! Well, I got Gish's _The_Fossiles_Say_No!_ and a collection of Acts & Facts and have begun reading them. As I have maintained, most (if not all) of his claims can be proven (as usual, beyond a reasonable doubt) to be false. I can, however, see very clearly how somebody not well educated in what Gish is talking about could be misled. He is very convincing but, nevertheless, very wrong. ~ I got a few of your books, now you get one of mine. Check out Kitcher's _Abusing_Science_ and read it. ~ The CRS (Creation Research Society) is an interesting society. If any of you think that they are impartial scientists, please note the form you have to sign to get in. ~ 1. The Bible is the written word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruot, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the students of nature, this means that the account of origens in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. ~ 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. ~ 3. The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly reffered to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect. ~ 4. Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only thru accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. ~ ~ One real fine group of inpartial scientist you are going to get. You have to believe in Creationism before you are allowed to work with them to find out if Creationism is true. Sound a bit bogus to you? ~ It is now getting very clear to me why people have come to this argument on the scientific side, argued for awhile, and then left. We have no hope of convincing the other side that we are correct. This isn't because they have good scientific reasons, it's simply because the other side would have to give up their litiralist view of the Bible. Science indicates VERY STRONGLY that the Genisis account of creation is simply a myth, and to the litiralist, that is simply unthinkable. Thus they trance around saying that the evolutionists are lying to the world (yes you do, don't try and pussy foot around it) and showing "scientific" reasons why evolution can't be. When a scientist shows that the creationists reasons are absurd, the creationist goes and spouts them to someone else. ~ So why do I continue to blab and spend time here? Because these guys are starting to convince the public. The battle to get creationist views into school textbooks is still raging on. Plenty of scientists, convinced that it will all come out fine in the end, just sit around and ignore the problem. I'm affraid I don't have as much trust in the people as they do. I think these types should be stopped from throwing the nation back into the Dark Ages at every oppurtunity. The best way to fight mis-information (better known as lying) is to show its falsity. Sitting around and ignoring the problem isn't likely to do that. ~ I'm probably going to get basted again for calling a dog a dog. I'm sorry folks, but when someone tells falsehoods even after they have been shown they are false (like Gish and Morris and...) I call them liars. Those on this board are just repeating them without looking into what they are saying. No miricle there, some of the arguments are by no means easy to refute (that doesn't mean that they are true, just tricky) and require lots of education beyond just watching Nova and reading Omni every once in awhile, so "looking into them" could easily take 5 years of hard study. Thus I wouldn't want to call them liars, just some of those they quote. ~ By the way, if you doubt the ability of a psuedoscientist to start a nice dark age, remember what Stalin did to Russian genetics. Hitler forced some nasty views on his scientists also. How about China? They are still recovering from the social revolution and what it did to science there. It can happen here all right. ~ Perhaps the news agencies will save us. I can see it now, ABC does a special report on why ICR is off base. Inside of 10min they are talking about calcification and zygots. Joe Voter then changes the channel to FOX and watches something a bit more entertaining. People just can't spend the years it takes to understand why the arguments are unsupported. ~ Hmmm, do ya think this message will be appearing in the "Quiet" area? ~ Almost forgot! Herm, sloth fossiles are only found near the surface. Why, according to your theories, is that so? Why isn't is so for insects? Why is it that some fossiles are found throught most of the fossile record? I want to hear why the fossiles are arranged the way they are according to your theories. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 171 Mon Oct 16, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:29 EDT The Bible reports the introduction of plant life first, then ocean life, then animal (land) life, then larger land life, then humans. You will find that this agrees with the way the fossil record shows also. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 172 Mon Oct 16, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 22:58 EDT Since creationists have been castigated for not allowing non-Creationists into their "inner group," I wonder how many evolutionary societies allow Creationists entre into their groups, let alone allow them to publish and do research in an open forum so they can advance the cause of Creationism? Hey friends, it works both ways! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 173 Tue Oct 17, 1989 R.LEE11 at 03:04 CDT Folks, When will you see that this present age is but one of several civilizations that have come and gone and will come when this one is gone. The fossil stuff that is, to quote Carl, BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years old are part of a past age. The great flood wiped out the last age; fire will wipe out this age. Pray tell, couldn't the melting of the ice sheets from the last ice age cause a "flood?" That melting occured about 10-12,000 years ago. The only person I know of that said the earth was created in 4004 B.C. at 9:30 A.M. was Bishop Usher -- the Bible says diddly about time as it is the AGES that are important. When will someone bring up the issue that evolution is a tenant of the Thule society, i.e., the Blavatskyites et al. -- "once we capture Genesis, etc." stuff? The Huxley involvment with Darwin? All the really seedy politics that went on behind the seens in the 1800s about how to "capture Genesis"... Come on... let's get down! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 174 Tue Oct 17, 1989 TSG1 [Dave Hitt] at 16:13 EDT I agree with you, Sloth. If these folks would just keep to themselves I'd say let them be. But it is almost impossible to find the name Darwin in a High School bilogy textbook, and that's scary. Let's keep Creationism where it belongs, on the same shelf as UFOlogy, Chariots of the Gods, Pyramid Power, and all the other psudo-sciences. (Note that the UFO, Pyramid, and Chariots folks will also argue that they speak the One Truth.) ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 175 Tue Oct 17, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:08 CDT Harrison, I know of know group of scientists that have you sign a form saying you are a non-creationist. They don't get anything published because they don't put out anything that makes proper sense. When they include mistakes like ignoring closure in 2nd Law determinations they will find their papers returned until the errors are taken out. Creationist "scientists" rarely do this. They just go off spouting that all the other scientists are prejudice against them. ~ Herm, what if a large number of whale fossiles were found above large numbers of land animals? What about if we find "creeping things" like bugs well below fish consistantly? Would that disprove your theories? Phil, do we indeed find such orginization? (Phil, you still out there? I can't do this alone!) ~ R.Lee11, we don't talk about other civilizations because it has little to do with the Flood or evolution. Start another topic maybe? The ice sheets melting does raise the level of the oceans, it does NOT cover the entire planet with water. Just not enough water there to do that. I don't talk about the seedy politics because I know nothing about them and I also see no relavence to the topic. Da Sloth PS. It is spelled Bee-Yons! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 176 Wed Oct 18, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 21:27 PDT The fossil record is not as simple as Herm makes out. There is not a general progression from smaller to larger. If anything, average size has been decreaseing since the end of the cretaceous. The hydrolyic sorting mechanism proposed by Gish and others fails to answer certain questions about larger mammals which, according to hydrolyic sorting, should appear earlier in the fossil record, not later. The millions of years taken to form the current coal deposits has been verified by no less than seven different dating methods, not all of which involve radioactive isotopes. Harry, during the Arkansas case, creationists claimed that they could not get their ideas published in scientific journals. When asked to produce one article that had been submitted and rejected, tehy could not produce one. This more than anything else indicates that creationists are not interested in scientific debate. Their agenda is political and religious, but not scientific. Were you not, by the way, the one who went on about Gentry? Seems like Science and Nature are important journals? **** LEE This debate is difficult enough without having to contend with Velikoskites. You talk, but you do not listen. You will not listen to any criticism of your idol. You don't seem to grasp the basic tenets of the science you are so critical of. Please start your own topic. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 177 Thu Oct 19, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 19:41 EDT I was not saying they were changing sizes, but terrain. The dinosaurs were on earth before humans and other animals. But if you check the stratas in Wales and the charts of what they call pre-Cambrian you can detect the appearence of the above noted "groups" of plants and animals appearing in time. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 178 Thu Oct 19, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:57 CDT Sorry Herm, but I keep getting your models confused with the "standard" creationists. Perhaps you could upload just what you believe happened and maybe some scientific data that supports it? If it is too long you could upload it (arced? or would the Mac's get too upset?) to the files section. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 179 Thu Oct 19, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 19:44 PDT Dinosaurs do not appear before other animals. Most phyla of animals are firmly established by the end of the Ordivician, some 300 million years before the first dinosaurs. The only progression in the fossil record is one of relative complexity- meaning more complex forms appear later. Less complex forms do not disappear, but do become less numerous. Angiosperms, for example, do not appear in the fossil record until the end of the creteceous (angiosperms are flowering plants, as opposed to gymnosperms and ferns, the two other major groups of seed producing plants). The success of the angiosperms may have been due, in part, to the radiation of mammals. Angiosperms provide fruits, introducing a new ecological niche that mammals exploited quickly. The mammals, on the other hand, provided a means for angiosperm seeds to become widely distributed. Both may have lead to an increase in the diversity of each other. Herm, you are moving into my area of expertise, so be careful. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 180 Thu Oct 19, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:55 EDT Great Phil, I look forward to your insights. What do the layers of "time" show as the "progression" of complex forms continue to grow? Do you see a time when there were only plant life then came sea animals then land animals or am I mistaken? Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 181 Fri Oct 20, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 20:25 CDT Errr, Phil? Dinasaurs did not appear before other animals? Herm, I think the first life was neither plant nor animal. Phil is much more qualified to answer though. Are bats a kind of bird? I seem to remember something in Paul's account of the unclean sheet (don't ask me which letter it is) that bats were classified as a sort of bird. That was several years ago, however. Herm, I would like to ask again if you could please upload your version of how life came about and maybe how fossiles were made. Going by memory just isn't very trustworth to me. I can just look up the "normal" creationist views but yours are notably different. [For instance, the "normal" creationists usually have 24hr days as opposed to your 5000 (?) year days] Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 182 Sat Oct 21, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 01:10 EDT I will try to get it into the library tommorro Sloth. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 183 Sat Oct 21, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 10:32 CDT Great! Thanks! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 184 Sat Oct 21, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 16:51 EDT Okay it is file #459, "Creation.txt, it will be up as soon as Harry releases it. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 185 Sat Oct 21, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 17:26 CDT Got a worm in my mouth! Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 186 Sat Oct 21, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 16:34 PDT The first organisms were microbial life forms (bacteria, algae, protozoa, etc.). Actually bacteria and blue-green algae were first. Fossils of these organisms are found in rocks as old as 3.5 billion years. Bacteria, Algae and Protozoa are neither plants nor animals. Big question- why would these organisms die in the flood? Some phytoplankton and zooplankton are able to withstand pressures far exceeding those you describe. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 187 Sat Oct 21, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:01 EDT Good Phil, so what came after microbial water based life forms? Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 188 Sun Oct 22, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 00:25 PDT Herm, this is pretty much standard stuff. My Genie bill is getting very high these days and I assume that as sysops you and Harrison get some sort of comp time for your labors in mantaining the RT. Plants did not precede animals, if that is what you are looking for. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 189 Sun Oct 22, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 15:08 EDT Are you saying you do not see large numbers of plantlife before the appearence of land animals? I get nothing for your contributions, and if you do not feel that this is worth the money you are spending please feel free to discontinue. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 190 Sun Oct 22, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 13:17 PDT Phil, I do hope you're composing your sometimes lengthy replies off-line; that will help keep your bill down. And yes, Harry and Herm get all the free GEnie time they can use -- in this RT. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 191 Sun Oct 22, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 13:21 PDT Gee, that sure would make it easier for you to get your line across, now wouldn't it. Perhaps you should use your sysop time to run the conference and not as time to advocate your own views on this subject? Or give me a couple of hours a week. Land plants didn`t preceed land animals. The fossil record indicates that invertebrates began to inhabit the land at about the same as plants. Most people for some reason think of vertebrates when they think of animals. Isn't it interesting that genesis is somewhat evolutionary in its description of origins, even if alot of the details are wrong. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 192 Sun Oct 22, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 13:26 PDT ARNIE Perhaps you and I (and others using this system) should send a letter to GENIE FEEDBACK about this. I respond offline when I can, but I feel it is important to respond promptly since for every person posting here there are 10 times that many who just read. This is an important issue to me. It affects me professionally and I can`t let this tripe go forth unchallanged. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 193 Sun Oct 22, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 16:58 CDT Coming soon, to an RT near you, the RELIGION club! We have been trying to get a gamers club going over in the games section for well over a year now. We point to the CB club and rant and rave about favoratism and such. GEnie listened, thought about it, and dumped the idea. Perhaps we could be granted free time in the RTC coming up Wednesday? With a bit of advretising we may be able to draw in a large croud, netting GEnie a gain. 'Course I'm worse at economics than I am at biology, but it looks sound to me. The stenographer would probably be able to keep the time, or maybe Herm could just announce it when anyone left. If it is too much bother than grant us $10. Hmmm, how do we choose who gets the free time? For RTC subjects with topics here that is no problem, just give the top two or three posters the free time. For others, well, that's a bit tricky. The message base isn't taking up too much in the way of $'s. Pop in, pull all the new messages into the capture buffer, and pop out. After a couple of hours making up responses off line I then pop in and reply. The total online time is maybe 15min a day. Hmmm, that is still 12 bucks a week. So Herm and Harrison are saving around $12 a week? They do have to work a bit to keep things in line around here. Free access is just part of the pay, I would think. You know what would be cool? Get more sysops. A bunch more. They wouldn't really have too many jobs to do but they could represent a bit broader spectrum of religions than we have now. The Fundementalist Christian viewpoint is coming through loud and clear but it starts to get sparser when you look for the more mainstream Christian views. Jewish and Muslum views are rather rare and I have never seen an Eastern religion here yet. I think that having some extra sysops (maybe they should be called something else?) would help out. Hmmmm, on second thought, that could turn out bad. We are liable to end up sitting around watching "the big guns" shoot it out. "This redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought!" Denis Moore, MPFC Da Sloth (BTW, that worm is startin to taste a little nasty! ;) ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 194 Sun Oct 22, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 20:14 EDT Maybe we could take this discussion over to Category 1, topic 18? What exactly is the problem, I will try to address it. I am not a sysop, this RT cannot support more than Harry, but I do get free time here for my efforts in the RTC's. I am conscious of the need to make the RT interresting so people do take part for the financial reasons, but when I respond to messages it is not for that reason it is because I believe in what I say. Would you rather I be more like TRANSLEX--pop in once a month and stir things up a bit and not answer any messages directed to me? I will try to stay away as much as possible but when a message is directed to me shouldn't I answer? Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 195 Mon Oct 23, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 20:00 PDT The problem is that you and harry are not using sysop time just to keep things lively. You are advocating a political position and presenting only one side of the issue. It is presently costing me in excess of $60.00 a month to make sure that the other side of this issue gets presented. No, I don't have to do it, but I feel it has to be done. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 196 Tue Oct 24, 1989 TSG1 [Dave Hitt] at 00:17 EDT Herm, that cheap shot at Translex was uncalled for. Not everyone can afford to call often. I said this somewhere else, so I'll be breif. When you write to a magazine the editor ALWAYS has a chance to get in the last word. He also sets the tone for the magazine. If you don't like the tone, you can not change it, but you can chose not to spend your money on it. Same here. I don't think that Herm and I could find 3 things we agree on, (Herm, do you like choclate ice cream better than vanallia?) but I have to defend his right to color this the way he wants. And, although he posts often, his posts are seldom more than a screen full of text. If he were uploading nine page rants you might have a valid complaint, but he does not. (Gad, that's twice in one night I've stood up for Herm. What's getting into me?) ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 197 Tue Oct 24, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 18:43 EDT David, It may have sounded like a cheap shot, but I really get tired of someone who jumps in, tells everyone that I HATE every person in the world, and then doesn't have the decency to discuss the matter in a mature manner. I would gladly pay his time if that were the real reason. Really it doesn't cost that much to jump on download the new messages , jump off, write some responces and jump on again and send them. I do not find that argument really convincing, and if it is the problem then I would be glad to send him a GEnie GIFT-OF-TIME just to clear some matters up. Herm PS. this should have been sent to category 1, topic 18---and also thanks for the support--- ;) ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 198 Tue Oct 24, 1989 R.LEE11 at 21:14 CDT If those who are concerned about the "editorializing" in this media are concerned then they are probably welcome to "publish" somewhere else. He who owns the press controls the mind, no? Perhaps that is why no non-evolution- related articles appear in evolution-oriented journals. Just plain old bias. Whoever said science was objective was full of beans. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 199 Tue Oct 24, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 22:23 CDT R.Lee11, Science trys VERY hard to be objective. The reason no non-evolution- related articles appear is becuase there ARE no scientific ones! This little fact was wrenched out of the creationists in the hearing for Act 590. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 200 Wed Oct 25, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 00:08 PDT Scientists are people and are subject to weaknesses like everyone else. The net result of all science done is basically objective. As Sloth points out, there are no scientific papers, which is why none tend to appear in journals. Perhaps you could write a new paper explaining the scientific evidence that Venus was ejected from Jupiter. The problem is that journals show no mercy for poorly conceived theory. To survive, it has to be good. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 201 Wed Oct 25, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 20:20 EDT Isn't it interesting all these evolutions moaning about the so-called "fundamentalist" bias of this BB! If you take the time to read all the messages on this topic you will notice that the C C C C C C C arguments are being presented by the evolutionists! This is a Religion RoundTable friends! And yet we C C C C Callowed evolutionists (and some atheists) openly present their views. As others have already mentioned, how many times have you seen evolutionist publications publish "fundamentalist" views! Come on people! Let's be fair about this RT! We have allowed everyone to present their opinions in the most open way possible. Give us credit for that at least! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 202 Wed Oct 25, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 19:44 CDT Phil: Give me a break!! Although I would not call myself a creationist I do not hold the same extremely generous opinions of scientists as you do. History is rife with scientists actually holding back a valid theory. The quantum theory is still in the toilet because "scientists" perceive it as "unprovable" or "weird", etc. Couldn't quantum mechanics, taken to its extreme with regard to the relativity of time, be used to explain some so- called "religious" phenomena? -- Chris. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 203 Wed Oct 25, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 20:26 CDT Harry, thy delete key hath malfunctioned! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 204 Wed Oct 25, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 18:28 PDT There is a difference between discussing religion and using a position (free connect time) to advocate a POLITICAL position. That is what this is all about, after all. I recently got a textbook in biology to review that didn't even use the word Evolution, not once. This is a result of political pressure applied by conservative fundementalist. This is a political game folks, with millions of dollars and the minds of young people at stake. Chris, Another person who likes to put "scientists" in quotes. FYI, quantum theory is not "in the toilet," and is at the heart of modern physics today. Quantum mechanics and relativity have forced physicists to rethink the very nature of science, but I am unaware that it has anything to say about religion. Folks, religion doesn`t need science to validate it. Religious insights are very real and, in my opinion, very personal experiences. They go to places science cannot go. They answer questions that science cannot answer. There is no need to use science to validate one`s belief in god. It can`t be done and is unnecessary. Science has limits and works well within those limits. Individual practitioners can make mistakes, but on the whole the precess is self- correcting. If scientists resist change, and all people resist change to some extent, they cannot resist for long. eventually the evidence and problems overcome the inertia. The evolution of life is within the realm of scientific investigation. The evidence of that process is so overwhelming it is difficult to sum up in a few short ghostly electronic crt screens. It is their for anyone to see if they wish to see at all. For those who insist on using literal intepretations of old texts as a basis for modern biology, do so with the understanding that it is not science. Some day, evolution may be shown to be wrong. It happens in science. If it is replaced, it will not be with a "theory" with no backing in observed or experimental data and which was rejected more than 200 years ago. That is a fact. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 205 Sat Oct 28, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 20:18 CDT Phil: It's bad for me to put "scientists" in quotes, but OK for you to put "theory" in quotes when speaking about creationists? When learned men of science are resistant to different theories they are "just human", but when learned men of religion are resistant to different theories they are plain stubborn? I am not calling you "wrong", though. I am not a creationist in the sense of a too-literal reading of Genesis, but neither do I dismiss it as a fairy tale. One day, perhaps, the Genesis account will be reconciled with the ever- changing findings of science. With evolution, we are talking about a process so slow that it is very difficult to understand. It is like the flat earth controversy. Once long ago, people thought the earth was flat -- and it WAS -- according to the measurements of the instruments of their day. (The curvature of the earth is less than 1 degree per mile.) Later, of course, the theory changed to one of spheroid shape, and on and on to the present day where we realize the earth is shaped more pearlike than once thought. Now all these folks were "right" according to the best use of their tools, and all were relatively "wrong" according to the best use of our tools. So I hope that one day "creation" will be validated by science. And I hope that scientists keep bringing forth fresh ideas to the study of our genesis. As Albert Einstein said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Chris. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 206 Sat Oct 28, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 21:59 CDT Creation "Scientists" call themselves scientists when the are NOT. That's why we put the name in quotes. Creation rationalists is more like it. Off to the capture buffer! Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 207 Sat Oct 28, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 22:14 CDT I'd like to refer everyone who's interested to I. Asimov, "The Relativity of Wrong", The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 14, No. 1, Fall '89, p. 35. In addition to explaining the flat earth problem, he also does a good job with Newtonian physics and pre-quantum science. Although the point of the article is to say that old science is not "wrong", when it is supplanted - it is just "incomplete" - it also points out what is nearly "right". For example, theory that the earth and life are not changing stayed around so long because it is very nearly correct. "But when careful observation showed that the earth and life were changing at a rate that was very tiny but NOT zero, then it became clear that the earth and life had to be very old." _Id._, p. 42. So I think it's incorrect to portray strict creationists as idiots when they are very nearly right. This would be the same as saying that Newton was an idiot (or was "wrong") because he didn't allow for the 0.0000000033 seconds light takes to travel 1 meter. -- Chris. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 208 Sat Oct 28, 1989 C.ECONOMOU1 [Chris] at 22:17 CDT Sloth: so what are you? Evolution Apologist? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 209 Sat Oct 28, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 23:45 CDT Huh? wha? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 210 Sun Oct 29, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 00:38 CDT Chris, nobody showed Newton MANY TIMES with good solid evidence that he was wrong. The creation "scientists" have been shown many times that they are using old faulty data or making serious errors in application. What do they do? Ignore it. You want to know what I think? I think these guys couldn't care less about what was scientifically wrong with their theories. The theories sound real scientific and convincing plus the agree with Genisis as they interpret it. Herm seems to be an exception as he is making an attempt to work things out. Harry is more like the typical creationist as the last RTC shows clearly. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 211 Sun Oct 29, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 20:34 EST So what's wrong with being a "typical creationist?" I'm glad I'm not a typical evolutionist! :) ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 212 Sun Oct 29, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 21:42 PST Creationists are not idiots. Creationists are not concerned with establishing a scientific idea. Creationists reject evolution because it violates a literal intepretation of Genesis, and this cannot be allowed. Creationists are not pitching their arguements to the scientific community. They are pitching them to the lay public in the hope that they can accomplish through political pressure what they cannot accomplish with scientific evidence. Harry doesn`t bother to refute evidence, he just ignores it. It doesn't matter. For everyone of us who know why he is wrong, there are 15 or 20 who are not sure. Last Wednesday, I testified before the State Curriculum committee as a high school biology teacher and graduate student in anthro- pology. In my testimony, I urged the committee to take a stand on pseudoscience in the classroom and to not permit creationism unless they were also ready to allow astrology to be taught in physics class. I am committed for professional reasons to keeping these people from dumping a pseudoscience into the classrooms. It is a stalemate, at this point. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 213 Tue Oct 31, 1989 R.LEE11 at 20:14 CST Evolutionist: Explain why fractal geometry pervades all of creation? Evolutionist: Explain why the mathematical quantity "phi" is evident in thousands of cases of creation? Evolutionist: Are there documented cases of recovery of extinction homonids that show a height by bone structure of over 12 feet tall? Evolutionist: Explain why current cranial capacity is +-1600 while brain cases of extinct homonids (some) show cranial capacity of +-1800. Evolutionist: Explain why in total solar eclipse the moon JUST EXACTLY covers the sun. Evolutionist: Explain why technology does not exist today to do stone masonry that is comparable to masonry done by the ancients. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 214 Tue Oct 31, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 18:20 PST Creationist: explain why God created fractal geometry. R.LEE, make your point before you ask others to explain... ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 215 Tue Oct 31, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 21:49 EST It is unfortunate that so-called scientists are so dogmatic about their own beliefs that they will not tolerate a belief different from their own! Such thinking as has been exemplified on this board boggles the mind. And we are allowing our future generation to be influenced by such narrow-mindedness! Heaven help us! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 216 Tue Oct 31, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 23:22 CST Narrow minded aye? Boy we evolutionists had better stop name calling. You can, however, say things implying that scientists (like Phil and I) are just doing all this for the money and prestige. Oh and lets not forget the "so-called" bit! We put up reasons why we think creation "scientists" are not scientists. Where's yours? Harry, I couldn't care less what you believe. What ticks me off is when creation "Scientists" (and I'm not about to stop putting the scientist in quotes, we have proved that they simply arn't scientists) try to put their lies into public school textbooks. Seperation of Church and State plus the kids are having enough trouble with science. I'm trying to show that you lot don't have a scientific leg to stand on. If the creationists dump the "science" out of their name and get out of the public schools I will leave them to their beliefs. R.Lee11, I assume you are talking about PI not PHI. Your fist to are just mathmatics. You can just as well ask why is F=ma (more or less). Physics is just putting natural phenomenon into mathmatics. R.LEE11 Why is Shodinger's equation so complex? I haven't the fogiest what you are after with 12ft hominids nor brain capacity. Your brain capacities make no sense at all. Do you mean why did older brain capacities vary more than current ones? Could you put some units on your numbers (like cubic cm or inches or something) so I could get an idea of just how big the numbers are? Ah! The moon! Well, it doesn't cover up the sun just exactly. The moon has been slowly but surely moving further out as time goes on. Currently I think the moon is just larger than the sun. I think this because if the moon was exacty the same appearant size then you could only see a total eclipse form one POINT. At any other point you would be able to see just a tiny bit of the sun peeking around the moon. That point, of course, will be moving along the surface of the Earth as the Earth rotates and the moon revolves. If I remember correctly, an eclipse can last a good ten minutes at least. Thus the moon must be a bit larger than the appearant size of the sun, though they arn't that far off. I am not in any way shape or form a stone mason nor an architect so I don't think I will touch the last question. Why would you ask an evolutionist that question anyway? That brings us to what Arniebell said. What does this have to do with evolution or the Flood? R.Lee11 if you can't tie this into the current topic I will not be answering. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 217 Wed Nov 01, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 03:21 PST Yeah, Harry--I don't suppose YOU're being at all dogmatic about your own beliefs, are you? I'm sure you're perfectly willing to examine all of the scientific evidence for evolution, and make up your own mind based on the evidence, and not on your own religious beliefs. What's that? You're NOT? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 218 Thu Nov 02, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:36 EST Of course I am quite dogmatic about my religious beliefs! But I don't go around ridiculing others because they don't believe what I believe! The reason I put scientists in quotes or refer to "so-called scientists" is because some who purport to be scientists on this board have not exhibited the demeanor or attitude of men dedicated to empirical reasoning! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 219 Fri Nov 03, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 06:43 PST Gee, Harry, this might be because you ignore all statements with any empirical content. But then again, you are not interesting in bothersome things like facts, are you. I believe in calling a spade a spade. You are a liar. This has nothing to do with dogmatic believes, this is based upon strict empirical observation. What upsets me most about it is that you are allowed free system time to post as much of this drivel as you can, while the rest of us must pay, not only for our own system time, but for yours. Every time your arguements get refuted, you start throwing around charges of name calling and such. This is a VERY common creationist ploy. I will continue to complain to GENIE management about your behavior and would advise any others to do the same. Now, if you want some empirical study, check the file I am about to upload to genie. It is called GEOLOGY and it refutes 15 of the most common creationists arguements. References are included. So, harry, go aheard. Every time you level your name-calling charge, every time you say, "so-called" scientists, we know we are getting to you. It basically means you have nothing else to say. LEE. Will upload answers to some of your questions soon. Be careful not to throw bricks. I have a copy of Sagans review of _Worlds in Collision_, and may ask you to answer some questions in return. To answer one- there is NO evidence of a 12 foot hominid. This would buck a trend in hominid evolution, by the way, so if you know of some, you might have something interesting. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 220 Fri Nov 03, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:24 CST Well, the world record was (is?) something like 11ft isn't it? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 221 Fri Nov 03, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:59 CST Scientists are smart and therefore nice. Wrong. Harry, we are NOT ridiculing your faith, we are ridiculing your science. I've only said as much 5 or 6 times now! Calling Harry a liar I do have some quibles with. Parroting liars, I like that much better. Hmmm, great minds think in parallel aye? I was just starting to write down the arguments and refutations for myself as the library is going to be wanting their books back soon. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 222 Fri Nov 03, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 23:23 EST I just wish people would discuss facts and leave their emotions at home some times. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 224 Sat Nov 04, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 01:10 CST Errrr Herm? I am at home! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 225 Sat Nov 04, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 11:57 EST Okay, but please place all emotional script in Category 1, topic 18. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 226 Sat Nov 04, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:53 CST ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 228 Sun Nov 05, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 10:23 PST In order to have a discussion, there must be some evidence that both sides are listening each other. I know the word "liar" is a bit strong, but the reason I sometimes resort to it is to see if harry is actually listening. It is frustrating when Bob or myself take the time to enter detailed explanations of what evolution is actually about, only to be total ignored. Herm listens, asks very good questions and makes excellent points, some of which are difficult to answer and put me on the spot. Our sysop, however, is on broadcast only. I will refrain from calling him a liar if we will at least acknowledge that Bob or I have said something. Otherwise, it is a joke. Now, there are alot of people who read this catagory and do not post messages. If we could hear from them on this issue, it might clue me in as to if I might be out of line. One more thing. In order to cut down on my expenses, I have tried to respond offline. When I upload my responses, I lose all formating. It is like I have no CR`s on the ends of my lines. I use MS Word, saving as an ascii file with line breaks. What am I doing wrong. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 229 Sun Nov 05, 1989 JADED at 13:43 EST After uploading your message, how are you sending it ? Do you type "*s" or "*sn" ? If you just are typing *s, Genie will re-format your text. I think *sn means SEND NO RE-FORMAT or something. Jade ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 230 Sun Nov 05, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 11:32 PST Phil, GEnie's editor expects to see carriage returns at the end of each line. Without them, the editor rearranges things any way it likes, up to 255 characters, I believe. The really weird thing you must be aware of, though, is that you cannot use a on a line by itself to generate a blank line between paragraphs. To leave a paragraph break, you have to put at least one space on the line. will do the trick. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 231 Sun Nov 05, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 16:37 CST That USED to be true! I always put a '~' in for the space but I would do the same thing. Now it seems to work fine without the space, however. How do my *SN letters look to a 40 col. screen though? Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 232 Sun Nov 05, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 15:10 PST . LEE, in a sudden burst of activity, askes the following questions: >Evolutionist: Explain why fractal geometry pervades all of >creation? . Please clairfy what you mean by "prevades." I don't know about creation, but in NATURE, fractals are seemingly ordered patterns generated by random events. Fractals are very closely tied to a fairly new field of physics (chaos theory) which is perhaps the first attempt to model complex phenomenia and to observe patterns characteristic of these. What this essential means is a study of how apparent order can come from non-orderly (sometimes random) events. . >Evolutionist: Explain why the mathematical quantity "phi" is >evident in thousands of cases of creation? . If you are referring to "pi", which is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it`s diameter, then this statment is in correct. NATURE does not contain perfect circles (at least, not in biology, which what evolution is all about), so the quantity of pi does not appear. Perhaps you should list some of your "cases." . >Evolutionist: Are there documented cases of recovery of >extinction homonids that show a height by bone structure of over >12 feet tall? . No, The trend in hominid evolution is toward an increase in stature from just under 4 feet (as in the case of the australopithecines) to just over 7 feet (as in the case of certain individuals in the NBA). There are no fossil hominids 12 feet tall. . >Evolutionist: Explain why current cranial capacity is +-1600 >while brain cases of extinct homonids (some) show cranial >capacity of +-1800. . Neanderthals do have an AVERAGE crainal capacity that is slightly higher than, but well within the range of, modern humans. What is more important here is to consider the range of variation. For neadertals, the cranial capacity on different specimens ranges from 1250-1750cc, with an average of around 1500cc. For modern humans (all populations), that range is 1200 to 2000, with an average of 1361 [1] To put this in perspective, consider the following:[2],[3] . . Chimpanzee 282-500cc 394 Gorilla 340-752cc 506 Orangutan 276-540cc 411 . Australopithecus 435-540cc 505 Homo erectus 750-1225cc 1100 . Keep in mind that the Gorilla and Orangutan figures are not adjusted for body weight. Allometry is the study of how increase in body size affects size of other parts of the anatomy. If we adjust these data for body size, we see the following:[4] . Chimpanzee 410 Gorilla 423 Orangutan 390 Australopithecus 620 . Anyway, the point is that the difference between Neadertal and modern human brain size is not very significant. Neandertals fall well within the range of variation for modern Homo sapiens. For those of you who do not keep up on these things, neadertals are not classified as Homo sapiens (Homo sapien neandertalsis vs Homo sapien sapien for modern humans. The implication is that neadertals were an early race of Homo sapiens. Not everyone agrees with this, however.) . >Evolutionist: Explain why in total solar eclipse the moon JUST >EXACTLY covers the sun. . This one is a joke, right? A total eclipse, by definition, is one that covers the sun or which blocks the sun entirely. When it doesn't, it is called a partial eclipse. . >Evolutionist: Explain why technology does not exist today to do stone masonry that is comparable to masonry done by the ancients. . Who are the ancients? Every visit the cathedrals in Europe? Direct answer, it does exist. What makes you think it doesn't? References: [1] Frank Poirier _Fossil Evidence: the human evolutionary journey_, C.V. Mosby, 1981. [2] Philip Tobias _The Brain in Human Evolution_ Columbia University Press, 1971. [3] Philip Tobias "Recent Advances in the Evolution of Hominids with Especail Reference to Brain and Speech," Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Scrita Varia 50:85-140. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (I always enjoy using this source in discussions with creationists) . [4] Harry Jerison, _The Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence_ Academic Press, 1981. . Now, Lee, I have a question for you. In _Worlds in Collison_, your hero claims that the planet Venus was expelled from Jupiter. If one calculates the amount of energy necessary to move an object the size of Venus fast enough to achieve escape velocity from Jovian gravity, the about of energy is roughly equal to the total amount of energy radiated by the sun in one full year. Can you explain how Jupiter, an object many orders of magnitude less energetic than the sun, was able to produce enough energy to expell Venus? Take your time. . ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 233 Sun Nov 05, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 15:12 PST Well, that seems to have worked. Thanks. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 234 Mon Nov 06, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:15 CST Next time you get a small one try it without the .'s. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't but you can always try! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 235 Tue Nov 07, 1989 TSG1 [Dave Hitt] at 22:53 EST Webster's Third Collegiate Dictionary defines a liar as "one who tells lies." It defines a lie as "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive." Back when I was a fundamentalist, I parroted creationism too. I believed what I was taught: all scientists were godless conspirators preaching evolution for their own (undefined) motives. It was not until I escaped to the real world that I discovered that evolution explained things far better than any other theory. (Theory, in the case of evolution, means "body of thought." It's used the same way as in "The Special Theory of Relativity." It does NOT mean theoretical.) I've been on both sides of the fence. Creationists are not liars, they just don't know any better. When two people who respect each others ideas have a conversation, each idea presented to the other is filtered through the others knowledge, perceptions, observations, and prejudice. Many of the ideas will be accepted, and a few rejected. When each person is certain that the other is wrong, however, nothing sinks in. Instead, each party more or less ignores any valid points the other has, and attempts to prove that they are wrong. Seldom is evolution accomplished. If a creationist were to accept the views of a real scientist on evolution, they would have to accept that the entire fantasy world that is their reality is invalid. Because that fantasy world is so comfortable (imagine KNOWING that you and your friends were the only ones God was going to save) it is nearly impossible for them to even consider the facts. I consider these discussions an intellectual exercise. If you think you are going to change a creationists mind, you are wasting the money it costs to be here. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig." (Before I uploaded this message I ran it through my spelling checker. It choked on "creationist." The word is suggested as the correct spelling was "craziness.") ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 236 Wed Nov 08, 1989 R.LEE11 at 01:04 CST The historian Josephus tells of the remains of a huge skeleton and a very large bed in his time (circa 60 A.D.). The Bible speaks of giants and Goliath was about 9 feet tall according to scripture. The place of these people was in the mountainous area of what is now Israel and Jordon. There were additional reports in the Bible of giants living in the land of Canaan. HAS ANYONE ever recovered any skeletal remains of these giants? Has anyone bothered to investigate the reality of Josephus's historical account of giant skeletons? Has anyone ever gone on an archeological expedition to the area to hunt for any extremely huge human skeletal remains? Lest you think if foolishness, the city of Troy, lost for ages, was discovered in the same fashion; i.e., by taking historical accounts that seem mythical quite seriously. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 237 Wed Nov 08, 1989 R.LEE11 at 01:57 CST Giants... "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Gen. 6:4 "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight (like) as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." Numbers 13:33 "That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the Lord destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead." Deuteronomy 2:20-21 "And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, And reigned in mount Hermon, and in Salcah, and in all Bashan, unto the border of the Geshurites, and the Maachathites, and half Gilead, the border of Sihon king of Heshbon." Joshua 12:4-5 "And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward..." Joshua 15:8 GIANTS: "Men of extraordinary size or height. They are first spoken of in Gen. 6:4, under the name Nephilim. The crossbreed of "sons of God and daughters of men" produced a race of violent and insolent "Gibborim," i.e., these giants. It would appear that these giants would have been in existence sometime during the Bronze age (about 5,000 years ago) in the Middle East particularly in what is now known as Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. In Greek mythology, any of a race of huge beings of human form who warred with God. The race is from the union of various gods (apparently in the Bible, "sons of God) with human females. It would appear that there is potentially something of great archeological- anthropological interest likely buried in the area. Phil, isn't this your area? Re: Velikovsky. I'm still looking up refs. Briefly, have you heard of Planet X which is supposed to have a very eliptical orbit. From what I have seen so far it is real and is outside the orbit of Pluto and is heading into the region of the known solar system (although I need to document this for sure). ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 238 Wed Nov 08, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 21:40 PST I believe I have addressed your question. There is no evidence for the existence of giants in the archaeological record. When you find such evidence, come and talk to me. Quoting old myths may sound very authoritative, but it is always difficult to determine what is real and what is metaphorical. Personally, I believe that far off in space, cosmic bunnies control our fate. You still haven't answered my question about venus. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 239 Fri Nov 10, 1989 R.LEE11 at 00:55 CST I am trying to get hold of JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) in Pasadena, CA. re: data on Planet X. Will post when received. Re: Old myths. What do you know about the archeology of the city of Baalbek? I seem to recall (and will hunt down ref) of the recovery of an extremely tall, i.e., giant, homonid remain recovered in Java (not the infamous elephant knee-cap Java man and not the infamous composite Piltdown man, either). Java man and Piltdown man are an example of these defrocked old myths, no? Josephus was an historian and not a story teller. He is considered as one of the pre-eminent historians of his age. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 240 Sat Nov 18, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 14:08 PST >Re: Old myths. What do you know about the archeology of the >city of Baalbek? I seem to recall (and will hunt down ref) of >the recovery of an extremely tall, i.e., giant, homonid remain >recovered in Java (not the infamous elephant knee-cap Java man >and not the infamous composite Piltdown man, either). Java man >and Piltdown man are an example of these defrocked old myths, >no? I think that in order to be a Velikofskite or Creationist, one must just abandon critical ability. There are no fossil remains from Java or anywhere of hominids with a stature above 5 feet. None. Zilch. Zero. If you want to continue to believe in these fantasies, fine. If such evidence is found, then talk to me. If you think such evidence has been found, then find it and give a citation (from someplace besides National Enquirer). Java man is not a myth. The fossils recovered by Eugene Dubois from the Trinil beds in Java are some of the first true hominid fossils discovered. They were rejected at first because they didn't con- form to the conception scientists had about the path of human evolution. It turns out that our ancestors were small brained bipedal primates. The idea that bipedalism and toolmaking evolved before the brain was somehow no well received. Human ego I suppose. Piltdown wasn't a myth either. It was a fraud. The fraud was discoverd by biologists and not by those advocating creationism. The root of piltdown was the desire to confirm this image of hu- man evolution in which the brain is the most important feature to evolve. Piltdown was a fairly modern human skull put with the jaw of an orangu-tan (in which the teeth had been filled down to make them appear more human) and it confirmed the idea of mosaic evolution. It was rejected because more and more hominid fossils began to show that this idea of mosaic evolution was not correct, leading to a closer examination of the piltdown materials. >Josephus was an historian and not a story teller. He is >considered as one of the pre-eminent historians of his age. Bully for him. l ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 241 Sat Nov 18, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 20:08 EST Phil--Your Back! (I thought maybe we lost you, and your patience;) Now can you figure out a way of explaining to Harry that "just because I do not agree with his "creationist" views--this does not make me an evolutionist? Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 242 Sun Nov 19, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:57 EST Then what does it make you? Waiting with bated breath for your answer!!! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 243 Sun Nov 19, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:40 PST I am currently logging on once a week, downloading messages and uploading replies composed offline. I have a wopper almost ready for the mutation topic. I think Herm is "evolving" into a theistic evolutionists- one who accepts evolution as the action set in motion by God. One can learn as much about the mind of god from contemplation of nature as from the bible. By the way, in your introduction, you mention my article as "Evolutionist arguements against biblical creation." Obviously, you have not read the article (surprise! surprise!) or you would have seen that the article is directed against statements made by so-called "scientific creationists." It is a criticism of the scientific content of their arguements, not the theological side. Please correct that. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 244 Mon Nov 20, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:38 EST Phil, I do NOT accept evolution as the means for life on this earth! I do not accept evolution as the means of proliferation of species, (as though only one species was on the earth at one time.) I do not accept evolution as presented by evolution scientists as fact in any way shape or form. Yet on the other hand I do NOT accept the suggestion by creationists that the Genesis account speaks of literal 24Hr days. The word for day is used many times to pertain to any set period of time--even Genesis 2:4 says that ALL six creation "days" are summed up in ONE "day!" I also do not accept the creationist's view that what was done in Genesis 1:1 is an activity included in the "First Day" where all it said was "made" was light. NO, I am no evolutionist! And if anyone would study the Bible they would not be a Creationist either. It is just as my introduction to file #459 says: "CREATIONISTS HAVE DONE MORE HARM THAN GOOD IN PREVENTING EVOLUTION FROM BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS AS FACT!" Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 245 Tue Nov 21, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 00:09 CST R.Lee11, what you have seen regarding planet X is BUNK. Currently there is a grand total of NIL evidence for a tenth planet. There is, however, still "room" for a tenth planet so it hasn't been ruled out but X must be very dark and/or small. Don't bother JPL, just go look in the library under "Solar System." I can think of three kinds of creationists off the top of my head. First is the conservative creationist that has the days as 24hrs. Second is the libiral creationist that play around with it a bit (10,000yr days, several creations and what not). Third is the symbolic creationist that says it is just all symbolism for what really happened. Oh yes, there are also those that believe the bible version is correct DESPITE what science says. I have no problem with the last two types at all. I've seen some of these defined in books with larger names but I always use this terminology when I think about it. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 246 Tue Nov 21, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 21:13 EST Well, I know some of our evolutionist friends are not going to believe their eyes when they read this but what has to be said has to be said! As many of you know, I have championed the cause of Robert Gentry in this topic. He is the author of "Creation's Tiny Mystery" in which he tries to explain that the evidence of polonium halos in Pre-Cambrian rocks proves a short age for the earth. Unfortunately for Gentry, some of his colleagues (Creation Scientists I presume) have attacked his position in such a devastating manner that they would do any evolutionist proud! S. C. Rowland and R. E. Kingman, professor of Physics at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI and M. V. Anderson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Pacific Union College, Angwin, CA, have reviewed Gentry's book, saying that his "logic is seriously flawed." They go on to say that several of Gentry's assumptions are "unfounded," adding that "one of his major conclusions, the dating of the Creation event to about 10,000 years ago is a non-sequitur; and finally, he fails to deal consistently with all the data." The reviewers (remember these are presumably Creation Scientists) further add: "His argument for the uniqueness of events that lead to the halo formation as an indication of their resulting from a single catastrophic event, the Flood, is not necessary or convincing. The review gets even more scathing. I quote further: "If, because of theological reasons, he claims that at the Creation, the Fall, and the Flood, the decay rate for uranium changed, shortening the time required to form uranium halos, then he has left the domain of science." Jabbing their daggers even further, these colleagues in the faith as it were, continue: "Motivated by his theological perspective, Gentry has offered a hypothesis for the origin of the polonium halos that is not inconsistent with the occurrence of the polonium halos. But when he fails to deal consistently with the uranium halo data, he has ceased to do science and has certainly not proved Creation." Our evolutionist friends couldn't have said it better! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 247 Tue Nov 21, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 18:19 PST Can we assume, Harry, that you won't be quoting Gentry as a reliable source anymore? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 248 Tue Nov 21, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 21:30 PST Interesting. I have alot of criticism in my article (found here in the library under Geology.Doc, concerning Gentry. Gentry is the only creationist whose work was published in major scientific journals. As far as I know, he is the only one who has even tried. Interesting, creationsts reversing themselves. A good sign, perhaps. Now if they would just apply the same critical eye to some of their other arguements..... Geology Doc is file 474. I am still waiting for reviews. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 249 Wed Nov 22, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 21:16 EST Obviously this is not the definitive word on Gentry. Just because some creationists criticized him does not mean that what he has said is invalid! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 250 Wed Nov 22, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 20:25 PST How about what his peers have said about his work. Once again, this is extensively discussed in geology.doc. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 251 Thu Nov 23, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 09:40 PST So, Harry, are you saying that GENTRY is right, and those other creation scientists who criticized him are wrong? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 252 Fri Nov 24, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 22:21 EST Arnie: I don't know. I am not a scientist. From my lay perspective, Gentry seemed to have some good explanations. But now that his peers have questioned him, especially in the scathing manner in which they have done it, I need to pursue this issue further with them. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 253 Sat Nov 25, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 01:21 PST What about his peers in geology and physics? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 254 Wed Jan 10, 1990 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:38 CST ohmygosh!!! Sloths can SWIM!! Just saw it on Nat. Geo. tonight. I was completely amazed! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 255 Fri May 18, 1990 L.EPSTEIN [Louis] at 19:33 EDT I've now read the 254 previous messages in this Topic...and found no evidences whose SCIENTIFIC interpretation would indicate likelihood of the Biblical Flood. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 256 Fri May 18, 1990 HERM [ ERT assist.] at 23:56 EDT "This generation is always looking for a sign!" Okay Louis, go to the library and get the February 1989 Scientific American. On page 88 an article describes the way migrations can be traced by examining toothe structure. If you look at the last paragraph on page 90 there is a sentence which says this: "At the time the Sundadont pattern developed, sea level was 100 meters lower than it is today. Beginning near the end of the late pleistocene times the sea rose and by 12000 years ago the sunda shelf was largely flooded, leaving the Indonesian archipelago, Japan, island southeast Asia and other areas above water." Now what could possibly make the oceans rise by 100 meters? The only problem is that the carbon dates say that it was much longer ago than chronology of the Bible suggests. That is why I do not believe that the carbon dating schemes are accurate provable or proven. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 257 Sat May 19, 1990 L.EPSTEIN [Louis] at 11:04 EDT The Biblical Flood assumes NOTHING above water,and extinction of everything outside the Ark. The problem you have is that the Bible says it wasn't as long ago as the chronology of the carbon dates suggest.That is why you shouldn't believe that the Bible is accurate provable or proven. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 258 Sat May 19, 1990 OLORIN [Dave] at 11:21 EDT What could make the oceans rise by 100 meters? The end of an ice age. --Dave ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 259 Sat May 19, 1990 L.EPSTEIN [Louis] at 14:32 EDT Floodsters need to prove something a couple of orders of magnitude bigger. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 260 Sat May 19, 1990 HERM [ ERT assist.] at 18:11 EDT Not really Louis, since the mountains were much lower before the flood waters caused the great pressures which increased their size. Sloth, If the ice was on land and melted back to the sea to raise the oceans that much, then the question arises: "How did all that water (ice) get on the land?" The paradox here is that you suggest that the "Ice Age" had a beginning. Well if it did then that would suggest that all that water was in the oceans to begin with. What would make that much water come up out of the oceans and slide over the land? Just because the land gets colder does not mean that water suddenly begins flowing out of the oceans and south over land. herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 261 Sat May 19, 1990 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 17:39 CDT Dave hit it on the nose. When an ice age comes water that normaly snows on the land, melts and runs into the see gets locked up in a glacier. Thus the level of the ocean goes way down. When the ice age lifts the glacier water melts and goes back to the ocean, sending the level up again. Louis also has a good point. 100 meters aint gonna do squat, even to your purposed much smoother Earth. The fish population (and all the rest of the sea creatures) will actually go up! ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 262 Sat May 19, 1990 OLORIN [Dave] at 19:12 EDT Herm: 1) Offer evidence that mountains were lower "before the flood" 2) Research the formation of ice ages. Glaciers form when the winter snows fail to melt. Slowly but surely the levels of ice increase and flow towards warmer climes. --Dave ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 263 Sat May 19, 1990 HERM [ ERT assist.] at 23:41 EDT The news today is the "Melting of the Ice Caps." They say that this will raise oceans nearly 15 feet! Whereas 100 meters is nearly 400 feet. Raising an ocean 400 feet worldwide is something more than landbound ice can do. The flood of Noah's day was as deep as was reported, but not all over 'at the same time.' The water rushed as deep as the mountains and ran to the lower areas of the earth. This rushing water is what is percieved as Glacier movement. Most of the ocean bottoms are riddled with ancient river beds which were in place before the pressure of all that water lowered the seas and pushed up the mountains deeper and higher than they were previously. Actually if you research the famous "glacier slides" of today you will find in almost every case a large inland sea at the end. For example the Great Lakes. This is where the so called Glacier water went. Hardly enough to raise oceans 400 feet worldwide. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 264 Sun May 20, 1990 L.EPSTEIN [Louis] at 00:09 EDT If the Genesis Flood wasn't all over at the same time,why didn't the bird find land the first time Noah released it?Why did he come to rest over 16000 feet above modern seal level? [SEA level] ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 265 Sun May 20, 1990 HERM [ ERT assist.] at 11:11 EDT Yes, you are right. The flood of water did prevail over the land for a year after the actual rain of 40 days. Those are excellant questions deserving answers. However much of my last message was dependant upon you imagining the earth void of large oceans, only inland seas. In fact opposite what you find today--ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land into the sea and water would cover the entire earth, one and one half miles deep. (From National Geographic, Jan. '45, p. 105) Obviously sometime during that year of rushing waters, the continents began to move apart--the sea floor dropped and very high mountains were pushed up. Of course this is hard to imagine taking place in such a short span of time- -what with scientists always touting millions of years--but if they do not consider such an occurance with such a vast amount of water, then it is difficult to get them to even consider if the laws would have made it possible. They simply say: "No it didn't happen!" and leave it at that. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 266 Sun May 20, 1990 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 15:15 CDT Herm, you got it! The water to for the glaciers came from the ocean and the extra water from the ocean came from the glaciers from the previous age. I would imagine, givin the high surface tempurature of the early Earth, that the waters first rained/condensed into oceans so they would come before any glaciers but I'm just guessing there. The point is that the water has always been on the Earth in one form or another since the Earth came into being. It seems to bounce back and forth from glacier to oceans. Why, I don't know. Ask a geologist. Your next message shows how very little you know about what you are talking about Herm. If the polar caps melt back a bit further it will raise the ocean level 15ft. Now, what happens if the caps melt back from Kansas City clear back to the present day locations? Remember that these glaciers were MILES thick. 300ft (much closer estimate of 100m) is no problem at all. Lets see, Mercury is not anywhere near as flat as Herm says the Earth was "pre- flood." Venus, with an active and very corrosive atmosphere is not as smooth as Herm's "pre-flood" erea. Mars, with it's high (but rather thin) winds has mountains that leave any on Earth looking rather piddly. So we have three examples of other planets that didn't form smooth plus the _VAST_ majority of geologists who believe that the Earth wasn't as flat as Herm thinks it was. You have a, err, steep climb ahead of ya Herm, your going to need some very good evidence. I think the best proof against Herm's (should I be saying Morris'?) sudden growth of the continents is best found in cave formations. Plenty of history can be found in stalagtites and such. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 267 Sun May 20, 1990 HERM [ ERT assist.] at 17:26 EDT Sloth, what proof do you have that the glaciers were miles thick? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 268 Tue May 22, 1990 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:30 CDT Rather large chapters in Geology books. If you want to carve mountains... ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 269 Tue May 22, 1990 HERM [ ERT assist.] at 19:44 EDT And could not a large quantity of water had done the same thing? ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 270 Tue May 22, 1990 GDW.SUPPORT at 20:42 EDT Herm: DOn't you mean a large quantity of liquid water? glaciers ARE ice, after all. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 271 Tue May 22, 1990 HERM [ ERT assist.] at 23:24 EDT That is true! :) ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 272 Wed May 23, 1990 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:20 CDT Let's assume some things and see where it takes us. Let's assume the world was MUCH flatter thousands of years ago. Let's assume that a massive flood rained down from orbit for forty days and nights. Let's assume that every "kind" of creature was reduced to exactly two (one male and one female where that applies) and each of these two was located on the Ark. Let's assume that fossils can and were made by the pressures of the flood waters. Ny first thought is, what about the fish? If the water was salt water then all the fresh water fish die. If all the water was fresh water then all the salt water fish die. Same goes for the other types of ocean creatures and plants. Did the ark have huge tanks for each "kind" of water plant/animal? My second thought is for the land plants. Most plants die quickly when immersed. The ones with the right kinds of seeds (eg acorns) will probably be able to come back but the ones that pollinate are all going to be killed. Was there at least one of every "kind" of plant in the Ark also? How about the creatures (and plants?) that could not survive in the Middle East? Penguins and polar bears alongside alligators? How could the penguins make it up to the ark without the heat killing them? What about the parasites? Each and every one of these creatures and plants tends to have oodles of them. Did the animals of the Ark each have exactly two of each parasite? Somebody should do a little calculation to see what the minimum size of the Ark must be. There are some 2,000,000 individual species of plants and animals on Earth today. Givin that some would be able to survive the flood and some are unisexual, there must have been some 3 million critters on that boat. What did they eat? Was the water outside drinkable? Most of all, how did they all fit? If massive upheavals were going on at the time, how did the Ark manage to stay afloat? Mountains rising and underwater trenches falling tend to make big waves! Even if you make the Ark self-righting and water tight your still goin to get rolled around a good bit. What about the fossil record? Why are all the dinosaurs burried so far under the mammels? Is there something about dinosaurs that makes them sink faster than mammels? Pterodactyls are always found below bulls but the flying Pterodactyl should be able to survive far longer than a bull in a flood. The flood theory predicts that fossils would be more or less ordered by floating ability if anything at all. Instead the fossils are ordered by increasing complexity. What about sedimantary layers MILES thick? What about delicate structures that take eons to form inside the caves of mountains that supposedly erupted from the Earth only a few thousand years ago? How were the bowls on mountaintops (the ones that make such great skiing) made by the Flood? Why don't the creation "scientists" ever try to make fossils via pressure when Floodlike conditions are present in many ocean trenches? Guess. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 273 Wed May 23, 1990 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:23 CDT No Herm, water could not have done the same thing. Particularly Water that wasn't all that deep and only stayed around for a short time. ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 274 ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 274 Wed May 23, 1990 HERM [ ERT assist.] at 22:11 EDT Your previous previous message was well thought out--but there was so much stuff that I do not think you want to discuss each individually. I do have an answer for most. (I particularly do not believe that fossils were formed from the flood, but that is another discussion.) I that fossils were formed from the flood, but that is another discussion.) personally feel that you, if you put your mind to it, and was objective enough would also be able to fit a worldwide flood into history, even with the above questions. Herm ------------ REPly ?275 ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 275 Wed May 23, 1990 L.EPSTEIN [Louis] at 22:25 EDT The size of the Ark is specified in the Bible...converting cubits(18") to feet,it was 450' x 75' x 45'....a gross rated tonnage of 15,187.5. It would have been awfully crowded. ------------ REPly ?276 ------------ Category 12, Topic 10 Message 276 Wed May 23, 1990 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 21:59 CDT I would like to hear answers to all of them! You don't need to answer all of them all at once. Maybe a file like the one I uploaded a few days ago listing off each question and an answer for each? You could do just one or two each day then upload the whole thing or even just answer one or two a day right here. (BTW, I know that the believers in the Ark have some sort of explanation for fitting all those critters in there but I don't remember ever hearing it.) Da Transdimensionally Engineered Sloth ------------ REPly ?