The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his065/ge_flood.arj/GE_FLOOD.TXT

Text File | 1985-11-20 | 278KB | 5,728 lines

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(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!
<grin>
 ------------
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.
 ~
 <Da Sloth grabs torch and bucket of water and begins to think
 nasty thoughts....Nawwww, too far of topic>
 ~
 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!
 ~
 <Dang! I sold my geology book last year!>
 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 <Flat Earth>
 ~
 "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 <Forteans>
 ~
 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?!?!
 ~
 <And if you say you do then I will list the reasons why his comet is
 bogus.  You may need to have some basic physics to understand some of
 them, but some are just glaringly obvious.  See if you can get a
 refund on that book.>

 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  <ahem>.

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 <Now just what side am I on anyway:> 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.  <OK, you _shouldn't_
 find, picky picky>

 ~
 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.
 ~
             <Taken from Roy A. Gallant's "To Hell With Evolution">
 ~
 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 <ALMOST stayed under 100 lines> 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! <G R I N>
 ------------
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? <grin>

 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.  <Yes I KNOW that a bat is more like a rat than a bird>

 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 <baited breath> 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? <Actually we seem to have gotten off the
 Flood stuff, maybe I should heed my own complaint? Well, I already
 typed this all up so...> R.Lee11 if you can't tie this into the
 current topic I will not be answering.

 Da <do I sound mad? Gee, I wonder why> 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! <grin>
 ------------
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

<durn emotionless Christians><GRIN!>
 ------------
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
<cr> 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. <sp><cr>
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
<blatent plug> 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 ?