News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

It is maintained by some that valid, long-established, confirmed history should be abandoned in favour of revisions recently penned by atheist/secular sources.

I maintain the proper conduct of historical research consists of three parts: Discovery, Verification, and Reconciliation.

The established record is much stronger than the replacement(s) to which I've been exposed. Rather than following proper procedures, pseudoscience has been hailed as the ultimate form of knowledge and presented as having more authority than history. It is utterly impossible for this to be true, since history is chief over all other sciences.

For those who have forgotten, here is a small sample of the rich history evolutionists would have us forget.

What makes you thing evolutionists want to hide the mythology of the various tribes from around the world?

Claiming that it's nothing but "mythology" seems to be a fine way to deter further investigation.

A story can be based upon fantasy, fact, or any mixture of the two. Without investigating, one will never find out.

Seems fair. What line of investigation do you suggest? Literary? Archeological? Geological?

Obviously these "histories" are known about, so what makes you think they haven't been investigated beyond just gathering the stories?

Discover, verify, reconcile. Somewhat has indeed been done. Here is one example. And here is another. I have also found a better argument for giving attention to this history than I could quickly cobble together myself.

I would not restrict the investigation of history to these examples, but they are rightfully part of the reconciliation process, and may serve to verify some things also.

Ok, so there are lots of examples of flood stories. They align in some ways and don't in others. The amount of alignment with the Biblical account varies across a broad spectrum from very closely aligned (Gilgamesh...) to barely discernible (A god caused it to flood....).

For the purposes of this particular idea that narrative history trumps geological evidence, which history is the true history? What do you have that supports your choice, beyond the fact that your favorite book is telling that particular story?

I'm not aware of any geological evidence that needs to be trumped. I don't subscribe to multiple timeline sci-fi. There is but one reality and one past.

I advocate honest efforts to reconcile solid history with new evidence. That which still doesn't fit, well maybe some more verification is in order as well.

Another jab at a scientific discipline. At least you don't limit yourself to insulting biologists. Now it's geologists. Which field is next...astronomy?

Ah, to reconcile solid history with new evidence. To do that I guess solid history has to be established. Please provide me with the solid history and how you know it is solid history. Is it the Vedas? The Norse creation story perhaps? The Buddhist scripts?

If you are saying that all these flood stories are indicative of a common flood affecting all mankind, then which one is the flood story from which all the others sprang?

The flood stories are like phylogeny, it's a tree theory, many branches derived from one origin.

Keeping in mind that Ham went one way, had children who had children who diverged again, over and over, Shem went another way etc... some retained the story better than others (probably those with notebooks). names changed as dialects varied...You can choose whichever one you like best, it doesn't really matter as a place to start.

There is quite a bit of evidence that most of the earth was covered with water at some point anyway. The only ones arguing against it are evolutionists with atheistic agendas who want to bury the evidence and dig it up at some later date I guess, maybe call it a fossil and give it a special name. It's actually the only thing that could have formed the massive glaciers we still see today too. Lots and lots of water, which froze pretty fast. Fast enough to drown and freeze mammoths with their grassy lunch still lodged in their throats even.

I found this webpage with stories about guys who dig up ivory from mammoth tusks in Siberia, lots of mammoths all died at one time and got frozen up there, tons upon tons of ivory they have been selling it for years from up there.. I can find the page later maybe.

There's evidence of a world wide flood? Is it in a form other than written or spoken "history"?
Those Mammoths could have died in local floods. I look forward to your linking us to that web page you found.

You say it doesn't matter which flood story I decide to choose. Are you saying that if I choose one that it would necessarily lead me to the Bible story? How would that work? What do you have that tells you the Noah story is the true version and all these others are variations. Why couldn't the Noah story be a variation on the flood story from China or India or even Norway?

LinearAq wrote:


Oh, LinearAq. Do you have to question EVERYTHING? Can't you just accept what's in the bible and believe?

I quote to you, direct from holy scripture:

Jabberwocky, 1871:00
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

For those who have an ear, the message above should be obvious from this excerpt, direct from the most the holiest of writings. I'll leave you all to think and ponder on the depth and severity of those words.

There are always variations on one solid truth and to discover which one is closest and most loyal to the actual account, one would of course need to do their research and then compare them if they wish to do this. There are over 250 flood legends, and in my south pacific part of the world, one of them is about "Nu'u" and his family of eight escaping the flood on a giant outrigger with a large house on top containing paired representatives of the main air breathing, earth dwelling animals kinds. And how his giant outrigger was stranded on a mountain in Hawaiaki (? today's Hawaii?). Any amateur linguist needs no telling of the clear connection between the polynesian "Nu'u" and "Noah". All of them, have more-a-less correspondence to the Genesis account and when an Aborigine elder heard the Genesis account, his face lit up in recognition and he graciously and spontaneously said "Your story is better than ours"!!


I present these free video links to you - Please simply click on the title's below to view. Enjoy!


STARTLING EVIDENCE THAT NOAH'S FLOOD REALLY HAPPENED


WORLDWIDE GEOLOGIC EVIDENCE OF THE GENESIS FLOOD


MOUNT ST HELEN'S (explosive evidence for worldwide catastrophy)


IN THE BEGINNING: Catastrophic plate tectonics and the Genesis Flood


RAGING WATERS: Evidence of the Genesis Flood in Australia


Even if you are on dial-up, these are surprisingly rapid and easy! Some may not turn out however.




NOTE: I resent Pwcca's sneering mockery of this very sacred book which means a great deal to me and other Christians, and I could suggest a destination for his jabberwocky quotation that would not be appropriate to indicate on this website.

This poster has contributed little to this forum except cheap sneering sarcasm or "veiled sarcasm" and ongoing nitpicking trivia, which is doing not much more than inciting others to respond into off-topic retaliations. Perhaps Russ can take note of the non-contributions he is making to this forum.

The above video links are either "real player" or "media player" compatible. You will need either to view some, or both to view all.

THE WORLD IS A GRAVEYARD. FOSSIL EVIDENCES AROUND THE WORLD INDICATING WORLDWIDE FLOOD

Six main geologic evidences for the Genesis Flood

Evidence #1. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level
Evidence #2. Rapid burial of plants and animals
Evidence #3. Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
Evidence #4. Sediment transported long distances
Evidence #5. Rapid or no erosion between strata
Evidence #6. Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Countless billions of plant and animal fossils are found in extensive “graveyards” where they had to be buried rapidly on a massive scale. Often the fine details of the creatures are exquisitely preserved.

For example, billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautiloids (figure 2) are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon (figure 1).1 This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km2). These squid-like fossils are all different sizes, from small, young nautiloids to their bigger, older relatives.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kkrpskrres.jpg">

To form such a vast fossil graveyard required 24 cubic miles (100 km3) of lime sand and silt, flowing in a thick, soup-like slurry at more than 16 feet (5 m) per second (more than 11 mph [18 km/h]) to catastrophically overwhelm and bury this huge, living population of nautiloids.

Hundreds of thousands of marine creatures were buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects, and reptiles in a fossil graveyard at Montceau-les-Mines, France.2 More than 100,000 fossil specimens, representing more than 400 species, have been recovered from a shale layer associated with coal beds in the Mazon Creek area near Chicago.3 This spectacular fossil graveyard includes ferns, insects, scorpions, and tetrapods buried with jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish, often with soft parts exquisitely preserved.

At Florissant, Colorado, a wide variety of insects, freshwater mollusks, fish, birds, and several hundred plant species (including nuts and blossoms) are buried together.4 Bees and birds have to be buried rapidly in order to be so well preserved.

Alligator, fish (including sunfish, deep sea bass, chubs, pickerel, herring, and garpike 3–7 feet [1–2 m] long), birds, turtles, mammals, mollusks, crustaceans, many varieties of insects, and palm leaves (7–9 feet [2–2.5 m] long) were buried together in the vast Green River Formation of Wyoming.5

Notice in many of these examples how marine and land-dwelling creatures are found buried together. How could this have happened unless the ocean waters rose and swept over the continents in a global, catastrophic Flood?

At Fossil Bluff on the north coast of Australia’s island state of Tasmania (figure 3), many thousands of marine creatures (corals, bryozoans [lace corals], bivalves [clams], and gastropods [snails]) were buried together in a broken state, along with a toothed whale (figure 4) and a marsupial possum (figure 5).6 Whales and possums don’t live together, so only a watery catastrophe would have buried them together! In order for such large ammonites (figure 8) and other marine creatures to be buried in the chalk beds of Britain (figure 6), many trillions of microscopic marine creatures (figure 7) had to bury them catastrophically.7 These same beds also stretch right across Europe to the Middle East, as well as into the Midwest of the USA, forming a global-scale fossil graveyard. In addition, more than 7 trillion tons of vegetation are buried in the world’s coal beds found across every continent, including Antarctica.

Exquisite Preservation
Such was the speed at which many creatures were buried and fossilized—under catastrophic flood conditions—that they were exquisitely preserved. Many fish were buried so rapidly, virtually alive, that even fine details of fins and eye sockets have been preserved (figure 9). Many trilobites (figure 10) have been so exquisitely preserved that even the compound lens systems in their eyes are still available for detailed study.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jogjfrdnii.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/didqeramtf.jpg">

Mawsonites spriggi, when discovered, was identified as a fossilized jellyfish (figure 11). It was found in a sandstone bed that covers more than 400 square miles (1,040 km2) of outback South Australia.8 Millions of such soft-bodied marine creatures are exquisitely preserved in this sandstone bed.
Soft-bodied marine creatures, such as this fossilized jellyfish (Mawsonites spriggi), are finely preserved in a sandstone bed.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/yulgtmepfl.jpg">
Consider what happens to soft-bodied creatures like jellyfish when washed up on a beach today. Because they consist only of soft “jelly,” they melt in the sun and are also destroyed by waves crashing onto the beach. Based on this reality, the discoverer of these exquisitely preserved soft-bodied marine creatures concluded that all of them had to be buried in less than a day!

Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about 6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby (figure 13)! One minute this huge creature was giving birth, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.
Many fish were buried alive and fossilized quickly, such as this fish “caught in the act” of eating its last meal.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/gsqrysximw.jpg">

This female ichthyosaur, a marine reptile, was found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/szbqzmbspf.jpg">

Conclusions
These are but a few examples of the many hundreds of fossil graveyards found all over the globe that are now well-documented in the geological literature.9 The countless billions and billions of fossils in these graveyards, in many cases exquisitely preserved, testify to the rapid burial of once-living plants and animals on a global scale in a watery cataclysm and its immediate aftermath. Often these fossil graveyards consist of mixtures of marine and land-dwelling creatures, indicating that the waters of this global cataclysm swept over both the oceans and the continents.

When we again read the biblical account of the Flood and ask ourselves what evidence we should expect, the answer is obvious—billions of dead plants and animals buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world. And that’s exactly what we find. The global, cataclysmic Genesis Flood and its aftermath was an actual event in history, just as God tells us in His record of earth’s history.

Above taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard

HERE IS ONE FISH IN THE ACT OF SWALLOWING ANOTHER FISH. EVEN A DUMB PERSON CAN FIGURE OUT THAT THIS FISH WAS COVERED RAPIDLY IN A WORLD WIDE FLOOD. ANY FISH CAN JUST SWIM AWAY IN A LOCAL FLOOD. IF THE FLOOD OF NOAH WAS JUST LOCAL THEN WHY DID HE NOT JUST MOVE AWAY. WHY WOULD HE OF HAD TO BUILD SUCH A HUGE BOAT AND PUT TWO OF EVERY KIND OF LAND DWELLING CREATURE IN THE ARK.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/fhiaphzoez.jpg">

If you really believe that the Colorado river carved out the Grand Canyon over the millions of years then you have more faith then I have. To believe that is like saying a rain drop carved out the Columbia Gorge.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kpbqpxsjbg.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/dfkbccmpja.jpg">
PETRIFIED LOGS LIKE THIS ONE ARE FOUND ALL OVER THE WORLD TESTIFYING TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN ACTUAL WORLD WIDE FLOOD. MANY EVOLUTIONISTS ARE SO BLINDED THAT THEY WILL BELIEVE THAT MARS WAS COVERED BY A WORLD WIDE FLOOD BUT WILL NOT BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH WAS ONCE COVERED BY A FLOOD. THE EARTH HAS ALOT MORE WATER THEN MARS. (THE EARTHS LAND MASS IS COVERD BY 2/3 WATER) IN FACT SOME EVOLUTIOISTS ONLY SPECULATE THAT THERE IS SOME ICE ON MARS.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/iodpitbenz.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/pgimxbzrnu.jpg">

Wow Bex, you are become quite the image master. looking good.

What is this jabberwocky anyway? Never heard of that myself. Well maybe heard the name here or there once or twice but never of much importance. anyway i guess i don't get the joke. just a... ummm... ok.. on that one. Someone needs a life maybe.

ANYWAY.... linear...



The flood, amazing you have never read into any information about it. I run into mention of the earth being covered by water in places all the time, really, no joke, and not by doing creation research. It's just a fact. No one ever comes right out and says 'hey the whole world, we can prove it..' but in places, so many places, there is unarguable evidence that there was lots of water covering everything. And some of those areas are quite high, like Utah was once a big sea so obviously so then was everything at lower elevations to it. tennessee.. Last i ran into a mention of it was in reading a criticism of Thomas Huxley's writings by another of his respected peers. i can find that I think.... but here is the mammoths link:

The Boneyards: The Beresovka Mammot...Composed of the Bones of Frozen Animals?

That ooparts site has lots of interesting stuff in it.


How would that work? You tell me. tell me exactly what it would take to make you understand something so simple. You claim we are decended from animals or other life forms, that evolution proves it, surely you can find links within human language and existing cultures to prove one language, one myth, even one religion, is descended from another. The ages of semitic cultures, chinese cultures... c'mon you cannot possibly not know these things by now can you? The Noah story is a variation of the flood story from China and/or India/Norway, it's quite obvious. But which one is oldest? how old is the bible Linear? Any idea at all? Hint... pretty old, the hebrew language is one of the oldest written languages on earth. Look it up. And semitic cultures are the oldest we know of on earth, that includes israel, and there isn't much argument among anthropologists about it. So old in fact, no one can recall who built the sphinx. I thought everyone learned that in 6th grade, no joke. Maybe they don't teach it anymore, but there it is,,, the sphinx, no denying it.

Professor Huxley on Canon Liddon, March 1887, Duke of Argyll[/i]

[i]...Professor Huxley, again, does well to remind us that ‘catastrophe’ [324] is a relative conception,' and that it may mean and often does mean some change which, however terrible to us, and of however great apparent magnitude to us, may count in the universe, and even on our own globe, as nothing more than a change on a molecular, or even on an atomic, scale. A subsidence of our dry lands sufficient to submerge the whole habitable portions of them under the ocean would be a change absolutely imperceptible in the outline of our planet even to a very near observer standing on some other body. It is, perhaps, one of the most certain conclusions of Geology that the mountains of Wales and of Scotland have all been under the sea in very recent times–in times so recent that zoologically they belong to the same epoch as that in which we are now living. It seems to have been only one among many changes of level; and science is as yet quite helpless to explain the process, or to specify the cause. We do not know whether it extended beyond the British Islands, although there is strong evidence that it was vastly wider. Neither do we know how suddenly or how slowly it came, nor how suddenly or slowly it passed away. Yet we have evidence that it was very transitory, inasmuch as it clearly passed away before there was time for a marine fauna to establish itself and flourish on the deluged areas. All this would belong essentially to the category of catastrophes if it happened in our time, or even if it only began to happen with a very considerable degree of slowness. So far, therefore, the Preacher was strictly justified when he spoke of a Flood as a catastrophe ‘not violently contrary to our present experience, but only an extension of present (recent) facts.' I do not think the same words could with accuracy be applied to such a catastrophe as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. That was more strictly miraculous in its character, because we do not know of any like physical causes operating to the same effect, although they are quite possible and conceivable, as connected with the phenomena of volcanic outbursts.2 However this may be, Professor Huxley disclaims the doctrine that catastrophes of any kind, whether called miraculous or not, are discredited by science merely because they involve a breach of the present order of nature. Science, he declares, ‘has never dreamed dreams of this sort.' On the contrary, he reminds us that science distinctly contemplates as more than possible the close of the existing order on which all life depends. He points out, moreover, and indicates in some detail, the recognised existence and continuous operation of physical causes which make it quite ‘conceivable that man and his works and all the higher forms of animal life should be utterly destroyed, and the earth [325] become a scene of horror which even the lurid fancy of the writer of the Apocalypse would fail to portray.'

I was not aware that geology relied upon multiple timeline sci-fi. How exactly do you believe geologists have become aware of multiple pasts.

And I'm curious - have they yet resolved any time travel paradox? I expect such would be a major impediment to investigations.

How fortunate you should mention the Norse! Odin's ancestry has been traced from non-biblical sources to Gog and/or Magog, sons of Japheth. The following sites are not as well-organized as I'd like, and somewhat better could be done with references as well.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/pt4/pt405.htm
http://www.tribwatch.com/dane.htm
http://www.tribwatch.com/ladon.htm
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/03/ancient-geneologies-support-bible-and.html
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html
Small Chart
http://cgca.net/coglinks/wcglit/hh_cmpndm2.txt

The internet isn't the best way to track down this kind of information. Unless you have some time, it'd be better to skip those links. A very good book, After the Flood, is a much better resource. The author researched the literature of Norse, Celtic, & others. Turns out several genealogies have been kept which converge on Noah & his sons.

I just found the online version of the book and haven't yet read it. I cannot recommend the physical version highly enough. I purchased extra copies myself for friends and family - can't say I've ever bought so many copies of any other book, except maybe the Bible. It's slow, somewhat difficult reading at first; but gets easier and more interesting as it goes.

Anyhow, the Hebrews aren't the only people who kept track of who their ancestors were.
Noah's, most likely.

This is some excellent evidence, Bex. I plan to look into these finds more closely myself.

Can't wait to see claims like "2000 intrusive burials mixed right in with 6000 fossils 'in the correct sequence'". Maybe I'll be disappointed, but don't bet on it!

Thanks Sosick and CTD. I could have put up just the link, but I figured that it would be better to get it up there with the pictures. Sometimes people don't bother checking out links either. I hope you guys might check out the links to the free videos you can upload and watch. If you get time to do that. Well worth a view.

All over the world there have been marine fossils found on mountain tops. One must ask....how did they get there?

Marine Fossils High above Sea Level

It is beyond dispute among geologists that on every continent we find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers which today are high above sea level. For example, we find marine fossils in most of the rock layers in Grand Canyon. This includes the topmost layer in the sequence, the Kaibab Limestone exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is approximately 7,000–8,000 feet (2,130–2,440 m) above sea level.1 Though at the top of the sequence, this limestone must have been deposited beneath ocean waters loaded with lime sediment that swept over northern Arizona (and beyond).

Other rock layers exposed in Grand Canyon also contain large numbers of marine fossils. The best example is the Redwall Limestone, which commonly contains fossil brachiopods (a clam-like organism), corals, bryozoans (lace corals), crinoids (sea lilies), bivalves (types of clams), gastropods (marine snails), trilobites, cephalopods, and even fish teeth.

These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wpsepmdjoo.jpg">

The Explanation

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

Could the continents have then sunk below today’s sea level, so that the ocean waters flooded over them?

No! The continents are made up of lighter rocks that are less dense than the rocks on the ocean floor and rocks in the mantle beneath the continents. The continents, in fact, have an automatic tendency to rise, and thus “float” on the mantle rocks beneath, well above the ocean floor rocks.4 This explains why the continents today have such high elevations compared to the deep ocean floor, and why the ocean basins can hold so much water.

There had to be two mechanisms for the sea level to rise. First, water was added to the ocean. Second, the ocean floor itself rose.So there must be another way to explain how the oceans covered the continents. The sea level had to rise, so that the ocean waters then flooded up onto—and over—the continents. What would have caused that to happen?

There had to be, in fact, two mechanisms.

First, if water were added to the ocean, then the sea level would rise.

Scientists are currently monitoring the melting of the polar ice caps because the extra water would cause the sea level to rise and flood coastal communities.

The Bible suggests a source of the extra water. In Genesis 7:11 we read that at the initiation of the Flood all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. In other words, the earth’s crust was split open all around the globe and water apparently burst forth as fountains from inside the earth. We then read in Genesis 7:24–8:2 that these fountains were open for 150 days. No wonder the ocean volume increased so much that the ocean waters flooded over the continents.

Second, if the ocean floor itself rose, it would then have effectively “pushed” up the sea level.

The Bible suggests a source of this rising sea floor: molten rock.

The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, referred to in Genesis 7:11, would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces.

Toward the end of the Flood, when the molten rock cooled and the ocean floors sank, the sea level would have fallen and the waters would have drained off the continents into new, deeper ocean basins. As indicated earlier, Psalm 104:8 describes the mountains being raised at the end of the Flood and the Flood waters draining down valleys and off the emerging new land surfaces. This is consistent with much evidence that today’s mountains only very recently rose to their present incredible heights.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/snelycyuhp.jpg">

What geological results would a yearlong worldwide flood leave? A global, catastrophic flood, would produce fossils showing signs of being rapidly and catastrophically deposited by water. But how would you detect this? What differences should be observed between fossils produced by a flood over one year, and the slow death, burial and accumulation, so often used to illustrate how fossils are believed to have formed.

During a walk along the beach you are bound to come across the type of shells shown in the following photograph.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/czneqdwans.jpg">
These bivalve lamellibranch shells are very common on beaches and are usually dead. Now look at the following photos of fossilized lamellibranch shells.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/apblvwasqz.jpg">
'What is the difference?' you ask. When next you go walking along the beach, or skin-diving, notice one thing about the living or dead present-day shells—they are there as part of an ecosystem. Along with the dead or living shells are a variety of dead or living plants and animals. Observe the following photo of fossil shells:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/vqruypnpys.jpg">
Note that it is not simply a buried ecosystem. Whatever the shell lived with or wherever it lived, its environment and its companions are not preserved. These shells are buried alone. They have been washed to where they are now buried. At the same time their previous life companions have not been washed to this location.

Only a current which had considerable sorting power could do this, i.e. it flowed for a significant distance and had significant force to sort out objects of a particular shape, texture and density and then drop them in a new location.

Study the following photos of a shell from the beach or sea floor and a fossilized shell. One more distinction is obvious in many cases.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/vqruypnpys.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/apblvwasqz.jpg">

All shells shown are dead, but the fossil shell is shut, whereas most present dead beach shells are open. When a lamellibranch dies, its muscles relax and the shell automatically opens. The connecting ligament decays and the shells separate into halves and then proceed to break up into fragments. However, the fossil specimens shown are closed. Only one conclusion is possible: these shells were buried alive.

In attempting to explain how the shells got there, we are really trying to postulate what type of conditions could:

(a) Enter an environment
(b) Remove some or all of the occupants, both plant and animal
(c) Sort out the objects
(d) Dump the objects into deposits of the same type of organisms
(e) Bury the organisms with sediment
(f) Achieve all of this before the shells died and opened
(g) Solidify the deposit before the pressure of sediment caused deformation

To insist as do many geologists that shell deposits of this type were buried over eons of time where they lived, is not a viable explanation. The observable data (fossil remains and behavior of present dead shells) is only consistent with a rapid and catastrophic flood type of deposition.

Precautions: When you discover a single bed or deposit of shells like the ones described in this article, you have not proved a worldwide flood. But the more deposits we find which can only be explained on the basis of "catastrophe", then the more geology will be made to work within a flood framework rather than an evolutionary one.

Research for Those Who are Interested:

(a) Would this argument using lamellibranch shells be valid if we tried it on Brachiopoda shells?
(b) Do any fossil shell deposits show evidence of being buried ecosystems?

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/nnqgoqieag.jpg">

Conclusion

The fossilized sea creatures and plants found in rock layers thousands of feet above sea level are thus silent testimonies to the ocean waters that flooded over the continents, carrying billions of sea creatures, which were then buried in the sediments these ocean waters deposited. This is how billions of dead marine creatures were buried in rock layers all over the earth.

We know that the cataclysmic Genesis Flood was an actual event in history because God tells us so in His record, the Bible. Now we can also see persuasive evidences that support what the Bible has so clearly taught all along.

One thing to be careful about: always list sources or links for text you don't write yourself. Don't want to learn bad habits. Some boards are pretty strict about this, and disclosure is the most honest policy.

Also a little better in case the material contains a mistake.

My error, sorry about that and thanks for the reminder. I gave the link for the first one, but forgot the second and will make sure I always add the links in future before posting.

Here they are if anybody is interested:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i2/shells.asp

Just to add here. Is anybody here aware of this fact - Where the ark (according to the bible) was supposed to have landed (on the mountains of Ararat) that there is a place nearby that has ALWAYS been known/called "The place of Eight" The people there accept this as it's just part of their history, but are not sure why or where it comes from, but simply refer to it as this and always have done. Further investigation discovered an ancient drawing of 8 people in that area and I think a boat. Isn't it interesting that there were 8 people who came off that ark in the same area?

If anybody is interested in this, I will get the details to it and put it up. I don't want to get this wrong in going simply by "recall" when my memory is shot half the time. The drawings are ancient by the way and I think there were also graves they found there too which seem to indicate the same. However, if I recall, the graves are much bigger than the graves of people today and it would seem a human jawbone was found there of gigantic proportions also but unfortunately it seems that much of it was stolen. Seeing as the bible refers to great ages these people lived, one must wonder if their size was also far bigger than what we are today. Certainly some animal/insect fossils found have shown this too. We have to remember that according to the bible, all things were made perfect in the beginning and how over time, due to sin, things deteriorated, but how fast was that deterioration? They were still living to great ages for sometime, but you see it shorten over time in the bible and after the flood, it was much more dramatic!

If these people lived to great ages, it would not be surprising either that their body proportions may have been far larger, certainly, even here in new zealand, they have unearthed human bones of very large proportions and they were also IN proportion. It would not have been abnormal then (though it would seem so for us) if that is how everybody once was due to a far different and superior climate/world.

Taken from Noah's Ark notes I have here at home:

Ancient Local Place Names verify The Great Flood Account in Genesis: Noah's Ark, Family and Landing place.

GENESIS ACCOUNT
1. The Flood was a divine judgement upon
the whole anediluvian (pre-flood) world.
.
2. Toward the end of the Flood, Noah sent
out a crow to test for the re-emergence of
land. At first, with nowhere to stand, it kept
returning; finally it did not return.

3. The Ark eventually came to rest in the
mountains.

4. They emerged from the Ark as though from
death, to start a new world.

5. And Noah built an alter and offered a sacrifice
of thanksgiving to God.

6. Historians tell us that pilgrims journeyed to
this site in ages past.

7. The company who survived the Flood were long
considered by the ancient world as the heroes
of man.

8. Eight human survivors emerged from the Ark
into this valley.

(note, above numbered texts correspond directly to the below and note the significance).

LOCAL PLACE NAMES
1. The area of the slopes near the boat shaped
object is called MAHSER, which means "The
last judgement day".

2. A nearby village bears the name KARGACONMAZ
which means "the crow will not stand or return".

3. The nearby castle of DARONYNK stands
on a site whose name means "where the
oars were reversed".

4. The field near the boat shaped object is
called NAHSUR "Raised from the dead".

5. The nearby village once bore the name
NASAR, which means "to make a
presentation or sacrifice".

6. The point above the head of the valley
is called ZIYARET DOG "voluntary
pilgrimage".

7. The closer end of the ridge is named
YIGITYATAGI "hero's bed" i.e. "the
habitat of heroes" or "Where the heroes
come from."

8. The Valley which stretches down from
here was anciently known as "The
region of Eight". Lower in this valley
near some ancient grave markers
bearing iconographs of eight persons,
stands KAZAN or ARZEP, a village
"The Place of Eight".


Thirteen Stone sea Anchors (Drogue Stones) have been discovered in the area of the boat shaped object. Thirteen out of an estimated eighteen have been found. They are by FAR the largest in the world averaging 8,7000lbs in weight (4 tons), measuring 10 feet in height, 5 feet wide and 18" - 24" thick. Some lie at intervals, cut loose when dragging along the shallow route taken by the vessel through receding flood waters to its Al Judi landing place. Each anchor stone had a cable hole at the top so that it could be suspended underneath to stabilise the colossal vessel in turbulent waters. Petrified animals dropping have also been found at the Ark site. Petrified antler also found. Iron rivet timber fixing have also been found. From Genesis, we know that metal production was a science long before teh time of the Flood. "And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, and instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah". (Gen 4:22).

A thumb bone has also been found near what is believed to have been Noah's "grave". The thumb bone came from a human being at least twice the normal height of today.

Hurite Column:
Remains of the 2000 BC Hurite Column on which were found inscriptions of a boat-shaped object with eight faces from within the boat, a volcanic peak and two birds above.

Fossilised deck timber recovered from the site proved to be laminated wood!
Testing was carried out by Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee, and the results showed the sample to contain over 70% organic carbon, consistent with fossilized wood. The specimen was once living matter. Later thin sections were cut from the sample for microscopic examination. The wood consisted of three layers. It was laminated wood! The cementing substance used was resin made from tree sap. Never before has petrified wood been found that was laminated. This revealed that the construction methods used by Noah in building the ark included three-ply laminating!

Two lichen covered stone grave markers were also discovered nearby. Incised into the surface were simple sketches of stunning revelations. Three parallel semicircles depicted a rainbow. A simple boat atop a simple wave depicted the Ark and the Great Flood. Eight stick figures depicted Noah's three sons, their sives and Noah himself with open eyes and raised heads walking away from a mother figure with her eyes shut, head bowed and still, as if dead. The other tombstone depicted Noah's three sons and their sives similarly walking away from two dead parents figures. Luckily (thankfully) these are on video, as the tombstones are now missing (plundered/robbed).

The graves were also plundered and deprived Turkey and all humanity of our sacred heritage from the post-flood parents of us all. Noah's wife's grave was 18 feet long. In it were priceless artifacts of gold and precious stones and possibly her skeletal remains. She is estimated to have been approximately 12 feet tall. The Turkish government is determined to recover the precious plunder. It already has the polished granite grave slab cover measuring 18 feet. A chance recovery nearby of a human thumb bone indicates a 12 foot owner.

Noah's Cottage?
Near the tombstones lie the ruins of a half-buried cottage thought to be Noah's house. The walls are 3 foot thick. on one wall, in simple stone incisions, were accounts of the Great flood, fortunately recorded on video tape, but unfortunately removed by local Kurds.

Noah's Alter?
A short distance from the cottage lies a small hill. Near it's base is a huge natural alter stone. Normally the priest or person offering sacrifice stands before a waist high alter. This alter is, however, six feet high. That this was an alter is verified by the nearby "U" shaped bleeding stones, where the animal sacrifices took place, before being laid upon the alter (according to sacrifical ritual).

I have not gone into everything here, but given some examples of discoveries in those areas. One can find out MUCH more than what I've given here!

Source material:

*'Discovery Volumes' by Wyatt Archaeological Research. 713 Lambert Drive Nashville, TN 37220

*'The Ark Conspiracy' By Jonathan Gray. Published by Australian Seminar Services PO Box 3370 Grenfell Street. Adelaide, South Australia 5000.

*'Discoveries: Questions Answered' By Jonathan Gray.

Sure, how did they get there? I read your AIG quotes but they don't tell you that many of the fossils have undergone intense pressure and temperature extremes that could not have occurred in a flooding of the land and burial in mud. So, how did that happen?

You may not know this but all mountain ranges show evidence of having been pushed up from underneath in their past. The Himalayas are still being pushed up by the collision of the Asian Continent with the India Subcontinent. Do the "scientists" at AIG choose to ignore this known geological fact? Why?

Billions of fossils over a 180 mile area all showing indication of burial underwater? Does the geologic evidence support their having been buried all at once or does it indicate burial over a longer period of time with some catastrophic burials at different time intervals? Since AIG provided the conclusion that those billions of fossils were buried at once, what evidence do they provide to support their conclusion?

That's a bit hasty. How about demonstrating why couldn't it happen during the great flood?

At least a couple of the present flood models involve mountain building & continents moving. I'd be very surprised if anyone at AIG isn't aware of this.

It annoying and yet funny how every so many years the evolutionists steal from hydroplate theory. They have to add millions of years & get permission and coordinate all the movements to halfway match dates with the rest of the scatter-brained just-so stories, but little by little they're incorporating it.

You're saying that Walter Brown's 1995 hydroplate theory of Noah's Flood preceded Alfred Wegener's 1912 hypothesis on continental drift? Talk about scatter-brained. Next you'll say it was also proposed before Abraham Ortelius ' 1596 conjecture that the continents were once all together and drifted apart.
I'm sure you have some evidence to back up your claim that continental drift was proposed by creationists before anyone else. Let's see it.

That's not what I'm saying. Are you saying you'd rather quibble over a comment I made than discuss the evidence Bex & SoSick & I have submitted?

CTD wrote:


If I understand correctly here, you're implying that you can make a comment such as the one quoted above and if someone replies to it or in any way refutes it they are "quibbling"? I see.

I wonder what your basis for comparison is.

One dead giveaway is when they attempt to construct a straw man, especially one of the poorest quality. Another tell, for anyone who cares, is the ratio of on-topic evidence available for discussion/significance of the given remark.

If I understand you correctly, you'd prefer to see every thread sidetracked into off-topic discussions of trivialities. Do you find my familiarity with commonplace evolutionist tactics distressing?

I would seriously question your understanding.



This is correct and expect it to continue, because that is part of the tactic.

The thread is about history, specifically the flood history and the idea that a world-wide flood destroying most of mankind is a common story in most cultures. I asked how we know the Bible story is the true account seeing as all the others are different from it...some are so significantly different as to be almost unrecognizable.

From that point the only one to try and answer was SoSick. Her answer was basically that she assumes the Bible is right, which is really inadequate to a non-believer, but it at least provided her point of view.

Bex just provided videos and accounts of evidence for floods, and evidence of marine life on mountains, which may support a massive flood but doesn't clear up which story is the true one. I gave an explanation for why the marine life could be on the mountaintop and you came up with that monstrosity of an assertion which claimed that continental drift was first thought up by a creationist weatherman with no training in geology. When called on it, you crawled into your "stay on topic" mode. How convenient.

Since you want to stay on topic, then provide some evidence that your flood story is more likely to be true than, for example, the Iroquois flood story.

I suggest using firefox, or some other browser with a tab feature when summarizing a thread. Doing so would help avoid so many mistakes. Relying on memory, well...

SoSick's post #253842 seems to be the one you're talking about. She says one should view the stories as a phylogeny, and you equate this with "assuming the Bible is right". For once you seem to see things fairly well. I think most of us agree that the phylogeny view does lead to the Bible, although it's not exactly accurate to call conclusions 'assumptions'.

Your direct response in #253855The very first sentence asks for evidence other than written or spoken "history". Yet your summary acts like Bex just wandered from the topic
You entirely omit to mention that in post #253857 Bex addresses your question about which account is accurate.

Another series of posts follows. SoSick & Bex continue to supply more & more of the evidence you requested (in a form other than written or spoken "history").

I provided evidence that other civilizations trace their ancestry back to Noah's descendants.

Bex provided more fossil evidence, and some very interesting items from her book, which leave little room for doubt. Well, basically no room at all. I'll grant that you have leeway to hope the book's fiction, or Bex is making it up - that's about it.

Your post #254202 Does not explain much of anything. It's a jumbled attempt to claim that mountain building occurs and AIG doesn't know this.

I point out that the jumble makes no sense, and you try to change the subject.

You yourself, in this very post (long long ago, but take a look - it's still there) equated the phylogenic view of flood stories with accepting the Bible. Don't bother trying to convince us otherwise. The truth has slipped out & it's too late to edit.

You requested evidence and a good deal of evidence has been delivered. If you don't want to discuss it, I'll wait for LindaLou to show up with some talkdeceptions "refutations". Or maybe I'll go fetch a few myself. Ridiculing lies can be fun.

I "just" provided videos.....and evidence for floods. I provided evidence for a worldwide catastrophe/flood Linear, not lots of local floods, please re-read the information given. You specifically requested something other than written/oral history and it was given to you as CTD has also pointed out. What more do you want? A visitation from the ghost of Noah? Not only have I given fossil pictures and a link to the fossil museum site, but posted videos (which I doubt you have even viewed) containing lots of evidence that points to a worldwide flood (far more than I could ever hope to pass on), but I have also shared the incredible "coincidences" (I believe evidence) for the existence of the 8 people and the ark in the very area that the bible states they all landed and the incredible evidence surrounding that place, which seems to indicate the biblical account was the true account (no surprise there).

I wonder what more a person is supposed to provide for you? You want evidence, but when it's given, you spit it back out or overlook half of what's been posted. This makes it very tiring to those that have made the effort because you requested it.

I'm honestly not sure how anybody can possibly cater further to your wants/needs <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/babypacifier.gif" alt="" />. What is it about the bible that you have such an aversion to that you'd almost jump to anything else, so long as it's not corresponding with the biblical account? Is the idea that the accounts within this holy book being a reality distasteful to you because of the moral implications if it turns out the bible is an accurate historical account?

I viewed one video and read the accounts you posted. They give evidence for massive floods due to the piles of fossils amassed in certain areas. What they don't portray is the fact that the fossils of marine life on mountains have undergone different conditions (high temperature and massive compression over long periods of time) than the mammoths or other creatures shown in the other examples of mass killings. It doesn't mention problems with flood theory, like Angular unconformities where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

Even if they irrefutably supported a global flood, there is no more support for the Bible version of the global flood than there is for the Hindu version. So how do I know to follow your God or theirs as the true God?

What I have is an aversion to those who hide behind a literal Bible as an excuse to spout their hatred and control others. I don't say you are one of those but I have met many who are. Your claim that I am immoral is a bit over the top, don't you think? I don't think that we should kill others except in defense of ourselves and to protect people. I don't steal...much (time from my boss, a pencil here and there...etc). What moral lapses are you accusing me of? Why would you think you know the reasons I don't buy everything the Bible says? I obviously know a bit about what it does say...I've read it many times. Maybe I don't accept all its precepts BECAUSE I have some knowledge about what it says and didn't accept that it is literally true before I read it.

A report on Ron Wyatt's claims is provided at AIG. They obviously disagree with Wyatt's insistence that he had found the Ark.

Found me a book review & it looks like accurate Egyptology's becoming available.Actually this has been in the pipeline for a while I think. It's been at least 3 or 4 years since I started hearing about some of this. Of course, I don't expect them to do a rush job on a book that's sure to draw plenty of fire, and we all know how excited the mainstream press is about such things - and I sure don't expect to see this on the History Channel.

But "Egyptology" has never been firm. It's way old news how they screwed up the chronologies by failing/refusing to recognize the split kingdom deal. Anyhow, I'm optimistic the truth is beginning to be extracted.

2 SoSick: I think you'll find some of the other stories there to your liking.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

umm yeah well unless it makes headlines, ends up in the news, or someone reliable like you tells me about it directly I'm not likely to look that direction these days simply because my to-do list is excessive already.

I saw a good program about the junk DNA not being junk afterall on some television show (which one long forgotten) about 2-3 months ago though.

so basically unless it makes headlines, like massive rivers in antarctica, ahem, I'll leave those inquiries to someone else for the time being. There actually are good scientists out there worthy of their research, and the new imaging technologies available is really making unexpected strides.

Science is the same as any field, it's the 80-10-10 factor. 80% of anything are pretty much the bottom of the class and losers who manage somehow, the next 10 percent follow the top 10% who who lead the way and are worth listening to. Just always keep that in mind when you choose a doctor or something too, picture your high school graduation class... how many of those kids actually made something of themselves? hardly the majority right?

you do a real good job btw. I haven't got any complaints. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/byebye.gif" alt="" />

I am responding here to a post made by RAZD in another thread.

And when investigating the past, history is the science we use. History consists of discovery, verification, and reconciliation. Upon discovery of the note there is no simply "true" hypothesis. The existence of the note is a fact, and for those present it's pretty well beyond dispute. But anyone drawing conclusions prior to verification & reconciliation is not properly investigating history.

Having a valid alternative is a good enough reason to reject premature conclusions which are not the result of verification and reconciliation.

So why should we accept evolutionism without investigating to see if the story is actually true? We should not. Things need to be verified and reconciled, and neither of these has ever been done.

It is valid to conclude that there is one truth. It is not valid to assume it can be discovered in all cases. We don't possess evidence of every event which has ever taken place. If we did, we could approach omniscience.

Interpretations can become assumptions, but not all interpretations become assumptions for further reasoning.

To employ a statement as a working hypothesis is to concede that it may be false. This is not consistent with what you maintained earlier: that there is only ever one interpretation and anyone who acknowledges others is denying reality or pursuing fantasy. You coined the term "basic interpretation" and said all others must be false.

Some aspects of mystery and magic can be tested, and they can be investigated historically as well. History often deals with events which aren't testable and repeatable. Death is one example. It is reasonable to conclude Abe Lincoln is dead, but one cannot kill Abe Lincoln in a lab in order to confirm this.

As the man is hypothetical, I cannot. But hypothetically I could. It could be that a demon was summoned to kill the individual, or a voodoo spell was involved, any number of things. A proper historical investigation would stand a chance of discovering these things, but an investigation which assumes they are impossible could not discover them.

Is it an accident that you compare a present-time observation to conclusions about the past? Is this the best you can do?

But we cannot say the table has always been there. Or the room for that matter. We cannot say what the table has been used for in the past. We can only say the table exists.

Present-time observations work like that, as a general rule.

Dodge the issue? Some of what Jeanie said was a matter of recorded history, and some of it was an hypothesis based upon this history and consistent with both the history itself and present-day scientific knowledge. It was fairly clear which was which.

From history we know that there was no rain in the Garden of Eden. The first record of rain is at the time of the flood. One may employ the working hypothesis that it did not rain during the interval without doing harm to history or empirical science.

So you're saying there's a burden of proof involved?

You turn right around and do it again! You offer conclusions and interpretations as evidence, and these are based on the assumption that there was no flood. This is circular. If you assume no flood, this assumption be reflected in your conclusion. But this is not a valid way to demonstrate that there was no flood.

Um, well, actually worldwide sedimentary deposits are pretty consistent with a worldwide flood if you think about it.

A good example of what happens when people advance assumptions as proven conclusions. Things need to be done properly. Discover, verify, reconcile. Troy was discovered in the literature, and someone decided they didn't want there to have been any Troys. But they didn't do a good job of verifying this. This has happened more times than you can shake a stick at. The entire Hittite Empire was said not to exist, and there was some antihistory about the Assyrians also, but I forget the details just now.

For the benefit of those who may not want to hassle with sorting out 2 threads, I'll import a bit. Do not drink anything while reading this - could be hazardous.

And we may refer back to some of this fallacy-laden spielAnd it might help to include some of what Jeanie said too RAZD has been maintaining Jeanie invented fantasies about giants & a lack of rain prior to the flood. There may be some residual discussion of this also.

Lots of wind there CTD. Two posts worth.

And you still have not shown that there is a source that validates these fantasies.

Any time you would like to present such substantiation, I'll be happy to reply. However, I note that lots of historical narratives have been shown to have false information in them, the question is not whether the facts fit the history but whether the history is true. With that, you are back to finding what the truth is.

Enjoy.

Moving your answer doesn't make it any better, CTD.

There is one truth, and the note is part of that truth. The object is to discover what the truth is, and not to make the evidence fit any preset story.

And the only source for verification and reconciliation with reality is the objective evidence of reality.

You seem to think there is something special about history, but it is just as prone to error as any other form of information known to man, and there are many instances where history was wrong.

The sedimentary deposits are very consistent with the areas in question being underwater for decades to hundreds of years at a time. Multiple layers with evidence of mature life that is 20, 30 40 years old piled up layer upon layer upon layer. The cliffs of Dover are hundreds of feet thick. Sediment layers on Mt. Everest include brachiopods that grow on slender delicate stalks, with shell size based on age of the organism, again in an environment that was mature marine growth of several decades at any point in those layers, and the layers again cover layers that cover layers. Last time I checked that does not fit your mythology. Care to explain how a 20 year old organism is evidence for a biblical flood?

Correct, so anything that has not been validated in any way as true, such as the mythology that there was a biblical flood, should be held with extreme skepticism. Likewise any claim for a young earth.

I trust you agree. Or do you employ the logical fallacy of special pleading?

Enjoy.

Do tell... You seem inconsistent, if I may understate things.
What's special about history? It's not that history is perfect; there are several pitfalls. History is the science by which all the others are known. If history is not valid, none of the knowledge of other types which it brings to us are valid either. It sets the boundary on certainty.

For instance, you cannot be confident that a given observation was made if you doubt the report. Same goes for experiments, discoveries, and everything else. So it's pretty important to get history right.
If you have evidence which cannot be reconciled with established history, you're welcome to present it. I don't think this is the case with the famous White Cliffs of Dover.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=cliffs+of+Dover&search=Go indicates there's been considerable discussion, and there are things to be learned from them indeed. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp was probably the best link in the first group. Looks like there are two historic hypotheses which account for chalk, etc. Maybe there are more alternatives yet to be discovered. I cannot choose between them myself just yet. I think we need more evidence.
The story of the flood has been verified in several ways. You might browse this thread if you have some time. Although I intended it to be about history in general, most of the discussion has tended toward the flood. Certainly on-topic, but a little narrower in scope than what I imagined.
I have no need of special pleading fallacies. You are the one insisting we accept your interpretation as fact, and turning right around and saying "The object is to discover what the truth is, and not to make the evidence fit any preset story." I don't know whether you intend special pleading, appealing to authority, lying, or and admixture of these. I don't think you've made up your mind just yet.

I should point out that this has the potential to result in error when researching history. Testimony is the primary means by which we learn history, and although the existence of the testimony is a matter of objective evidence, the testimony itself is often subjective and unclear. The testimony of actions always carries far more weight than the testimony of words, and is usually pretty clear.

Looks like selective memory is operating again. That pesky discussion of varves, ice cores and tree rings must be far enough in the past now for you to conveniently forget about it -- or, more predictably, to brush it off with, "I don't believe it." Why not employ some of your guidelines of hsitorical study by going back to that thread and reminding yourself of why it's difficult to reconcile "evidence for a global flood" with millions of layers of biannual varves in the same area.

The story of the flood may be verified in your own head but you will notice that most people do not share this fantasy with you. Can you produce an article from a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal that gives solid evidence that a global flood has been verified, or does that not count in your book because scientists are liars?

BTW your AiG links do not answer the questions that RAZD has put directly to you, about delicate organisms and prints of raindrops within very old sedimentary layers. All you are offering is "Woodmorappe says so," and we've shown you in various places before on this forum where Woodmorappe is wrong. Have a Google about chalk formation and you will see for yourself. These sorts of creationist articles rely on the geological ignorance of the people who read them.

I transplanted this, as it may tie in.

There's no "stuck" involved with having one reality. This is what I've maintained. Evidence either exists or does not. Even faked evidence is evidence that someone was motivated to deceive. "Evidence is false" is a nonsensical statement. As you have confused terms before, I predict you shall continue to do so with the term 'evidence'. You'll be hard-pressed to produce any evidence that a creationist has denied the existence of the White Cliffs of Dover, so you'll maintain that your interpretation constitutes evidence. Nothing new. Interpretations aren't evidence.

If interpretations were evidence, I suppose I should claim some more for Skunk Funk. Skunk Funk already claims the cliffs, as they're geologic and made up of fossils, but I can interpret them and claim additional evidence perhaps?

I'd really like to talk about this Global Flood. I attempted to do it several months back and it didn't last long before the creationists resorted to name-calling. I don't think they liked talking about what the insects did and whether they believed in the floating vegetation mats.

There are so many questions to ask. Do you believe all that rock and all those fossils were laid down in the flood, and that they were sorted hydrologically? Do you believe all the plants survived under water all that time? Do you believe that Noah only took limited numbers of animals on board, managed to cater to all their specific needs during that time, and that the animals then hyper-evolved once they got off the ark?

So many questions, which you can presumably verify for me. Should we start another thread on this, or resurrect an old one which is suitable?

I don't believe all rocks are the result of the flood. To believe such would be to overlook the rest of the earth's history, and there seems to be little excuse for anything of that nature.

Sorting seems to have taken place where the circumstances were correct. Other finds are consistent with rapid in-place burial; and still others are consistent with objects floating initially and being deposited later. It's a big world, and it was a big flood. We have no indication that it was uniform.

No. We have fossils of plants which apparently didn't survive.

Not sure what you mean here. I believe the history included in Genesis is accurate, and animals produced offspring after their kinds just as they have always done.

I don't have any doubt that an uncountable amount of questions can be produced. Experience has made me skeptical about the quality of questions about the history of the flood. As it's mandatory for even the OEC's to demonstrate a flaw in the history, one might expect someone should have come up with one or two rock-solid objections.

So how did all those plants survive almost a year underwater? Apparently they did survive because they are still here. Did Noah take all the species of plants too?


This is a nice general statement but it doesn't explain much without some accompanying detail.

Does "producing offspring after their kinds" mean that the species existing today are the same as the species that walked off the ark?

If so:
1. How did the marsupials of Australia, New Zealand and Tazmania get back to those places? Same for New World animals.
2. Why did they only go there and not anywhere else? We know this because no fossils or remains of those animals have been found anywhere else.
3. What kept the other species of animals, like cats, from going to Australia, New Zealand and Tazmania? Cats have caused much trouble for the indigenous populations of birds since man brought house cats to those places.

If not:
1. Then some evolution is required to result in the species we see today. What is the mechanism incorporated by the biology in each kind that limits the amount of change in the genetics of the daughter populations?

The problem with your blanket statement is that, without detail, it's kind of like telling a doctor that you are sick but refusing to provide him with symptoms. Basically, it is a useless statement.



Perhaps you can provide a detailed evaluation of my questions above and tell us why they are of low quality. Accusations are your forte`. It's the supportive evidence for your accusations which seems to be in short supply.

I would have preferred to have started a new thread for this discussion. But never mind. Sticking just to what's been said here, CTD also stated:



Please explain what you mean by "where the circumstances were correct."

Please also explain why trilobite fossils are always found under dinosaur fossils, and dinosaur fossils are always found under human fossils. Everywhere, without exception. I'm curious about pterosaurs too. They're found with the dinosaurs. They could fly like the birds, so what gives?

BTW I wonder if a creationist here would like to try an experiment. It can be done easily at home. After all, science is about testing your hypotheses.

1. Take one of your favourite household potted plants.

2. Water it like hell for 40 days and nights.

3. Observe rotted dead plant.

Sorry for the delay getting back to you CTD, but it seems we have some more improvements ... if not a total rebuild?

Sorry, CTD, but history is just not that special.

Six people in my room can agree that at this singular moment there is a table in my room, no history needed. Any time you have multiple observation of evidence you don't need history to discuss it.

It is the work of but seconds to come up with examples that falsify your assertion.

But more than that: in science we have the principle of reproducibility. An experiment that was done 100 years ago can be repeated without needing history to tell you the result, and more importantly, if you doubt the historical account of the experiment you can test it.

Just as you can test the process of evolution today, or repeat experiments that have been done in the lab and in the field.

So it is more important to get the facts right than to make everything fit history. Likewise errors is history have not been uncovered by going back and reliving it, but by uncovering evidence that shows the historical story to be false.

There are many cases of evidence that has shown "established history" to have mistakes, errors or falsehoods, and that it is not necessarily any more trustworthy than anecdotal evidence.

The problem, though, is that you are claiming that "established history" is something else besides the accumulation of historical documents from around the world, something specific, something that isn't history but mythology.

All of them by ignoring most of the evidence.

A twenty year old clam shell on a mountain top presents problems for anyone thinking it is evidence of a biblical flood that only lasted a couple hundred days, especially when you have delicate organisms preserved undamaged, along with evidence of a fully mature marine environment, complete with bore holes and layers on layers of growth, growth that took hundreds of years to occur.

Snelling lies, and AiG does not test for truth, but don't take my word for it:

1 - 10 of about 5,520 for "andrew snelling lies".
[quote] AIG gives us Andrew Snelling - IIDB
Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to ... Some of you have probably read Ian Pilmer's "Telling Lies for God". ...
iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=211269 - 118k - Cached - Similar pages
Andrew Snelling vs. Andrew Snelling [Archive] - Rants 'n Raves
Consider the strange case of Dr. Andrew Snelling (at CreationWiki ...... It was just a big dodge and an excuse for Snelling to lie for Jesus here ...
www.rantsnraves.org/archive/index.php/t-3292.html - 91k - Cached - Similar pages
Excess Argon and Excess Lies II
Andrew A. Snelling started his

History isn't required in order to obtain one's own direct observations. Forgive me if I incorrectly assumed you possessed common sense enough to know this.

We can verify history, yes. Although repeating what was reported only verifies that it is possible to obtain x results. The account could still be false, although it is not usually the case.

Fine. Evolve us a man from a rock. Or a man from an ape. Or any life from a rock or rock soup.

Utter nonsense. Because there is only one reality, all actual facts, when properly understood, must conform to this reality. The past is singular, and true history must agree with this past and all facts (common definition - not RAZD definition). Getting history right and getting the facts right are exactly the same thing, and nothing can be more important than itself.

Reenactments have limited value, but are still an investigative tool.



You don't seem to be very clear about what you claim I am claiming.


Quite the contrary. We have flood stories from all over the world, and even long-suppressed evidence that several cultures trace their ancestry to Noah & sons. It is pretty clear what evidence is being ignored by whom.

But I must remind readers that RAZD uses the term 'evidence' to refer to conclusions of evolutionists, and in the interest of clear communication I add that I do not accept the conclusions of evolutionists. They are contrary to history, science, and reality as we know it.

I do not see a problem with a clam being 20 years old at the time of the flood. Was there something special that occurred 20 years prior to the flood which prevented clams from breeding? Please explain your new evomyth more fully, that we may all have a good laugh.


I shan't. Neither shall I take the word of your surrogate slanderer. His conclusion, unsurprisingly, is bogus. He points out that Snelling's interpretations are different than evolutionists' and says this makes Snelling a liar. Wow!

He catches Snelling speaking evolutionese and says this makes there 2 Snellings. Wow again! I have myself employed evolutionese on more than one occasion, so how many of me are there? Is speaking evolutionese cloning or something?

From your history, it is not surprising that you attack the man rather than the argument. Observe how I differ. I have attacked your evolutionists argument; now I will address his accuracy.

RAZD's evoslandersource, one Dr Alex Ritchie, says But he later quotes Snelling as writing Now 'after Noah's flood' is certainly not synonymous with 'during Noah's flood', is it? Neither is 'rocks containing fossils' synonymous with 'everything geologic'.

Perhaps Ritchie attributes this to 'Snelling3' in his own imagination, but forgot to tell us? I should expect there's only one Snelling, Ritchie's fiction notwithstanding.

The boy's amateurish distortions aren't very amusing. He says Which is just about as sorry a straw man as one can construct. This is a gross insult to the intellect of anyone who's ever studied creation science whether they accept it or not. Well, almost anyone. Those with short enough attention spans & other memory-related disorders might forget what they've read.

But the poor-of-memory and short-of-attention-span needn't despair. They have only to scroll up a few inches and they can see where Ritchie has himself included this quote from creationistsIs his own attention span so short? If so, just how much do we care to adopt conclusions on his say-so? He seems to be a poor historian indeed! I could go on and on, but I won't waste any more time. On a bad day LindaLou's fiction is the equal of this junk.

Editing to add more funny:
RAZD links to slander of Andrew Snelling, but Snelling is just the author of this one article. You need more slander because if you read the article you'll find[quote]Two creationists have done much to provide a satisfactory response to these objections against Flood geology

Please demonstrate how there can be any ambiguity in what I said. Under the right circumstances things will be sorted by moving water. Did you not know this?

I don't believe this is so. I don't believe human fossils are always indicative of dinosaur fossils in deeper layers. It would be quite a handy shortcut if true.

Now if you mean I should explain why dinosaur fossils are always assigned dates "older" than human fossils, etc. I should refer you to the process of circular reasoning.

Just how close are they found together, and what clues are found about the circumstances? For example, are pterosaurs found scavenging on dino carcasses?

So why did you say all plants should have survived the flood? One could also bury a plant under 200 feet of sediment & kill it that way. Or find an active volcano... well, you should get the picture.

Is this some sort of straw man you're working on, or has any creationist actually ever maintained no plants would be killed in the flood? Perhaps you've been learning about creationism from the likes of Dr. Ritchie? Or maybe Glens Morton & Kuban?

I never said all the plants survived. What survived survived and what did not survive did not survive. People who set about to preach 'natural selection' might be expected to understand this.

Detail? Look at the question for cryin' out loud.

Not by most definitions of 'species', no. You ask for detail & bring up 'species', one of the most notoriously polymorphic terms in the language?
Back? Who says there was an Australia before the flood, or where it was located at the time soon thereafter? We know the continents have moved around, but we don't know the timetable.

I don't claim I can read the minds of animals. Not living animals, and certainly not long-dead animals.

Now about that lack of fossil remains, just how much certainty can one assign to this knowledge? Does not finding fossils really mean the animals did not live there? I'm just a little surprised that you venture such a conclusion.
Anyone who studies genetics, particularly recombination, should be able to figure out quite a bit about how these things work. Calling it "evolution" is just a cheap attempt to claim "evolution has been observed".

The problem with your criticism is you're trying to put me down for giving the best response I knew how to practically give to LindaLou's question. Basically it is a useless waste of time, and is likely to backfire.

Well, your fourth post in this thread supplies this quacky accusation:I don't know about others, but it still makes no sense to me; neither does the question part. My best guess is that you also consider the opinions of evomongers to be facts. Can you confirm this by a simple yes/no or perhaps by a convincing demonstration? (Or maybe a mix of saying "no" and demonstrating "yes"?)

Selective memory indeed! You have omitted verification, and misapplied reconciliation.

Reconciliation does not consist of overturning established history by comparing it to the worst possible interpretation of a single piece of evidence. Reconciliation consists of surveying all reasonable interpretations and seeing if any of them are compatible with what is already known. Not that I expect you to follow this formula...
Can you produce a peer-reviewed journal that has a record of being perfectly right 100% of the time despite centuries of hostile attacks by antihistorians?

I have told you what counts: discovery, verification, and reconciliation. The clearer I make this, the less likely I'll be seeing much of it. Which verifies that it is true, in an indirect but valid way.
I'm not terribly interested in loaded questions which assume I am wrong. The pertinent elements of the questions have been addressed. The chalk formations can be reconciled with history, and the White Cliffs of Dover specifically reconcile much better with actual history than they could with the antihistory of evolutionists.

And all you offer in response is to remind us of past slanders against Woodmorappe? Fine! This is to be expected, at least by those who are familiar with scripture or even human behaviour in general.

What I meant by "all those plants" is "all those varieties of plants. Since the Flood waters covered the mountains to a depth of more than 20 feet and the Flood covered the Earth for more than 150 days before God allowed it to recede. It would seem to me that the plants on the earth would not survive 40 days of rain plus 150 days underwater.

So, did Noah have to bring 1 of each variety of plant on to the ark? Otherwise, how did they survive?

I wasn't there; but one reasonably expects some plants may have survived in the ground and most types would have perished, but left seed.

What'll be the next jest? Dare one hope for something better? One can learn what seeds are in kindergarten, you know. It is amazing the simple facts folks are willing to give up for the sake of evolutionism.

What's even more amazing CTD is that you can't seem to ever answer any question without a lot of lip and childish banter.

So the animals all ate seeds until the new plants could grow? Perhaps they just ate some of that sediment covered dead plant matter.

Also, the Flood started in the second month of the Hebrew calendar which is in the spring around April or May. I don't think there are many seeds around at that time of year.

Certainly. Just as one learns in kindergarten the time of year most plants produce seeds .

However, I can't really hold that fact against you. You probably didn't think about when God started the Flood. One has to actually read the Bible to gain that kind of esoteric knowledge.

You have stated 3 things that can happen in circumstances such as a flood. The problem with this is that there is no geological evidence of a global flood. I was asking you why the fossil record displays such remarkable and precise sorting across the world when creationism demands that fossils are the result of a global flood.

Many of your other statements here imply that you simply believe that the sorting of the fossil record is a pack of lies. You will not believe, for example, that pterosaurs are found in the same layers as dinosaurs (which would no doubt cause discomfort, as presumably the pterosaurs would have flapped for the hills during the flood) unless someone can find you both fossils next to each other. I have a bit of advice for you: look up some information on dating methods. You know, that subject that you said you don't believe in either, even though you don't know anything about it. That's of course an easy way to get around awkward evidence -- completely ignore it. Unfortunately it doesn't lend much credence to your position.

I do still have some questions about the plants, yes. If the plants died in the flood, what did the herbivores eat when they came off the ark? How did they survive until seeds germinated? How did the seeds germinate if they were buried in all that sediment from the flood? For that matter, what did the pollinating bees do during the flood? Did Noah keep some hives?

And a few more questions, since you asked. There are a lot really. What did the carnivores on the ark eat? What did they eat when they got off the ark? How did Noah stop them from eating other animals before and after? How did animals from all over the world make it to the ark, even if they could not swim but had to cross water? What happened to the millions of known species of bacteria and viruses; did the humans and animals on the ark act as living hosts for them all? Yet none of them died from illness?

I'll stop here for now and wait for the interesting answers to these questions.

I see an illogical trend here. That God preserved many lifeforms is a well-established fact; but if the methods aren't known with precision and detail, the evolutionists would have us abandon history altogether.

That's a mighty odd idea. Would we write off George Washington or Napoleon Bonaparte as fictional just because we don't have a record of every single word they ever spoke, including the gibberish they uttered while learning to speak? Of course not.

One cannot help but notice the double standard. Their antihistory provides no details at all about ancestral lifeforms.

For all anyone knows, God could have provided manna for the animals when they disembarked. We don't know when they came of the ark; it could be that Noah's family tended them for some time after the ark landed. If to found a "theory" upon ignorance is folly, how much moreso is it folly to abandon investigation on the grounds of ignorance? No investigation can even get off the ground with that approach! All investigations begin in a state of ignorance.

But consider the hypothesis presented: God was unable to preserve life. One need not consider it very long at all. The erroneous nature is self-evident, not to mention the testability issue.

"Aha!" they will exclaim. "You resort to 'God did it'". This is not a resort; this is what history says. We know God has done many things. It does not prevent one from investigating. Actions speak louder than words. Who here is against investigating, and who is in favour of investigating? Much can be learned from investigating the flood. But it's just as wrong as it can possibly be to call off the investigation altogether for the excuse that we don't know every detail.

Many things are overlooked by those who have an aversion to history. The flood we discuss was not some random event. God planned it. Those who have investigated have concluded that the world was a very different type of place before the flood; but one always meets the assumption that it was exactly as it is now. The assumption that the flood impacted every square inch of the world uniformly is also encountered. Of course we know that assumption is false, but time and again it turns up.

What cannot seem to turn up is anything approaching an excuse to abandon the history we have, or the proper means of investigating it. Anyone who has ever battled weeds knows how hard it is to exterminate plant life. Only domesticated varieties are delicate; the natural types come right back. All it takes for plants to survive the flood is for a seed or two to find a purchase in a crevice, or float, or even go dormant deep under ground for ages.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dormancy-1?cat=technology
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=YARDSMART-HOME-05-15-06
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826167.html

Not that those will help the unhelpable, but one tries...

I begin to think I'm behind the times. Evogoggles could slip off occasionally. I think you have implants.

It isn't difficult to superimpose patterns, particularly when one is allowed to take anything that does not match & claim it actually does match, or just turn an evogoggled eye to it.

I will believe what is actually found. I don't accept empty assertions as evidence. Seems like you define "together" as "in layers that are assigned the same evoage". That doesn't mean peanuts. As you are opposed to proper historical investigations, it is not a surprise at all that you'd fault me for requiring verification.

Don't try to confuse me. First you want me to ignore evidence then you don't. Make up your mind.

You omit the serious issue of Mrs. Noah spending so much time confined with three daughters-in-law. Yikes!

Your premise is faulty. I still have no obligation to debunk all bunk. Spamming weak objections just doesn't have any impact on history. You need something meaningful. If your "we've slandered Woodmorappe" argument was all that strong I don't expect you'd have dropped it. Not that you've abandoned it - it's just waiting to cycle back around next time you think its utter lameness has been forgotten.

As usual, nothing concrete on offer here, just more remarks about how you refuse to engage with any evidence.

There is evidence for local catastrophic flooding in different places at different times. No evidence for a worldwide flood at any point. As others have mentioned here, you can look at the geological record and see evidence of climate change, wet and dry periods, fossilised raindrop and animal prints, corprolites, burrows that living creatures have made, varves, etc. Can you not see how clear it is to everyone here that your beliefs demand that you must simply ignore these things? Since when was ignoring reality a legitimate route to any truth?



Like I said: learn about dating methods. But you won't, because then you would come up against solid evidence for why rocks and fossils are dated the way they are, and this would not sit easily with your creationist beliefs.

I enjoy discussing the issues here, I learn a lot myself by it. But at the moment we simply seem to be stuck with denial after denial. Anyone can claim anything they want, without a shred of evidence to back it up. We may as well be debating about whether Santa Claus lives at the north pole, and you'd be telling us that it's true because you said so and because millions of people across the world believe in it too.



The sarcasm obviously passed you by. Seriously, I'd really like you to learn about dating methods. I'm not talking about chat-up lines either, just to clarify that as well. Then we can have the beginnings of an educated discussion.

I've "slandered" Woodmorappe? He wrote a book attempting to explain in minute detail how Noah and the ark was a historical event. I was having a look at his claims yesterday and taken as a whole, it's the most amusing thing I've read in quite some time. He thinks, for example, that the animals' urine could have drained out the bottom of the ark, despite the fact that the bottom of the ark would have been below sea level. I wonder why someone would think that writing stuff like this is a useful way to pass his time and that there's nothing better to be doing.



If you had looked into the feasibility problems of caring for so many different species of animals on the ark, you'd see that this would hardly be a concern, as they would be rushed off their feet 24/7 with feeding and watering them and shovelling poo. If you still think this is realistically possible, think about how many people a single zoo has to employ.

So are you going to attempt to answer even one of my questions? Can you? Don't you think that if Noah's ark is a true story, these issues ought to be considered? Did God not create brains for us to use?

Well CTD, denial and obfustication again, and you still don't deal with the issues.

Which of course contradicts your earlier assertion that

And that, of course, was my point.

There is only one reality but history is not that reality, rather it is our understanding of that reality. Thus valid history must agree with the facts. Invalid history, of which we have examples, is contradicted by the facts of reality. Myths and fantasies are particularly prone to be contradicted by the facts of reality, and thus making up stories about how things could have happened in a way consistent with a myth does not rely on facts, but on selection of only those that can be bastardized to conform to the mythology.

The earth is old, that is a fact, it is a part of reality, and any "history" that says otherwise is invalid.

The universe is older than the earth, that too is a fact, a part of reality, and any "history" that says otherwise is invalid.

Life has existed on earth for at least 3.5 billion years, that too is a fact, a part of reality, and any "history" that says otherwise is invalid.

You answer yourself. But the real problem is that you don't need to reenact any past event to show the process by which the event occurred. When I said:

I was not talking about reenactments, but about the process of evolution. Forgive me if I incorrectly assumed you possessed common sense enough to know this.

Ah, so mythology is evidence. We also have evidence of local floods in all areas where there are flood stories, and we can also note that all those other flood stories differ in the details. Significantly. For instance in the Norse mythology that involves a flood it is the blood of a giant that causes the flood, and the hero escapes in a tree trunk, and the teeth of the giant become the mountains.

But I am not going to argue about mythologies and whether they may or may not be true, or partly true. You claimed there was lots of evidence of a biblical flood: where is it? Is the best you have are a bunch of inconsistent stories, then you will excuse me if I remain skeptical.

I could equally "remind readers" now that "evidence" according to CTD is any mythology of choice.

But this of course ignores CTD's misrepresentations of evidence as conclusions of evolutionists.

So you agree that the 20 year old clam is not evidence of a flood, having grown at a different time than this supposed event.

Now that we both agree that the clam did not grow during the flood the question is how you explain the evidence of the 20 year old clam on the mountain top. I can refer to the known process of plate tectonics that have been measured and which do in fact show that the building of mountains is entirely feasible given (a) the known age of the earth, (b) the known processes of subduction and uplift - processes that do not involve biology in any way.

This also explains multiple layers of marine sediment on mountains, and the alternation of marine sediment and non-marine formations. It also explains fragile structures being preserved unbroken in sedimentary layers.

The problem for you is to explain how this in any way supports a flood mythology.

And we still do not have any evidence presented that shows there was a flood. All we have are explanations of how evidence can be misinterpreted in order to fit a mythology, and nothing based on facts.

The basic problems with turning the cliffs of dover into an algae bloom are multiple, but the most telling is that the organisms at the bottom are not the same as the ones at the top, they show evolutionary change in hereditary traits from generation to generation.

Snelling's pretend scenario is nothing but fantasy built on falsehood, compiled ad hoc to attempt to wave away evidence, and it relies on ignorance for acceptance, ignorance of the rest of reality and the evidence of it.

It ignores the reality of algal blooms. Algal blooms are frequent (more so with pollution and global warming) and can be seen from space covering large areas of the sea, larger in fact than Snelling contemplates, and they are tracked and measured by biologists, and yet, curiously, in none of these instances is there any visible hint of even the beginning of an inkling of a "mini-cliff of dover" formation associated with any of these formations, even though their duration cannot be much different from any such bloom in a biblical flood that then forms the basis for magically being transformed into a solid rock cliff hundreds of feet above the sea level (ie - you are still missing over half the evidence that needs to be explained).

In other words, algal blooms cannot explain the cliffs of dover and anyone, Snelling included, that claims this is telling you a falsehood.

Now it's time to see some real evidence for a flood, or to concede that none of the evidence known to man supports a biblical flood.

You said there was lots: where is it?

Enjoy.

CTD, just for you.

As you have referred to other flood myths as evidence for the biblical flood, I have opened up this topic for discussion on Russ's Is the Grand Canyon Proof of Noah's Flood? thread.

Do other flood myths support the biblical flood?

If you think this is a valid argument then I expect you to defend your thesis on that thread. You don't even have to present physical evidence of reality to back your assertions, just deal with the evidence of what these other myths say.

Enjoy.

You seem to have no point. There is no contradiction upon which to build one. All sciences are known via history. There are no exceptions.

Without history, one can only know what one directly observes oneself. That just isn't very much at all.

So history isn't what has happened? We disagree. I have little use for what you imagine has happened.

Now here we have a contradiction indeed.

If one's imagination is not a valid part of 'history', your original definition fails & mine prevails. I know there are things people believe which are in error. You first included them, and now turn right around and exclude them.

We obtain knowledge about history by discovery, verification, and reconciliation. It's so simple!

You refuse to employ this method, yet you offer no alternative beyond taking your assertions.
Have you been studying? This could pass for a pretty accurate assessment of evolutionism. There was no effort to discover, verify, or reconcile much of anything. There was just a vast amount of propaganda: "Imagine life can change into anything... imagine there was enough time for this to happen... imagine whatever you need to make this seem plausible to you..." Never was any of it based upon reality, past or present.

I'm guessing this is the type of fact that is established by assertion... Who knows at this point?

Some of us expect facts to be proven, but... Man, it just ain't a challenge. I declare! Can you do no better? Do you have to equivocate over every single term in your efforts to create a thick enough smoke screen for your evomyths?

Or has evolutionism scrambled your mind to the point you no longer understand or speak plain English?

Or do the above constitute a false dilemma?

Ha! Another RAZDfact. So what? Can you speak, and it becomes so? Obviously not, or reality would've severely altered itself many times by now.

Forgive me if I correctly conclude you do not know or care what you are talking about at any given moment. I do not reach this conclusion voluntarily.

It is not my place to excuse you for ignoring the evidence available in this and other threads. If your own conscience excuses you - that should be your concern.

Odd jest. Desperate? Well it looks like you've appointed yourself fact czar, evoczar, and now myth czar, but how many peasants does your empire oppress?

It is I who maintain that evolutionist conclusions are not facts, yes. It is amusing that you don't see the folly in even disputing this point.

One might suspect that you do indeed see the folly, but fear the alternative: examining these conclusions. (At this point, I would not be that one. I think the disease has progressed beyond the point where rational motives are even in play.)
Well, as you cannot explain what your clam has to do with anything at all, I won't venture to guess just now.

All we have is your word that no clam could be 20 years old if there was a flood. Given your record, especially recently, I'm not terribly concerned about this.

Well, if these processes don't involve biology, how did they grow a 20 year old clam? Really, your doubletalking nonsense invites some peculiar questions. You should read what you post sometimes.
Oh? I think the evomyth does all of these things. The ad hoc attempt to dismiss God and rewrite history has failed, when viewed realistically. No convincing lie has yet been produced after all these years.

We'd like to have 'real evidence,' but you won't assert any for us. That's rather unfair of you. You don't assert us up any evidence or facts at all, and none of your new definitions... well, you haven't been too considerate.

Until then, we'll have to be content to make do with evidence like historic accounts, DNA, fossils, sedimentary rocks, stuff like that. That which can be verified seems to reconcile just fine.

When can we hope to see some justification for the evolutionist approach to history? They say by their actions: "Write off the parts we don't like. Call them myth, or irrelevant, or whatever... just make them go away."

Yes CTD, we disagree.



History is not what happened, it is the the record of what happened, the understanding, the explanatory story, of what happened. The better that record\understanding is, the closer to explaining what really happened it is.

The evidence of what happened is not history either, but the objective evidence of reality, the reality that includes past events and the effects of them.

We obtain knowledge about what happened in the past by testing different historical theories against the facts, the objective evidence of reality. Those theories that aren't capable of explaining the facts, or that are contradicted by the facts are discarded.

The layers and layers and layers of sedimentary rock with fossils of clams 10 20 and 30 years old, and part of a mature marine environment are fossil records of underwater life for hundreds of years. Thus they are not evidence of any hypothesized event whose duration is measured in days. Thus the flood hypothesis, simply put, does not in any way explain their presence on mountains. It fails.

The theory of plate tectonics, however, does explain their presence on mountains, just as it explains the presence of mountains in the first place. We can even measure the amount of rise currently occurring on mountains, and see if that rate is consistent with forcing sea bed sediments up into mountains. The conclusion of geologists is that modern rates of uplift are more than sufficient to explain, not only the mountains that exist now, but the ones that have worn away.

Seeing as this is another gross misrepresentation of what I actually said, your word\opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It is easy to mock what you don't understand, especially when you don't want to understand.

Case in point. You really should read what I post sometimes.

And we still don't have a single piece of evidence that there really was a flood as portrayed in the biblical story, even though you claimed there was lots of evidence.

Why is there no evidence?

Enjoy.

How do you conduct science-based conversation with those who deny the existence of that which sits squarely front of them?

As I've maintained throughout my discussions, the real issue here is the ability for people to observe, without which, science is not possible.

Those who desperately cling to their predispositions are blinded by their own desires.

I am a Christian because of evidence.

I am not an evolutionist because of evidence.

Thanks Russ for providing the evidence:



Hard to argue with that as evidence of a great flood.

Enjoy.

Earlier you argued that there could not be more than one worthwhile hypothesis about historic events.

You fail to make sense. You're just saying anything that comes to mind for the sake of appearance.

And until you sort out what facts actually are, we can't have any profitable discussion anyhow. So spew some more nonsense & I'll see if any of it is mockworthy.
You have it so backwards. The high altitude fossils of sea creatures have been used to demonstrate the truth of the flood for ages. Just by saying they "prove it false" you think this will come to pass? Sounds a lot like Hitler's Big Lie theory.

You have not show any difficulties whatsoever in reconciling a clam with the history you choose to reject, 20 years old or 100. If this is one of the many, many clams fossilized with a closed shell, it is powerful evidence indeed that the flood took place as recorded.

All contemporary flood models feature plate tectonics. Guess this shows just how little you pay attention to anything creationists actually say. You've been arguing about this now for how many years? Just how effective do you expect to be if you never pay any attention?

Another error. Calculations show erosion to outpace uplift, and it's not a close race. It's just one more problem for the "old earth" story. (Which is why it doesn't get much mainstream press.)

Unlike yourself, I often do. But if you haven't noticed by now, I don't expect you soon will.

Because rather than repost, it makes more sense for you to scroll up to the earlier parts of the thread. I shan't copy & paste that much just to waste my time.

More CTD misrepresentation? Or is it failure to understand.

No, CTD, I said that two contradictory hypothesis could not both be true.

Again, such mockery is the last resort of those with no other argument to refute the valid conclusions based on evidence, facts, and the things we know from testing them against objective reality.

Curiously the "history" of past hypothesis has no bearing on the validity of those hypothesis. As one of Russ's threads notes, many earlier theories have been invalidated or modified due to new knowledge.

What we do know is that plate tectonics results in uplift of mountains. We can measure it on a yearly basis, on Mt Everest and elsewhere. Uplift is a fact, and the rate of uplift measured happens to be less than that required to actually lift sea bottom up into mountains.

But you have it exactly backwards: you are the one that needs to explain how layer after layer after layer with 20 year old clams get onto mountaintops when -- as you agreed -- there is no way they could grow there during the (too brief) flood. I don't need to reconcile the clam with geological science, because plate tectonics and a 4.55 billion year old earth already do that, without needing a global flood in the process.

And because a flood is not necessary for this explanation, this means that the evidence is de facto not evidence of a flood, unless you can demonstrate how such evidence requires a flood ... and thus actually provide evidence for your argument.

Which just shows how strongly plate tectonics is validated as a process to cause uplift of marine sediment into mountains. The problem that creationists run into is that when you scale the timeframe down to YEC mythological time, you would end up with lava instead of mountain due to the heat of friction.

All current creationist models also include variation and adaptation - "microevolution" - because it is so well validated that it is difficult to ignore.

In other words there is no evidence.

Enjoy.

Sure... just because you can't use a scroll bar, nobody else can either.

Bet you're wishing you could edit about now.

Huh? If you plan to attack a straw man, please define it first, 'K?

...from one who just a post ago didn't think creationists knew what plate tectonics were. My, don't you learn fast!

As if you actually have a clue about any real creation science models... What a shameful farce!

Your unique misinterpretations at work again, I see.

Boring...

He does actually, and so do I. Speaking for myself, I haven't seen one yet which includes no scientific errors or impossibilities, but you're welcome to try to prove this wrong.

Let's see your "creation science" model. If it's legitimate, it will hold up to scrutiny. If it isn't, you will dodge the question as usual.

Dodge the question, or toss out more snide, insulting remarks at you.

But let's be fair here, LindaLou, shall we? It's plainly clear to me that CTD isn't doing these things because he's a childish poster. He simply doesn't want to see me have to go through the trial of shaving my hairy legs (since I promised I would do exactly that should he prove capable of holding a rational, adult discussion).

Boy, CTD, I have to give you 5 stars for that misrepresentation and classic creationist issue avoidance.

And yet what you quote has nothing to do with "Earlier you argued that there could not be more than one worthwhile hypothesis about historic events" nor does it disprove my point that "two contradictory hypothesis could not both be true" -- no matter how much you wish it were so, and so I have no need to retract nor edit a statement that still stands correct and unchallenged.

The fact remains that clams are not evidence for a world wide flood, and that claiming they are is not supported by the evidence.

You agree they did not grow there. You claim this is part of your evidence of a flood, but you have yet to provide any rational for connecting clams on mountains with a biblical flood.

I say they are explained by plate tectonics. You claim plate tectonics are "a part of flood geology" but don't show how this is so, nor how this means a flood is required for the clams to be on a mountaintop. All this kind of claim does is avoid the issue that geology adequately explains clams on mountaintops. Claiming plate tectonics is included in "flood geology" does not show how this evidence is indicative that a flood occurred.

The fact is that all known floods bury things in the low areas where the flood flows and fill, and erode things from the high areas on the way. They do not, in the evidence we have of known floods, make mountains or throw things up to higher elevations.

The problem is that you have yet to make any kind of case that this evidence in any way supports a flood. Before you can have a test between the ability of two competing theories to explain the evidence you need to have a second theory, you still need to "explain how layer after layer after layer with 20 year old clams get onto mountaintops" as a result of a flood.

Not so much straw man, CTD, as boxing shadows, shadows created by a total lack of argument for how 20 year old clams are evidence of a biblical flood. Perhaps, to cut to the chase, you should actually provide a hypothesis that makes clams climb mountains, instead of avoiding the issue and making more useless comments.

And yet, curiously, we still do not have any evidence from you or anyone else that shows how clams on mountain tops can be evidence of a biblical flood. Perhaps your mockery would actually carry some weight if you actually (a) had an argument and (2) supported you position/s with facts, evidence of objective reality. Fantasy and unsupported assertions are not an argument.

All I see so far is the evidence of inability to deal with the evidence and the actual issue of 20 year old clams on mountaintops, and a complete absence of any evidence that demonstrates a flood is necessary to explain it.

Enjoy.

I've been trying to figure out what a Zen Diest is... just found a lot more of the same argumentative (almost for the sake of arguing?), wordy arrogance... You don't seem to have any original ideas. Pretty much a religion in and of itself. A religion formed so as not to have religion : ) I got really disillusioned myself a long time ago. I feel better now.

So what is your explanation for how a clam got to the top of a mountain? I guess some mountain climber carried them up in his back pack.

Do you believe the earth was all in one land mass? Just curious. Not really related to anything on this topic.

Hi Jeanie,

And you say I am argumentative? Perhaps "argumentative" just means expressing a different opinion.

"Zen Deism" I would say, is a personal religion, one not dependent on anyone else or any kind of dogma or fixed belief. It is a journey of discovery, and as each person would be on a different journey, a different path, proselytizing is pointless ... for anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
... and it was influential for many of our founding fathers, it is the reason that the Declaration of Independence speaks of "Nature's God" and, I happen to believe, critical to founding a nation based on a separation of church and state, one that allows all citizens the freedom to pursue their personal faith, no matter what it is.

Zen I take as a modifier, a way of approaching thoughts, as in Zen Buddhism being an approach to Buddhism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
Personal experience becomes key, and you will note the deist-like rejection of creed and dogma.

I am glad your path works for you.

Except that it is not just one, but a part of a mature community which is still complete, forming a layer on the mountains, and that community is but one layer among many, many layers.

The geological explanation is fairly simple: the ground rose, due to plate tectonics, with one plate being forced under another and the collision zone buckling under the stress, resulting in uplift. This uplift can be measured on mountains today, and this is done regularly to keep survey information up to date now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Convergent_.28destructive.29_boundaries
Which, if you will recall, includes Mt Everest.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10k.html
Note that this is after the (non-avian) dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and is relatively recent in the natural history of this planet.

With modern equipment and satellites we can now measure not only heights but the rate of change on mountain tops. We can also compare heights different ways:

http://geology.com/records/highest-mountain-in-the-world.shtml

Curiosity is good. I think it was possible, but there may have been islands or other continents that have since disappeared (completely subducted?). Certainly there is evidence that all the current land masses were at one time or another connected (common geological evidence).

Hope that helps

Enjoy.