OEC or YEC...either way, what's important is realization of universal flood

[Perry]

So the earth was without form, and void. But it had been created, "In the beginning". Perhaps there was a previous creation, with different creatures, and a great catastrophe removed it (the previous creation) from Earth before the current creation. The Word of God leaves out the details, for sure.

Regardless of the big ball's age, the Word of God is very clear about the universality of the flood. Dr. J. E. Shelley takes the universal flood position, and cites the case of the mammoths. "These elephants are found buried in the frozen silt of the Tundra, Siberia, all over the legnth of the Continent of Asia, and in the North of Alaska and Canada. They are found in herds on the higher ground not bogged in marshes, hundreds of thousands in number." Aparently they drowned, and would have starved if they'd been bogged. He further states, "The further north one goes, the more there are, till the soil of the islands of the White Sea inside the Arctic circle consists largely of their bones mingled with those of sabre-tooth tiger, giant elk, cave bear, musk ox, and with trunks of trees and trees rooted in the soil. There are now no trees in those regions, the nearest being hundreds almost thousands of miles away. The mammoth could not eat the stunted vegetation which now grows in this region for but three months in the year, a hundred square miles of which would not keep one of them alive for a month. The food in their stomachs is pine, hawthorn branches, etc. These mammoths were buried alive in the silt when that silt was soft. They and the silt were then suddenly frozen and were never unfrozen. For they show no signs of decomposition. Mammoth ivory has been sold on the London docks for more than a thousand years. The Natural History Museum purchased a mammoth's head and tusks from the ivory store of the London Docks. This head was absolutely fresh and was covered with it's original fur."

This, from Dr. Shelley seems pretty convincing to me, as far as the non-localness of the flood, whether Earth is 6 thousand or several billions of years old. Am I wrong? Enlighten me.

[A Beautiful Truth]

So the earth was without form, and void. But it had been created, "In the beginning". Perhaps there was a previous creation, with different creatures, and a great catastrophe removed it (the previous creation) from Earth before the current creation. The Word of God leaves out the details, for sure.

Regardless of the big ball's age, the Word of God is very clear about the universality of the flood. Dr. J. E. Shelley takes the universal flood position, and cites the case of the mammoths. "These elephants are found buried in the frozen silt of the Tundra, Siberia, all over the legnth of the Continent of Asia, and in the North of Alaska and Canada. They are found in herds on the higher ground not bogged in marshes, hundreds of thousands in number." Aparently they drowned, and would have starved if they'd been bogged. He further states, "The further north one goes, the more there are, till the soil of the islands of the White Sea inside the Arctic circle consists largely of their bones mingled with those of sabre-tooth tiger, giant elk, cave bear, musk ox, and with trunks of trees and trees rooted in the soil. There are now no trees in those regions, the nearest being hundreds almost thousands of miles away. The mammoth could not eat the stunted vegetation which now grows in this region for but three months in the year, a hundred square miles of which would not keep one of them alive for a month. The food in their stomachs is pine, hawthorn branches, etc. These mammoths were buried alive in the silt when that silt was soft. They and the silt were then suddenly frozen and were never unfrozen. For they show no signs of decomposition. Mammoth ivory has been sold on the London docks for more than a thousand years. The Natural History Museum purchased a mammoth's head and tusks from the ivory store of the London Docks. This head was absolutely fresh and was covered with it's original fur."

This, from Dr. Shelley seems pretty convincing to me, as far as the non-localness of the flood, whether Earth is 6 thousand or several billions of years old. Am I wrong? Enlighten me.

"Universal" is different than "global". Those who advocate a local flood would use the term "universal" if they believed it wiped out all of mankind.

I used to lean toward a local flood that wiped out all of modern man accept those aboard the ark. Now I am leaning toward early Genesis being in the myth genre. Not untrue, just not literal truth. It does not need to be literally true to bring the message across.

But I am still unsure. I do know that all scientific evidence is against a global flood. If you want science, then subject the flood to science. If you want theology, subject it to theology. I don't see why those that support a global flood scientificaly but ignore scientific evidence bother. They should be honest and say they believe it because according to their Bible interpretation, "the Bible says so" and not because science says so.

[Perry]

I do know that all scientific evidence is against a global flood. If you want science, then subject the flood to science. If you want theology, subject it to theology. I don't see why those that support a global flood scientificaly but ignore scientific evidence bother. They should be honest and say they believe it because according to their Bible interpretation, "the Bible says so" and not because science says so.

Did you even read any of my post? Doesn't sound like it.

[George Murphy]

Did you even read any of my post? Doesn't sound like it.

You post proves nothing. The claims of "Dr. Shelley" (repeated with no reference so that anyone can check the source), hardly prove the universality of the flood. If such an event had happened there would be geological evidence of it all over the world. & there isn't.

Shalom,
George

[maudman]

So the earth was without form, and void. But it had been created, "In the beginning". Perhaps there was a previous creation, with different creatures, and a great catastrophe removed it (the previous creation) from Earth before the current creation. The Word of God leaves out the details, for sure.

Regardless of the big ball's age, the Word of God is very clear about the universality of the flood. Dr. J. E. Shelley takes the universal flood position, and cites the case of the mammoths. "These elephants are found buried in the frozen silt of the Tundra, Siberia, all over the legnth of the Continent of Asia, and in the North of Alaska and Canada. They are found in herds on the higher ground not bogged in marshes, hundreds of thousands in number." Aparently they drowned, and would have starved if they'd been bogged. He further states, "The further north one goes, the more there are, till the soil of the islands of the White Sea inside the Arctic circle consists largely of their bones mingled with those of sabre-tooth tiger, giant elk, cave bear, musk ox, and with trunks of trees and trees rooted in the soil. There are now no trees in those regions, the nearest being hundreds almost thousands of miles away. The mammoth could not eat the stunted vegetation which now grows in this region for but three months in the year, a hundred square miles of which would not keep one of them alive for a month. The food in their stomachs is pine, hawthorn branches, etc. These mammoths were buried alive in the silt when that silt was soft. They and the silt were then suddenly frozen and were never unfrozen. For they show no signs of decomposition. Mammoth ivory has been sold on the London docks for more than a thousand years. The Natural History Museum purchased a mammoth's head and tusks from the ivory store of the London Docks. This head was absolutely fresh and was covered with it's original fur."

This, from Dr. Shelley seems pretty convincing to me, as far as the non-localness of the flood, whether Earth is 6 thousand or several billions of years old. Am I wrong? Enlighten me.

If the earth was covered with water when the spirit of God moves upon the face of the deep and he causes dry land to appear or dry earth or erets as it is written then one could say that the bible speaks of a global flood in uncertain terms but there isn't any real details as to how fast this flood took place if one looks at these verses literally. Was it slow or fast?

But I'm not so sure that one can look at a particular region of the planet and see things that don't happen today in local floods all over the world, recent history is full of mass terminations of different species not neccissarily extintions. and these things happen on a yearly or migrating annual basis to many animals today. to say these natural forces weren't at work in the time between gen1:1 ,2 isn't consistant.

The problem is when ever you see the word LAND, EARTH, SOIL, DIRT, in the scripture its the same hebrew word ERETs and it is the translators that put the words above to fit an interpretation. One should consider these things. Understanding that people didn't think on a scale as we read into them today can be missleading cause people didn't travel very far in their life time, it's not like today. Many may not have ventured more than fifty to a hundred miles in their entire life time. Only wanders would have been that way. But cities are developing and only those wh were traders would have done such things most life styles were being domesticated.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Did you even read any of my post? Doesn't sound like it.

So this freak thing about mammoths is suppose to trump all other science? You base a global flood on preserved mammoths?

[rogero]

So the earth was without form, and void. But it had been created, "In the beginning". Perhaps there was a previous creation, with different creatures, and a great catastrophe removed it (the previous creation) from Earth before the current creation. The Word of God leaves out the details, for sure.



You got that leaving out the details thing right, anyway!

Do you believe that God allows His creation to be studied?



Regardless of the big ball's age, the Word of God is very clear about the universality of the flood.



As Charleen pointed out, "universal" and "global" are not necessarily the same. At this point so far, you're basing this on interpretation of scripture.

Now, however, Scripture isn't good enough for you, so you look to the extra-Biblical observations of nature. Oh no, you certainly aren't to engage in "Origins" science!? Isn't God's Word good enough for ya???



Dr. J. E. Shelley takes the universal flood position, and cites the case of the mammoths.



Could you please tell who us this Dr. Shelley is, and what are his qualifications to write on this issue?



"These elephants are found buried in the frozen silt of the Tundra, Siberia, all over the legnth of the Continent of Asia, and in the North of Alaska and Canada.



FYI, mammoths (http://www.elephant.se/mammoths.php) are not "elephants." They are in the same taxonomic family, but different genera -- analogous to you and a gorilla, for example.



They are found in herds on the higher ground not bogged in marshes, hundreds of thousands in number." Aparently they drowned, and would have starved if they'd been bogged. He further states, "The further north one goes, the more there are, till the soil of the islands of the White Sea inside the Arctic circle consists largely of their bones mingled with those of sabre-tooth tiger, giant elk, cave bear, musk ox, and with trunks of trees and trees rooted in the soil. There are now no trees in those regions, the nearest being hundreds almost thousands of miles away. The mammoth could not eat the stunted vegetation which now grows in this region for but three months in the year, a hundred square miles of which would not keep one of them alive for a month. The food in their stomachs is pine, hawthorn branches, etc. These mammoths were buried alive in the silt when that silt was soft. They and the silt were then suddenly frozen and were never unfrozen. For they show no signs of decomposition. Mammoth ivory has been sold on the London docks for more than a thousand years. The Natural History Museum purchased a mammoth's head and tusks from the ivory store of the London Docks. This head was absolutely fresh and was covered with it's original fur."



All of these observations are consistent with Pleistocene ice age environments. There is not one observation above that is INconsistent with the death and preservation during ice ages. For example, the glaciated parts of the continents are much higher today than during an ice age due to lithospheric isostasy.

There were many locally catastrophic events (such as ice dam breaks) associated with the melting at the end of ice ages that could have killed off large numbers of animals and uprooted trees in isolated areas. I've seen ice dam break running water deposits containing boulders as large as Hummer. A good freshman geology student can distinguish glacial deposits from marine deposits from large-scale or rivering flood deposits. It's really not that hard.

Also, ice ages are cold (imagine that!) and preservation by freezing after death is the norm.

To reiterate, all Shelley's observations are consistent with preservation in a Pleistocene paleoclimate.

Now are Shelley's observations consistent with a global deluge? How would he explain the characteristic glacial geology of these regions in a flood scenario? Even more telling is how does a flood scenario explain the "flash" freezing? Did freezing conditions commence as soon as these critters died? That's completely illogical, especially in the flood scenarios that your buddy Baumgardner puts forth with water from the fountains of the deep (here's a concept for you to look up: geothermal gradient) and your budd Hovind with the collapse of a vapor canopy (another concept: latent heat of vaporization) -- simply, there would be lots of heat -- enough to boil the oceans, but then these birds want you to believe flash freezing right after burial in the flood mud. It's so ridiculous, it's pitiful.



This, from Dr. Shelley seems pretty convincing to me, as far as the non-localness of the flood, whether Earth is 6 thousand or several billions of years old. Am I wrong? Enlighten me.

Yeah, it's pitiful, truly pitiful -- that these shameful apologists are able to prey upon scientifically naive folks like you and seem "pretty convincing."

The truth is so much more interesting then this spun garbage that's passed on to the naive.

[rogero]

Perry,

I see that Vernon McGee uses the same Shelley quote as you (modulo typos.) It would still be instructive as to who exactly this Mammoth expert Dr. J.E. Shelley really is. Maybe you can find some more words of wisdom from him?

R

The following is excerpted from this website:
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k14.htm


[Dr J. Vernon McGee states, ("Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee," Volume 1, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1981, p.45)]:

"There have been other discoveries that have revealed something concerning the Flood, and I would like to pass on to you the words of Dr. J. E. Shelley who takes the position that the Flood was universal, that it covered the entire earth: 'The most striking example of this is found in the case of the mammoths. These elephants are found buried in the frozen silt of the Tundra, Siberia, all over the length of the Continent of Asia, and in the North of Alaska and Canada. They are found in herds on the higher ground not bogged in marshes, hundreds of thousands in number.' He goes on to say that these elephants have been examined and found to have drowned. If they had just gotten bogged down, they would have died of starvation. 'The farther north one goes, the more there are, till the soil of the islands of the White Sea inside the Arctic circle consists largely of their bones mingled with those of sabre-tooth tiger, giant elk, cave bear, musk ox, and with trunks of trees and trees rooted in the soil.

There are now no trees in those regions, the nearest being hundreds almost thousands of miles away. The mammoth could not eat the stunted vegetation which now grows in this region for but three months in the year, a hundred square miles of which would not keep one of them alive for a month. the food in their stomachs is pine, hawthorn branches, etc. These mammoths were buried alive in the silt when that silt was soft. They and the silt were then suddenly frozen and have never been unfrozen. For they show no signs of decomposition. Mammoth ivory has been sold on the London docks for more than a thousand years. The Natural History Museum purchased a mammoth's head and tusks from the ivory store of the London Docks. This head was absolutely fresh and was covered with its original fur.' "


P.S. I did find this reference to one of Dr. Shelley opuses:



J.E. Shelley, The Flood, Pamphlet No. 160 (Santhia, Stoke, Hayling Island, Hants, England: Evolution Protest Movement)



Anybody ever heard of the "Evolution Protest Movement"??? Kuboes?

[Jugulum]

Anybody ever heard of the "Evolution Protest Movement"??? Kuboes?
Oddly enough, I was just reading about it a couple hours ago in Ronald L. Numbers' historical work, "The Creationists; The Evolution of Scientific Creationism", (c) 1992. It's pretty interesting. Numbers is a former Seventh Day Adventist YEC-turned-agnostic; his evolutionary standpoint shows through occasionally, but he's even-handed enough that Henry Morris said, "For those interested in the background of the modern revival of creationism, whether evolutionists or creationists, this book is a rich mine of information and historical insights."

Chapter 8, "Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain", has a section on the Evolution Protest Movement. It was an English organisation formed in 1932. The first officers were John Ambrose Fleming, Bernard Acworth, and Douglas Dewar. They published booklets and books, and held public meetings. If I'm understanding correctly, their primary position was the scientific and biblical untenability of evolution; they held diverse opinions on the age of the earth, the validity of Flood geology, and the precise proper interpretation of Genesis 1-2. In 1980 they changed the name to the Creation Science Movement, and by the mid-1980s, they were mostly YECs, and they seem to have embraced Flood geology as well. They started publishing a journal at some point. Their website (http://www.creationsciencemovement.com/) is fairly terse; you can order pamphlets and read PDF version of their journal back to 2003, but they lack the extensive FAQs of AiG.

[rogero]

Oddly enough, I was just reading about it a couple hours ago in Ronald L. Numbers' historical work, "The Creationists; The Evolution of Scientific Creationism", (c) 1992. It's pretty interesting. Numbers is a former Seventh Day Adventist YEC-turned-agnostic; his evolutionary standpoint shows through occasionally, but he's even-handed enough that Henry Morris said, "For those interested in the background of the modern revival of creationism, whether evolutionists or creationists, this book is a rich mine of information and historical insights."

Chapter 8, "Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain", has a section on the Evolution Protest Movement. It was an English organisation formed in 1932. The first officers were John Ambrose Fleming, Bernard Acworth, and Douglas Dewar. They published booklets and books, and held public meetings. If I'm understanding correctly, their primary position was the scientific and biblical untenability of evolution; they held diverse opinions on the age of the earth, the validity of Flood geology, and the precise proper interpretation of Genesis 1-2. In 1980 they changed the name to the Creation Science Movement, and by the mid-1980s, they were mostly YECs, and they seem to have embraced Flood geology as well. They started publishing a journal at some point. Their website (http://www.creationsciencemovement.com/) is fairly terse; you can order pamphlets and read PDF version of their journal back to 2003, but they lack the extensive FAQs of AiG.

J, Thanks for digging up this info. I shall take a careful look at the cited website when I have more time. Have you discovered any specifics about this Dr. Shelley?

R

[Jugulum]

J, Thanks for digging up this info. I shall take a careful look at the cited website when I have more time. Have you discovered any specifics about this Dr. Shelley?
There was nothing in this book, no. However, since I'm home from work with a cold and have nothing better to do, I decided to Google it.

There wasn't much, but I think I found the J. E. Shelley in question. This page (http://romanitas.ru/eng/EROS.htm#_ftn77) references a J. E. Shelley, author of How God Created Man, a "Bible Christian Unity Fellowship Study". It says he's a surgeon.

According to this page (http://studiesinscripture.bravehost.com/disp.html), he submitted an article to the Bible League Quarterly in 1939. This page (http://www.cshs.unimelb.edu.au/mhm/guides/ummh/MHMS031.htm) has a J.E. Shelley in the University of Melbourne's Senior Anatomy Class of 1912; I'm guessing it's the same person. Apparently, he was born somewhere around 1890, give or take a few years.

Ah, the power of the Internet!

[rogero]

There was nothing in this book, no. However, since I'm home from work with a cold and have nothing better to do, I decided to Google it.

There wasn't much, but I think I found the J. E. Shelley in question. This page (http://romanitas.ru/eng/EROS.htm#_ftn77) references a J. E. Shelley, author of How God Created Man, a "Bible Christian Unity Fellowship Study". It says he's a surgeon.

According to this page (http://studiesinscripture.bravehost.com/disp.html), he submitted an article to the Bible League Quarterly in 1939. This page (http://www.cshs.unimelb.edu.au/mhm/guides/ummh/MHMS031.htm) has a J.E. Shelley in the University of Melbourne's Senior Anatomy Class of 1912; I'm guessing it's the same person. Apparently, he was born somewhere around 1890, give or take a few years.

Ah, the power of the Internet!

Interesting, J. Thanks for looking this up! From these two references it appears that Shelley fashions himself to be a Biblical commentator (first reference) and has some medical qualification (second reference.)

In neither case does he have (apparently!?) the credentials to put forth on the preservation of Pleistocene mammoths. One should at the very least have some knowledge of the nuances of sedimentary deposits. E.g., a decent undergraduate geomorphology student should be able to tell a glacial deposit from a flood deposit, and such would be aware of the differences between universality and locality as witnessed by the boundaries among deposits.

A question for Perry -- do you think ol' Dr. Shelley was thinking of icy meteor impacts as an explanation of this "flash" freezing of the observed wooly mammoths and their innards?

R

[shunyadragon]

So the earth was without form, and void. But it had been created, "In the beginning". Perhaps there was a previous creation, with different creatures, and a great catastrophe removed it (the previous creation) from Earth before the current creation. The Word of God leaves out the details, for sure.

Regardless of the big ball's age, the Word of God is very clear about the universality of the flood. Dr. J. E. Shelley takes the universal flood position, and cites the case of the mammoths. "These elephants are found buried in the frozen silt of the Tundra, Siberia, all over the legnth of the Continent of Asia, and in the North of Alaska and Canada. They are found in herds on the higher ground not bogged in marshes, hundreds of thousands in number." Aparently they drowned, and would have starved if they'd been bogged. He further states, "The further north one goes, the more there are, till the soil of the islands of the White Sea inside the Arctic circle consists largely of their bones mingled with those of sabre-tooth tiger, giant elk, cave bear, musk ox, and with trunks of trees and trees rooted in the soil. There are now no trees in those regions, the nearest being hundreds almost thousands of miles away. The mammoth could not eat the stunted vegetation which now grows in this region for but three months in the year, a hundred square miles of which would not keep one of them alive for a month. The food in their stomachs is pine, hawthorn branches, etc. These mammoths were buried alive in the silt when that silt was soft. They and the silt were then suddenly frozen and were never unfrozen. For they show no signs of decomposition. Mammoth ivory has been sold on the London docks for more than a thousand years. The Natural History Museum purchased a mammoth's head and tusks from the ivory store of the London Docks. This head was absolutely fresh and was covered with it's original fur."

This, from Dr. Shelley seems pretty convincing to me, as far as the non-localness of the flood, whether Earth is 6 thousand or several billions of years old. Am I wrong? Enlighten me.

This discription of the fossil and frozen evidence of mammoths and other arctic animals is misleading and in many ways false. The selective use and misrepresentation of scientific evidence to support a non-scientific belief in a world flood does not work.

There is no evidence that a significant number of mammoths were buried in silt except allong rivers in flood plains.

There is no evidence that all these mammoths drowned. There is some evidence that mammoths and other large animals drowned allong rivers only during floods. Evidence is clear today concerning whar happens to animals that are drowned in large numbers, which is fairly common even today without a world flood. Most of the mammoth's found frozen in the tundra do not show evidence of a burial by flood in sediments. Those found in flood plain river sediments of large rivers do. There is a distinct difference in the evidence of how difference mammoths die, which is very similar to what we see today with large mammals like elephants, and elk in the arctic.

[runtmc2jc]

for extensive evidence supporting a universal/global flood may i suggest velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval""Universal" is different than "global". Those who advocate a local flood would use the term "universal" if they believed it wiped out all of mankind.

I used to lean toward a local flood that wiped out all of modern man accept those aboard the ark. Now I am leaning toward early Genesis being in the myth genre. Not untrue, just not literal truth. It does not need to be literally true to bring the message across.

But I am still unsure. I do know that all scientific evidence is against a global flood. If you want science, then subject the flood to science. If you want theology, subject it to theology. I don't see why those that support a global flood scientificaly but ignore scientific evidence bother. They should be honest and say they believe it because according to their Bible interpretation, "the Bible says so" and not because science says so.

[runtmc2jc]

Where did you get the idea that there is no geological evidence supporting a universal flood? there is a plethora of evidence, geological, paleontological, etc. velikovsky lists impressive evidences from all over the globe supporting just such a catastrophic global event in his book, "Earth in Upheaval". Just a couple include whole islands in the arctic region made up of huge quantities of tusk and bone of dissimilar animals, caves and fissures literally crammed full of the splintered bones of numerous dissimilar animals, great boulders moved great distances and deposited on the ridges of distant hills/mountains. the book is chock-full of many more examples demonstrating such a global catastrophe.
You post proves nothing. The claims of "Dr. Shelley" (repeated with no reference so that anyone can check the source), hardly prove the universality of the flood. If such an event had happened there would be geological evidence of it all over the world. & there isn't.

Shalom,
George

[grmorton]

Where did you get the idea that there is no geological evidence supporting a universal flood? there is a plethora of evidence, geological, paleontological, etc. velikovsky lists impressive evidences from all over the globe supporting just such a catastrophic global event in his book, "Earth in Upheaval". Just a couple include whole islands in the arctic region made up of huge quantities of tusk and bone of dissimilar animals, caves and fissures literally crammed full of the splintered bones of numerous dissimilar animals, great boulders moved great distances and deposited on the ridges of distant hills/mountains. the book is chock-full of many more examples demonstrating such a global catastrophe.


Velikovsky violates all the known laws of physics, and you think he is great. Clearly you haven't thought critically about Velikovsky's claim that planets were careening around the solar system like billiard balls.

[Calvinist4Him]

...hardly prove the universality of the flood. If such an event had happened there would be geological evidence of it all over the world. & there isn't.

I see, and I suppose you've been all over the world to investigate whether or not there is sufficient evidence, and you are qualified to make such observations, and can do so without bias? I'm impressed. :ahem:

[rogero]

I see, and I suppose you've been all over the world to investigate whether or not there is sufficient evidence, and you are qualified to make such observations, and can do so without bias? I'm impressed. :ahem:

Your attack is exceedingly unfair in that it presumes that one has to know everything about everything to make even a tentative conclusion, which is that no evidence for a global (note emphasis) flood has been detected.

What evidence can you offer for a global flood?

I have been somewhat interested in this issue for over 35 years, and I have seen no compelling evidence presented. That includes being a member of the Creation Research Society for several years.

If you'd like to discuss the evidence (or lack of!) for a global flood, I would welcome you to search the Natural Sciences forum for threads -- or even better -- start a thread of your own. I certainly would be interested in participating.

R

[grmorton]

I see, and I suppose you've been all over the world to investigate whether or not there is sufficient evidence, and you are qualified to make such observations, and can do so without bias? I'm impressed. :ahem:

Well, I have. In my professional career, I have worked all over North America, from Mexico to Alaska, from the East Coast of the US to offshore California. I have had brief stints working Brazil, West Africa, Algeria, and now am working China (and learning Mandarin to boot to the point I can now do most of my personal business in that language). I have read numerous geological articles about the Middle East, Australia, Indonesia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Italy, Germany, Russia and South Africa. I think I have a pretty good feel for what is out there in the world geologically.

There is no geological evidence for a global flood

[Calvinist4Him]

There is no geological evidence for a global flood

Can I help it that you are blind?

[wfaber]

Has anybody thought to check out the saline concentration and presence of other impurities in the silt to see if they correspond to salt and other chemicals in sea water? I would assume that if they were killed by a global flood that far north, sea water would freeze. And if they drowned, there should be traces of sea water in their lungs.

[runtmc2jc]

Velikovsky violates all the known laws of physics, and you think he is great. Clearly you haven't thought critically about Velikovsky's claim that planets were careening around the solar system like billiard balls.
attacking the messenger does not invalidate the veracity of the message. if you're truly interested in factual evidence pick up 'earth in upheaval' and study it. that book deals with evidence and not the theory behind what caused the evidence.

[rogero]

attacking the messenger does not invalidate the veracity of the message. if you're truly interested in factual evidence pick up 'earth in upheaval' and study it. that book deals with evidence and not the theory behind what caused the evidence.

I'm a little confused. Theories don't cause evidence. Evidence (observable real data) either supports or does not support a particular theory. If the theory is supported by some evidence, but it violates natural laws, such as the known laws of physics, then the theory is invalidated and another more inclusive and heuristic theory is substituted. This is one of the main themes in scientific method.

I've never read any Velikovsky. We had a priest and math professor at our college who was a big fan of V. This priest was a really smart (and very Christ-like) guy, but he had no background in science whatsoever. I respected him alot, ergo, please do not interpret any "attack" on V from me as an attack on your intelligence, etc.

Actually, I'd like to see you present some of V's ideas regarding catastrophism. Perhaps we could have a calm and reasoned discussion on the subject?

R

[kuboes1831]

Well, I have. In my professional career, I have worked all over North America, from Mexico to Alaska, from the East Coast of the US to offshore California. I have had brief stints working Brazil, West Africa, Algeria, and now am working China (and learning Mandarin to boot to the point I can now do most of my personal business in that language). I have read numerous geological articles about the Middle East, Australia, Indonesia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Italy, Germany, Russia and South Africa. I think I have a pretty good feel for what is out there in the world geologically.

There is no geological evidence for a global flood

I have only looked at geology over much of Europe Africa North america and also have found no evidence of a global flood.

So Glenn's not blind

[Hopper]

Any thoughts in regards to this article? They have evidence that water covered the earth but they don't have evidence that a meteor hit it so the logical conclusion is that a meteor hit it and caused water to cover the earth.


http://www.feltd.com/downloads/evolutiondeluge.htm

[rogero]

Any thoughts in regards to this article? They have evidence that water covered the earth but they don't have evidence that a meteor hit it so the logical conclusion is that a meteor hit it and caused water to cover the earth.


http://www.feltd.com/downloads/evolutiondeluge.htm

Hopper,

I don't know if you meant to say what you did, but as written it is a non-sequitur.

[Hopper]

Hopper,

I don't know if you meant to say what you did, but as written it is a non-sequitur.


Sorry 'bout that. I was ranting a bit in regards to something else I had just read. Please ignore that part.

Any thought on the article and how it pertains to a possible global flood? Namely, "The impact would have created immense tidal waves — rising perhaps a mile or more in height — that raced around the globe again and again, scouring the ocean floor and eroding any bits of dry land" and " It did leave a concentrated layer of iridium around the world...".

[rogero]

Sorry 'bout that. I was ranting a bit in regards to something else I had just read. Please ignore that part.

Any thought on the article and how it pertains to a possible global flood? Namely, "The impact would have created immense tidal waves -- rising perhaps a mile or more in height -- that raced around the globe again and again, scouring the ocean floor and eroding any bits of dry land" and " It did leave a concentrated layer of iridium around the world...".

Hop,

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how a Biblical global deluge would generate immense tidal waves, since these are tectonic phenomena. Of course, one could invoke the Hydroplate Theory of Walt Brown or Catastrophic Plate Tectonics of Baumgardner, but these are extrabiblical.

IIRC, Iridium has no known terrestrial origin -- ergo the assertion of old-Earthers that the Iridium layer at the K-T boundary is indicative of a meteor impact.

R

[Hopper]

Hop,

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how a Biblical global deluge would generate immense tidal waves, since these are tectonic phenomena. Of course, one could invoke the Hydroplate Theory of Walt Brown or Catastrophic Plate Tectonics of Baumgardner, but these are extrabiblical.


R


I'm not exactly sure either. I'm just getting into the subject and I'm trying to find out as much info. as I can. Right now I'm trying to find any evidence for or against it as well as opinions from people more educated than myself.

[runtmc2jc]

Hop,

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how a Biblical global deluge would generate immense tidal waves, since these are tectonic phenomena. Of course, one could invoke the Hydroplate Theory of Walt Brown or Catastrophic Plate Tectonics of Baumgardner, but these are extrabiblical.

IIRC, Iridium has no known terrestrial origin -- ergo the assertion of old-Earthers that the Iridium layer at the K-T boundary is indicative of a meteor impact.

R
it would depend on what was the cause of the inundation. notice that the biblical text speakes of the fountains of the deep opening up as well. what perturbed the earth so much that it was deluged not only from a torrent above, but also from below. velikovsky's theory is a catastrophic cosmic event caused the deluge. whether this is true or not, evidence for it abounds worldwide, one just needs to know what to look for.

[runtmc2jc]

I have only looked at geology over much of Europe Africa North america and also have found no evidence of a global flood.

So Glenn's not blind

i respectfully submit you must not have been looking in the right places. check out 'earth in upheaval' and then revisit/reconsider the evidences.

[runtmc2jc]

I'm a little confused. Theories don't cause evidence. Evidence (observable real data) either supports or does not support a particular theory. If the theory is supported by some evidence, but it violates natural laws, such as the known laws of physics, then the theory is invalidated and another more inclusive and heuristic theory is substituted. This is one of the main themes in scientific method.

I've never read any Velikovsky. We had a priest and math professor at our college who was a big fan of V. This priest was a really smart (and very Christ-like) guy, but he had no background in science whatsoever. I respected him alot, ergo, please do not interpret any "attack" on V from me as an attack on your intelligence, etc.

Actually, I'd like to see you present some of V's ideas regarding catastrophism. Perhaps we could have a calm and reasoned discussion on the subject?

Ri would enjoy that.

[PrometheusX303]

So the earth was without form, and void. But it had been created, "In the beginning". Perhaps there was a previous creation, with different creatures, and a great catastrophe removed it (the previous creation) from Earth before the current creation. The Word of God leaves out the details, for sure.


Of course. And perhaps Jesus had three arms. The Word of God just left out that detail. Or how about something a little more extravagant like UFOs and stargates.

[grmorton]

Can I help it that you are blind?

I love the fact that you can't really cite a single piece of evidence in favor of the flood and conclude that others are therefore blind. Have you thought of joining a cult per chance? I hear they are looking for people who are your kind of a thinker.

[grmorton]

attacking the messenger does not invalidate the veracity of the message. if you're truly interested in factual evidence pick up 'earth in upheaval' and study it. that book deals with evidence and not the theory behind what caused the evidence.

I didn't attack the messenger, I attacked Velikovsky's ideas. They require the violation of all known laws of physics. One must decide, when dealing with concepts like Velikovsky's, whether or not one wishes to pay attention to reality or to pay attention to a nice story concocted by the author. Rationality leads one to pay attention to the science. But, it is usually more fun to live in a make-believe world, where those pesky laws of physics don't get in the way of a good storyline. Wouldn't you agree?

For your information, I have read V's Earth in Upheaval as well as his Ages in Chaos. Fantastic read; silly mindless mush as far as the ideas are concerned.

[grmorton]

Sorry 'bout that. I was ranting a bit in regards to something else I had just read. Please ignore that part.

Any thought on the article and how it pertains to a possible global flood? Namely, "The impact would have created immense tidal waves — rising perhaps a mile or more in height — that raced around the globe again and again, scouring the ocean floor and eroding any bits of dry land" and " It did leave a concentrated layer of iridium around the world...".

Yeah, there is no evidence of complex life forms in any of the rocks above that level for several thousand feet. If it was the flood, why are all the fossils deposited in rocks several thousands of feet above that event?

[Ruth]

J.E. Shelley in the University of Melbourne's Senior Anatomy Class of 1912

Thanks for the up to date info there Perry! :lol: We know there hasn't been ANY scientific break throughs since the Wright Brothers and Kitty Hawk!
I'm convinced!
Crank up the Model-T! Did you hear the news on the wireless?! That new ship the TITANIC just sank today! OMG! :lol:

[shunyadragon]

I see, and I suppose you've been all over the world to investigate whether or not there is sufficient evidence, and you are qualified to make such observations, and can do so without bias? I'm impressed. :ahem:

I have been around the world and all continents. I live in China now and I have seen a great deal of evidence that simply confirms the pubished results of research conducted by tens of thousands of geologists and other scientists over the past 200 years at least.

[shunyadragon]

I didn't attack the messenger, I attacked Velikovsky's ideas. They require the violation of all known laws of physics. One must decide, when dealing with concepts like Velikovsky's, whether or not one wishes to pay attention to reality or to pay attention to a nice story concocted by the author. Rationality leads one to pay attention to the science. But, it is usually more fun to live in a make-believe world, where those pesky laws of physics don't get in the way of a good storyline. Wouldn't you agree?

For your information, I have read V's Earth in Upheaval as well as his Ages in Chaos. Fantastic read; silly mindless mush as far as the ideas are concerned.

I have also read Velokovsky's works, and I agree. His supporters often cite Einstein as in some way lending credence to V's theories, but this not true. Einstein's only comment that I know of was that Velokovsky's theories lacked a basic understanding of the laws of Physics, and I agree.

[shunyadragon]

Can I help it that you are blind?

I met Glenn in Beijing and we were able to find each other without canes or seeing eye dogs. We are both world traveled geologists from different religious points of view that agree on the basic geologic history of the world.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR A WORLD FLOOD.

[runtmc2jc]

I didn't attack the messenger, I attacked Velikovsky's ideas. They require the violation of all known laws of physics. One must decide, when dealing with concepts like Velikovsky's, whether or not one wishes to pay attention to reality or to pay attention to a nice story concocted by the author. Rationality leads one to pay attention to the science. But, it is usually more fun to live in a make-believe world, where those pesky laws of physics don't get in the way of a good storyline. Wouldn't you agree?

For your information, I have read V's Earth in Upheaval as well as his Ages in Chaos. Fantastic read; silly mindless mush as far as the ideas are concerned.
earth in upheaval is not a book of theories, but rather one of evidences. what is make-believe about whole islands made up of tusk and bone, caverns, caves and fissures jam-packed with the splintered bones of numerous disparate species, huge boulders deposited on the top of ridges (miles from their place of origin), numerous sites around the globe showing a vast difference of height of the oceans in the past, etc, etc. we can break out the book and go through the specific evidences case by case if you wish. obviously there were catastrophe's of global dimensions in the past, so i don't see where any laws of physics are violated. where velikovsky's theories are more controversial is his contention of cosmic interactions within the time of man. when he postulated this, you have to remember the establishment believed everything evolved in a long, slow process. since that time catastrophism has become the more accepted general theory for earth changes, so the major sticking point is the time-frame. why would you characterize such forward-thinking back in the fifties as 'make-believe?' academia was firmly stuck in the newtonian system of gravity, while v. postulated a solar-system governed by electro-magnetism as well. i think he was onto something there.

[rogero]

earth in upheaval is not a book of theories, but rather one of evidences.

Ok, why don't you present these evidences, one at a time, and we'll give them a looksee and maybe have a reasonable discussion? (I realize such discussions are rare here :blush:)


what is make-believe about whole islands made up of tusk and bone,


Give us the specifics and maybe we can discuss...


caverns, caves and fissures jam-packed with the splintered bones of numerous disparate species,


Again, the specifics, please...


huge boulders deposited on the top of ridges (miles from their place of origin),


Specifics. Without further info this sounds like continental glacial action. Glaciers can pick up pretty big things, transport them, and then deposit the same in interesting places.


numerous sites around the globe showing a vast difference of height of the oceans in the past, etc, etc. we can break out the book and go through the specific evidences case by case if you wish.


OK, fine -- that's what I want. BTW, "vast difference of height of the oceans in the past" is completely consistent with mainstream geological theory. What's your point here?


obviously there were catastrophe's of global dimensions in the past,

And mainstream geologists recognize this, in spite of the strawman moniker of "uniformitarian" being freely applied by the YECs.

so i don't see where any laws of physics are violated.

IIRC, Glennn's problem was with V's implication about planetary movements -- not about terrestrial geological catastrophism. You may want to ask for an explanation.


where velikovsky's theories are more controversial is his contention of cosmic interactions within the time of man. when he postulated this, you have to remember the establishment believed everything evolved in a long, slow process.

Yes, perhaps -- but they "the establishment" do not anymore. But, one needs consistent evidences of the kind of cosmic interactions of which V speaks.


since that time catastrophism has become the more accepted general theory for earth changes, so the major sticking point is the time-frame. why would you characterize such forward-thinking back in the fifties as 'make-believe?'

Because the evidence doesn't support it? Just a thought...

Bear in mind that the "choice" in historical science is not a dichotomous choice between two extremes -- uniformitarianism and catastrophism. An extreme catastrophic model like V's is not the only alternative to traditional science -- a fortiori when it (apparently?) fails to profer a comprehensive explanation of the data.


academia was firmly stuck in the newtonian system of gravity, while v. postulated a solar-system governed by electro-magnetism as well. i think he was onto something there.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. 1) mainstream scientists have accepted relativistic (an extension of Newtonian gravity) notions of gravity for the past 80 years. 2) what the heck does electromagnetism have to do with the positional mechanics of the solar system? Sounds like V (and his devotees) do actually have some trouble with basic physics.

R

[grmorton]

Pardon my sarcasm here but I am temporarily disgusted with the stupid ideas you are presenting.

earth in upheaval is not a book of theories, but rather one of evidences. what is make-believe about whole islands made up of tusk and bone, caverns, caves and fissures jam-packed with the splintered bones of numerous disparate species, huge boulders deposited on the top of ridges (miles from their place of origin), numerous sites around the globe showing a vast difference of height of the oceans in the past, etc, etc.

Have you ever thought about how many animals will fall down a cave hole or into a crevice over a few thousand years? No, I am sure you have not thought about that at all.

Have you ever thought about the fact that these 'huge boulders' might have been carried by glaciers rather than by water? Nah, that would be too much thinking to try to figure out data to distinguish water-borne from glacial borne eratics. Here is a hint. Glaciers leave piles of dirt at their terminal end. These piles are called moraines. And guess what, the erratic boulders (huge boulders in your terminology) are always found NORTH of the terminal moraines of the continental glaciers. If Velikovsky's ideas had a shred of value, please explain why these gravity flyby's of planets didn't drag an erratics SOUTH of the terminal moraines. I forget, that might actually take some thinking to think about that and we mustn't do any thinking.



we can break out the book and go through the specific evidences case by case if you wish. obviously there were catastrophe's of global dimensions in the past, so i don't see where any laws of physics are violated.

Having Venus fly around the solar system like a billiard ball doesn't violate the laws of physics? Come on. Do you know how much energy would be required to do that?


where velikovsky's theories are more controversial is his contention of cosmic interactions within the time of man. when he postulated this, you have to remember the establishment believed everything evolved in a long, slow process. since that time catastrophism has become the more accepted general theory for earth changes, so the major sticking point is the time-frame. why would you characterize such forward-thinking back in the fifties as 'make-believe?'

So you acknowledge the controversiality of these cosmic interactions which are based, as you should know, upon the interpretation of Greco-Roman myths. As to whether or not V was a forward thinker, I think not. He has not dealt with the criticisms I noted above.



academia was firmly stuck in the newtonian system of gravity, while v. postulated a solar-system governed by electro-magnetism as well. i think he was onto something there.

Oh really? a solar system governed by EM? Do you know how weak on a planetary scale the EM forces are? Tell me, do you perchance know the charge on the planet earth and the net charge on the sun? Which is positive and which is negative? Give me the values. If you can't, then I would suggest that you are clueless concerning anything having to do with physics and thus are incapable of judging whether or not V stands for Velikovsky or the village idiot.

[Hopper]

Yeah, there is no evidence of complex life forms in any of the rocks above that level for several thousand feet. If it was the flood, why are all the fossils deposited in rocks several thousands of feet above that event?


Perhaps it was "that event" that helped to get the ball rolling by opening the fountains of the great deep. A meteor impact seems to be the most common theory, although I'm reading that volcanoes are also a possibility.

If things die in water, correct me if I'm wrong, they usually float for a while or are eaten. Their size, density and some other factors would determine how long they would float. In the mean time, sediment would be sinking to the bottom and if it was a global flood then there would be a lot of sediment.

[grmorton]

Perhaps it was "that event" that helped to get the ball rolling by opening the fountains of the great deep. A meteor impact seems to be the most common theory, although I'm reading that volcanoes are also a possibility.

If things die in water, correct me if I'm wrong, they usually float for a while or are eaten. Their size, density and some other factors would determine how long they would float. In the mean time, sediment would be sinking to the bottom and if it was a global flood then there would be a lot of sediment.

You need to do some more thinking. Most things will sink when they die and float only after they have decayed a bit and the gases bloat their bodies. The human body is denser than water and will sink, even in oceanic saltwater. If you drown (which is filling the lungs with water), then even the air in the lungs won't be there to add bouyancy so only after decay sets in and the abdomen swells with noxious gases will the body float. If this happened in a global flood, the bodies would be buried before they could decay and float.

As to volcanoes, if volcanoes were the fountains of the deep, don't you think everything would burn up and there wouldn't be any fossils?

[runtmc2jc]

Pardon my sarcasm here but I am temporarily disgusted with the stupid ideas you are presenting.



Have you ever thought about how many animals will fall down a cave hole or into a crevice over a few thousand years? No, I am sure you have not thought about that at all.

Have you ever thought about the fact that these 'huge boulders' might have been carried by glaciers rather than by water? Nah, that would be too much thinking to try to figure out data to distinguish water-borne from glacial borne eratics. Here is a hint. Glaciers leave piles of dirt at their terminal end. These piles are called moraines. And guess what, the erratic boulders (huge boulders in your terminology) are always found NORTH of the terminal moraines of the continental glaciers. If Velikovsky's ideas had a shred of value, please explain why these gravity flyby's of planets didn't drag an erratics SOUTH of the terminal moraines. I forget, that might actually take some thinking to think about that and we mustn't do any thinking.





Having Venus fly around the solar system like a billiard ball doesn't violate the laws of physics? Come on. Do you know how much energy would be required to do that?




So you acknowledge the controversiality of these cosmic interactions which are based, as you should know, upon the interpretation of Greco-Roman myths. As to whether or not V was a forward thinker, I think not. He has not dealt with the criticisms I noted above.





Oh really? a solar system governed by EM? Do you know how weak on a planetary scale the EM forces are? Tell me, do you perchance know the charge on the planet earth and the net charge on the sun? Which is positive and which is negative? Give me the values. If you can't, then I would suggest that you are clueless concerning anything having to do with physics and thus are incapable of judging whether or not V stands for Velikovsky or the village idiot.

apparently you never learned the manners of discussion/debate. i wonder why you feel the need to ridicule/demean another person who you disagree with. usually such behavior indicates some insecurity or fear which causes one to lash out. if you wish to debate/dicuss these issues in a civil tone, i would be more than happy to proceed.

[runtmc2jc]

Ok, why don't you present these evidences, one at a time, and we'll give them a looksee and maybe have a reasonable discussion? (I realize such discussions are rare here :blush:)



Give us the specifics and maybe we can discuss...



Again, the specifics, please...



Specifics. Without further info this sounds like continental glacial action. Glaciers can pick up pretty big things, transport them, and then deposit the same in interesting places.



OK, fine -- that's what I want. BTW, "vast difference of height of the oceans in the past" is completely consistent with mainstream geological theory. What's your point here?


And mainstream geologists recognize this, in spite of the strawman moniker of "uniformitarian" being freely applied by the YECs.


IIRC, Glennn's problem was with V's implication about planetary movements -- not about terrestrial geological catastrophism. You may want to ask for an explanation.


Yes, perhaps -- but they "the establishment" do not anymore. But, one needs consistent evidences of the kind of cosmic interactions of which V speaks.


Because the evidence doesn't support it? Just a thought...

Bear in mind that the "choice" in historical science is not a dichotomous choice between two extremes -- uniformitarianism and catastrophism. An extreme catastrophic model like V's is not the only alternative to traditional science -- a fortiori when it (apparently?) fails to profer a comprehensive explanation of the data.


I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. 1) mainstream scientists have accepted relativistic (an extension of Newtonian gravity) notions of gravity for the past 80 years. 2) what the heck does electromagnetism have to do with the positional mechanics of the solar system? Sounds like V (and his devotees) do actually have some trouble with basic physics.

R

thanks for your civil tone in discussing these issues. i will attempt to gather the data you asked for and will be pleased to carry on the discussion with you.

[grmorton]

apparently you never learned the manners of discussion/debate. i wonder why you feel the need to ridicule/demean another person who you disagree with. usually such behavior indicates some insecurity or fear which causes one to lash out. if you wish to debate/dicuss these issues in a civil tone, i would be more than happy to proceed.


Respect is earned. It isn't a right to be given to anyone with any stupid idea. (I know, your teachers in school told you that there were no stupid questions and no stupid ideas----they were wrong. They were trying to make you feel good even when you shouldn't have felt good about your performance). After I changed from a YEC I was nice for about 6 years. The YECs took it as evidence that I respected their views. I decided I couldn't allow that. I don't respect laziness, illogic, misinformation, selectivity and sloppy research. No one should.

Are you defending laziness, illogic, misinformation, selective use of data and sloppy research?

[Perry]

Yo runtmc, don't worry so much about glenn's tone. He attacks you to make himself feel better. It doesn't work for him, though. He's tragically taken the self-deceiving justification rout for his JAP (Judgment Avoidance Plan). If he can just make the history of the Flood go away, he can feel more comfy with whatever it is in his life that he can't admit is wrong. So he rationalizes. This arouses rationalists like yer new humanist buddy rogero, who's able to concoct the idea of a warmer, fuzzier God on his terms, who'd never subject poor (possibly still evolving) humans to severe judgment. He thinks the God of the bible is a horrible demi-urge.

Flood denial, not Earth-age is the real issue with them. And the Flood denial has deeper reasons than some excuse they'll make.

And don't let rogero's "civil tone" fool you.

[rogero]

Perry -- the archetype of the scientifically ignorant layman -- is always good for a humorous respite...

Yo runtmc, don't worry so much about glenn's tone. He attacks you to make himself feel better. It doesn't work for him, though. He's tragically taken the self-deceiving justification rout for his JAP (Judgment Avoidance Plan). If he can just make the history of the Flood go away, he can feel more comfy with whatever it is in his life that he can't admit is wrong. So he rationalizes.

Since Glennn (and I insist that you use the third "n") was a publishing YEC apologist for something like twenty years and was slowly pryed out of this stance by real physical everyday slap-you-in-the-face evidence, I assert that your insinuation that he wants the "history of the flood to go away" is nothing but an egregious display of ignorance on your part. The alternate to ignorance would be intentional prevarication. I'm sorry I didn't provide a definition of that term, but I'm confident you can Google it. :wink:


This arouses rationalists like yer new humanist buddy rogero, who's able to concoct the idea of a warmer, fuzzier God on his terms, who'd never subject poor (possibly still evolving) humans to severe judgment. He thinks the God of the bible is a horrible demi-urge.

Well, from what I've surmised from your sporadic posts, your God seems to be a cruel lying demiurge. Another surmise is you probably like it that way. Lots fewer yokels in the country club, eh? :teeth:


Flood denial, not Earth-age is the real issue with them. And the Flood denial has deeper reasons than some excuse they'll make.


I don't recall you answering any of the numerous posts that Glennn has made here on TWeb that give concrete physical evidence that contradicts a global deluge. Why is that? I note that your braying jackass hero Horhay has never proferred an answer to these questions either. Great minds think alike, don't they? :lol:


And don't let rogero's "civil tone" fool you.

Well, that's one thing you've got at least partially correct. I'm admittingly uncivil and nasty at times in reference to fools like you whom I do not suffer lightly.

Kisses,

Yo' Buddy Rog

[Ruth]

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR A WORLD FLOOD.
Noahs ark is a fairy tale. Told to children at bedtime. There simply isn't any evidence to back it up. NONE. Same with the story of 144 hour creation. It's ignorance like this that hold us all back. We'll never reach the stars with millstones like YEC around our necks. I've said it here before. YEC's are as dumb as stumps.

[Jugulum]

Noahs ark is a fairy tale. Told to children at bedtime. There simply isn't any evidence to back it up. NONE. Same with the story of 144 hour creation. It's ignorance like this that hold us all back. We'll never reach the stars with millstones like YEC around our necks. I've said it here before. YEC's are as dumb as stumps.Thanks, Ruth. Your posts are consistently insightful and eloquent. Quite an improvement over the short, pointless, insulting, contentless quasi-trolls that so many people fire off with no more than a second's thought. Kudos, and keep up the solid work!

[Perry]

Hello, Ruth! I agree with the Jug. 'Preciate those witty quips, keep 'em coming.

Now, about those mountaintop fossils, polystrate trees (forests) and the continents. Could you 'splain some of 'em for me? You know, the scientific, hard facts of Pangea? I know it should make sense...the missing mud dilemma? EASY! Of course there's not enough mud on the ocean floors to suggest water's been running off the continents for more than 6-10 thousand years. The continents USED the mud as part of their mud-pie ingestion diet which enabled them to move apart for 250 million years, right? This also gave the snail-paced continents indigestion, causing them to sssllllooowwwly vomit marine fossils as they pushed up mountain ranges. Logical, right? Plenty of evidence. Tons of it. Just don't try to understand the data as explained by Glennnnn or rrrrrrrojjjy.

I miss Jorge, where is he?

[Perry]

P.S. Ruth, here's a hint: If you want to understand and believe Pangea like the hard scientific theory it is (dumb YECs think it's just a silly, outlandish fairy tale to explain the missing mud and deny the MASSIVE evidence for global flood), it helps if you try to imagine that the oceans don't really have dirt underneath. Once they get to a certain depth, the bottom just goes away altogether. This allows the continents to float, sort of like giant lilly pads. Now. Isn't it easier to see how they could've drifted around a little over a couple billion years.....wait, wrong time box...I-I ..I..I-I mean 250 million years?

[Perry]

Oh Ruth, this is off the subject, but I'm having fun. Would you agree that Thomas Jefferson was the Bill Clinton of his day? Clinton lovers seem to always glom on to ole' Thomas as THIER "founding father".

[Calvinist4Him]

I love the fact that you can't

How do you KNOW I can't?

really cite a single piece of evidence in favor of the flood

Sure I could, I could site the Scriptures, and the arguments, and books written by other Scientists who disagree with you, but to what end? I really don't care to cite a single piece of evidence because I know you're not neutral concerning the evidence. I'm sure my lack of credentials, would become the conversation piece, and used to attack the credentials of whoever I site, rather than the evidence.

and conclude that others are therefore blind.

You are as blinded by your presuppositions, as I am by mine, neither of us are neutral, the difference between us being that I am willing to ADMIT it.

Have you thought of joining a cult per chance?

I have joined one, it's called "Christianity", would you care to join me?

I hear they are looking for people who are your kind of a thinker.

Really, then tell me, what kind of thinker am I?

[Perry]

You are as blinded by your presuppositions, as I am by mine, neither of us are neutral, the difference between us being that I am willing to ADMIT it.

amen, mr calvinist. I spouted a rant about admission. and what it means to Glennnn, in an old thread he started about Harvard (We the People, or something like that). I don't know how to link to that thread.

It's in the admitting that the true problem lies with these elitists. if you can't admit, you're left to rationalize and justify. Then there's nothing wrong with you in your deceptive mind, nothing to admit, no need for a PROVISION (Christ) for the sin you won't admit.

[Ruth]

Oh Ruth, this is off the subject, but I'm having fun. Would you agree that Thomas Jefferson was the Bill Clinton of his day? Clinton lovers seem to always glom on to ole' Thomas as THIER "founding father".
President John Kennedy 1962, welcomed 49 Nobel Prize winners with the following statement: "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

One of my favorite Jefferson quotes:
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Sounds like you're a follower of those two morons Ham and Hovind. Don't tell me you're foolish enough to believe them or pseudoscience sites like answersingenesis.org. :lol:

[shunyadragon]

Sure I could, I could site the Scriptures, and the arguments, and books written by other Scientists who disagree with you, but to what end? I really don't care to cite a single piece of evidence because I know you're not neutral concerning the evidence. I'm sure my lack of credentials, would become the conversation piece, and used to attack the credentials of whoever I site, rather than the evidence.

If you could cite objective verifiable evidence for the world flood you would be the first in history. Your lack of credentials would not concern me. It would be the credentials of those you cite as authorities that would be of concern.

Citing scripture of any religion does not offer any verifiable or falsifiable evidence for a world flood.

Which scientists would you cite of credibility in the scientific community? Since over 99% of the scientists within the fields related to this subject support evolution, geologic history 'as it is' billions of years old and reject the concept of a world flood, that leaves little room for credibility.

You are as blinded by your presuppositions, as I am by mine, neither of us are neutral, the difference between us being that I am willing to ADMIT it.

Presuppositions and bias aside, what does the evidence say?


I have joined one, it's called "Christianity", would you care to join me?
Really, then tell me, what kind of thinker am I?

Would you consider Christians as only the people that believe as you do?

[runtmc2jc]

So the earth was without form, and void. But it had been created, "In the beginning". Perhaps there was a previous creation, with different creatures, and a great catastrophe removed it (the previous creation) from Earth before the current creation. The Word of God leaves out the details, for sure.

Regardless of the big ball's age, the Word of God is very clear about the universality of the flood. Dr. J. E. Shelley takes the universal flood position, and cites the case of the mammoths. "These elephants are found buried in the frozen silt of the Tundra, Siberia, all over the legnth of the Continent of Asia, and in the North of Alaska and Canada. They are found in herds on the higher ground not bogged in marshes, hundreds of thousands in number." Aparently they drowned, and would have starved if they'd been bogged. He further states, "The further north one goes, the more there are, till the soil of the islands of the White Sea inside the Arctic circle consists largely of their bones mingled with those of sabre-tooth tiger, giant elk, cave bear, musk ox, and with trunks of trees and trees rooted in the soil. There are now no trees in those regions, the nearest being hundreds almost thousands of miles away. The mammoth could not eat the stunted vegetation which now grows in this region for but three months in the year, a hundred square miles of which would not keep one of them alive for a month. The food in their stomachs is pine, hawthorn branches, etc. These mammoths were buried alive in the silt when that silt was soft. They and the silt were then suddenly frozen and were never unfrozen. For they show no signs of decomposition. Mammoth ivory has been sold on the London docks for more than a thousand years. The Natural History Museum purchased a mammoth's head and tusks from the ivory store of the London Docks. This head was absolutely fresh and was covered with it's original fur."

This, from Dr. Shelley seems pretty convincing to me, as far as the non-localness of the flood, whether Earth is 6 thousand or several billions of years old. Am I wrong? Enlighten me.

good points. i've read the same info in velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval." in fact, the meat of the mammoth's was so fresh, that dogs were able to feed on it with no mal-effects.

[runtmc2jc]

"Universal" is different than "global". Those who advocate a local flood would use the term "universal" if they believed it wiped out all of mankind.

I used to lean toward a local flood that wiped out all of modern man accept those aboard the ark. Now I am leaning toward early Genesis being in the myth genre. Not untrue, just not literal truth. It does not need to be literally true to bring the message across.

But I am still unsure. I do know that all scientific evidence is against a global flood. If you want science, then subject the flood to science. If you want theology, subject it to theology. I don't see why those that support a global flood scientificaly but ignore scientific evidence bother. They should be honest and say they believe it because according to their Bible interpretation, "the Bible says so" and not because science says so.

i don't think one could safely say "all scientific evidence is against a global flood". there have been numerous catastrophe's, some of a huge/global proportion in the earth's history. to research these evidences, without necessarily agreeing to their cause, i recommend velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval." one does not need to subscribe to velikovsky's theory of cosmic interplay as the cause for our 'global' catastrophes to accept the facts and evidences presented therein.

[runtmc2jc]

I didn't attack the messenger, I attacked Velikovsky's ideas. They require the violation of all known laws of physics. One must decide, when dealing with concepts like Velikovsky's, whether or not one wishes to pay attention to reality or to pay attention to a nice story concocted by the author. Rationality leads one to pay attention to the science. But, it is usually more fun to live in a make-believe world, where those pesky laws of physics don't get in the way of a good storyline. Wouldn't you agree?

For your information, I have read V's Earth in Upheaval as well as his Ages in Chaos. Fantastic read; silly mindless mush as far as the ideas are concerned.

i guess you are more imminently qualified to judge such theories than the experts vel. sought out in his time when he was doing hisresearch. he did not just publish off the top of his head, but he approached experts in numerous fields and asked for their opinions on his various ideas without revealing the total scope of his hypothesis so as not to prejudice the expert. of course, you are probably able to read several different languages (as velikovsky was) so you could research texts from the world's best libraries without relying on translations or the works of others citing the original work. and i'm sure you had access to discuss your ideas with some marginally prominent thinkers (my sarcasm) as did velikovsky when he shared his ideas in person with Einstein at the latter's residence. not that Einstein necessarily agreed with all of v's ideas, but i somehow think he had a little more respect for his ideas than you tend to exhibit.

[runtmc2jc]

I have also read Velokovsky's works, and I agree. His supporters often cite Einstein as in some way lending credence to V's theories, but this not true. Einstein's only comment that I know of was that Velokovsky's theories lacked a basic understanding of the laws of Physics, and I agree.

i believe some of their dialogue can be found in vel.'s book "Stargazers and Gravedigger" which also documents the severe prejudice and censorship he suffered at the hands of academia.

[runtmc2jc]

Respect is earned. It isn't a right to be given to anyone with any stupid idea. (I know, your teachers in school told you that there were no stupid questions and no stupid ideas----they were wrong. They were trying to make you feel good even when you shouldn't have felt good about your performance). After I changed from a YEC I was nice for about 6 years. The YECs took it as evidence that I respected their views. I decided I couldn't allow that. I don't respect laziness, illogic, misinformation, selectivity and sloppy research. No one should.

Are you defending laziness, illogic, misinformation, selective use of data and sloppy research?

civilitiy is learned and needn't be earned!

[runtmc2jc]

for inquiring minds interested in some of the discussion on celestial mechanics between velikovsky and einstein check out the following links:

http://www.varchive.org/bdb/main.htm
http://www.varchive.org/bdb/lake.htm

velikovsky postulated celestial mechanics were influenced by the forces of electricity and magnetism and there's some good dialogue between the two at these links.

[shunyadragon]

citefor inquiring minds interested in some of the discussion on celestial mechanics between velikovsky and einstein check out the following links:

http://www.varchive.org/bdb/main.htm
http://www.varchive.org/bdb/lake.htm

velikovsky postulated celestial mechanics were influenced by the forces of electricity and magnetism and there's some good dialogue between the two at these links.

'Unfortunately, this valuable accomplishment is impaired by the addition of a physical-astronomical theory to which every expert will react with a smile or with anger—according to his temperament; he notices that you know these things only from hearsay—and do not understand them in the real sense, also things that are elementary to him. He can easily come to the opinion that you yourself don’t believe it, and that you want only to mislead the public.'

This an important point in Einstein's letter that reflects other quotes of is concerning Velokovskies work, it lacks a basic understanding of the principles of fundimental physics.

The following also reflects Einstein's view of Velokovsky's understanding of te basics of physics.

I would have written to you: The historical arguments for violent events in the crust of the earth are quite convincing. The attempt to explain them is, however, adventurous and should have been offered only as tentative. Otherwise the well-oriented reader loses confidence also in what is solidly established by you.

The optimism expressed by Velikovsky of Einstein's support for is views is clearly overstated. Scientists do not doubt violent events in earth's history, but Velokovsky's discription of a solar pinball machine involving Venus was rejected by Einstain and te scientific community since.

[runtmc2jc]

cite

'Unfortunately, this valuable accomplishment is impaired by the addition of a physical-astronomical theory to which every expert will react with a smile or with anger—according to his temperament; he notices that you know these things only from hearsay—and do not understand them in the real sense, also things that are elementary to him. He can easily come to the opinion that you yourself don’t believe it, and that you want only to mislead the public.'

This an important point in Einstein's letter that reflects other quotes of is concerning Velokovskies work, it lacks a basic understanding of the principles of fundimental physics.

The following also reflects Einstein's view of Velokovsky's understanding of te basics of physics.

I would have written to you: The historical arguments for violent events in the crust of the earth are quite convincing. The attempt to explain them is, however, adventurous and should have been offered only as tentative. Otherwise the well-oriented reader loses confidence also in what is solidly established by you.

The optimism expressed by Velikovsky of Einstein's support for is views is clearly overstated. Scientists do not doubt violent events in earth's history, but Velokovsky's discription of a solar pinball machine involving Venus was rejected by Einstain and te scientific community since.

i never got the sense that velikovsky claimed einstein's endorsement, however by producing the correspondence between the two, i think he showed there was an evolution in einstein's thinking concerning v's theories.

[shunyadragon]

i never got the sense that velikovsky claimed einstein's endorsement, however by producing the correspondence between the two, i think he showed there was an evolution in einstein's thinking concerning v's theories.

I believe that Velikovsky's optimistic view of Einstein's change is an illusion. Example - He drew the conclusion that because Einstein did not mention his objections to Saturn's wild journey that Einstrin's view had somehow changed, and is a naive conclusion. Einsein's general thinking never showed any change. Einstein flatly rejected V's conclusions concerning Saturn and never indicated he had changed his mind.

[runtmc2jc]

I believe that Velikovsky's optimistic view of Einstein's change is an illusion. Example - He drew the conclusion that because Einstein did not mention his objections to Saturn's wild journey that Einstrin's view had somehow changed, and is a naive conclusion. Einsein's general thinking never showed any change. Einstein flatly rejected V's conclusions concerning Saturn and never indicated he had changed his mind.

i believe your intreptation is flawed and somewhat disingenuous. a careful reading of the correspondence as presented by velikovsky does show some movement by einstein towards the end of their correspondence. you must remember that the establishments of academia and science of that time by-in-large rejected catastrophism and embraced uniformitarianism. much more detail of the prejudice and censorship velikosvky had to overcome is documented in his "Stargazers and Gravediggers."

[shunyadragon]

i believe your intreptation is flawed and somewhat disingenuous. a careful reading of the correspondence as presented by velikovsky does show some movement by einstein towards the end of their correspondence. you must remember that the establishments of academia and science of that time by-in-large rejected catastrophism and embraced uniformitarianism. much more detail of the prejudice and censorship velikosvky had to overcome is documented in his "Stargazers and Gravediggers."

The problem with the 'catatrophism' that Velikovsky, and others like YEC creationists, proposed is that it violates far to many basic principles and laws of physics. Scientists have always recognized catastrophic events, but within the universe that fits the basic principles and laws of physics. Einstein realized this and there is nothing in the correspondence that would have indicated a change concerning how these very basic principles and laws apply to uniformitism, and their is nothing significant in science that has changed since. If you can cite a point in this correspondance or anything else Einstein wrote that would indicate a change in Einstein's worldview I would like to see it.

The concept of 'uniformatism' is often misrepresented and misunderstood. There has never been a problem with cataclismic events taking place. The basics of uniformatism are that the basic laws and principles of nature are constant over time and have not changed. The argument for a change in the speed of light or the nature of gravitational attraction do not effect uniformatism. If the speed of light changes slightly over time this would be well within the concept of uniformatism, and there is some evidence for a very very slight change. The major point is there is absolutly no evidence for any significant differences in the basic laws of nature over time that we work with in science today.

[runtmc2jc]

[QUOTE=rogero]I'm a little confused. Theories don't cause evidence. Evidence (observable real data) either supports or does not support a particular theory. If the theory is supported by some evidence, but it violates natural laws, such as the known laws of physics, then the theory is invalidated and another more inclusive and heuristic theory is substituted. This is one of the main themes in scientific method.

my point is evidences can appear to have multiple apparent causes. until the scientific method is applied and the contenders are narrowed down to the most plausible, and hopefully only, one. my statement is that one can discuss the evidences as facts without necessarily ascribing to any particular theory about it's cause. ie - erratic boulders, splintered bone fragments of disparate species in caves and fissures, whole arctic islands comprised of slush filled with bone and tusks, tropical plant life preserved beneath the arctic ice, etc. these are all facts. now there may be a plethora of theories as to their cause, but we could discuss these facts all day without even mentioning the possible cause or causes. also, laws are derived from discernable, observable phenomena. if there are phenomena not currently observed, but have been observed in the ancient past, or may be observed again in the distant future, does that mean the 'law' prohibits their occurrance? quite possibly the 'law' would have to be revised in the light of 'new'-found evidences.

[rogero]

The debate on the Great Flood has lacked a plausible mechanism for the depositing of the amounts of water written and reported in the ancient accounts. A method must be found in the available cosmological sources to accomplish this, in this case something that would have affected or occurred first in the solar system, then to specific planetary bodies such as our own.
Of one thing we are certain; water is a molecule that is created when two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen are combined at the atomic level. A fast and sure method of accomplishing this is the igniting of hydrogen, a flammable gas, in the mere presence of oxygen; catalyzation, a task easily and readily available by lab experiment and in nature.
The scanned galaxies are abundant in hydrogen; our planet has large quantities of available oxygen. But how to provide the massive amounts of hydrogen, twice the needed oxygen, to amass oceans of water in this manner is what really has eluded the issue.
Spectrograph's of small stars such as our own Yellow Dwarf sun suggests that the thermo-nuclear fuel for such stars may be seawater itself. Our own sun burns yellow in the visible spectrum because of the presence of sodium in the thermo nuclear burn. Squeezing seawater under tremendous gravity and containing the fuel within the gravity field, without escape, may be the very fuel and process of long lived stars, hydrogen being the major component.
But how then to release the fuel from its gravity bounds to free up the hydrogen for our deluge scenario?Our own sun obviously still contains and burns, without apparent interruption, its own fuel, so therefore cannot be a ready source of free hydrogen.
And how then to bring it to within the atmosphere of an existing planet to accomplish the ultimate task of combining with other elements, namely oxygen?
For this we must turn to one of natures most spectacular and violent performances, the Nova.

A Nova of the type needed to provide the tremendous amounts of free hydrogen available to catalyze water on this planet must satisfy two conditions at once; it must be brief enough and just far enough away in proximity to this planet not to destroy us outright, yet close enough and of sufficient duration to expel the necessary elemental material to our orbital path.
But where could such an event have occurred and where the are the remains of such a violent event? We are dealing with a long past occurrence, and so must rely on astronomical and cosmological detective work to reveal the source of the event. This must also include historical observation and records of human accounts of such an event. A Nova of this magnitude and proximity would have been seen and reported if occurring within the historical period of humankind.
It is beginning to be understood that stars do not, as previously assumed, burn hottest at their core. In fact, evidence is mounting that the core does not burn at all, but is rather solid and the thermo-nuclear fire occurs on the surface of this core. Gravity is the key component to the ignition and sustained burn of the star; mass is the determining factor as to its size and intensity in relation to other stars.
A minimum mass is therefore necessary to sustain a long, continuous existence; masses below this minimum will not contain the outward pressure of the thermo-nuclear burn and result in a brief period of reaction ending with a violent explosive 'death'.
In short a Nova is the 'swan song' of a star no longer having, or conversely never having achieved, the ability to maintain its' own violent existence.
We have a candidate for just such a 'failed' star in the remnant core now circling an outer orbit as the planet Saturn in this solar system, long associated as the 'water bearer' in ancient astrology and mythology.
Tribal man, both ancient and current, has the tendency of both revering and fearing events utterly strange and fearful to him, not being able to understand what it is that is happening so far removed from his daily routine and experience. Such events are more likely to be deified and put in the realm of the mysterious and mystical until such time as his fear subsides and his ability to learn and understand highly complicated principals of nature reach a high degree. Such is what happened when the Nova occurred briefly several thousand years ago.
As a proto-star, Saturn was far enough removed from us and below the necessary mass needed to sustain continuous thermo-nuclear burn. It did, however, reach such a point of mass as to briefly ignite its' elemental gaseous exterior and flash briefly into existence for about seven days earth rotation. The only evidence for this is historical accounts passed down to us by the ancients, describing the blast and continuing to recall the event through rituals and celebrations to this day.
Just such an event would have resulted in huge quantities of the free hydrogen necessary for the creation of water by catalyzation. An ever expanding nebula of hydrogen, remnant fuel of the failed star, would eventually reach our orbit as well as others, thus satisfying the requirement for hydrogen in quantities sufficient enough for deluging a planet beyond the source point. Oxygen already present, ignition was one frictional static discharge away from a torrent through catalyzation at high atmospheric elevation.
Another scenario, plausible but to which I have less favor, is that the described Nova expelled fully catalyzed water which eventually reached our orbit and deluged the planet directly, owing that it was the point source fuel of the proto-star to begin with.

The only way to confirm such a fantastic process as this, short of finding as yet unknown detailed records or close examinations of the presumed core of the Nova, will be in observing it once again, in a distant galaxy on another solar system, witnessed under the watchful eye of advanced telescopy, then relating this newly observed event to our own past.

Why did you post the exact same lengthy reply to three distinct messages? IMHO, that's rather poor decorum.

I have no time at present to address all your points. But just a couple of things --- our Sun is a main sequence yellow star of rather average size, not a "yellow dwarf". A its yellow color has nothing whatsoever to do with sodium, but in fact is consistent with a blackbody emitter at 6000 Kelvins.

May I ask where you read this fanciful scenario?

R

[rogero]

I'm a little confused. Theories don't cause evidence. Evidence (observable real data) either supports or does not support a particular theory. If the theory is supported by some evidence, but it violates natural laws, such as the known laws of physics, then the theory is invalidated and another more inclusive and heuristic theory is substituted. This is one of the main themes in scientific method.

my point is evidences can appear to have multiple apparent causes. until the scientific method is applied and the contenders are narrowed down to the most plausible, and hopefully only, one. my statement is that one can discuss the evidences as facts without necessarily ascribing to any particular theory about it's cause. ie - erratic boulders, splintered bone fragments of disparate species in caves and fissures, whole arctic islands comprised of slush filled with bone and tusks, tropical plant life preserved beneath the arctic ice, etc. these are all facts. now there may be a plethora of theories as to their cause, but we could discuss these facts all day without even mentioning the possible cause or causes. also, laws are derived from discernable, observable phenomena. if there are phenomena not currently observed, but have been observed in the ancient past, or may be observed again in the distant future, does that mean the 'law' prohibits their occurrance? quite possibly the 'law' would have to be revised in the light of 'new'-found evidences.

Ok, you're talking about interpretation of evidence. Fair enough.

If you'd like to present specific pieces of evidence quoted from a reliable source, then perhaps we (you, me, some of the geologically literate folks here) could focus on the explanatory powers of various hypotheses. For example, I haven't seen anything presented in this thread that does not have an explanation from standard geology, more particularly glaciology.

BTW, do you mean "tropical plant life preserved beneath the ANTarctic ice"? I know that the Antarctic has some coal deposits, indicative of a previous warmer climate -- a fact, when combined with much other data, gives powerful evidence of continental drift (Plate Tectonics.) FYI, there is no land beneath the Arctic ice pack -- just several kilometers of ocean.

R

[oxmixmudd]

Why did you post the exact same lengthy reply to three distinct messages? IMHO, that's rather poor decorum.

I have no time at present to address all your points. But just a couple of things --- our Sun is a main sequence yellow star of rather average size, not a "yellow dwarf". A its yellow color has nothing whatsoever to do with sodium, but in fact is consistent with a blackbody emitter at 6000 Kelvins.

May I ask where you read this fanciful scenario?

R

Yes, that one is a bit out there. Seems like I've read something like that on one of the 'out there' sites, but I'm not sure where.

[runtmc2jc]

This discription of the fossil and frozen evidence of mammoths and other arctic animals is misleading and in many ways false. The selective use and misrepresentation of scientific evidence to support a non-scientific belief in a world flood does not work.

There is no evidence that a significant number of mammoths were buried in silt except allong rivers in flood plains.

There is no evidence that all these mammoths drowned. There is some evidence that mammoths and other large animals drowned allong rivers only during floods. Evidence is clear today concerning whar happens to animals that are drowned in large numbers, which is fairly common even today without a world flood. Most of the mammoth's found frozen in the tundra do not show evidence of a burial by flood in sediments. Those found in flood plain river sediments of large rivers do. There is a distinct difference in the evidence of how difference mammoths die, which is very similar to what we see today with large mammals like elephants, and elk in the arctic.

there are entire islands consisting of silt intermingled with the bones of countless mammoths, rhinoceros, buffalo, etc. and a vast 'petrified forest' partly standing upright and partly lying horizontally buried in the frozen soil.
"in New Siberia (Island), ... and on Kotelnoi... are heaped up to an equal height with skeletons of pachyderms, bisons, etc. which are cemented together by frozen sand as well as by strata and veins of ice.... On the summit of the hills they (the trunks of trees) lie flung upon one another in the wildest disorder, forced upright in spite of gravitation, and with their tops broken off or crushed, as if they had been thrown with great violence from the south on a bank, and there heaped up." G.A. Erman - Travels in Siberia (1848),II,376,383 - as quoted by velikovsky in Earth in Upheaval.

"High in the north above Siberia, 600 miles inside the Polar Circle, in the Arctic Ocean, lie the Liakhov Islands." These islands abounded in mammoth bones such ... "that the island was actually composed of the bones and tusks of elephants, cemented together by icy sand." D. Gath Whitley -"The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean" Journal of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain, XII (1910), 35. Earth in Upheaval, p5.

The New Siberian Islands, as well as the islands of Stolbovoi and Belkov present the same picture... "The soil of these desolate islands were full of mammoth bones, and the quantity of tusks and teeth of elephants and rhinoceroses, found in the newly discovered island of New Siberia, was perfectly amazing and surpassed anything which had as yet been discovered."
ibid, p. 42.

"mammoth tusks have been dredged in nets from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean; and after arctic gales the shores of the islands are strewn with tusks cast up by the billows." Earth in Upheaval p.5

as to the well-preserved mammoths with food in their teeth and undigested in their stomachs, "the contents....showed the undigested food, leaves of trees now found in Southern Siberia, but a long way from the existing deposits of ivory. Microscopic examination of the skin showed red blood corpuscles, which was a proof not only of a sudden death, but that the death was due to suffocation either by gases or water, evidently the latter in this case. But the puzzle remained to account for the sudden freezing up of this large mass of flesh so as to preserve it for future ages." Whitley -p56 (Earth in Upheaval- p6.)

[runtmc2jc]

Ok, you're talking about interpretation of evidence. Fair enough.

If you'd like to present specific pieces of evidence quoted from a reliable source, then perhaps we (you, me, some of the geologically literate folks here) could focus on the explanatory powers of various hypotheses. For example, I haven't seen anything presented in this thread that does not have an explanation from standard geology, more particularly glaciology.

BTW, do you mean "tropical plant life preserved beneath the ANTarctic ice"? I know that the Antarctic has some coal deposits, indicative of a previous warmer climate -- a fact, when combined with much other data, gives powerful evidence of continental drift (Plate Tectonics.) FYI, there is no land beneath the Arctic ice pack -- just several kilometers of ocean.

R

my use of the word "arctic" refers to islands in the arctic ocean, ie the New Siberian Islands, the Liakhov Islands, Stolbovoi, and Belkov to name a few. there are found innumerable bones and tusks of mammoth, rhinoceros, bison, etc intermingled with icy sand and in many cases torn, shattered and uprooted petrified tree remains. from D.Gath Whitley, "The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean," Journal of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain, XII (1910), 35. (as cited by velikovsky in Earth in Upheaval)

[runtmc2jc]

would anyone venture a guess as to what mechanism caused the plethora of tusks, bones, splintered trees, etc., which actually comprise much of the land mass of numerous arctic islands, not to mention the fact that the sea floor there is also strewn with countless bones,tusks, etc. as well. (per my citations in post #75).

[rogero]

my use of the word "arctic" refers to islands in the arctic ocean, ie the New Siberian Islands, the Liakhov Islands, Stolbovoi, and Belkov to name a few. there are found innumerable bones and tusks of mammoth, rhinoceros, bison, etc intermingled with icy sand and in many cases torn, shattered and uprooted petrified tree remains. from D.Gath Whitley, "The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean," Journal of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain, XII (1910), 35. (as cited by velikovsky in Earth in Upheaval)

Arctic islands, fair enough...

I'd like to see a reference to these putative observations that is 1) more recent than 1910 and 2) from a scientific journal rather than a 30 year old citation by a popular author of an article from a philosophy journal.

Bear in mind that modern geology does include catastrophes when the data warrant them. Geology is not uniformitarian in the strawman sense of the attacks of YECs. E.g., meteor impacts are a well-documented part of the geological record. So are riverine and glacial flooding events, and many of latter are in fact very violent. Glacial ice is an excellent medium for preserving organic remains. Often animals die violent deaths.

Again, without properly (and well-) documented data, I have no idea how to address your questions.

Do you think that mainstream science has ignored these Velikovskian claims on purpose? If so, why?

R

[rogero]

would anyone venture a guess as to what mechanism caused the plethora of tusks, bones, splintered trees, etc., which actually comprise much of the land mass of numerous arctic islands, not to mention the fact that the sea floor there is also strewn with countless bones,tusks, etc. as well. (per my citations in post #75).

Do you have evidence that these kinds of fossil debris do in fact "comprise much of the land mass of numerous arctic islands..." Either you're being quite hyperbolic in your rhetoric, or I don't understand your definition of "land mass".

Also that the sea floor is "strewn" with "countless" bones, etc. smacks of rhetorical wordsmithing.

R

[shunyadragon]

there are entire islands consisting of silt intermingled with the bones of countless mammoths, rhinoceros, buffalo, etc. and a vast 'petrified forest' partly standing upright and partly lying horizontally buried in the frozen soil.
"in New Siberia (Island), ... and on Kotelnoi... are heaped up to an equal height with skeletons of pachyderms, bisons, etc. which are cemented together by frozen sand as well as by strata and veins of ice.... On the summit of the hills they (the trunks of trees) lie flung upon one another in the wildest disorder, forced upright in spite of gravitation, and with their tops broken off or crushed, as if they had been thrown with great violence from the south on a bank, and there heaped up." G.A. Erman - Travels in Siberia (1848),II,376,383 - as quoted by velikovsky in Earth in Upheaval.

"High in the north above Siberia, 600 miles inside the Polar Circle, in the Arctic Ocean, lie the Liakhov Islands." These islands abounded in mammoth bones such ... "that the island was actually composed of the bones and tusks of elephants, cemented together by icy sand." D. Gath Whitley -"The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean" Journal of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain, XII (1910), 35. Earth in Upheaval, p5.

The New Siberian Islands, as well as the islands of Stolbovoi and Belkov present the same picture... "The soil of these desolate islands were full of mammoth bones, and the quantity of tusks and teeth of elephants and rhinoceroses, found in the newly discovered island of New Siberia, was perfectly amazing and surpassed anything which had as yet been discovered."
ibid, p. 42.

"mammoth tusks have been dredged in nets from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean; and after arctic gales the shores of the islands are strewn with tusks cast up by the billows." Earth in Upheaval p.5

as to the well-preserved mammoths with food in their teeth and undigested in their stomachs, "the contents....showed the undigested food, leaves of trees now found in Southern Siberia, but a long way from the existing deposits of ivory. Microscopic examination of the skin showed red blood corpuscles, which was a proof not only of a sudden death, but that the death was due to suffocation either by gases or water, evidently the latter in this case. But the puzzle remained to account for the sudden freezing up of this large mass of flesh so as to preserve it for future ages." Whitley -p56 (Earth in Upheaval- p6.)

All these things you cited are explained well within the current worldview of science and natural catastrophies.

Example; The presence of Mammoth. Bison and rhino bones together does not represent a jumble of disparite species. These species are of the same environment including the extinct arctic woolly rhino. Natural local and regional disasters explain these occurances easly without playing cosmic pinball with Saturn.

As far as the mammoths. It is common even in recent history for groups if not herds of wild mammals to be killed suddenly in a major blizzard or catastrophic flood. In the arctic cold animals killed in these catastrophic circumstances would be frozenand preserved. They even have it on film of wildabeasts and other heard animals caught in flash floods and large numbers drown suddenly, some are buried in the outwash deposits.

The occurance of huge erratic boulders in the landscape occur in glaciated regions and were carried by glaciers. This can be witnessed today when we see glaciers melt because of global warming.

The bottom line is none of the evidence you have cited represences anything more than local and regional catastrophic events that occur today. The clincher here is that in other places in the world there is abundant sediment records that would demonstrate that there have not been any global catastrophic disasters in millions of years. There are continuous deposition of lake varves in lakes existing today for more than 10,000 years and other continuous uninterrupted strata of different types like limestone and shallow sea deposits.

There is evidence of catastrophic meteorite impacts in ancient history and some impressive ones in recent history. There is also evidence of huge basalt eruptions, which may be related to the meteorite impacts, but all these are well documented and known catastrophies that fit well within the natural uniform history known by science. These effected life on earth and caused extinction events millions of years ago, but even these had a limited effect on the sediment deposits globally.

[shunyadragon]

would anyone venture a guess as to what mechanism caused the plethora of tusks, bones, splintered trees, etc., which actually comprise much of the land mass of numerous arctic islands, not to mention the fact that the sea floor there is also strewn with countless bones,tusks, etc. as well. (per my citations in post #75).

As witnessed by modern catastrophies millions may die as a result of local and regional natural disaters. The only serious quesion I have of what you said is, '. . .actually comprise much of the land mass of numerous arctic islands, not to mention the fact that the sea floor there is also strewn with countless bones,tusks, etc. as well.' Large bone deposits are common and not unusual, comprising a 'much of the mass' is an undocumented assertion on your part. Extinction events are known to kill large nembers of animals also, and the end of the last Ice Age represented an extinction event. Large numbers of animals could very well be isolated without sufficient food on island areas when the sea level went up as the glaciers melted. Thereare many natural explanations for these narural disasters.

[runtmc2jc]

As witnessed by modern catastrophies millions may die as a result of local and regional natural disaters. The only serious quesion I have of what you said is, '. . .actually comprise much of the land mass of numerous arctic islands, not to mention the fact that the sea floor there is also strewn with countless bones,tusks, etc. as well.' Large bone deposits are common and not unusual, comprising a 'much of the mass' is an undocumented assertion on your part. Extinction events are known to kill large nembers of animals also, and the end of the last Ice Age represented an extinction event. Large numbers of animals could very well be isolated without sufficient food on island areas when the sea level went up as the glaciers melted. Thereare many natural explanations for these narural disasters.

actually in my previous post (#75) i cited several sources documenting the massive quantity of bone and tusks on various arctic islands. here's one more: in Alaska, while sluice cutting (wide cuts, often several miles in length and sometimes as much as 140 feet in depth) in an attempt to reach gold-bearing gravel beds, silt or muck is removed by hydraulic machines. "this 'muck' contains enormous numbers of frozen bones of extinct animals such as the mammoth, mastodon, super-bison and horse." F. Rainey, "Archaeological Investigation in Central Alaska," American Antiquity, V (1940), 305. (Earth in Upheaval, p.1)
F.C. Hibben of the U. of New Mexico further states, "...there is ample evidence that at least portions of this material were deposited under catastrophic conditions. Mammal remains are for the most part dismembered and disarticulated, even though some fragments yet retain, in their frozen state, portions of ligaments, skin, hair and flesh..." F.C. Hibben, "Evidence of Early Man in Alaska," American Antiquity VIII (1943), 256. (Earth in Upheaval, p. 2)

furthermore, in various levels of the muck, stone artifacts were found "frozen in situ at great depths and in apparent association" with the Ice Age fauna, which implies that "men were contemporary with extinct animals in Alaska." Rainey, American Antiquity, V, 307.

Worked flints, characteristically shaped, called Yuma points, were repeatedly found in the Alaskan muck, 100 and more feet below the surface. One such spear point was found there between a lion's jaw and a mammoth's tusk. Rainey, American Antiquity, VIII, 257. (Earth in Upheaval, p. 3)

[The Phantom]

actually in my previous post (#75) i cited several sources documenting the massive quantity of bone and tusks on various arctic islands. here's one more: in Alaska, while sluice cutting (wide cuts, often several miles in length and sometimes as much as 140 feet in depth) in an attempt to reach gold-bearing gravel beds, silt or muck is removed by hydraulic machines. "this 'muck' contains enormous numbers of frozen bones of extinct animals such as the mammoth, mastodon, super-bison and horse." F. Rainey, "Archaeological Investigation in Central Alaska," American Antiquity, V (1940), 305. (Earth in Upheaval, p.1)
F.C. Hibben of the U. of New Mexico further states, "...there is ample evidence that at least portions of this material were deposited under catastrophic conditions. Mammal remains are for the most part dismembered and disarticulated, even though some fragments yet retain, in their frozen state, portions of ligaments, skin, hair and flesh..." F.C. Hibben, "Evidence of Early Man in Alaska," American Antiquity VIII (1943), 256. (Earth in Upheaval, p. 2)

furthermore, in various levels of the muck, stone artifacts were found "frozen in situ at great depths and in apparent association" with the Ice Age fauna, which implies that "men were contemporary with extinct animals in Alaska." Rainey, American Antiquity, V, 307.

Worked flints, characteristically shaped, called Yuma points, were repeatedly found in the Alaskan muck, 100 and more feet below the surface. One such spear point was found there between a lion's jaw and a mammoth's tusk. Rainey, American Antiquity, VIII, 257. (Earth in Upheaval, p. 3)
I want to thank you all for the interest in my essay; I'm impressed by both the number and technical depth of the replies, the latter surprising for a theology forum. My purpose for writing and posting the work was to generate deep thought on the issue. It appears I have succeeded.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this subject, it was one that had yet to be put into writing, so I took a healthy risk in doing so. Most other works deal with 'post' rather than antediluvian questions. The main point to be made here is that I do not believe the present amount of water on this planet was deposited here from the original forming of the solar system and subsequent planetary line-up we now see. I am addressing this, and other issues, in another work.
I also want to offer apologies if I unduly interrupted others 'thread' continuity. And should I post a future work, I shall, as I promised 'Ruth' earlier, to post but once as a new thread.
Regards, The Phantom

[runtmc2jc]

All these things you cited are explained well within the current worldview of science and natural catastrophies.

Example; The presence of Mammoth. Bison and rhino bones together does not represent a jumble of disparite species. These species are of the same environment including the extinct arctic woolly rhino. Natural local and regional disasters explain these occurances easly without playing cosmic pinball with Saturn.

As far as the mammoths. It is common even in recent history for groups if not herds of wild mammals to be killed suddenly in a major blizzard or catastrophic flood. In the arctic cold animals killed in these catastrophic circumstances would be frozenand preserved. They even have it on film of wildabeasts and other heard animals caught in flash floods and large numbers drown suddenly, some are buried in the outwash deposits.

The occurance of huge erratic boulders in the landscape occur in glaciated regions and were carried by glaciers. This can be witnessed today when we see glaciers melt because of global warming.

The bottom line is none of the evidence you have cited represences anything more than local and regional catastrophic events that occur today. The clincher here is that in other places in the world there is abundant sediment records that would demonstrate that there have not been any global catastrophic disasters in millions of years. There are continuous deposition of lake varves in lakes existing today for more than 10,000 years and other continuous uninterrupted strata of different types like limestone and shallow sea deposits.

There is evidence of catastrophic meteorite impacts in ancient history and some impressive ones in recent history. There is also evidence of huge basalt eruptions, which may be related to the meteorite impacts, but all these are well documented and known catastrophies that fit well within the natural uniform history known by science. These effected life on earth and caused extinction events millions of years ago, but even these had a limited effect on the sediment deposits globally.


first of all, i have never once stated saturn as the cause for a worldwide flood, so i don't know where that quote came from. secondly, the numbers of animals killed in such local catastrophes as cited by you pales in comparison with what were talking about in northern siberia, the arctic islands, alaska and the like. standby, i plan to introduce more evidence, systematically, probably one at a time, so we can discuss the evidences for a worldwide catastrophe from an educated viewpoint. obviously you and the others have not previously heard of the evidences i just introduced so my suggestion is to mull it over, think about it, and instead of trying to force-fit it into an untenable theory, why not consider alternative scenarios. i've got a really good one - perhaps the literal biblical narrative is a lot closer to the historical truth than you are willing to permit.

[runtmc2jc]

Aquatic Graveyards:

here's some more evidence of a catastrophe of global dimensions. The Old Red Sandstone of Scotland is an enormous geological formation replete with countless remains of sealife. It is over 8000 feet thick and many a thousand square miles wide. It consists of a vast stratum of water-rolled pebbles, varying in depth from 100 feet to 100 yards including porphyries of vitreous fracture that cut glass as readily as flint, and masses of quartz that strike fire quite as profusely from steel, -are yet polished and ground down into bullet-like forms. Hugh Miller (The Old Red Sandstone - Boston 1865 p.48). In this red sandstone abundant aquatic fauna is embedded, found in disturbed positions. The figures are contorted, contracted, curved. The tail in many instances is bent to the full. The pterichthys shows its arms extended at their stiffest angle... the attitudes of all the ichthyolites (any fossil fish) display apparent fear, anger and pain. The remains suffered nothing from the after-attacks of predaceous fishes, none such seemed to survive. (ibid p.222). This area comprises 1/2 of Scotland, 'a thousand different localities' disclose the same scene of destruction. this same scenario can be found in many other places all around the globe, in similiar and dissimilar formations.
Professor of Geology at the University of Oxford, William Buckland writes of Monte Bolca in northern Italy: "the circumstances under which the fossil fishes are found at Monte Bolca seem to indicate that they perished suddenly.... the skeletons of these fish lie parallel to the laminae of the strata of the calcareous slate, they are always entire, and closely packed on one another... all these fishes must have died suddenly...and have been speedily buried in the calcareous sediment then in the course of deposition. From the fact that certain individuals have even preserved traces of colour upon their skin, we are certain that they were entombed before decomposition of their soft parts had taken place. (W. Buckland, "Geology and Mineralogy" - Philadelphia 1837).
Buckland also wrote about fish deposits in the Harz Mountains of Germany: "...many of the fishes of this slate at Mansfeld, Eisleben, etc., have a distorted attitude, which has often been assigned to writhing in the agonies of death...as these fossil fishes maintain the attitude of the rigid stage immediately succeeding death, it follows that they were buried before putrefaction had commenced, and apparently in the same bituminous mud, the influx of which had caused their destruction. (ibid., p.103)
This same picture is seen in the red sandstone of Scotland, the limestone of Monte Bolca in Lombardy, the bituminous slate of Mansfeld in Thuringia, and also by the coal formation of Saarbrucken on the Saar, "the most celebrated deposits of fossil fishes in Europe"; the calcareous slate of Solenhofen; the blue slate of Glarus; the marlstone of Oensingen in Switzerland and of Aix in Provence, to name only a few of the better-known sites in Europe.
In North America, similar strata, "packed full of splendidly preserved fishes" are found in the black limestone of Ohio and Michigan, in the Green River bed of Arizona, the diatom beds of Lompoc, California and in many other formations. (G. McCready Price, "Evolutionary Geology and New Catastrophism" (1926); J.M. Macfarlane, "Fishes the Source of Petroleum" (1923). as cited by velikovsky - "Earth in Upheaval" (p.18-22)

What agent of catastrophism is responsible for these vast sepulchres of fossill fishes found all around the globe?

[runtmc2jc]

Do you think that mainstream science has ignored these Velikovskian claims on purpose? If so, why?

R
i'm sure you're aware of numerous personalities whose fame came posthumously, and who suffered much ridicule from the 'establishment' during their lifetimes.

[sylas]

...
Professor of Geology at the University of Oxford, William Buckland writes of Monte Bolca in northern Italy: "the circumstances under which the fossil fishes are found at Monte Bolca seem to indicate that they perished suddenly.... the skeletons of these fish lie parallel to the laminae of the strata of the calcareous slate, they are always entire, and closely packed on one another... all these fishes must have died suddenly...and have been speedily buried in the calcareous sediment then in the course of deposition. From the fact that certain individuals have even preserved traces of colour upon their skin, we are certain that they were entombed before decomposition of their soft parts had taken place. (W. Buckland, "Geology and Mineralogy" - Philadelphia 1837).

Buckland also wrote about fish deposits in the Harz Mountains of Germany: "...many of the fishes of this slate at Mansfeld, Eisleben, etc., have a distorted attitude, which has often been assigned to writhing in the agonies of death...as these fossil fishes maintain the attitude of the rigid stage immediately succeeding death, it follows that they were buried before putrefaction had commenced, and apparently in the same bituminous mud, the influx of which had caused their destruction. (ibid., p.103)

[...] What agent of catastrophism is responsible for these vast sepulchres of fossill fishes found all around the globe?

The two cases cited by William Buckland are quite plainly by the kinds of conventional localized catastrophe that leave well preserved fossils within a well defined localized area; mudslips, landslides and so on.

The first, Monta Bolca (http://www.answers.com/topic/monte-bolca) is a classic Lagerstätte; or fossil field. One particular agent in this case appears to be a volcanic event, that killed life within a tropical lagoon either by temperature changes or emission of poisonous gases to the water.

I am not familiar with the second locality.

Also from the book by Buckland that you have cited:

Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcilable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are older, or placed at greater depths.


Buckland was not inclined to attribute these fossil deposits to a global flood, which seems to be a notion cropping up in this thread. Buckland’s arguments against this notion have the same force today as when set down 170 years ago, and apply just as well to rule out the bizarre notion that these are related to any single global catastrophe.

Cheers -- Sylas

[rogero]

i'm sure you're aware of numerous personalities whose fame came posthumously, and who suffered much ridicule from the 'establishment' during their lifetimes.

No. Do you care to name a few in the context of this discussion? Hopefully, this will not be an example of the logical fallacy of "truth by reason of persecution".

BTW, do you have any citations from the scientific literature of your claims of massive graveyards of fossil remains that are inexplicable by glaciology and modern geology in general?

R

[runtmc2jc]

No. Do you care to name a few in the context of this discussion? Hopefully, this will not be an example of the logical fallacy of "truth by reason of persecution".

BTW, do you have any citations from the scientific literature of your claims of massive graveyards of fossil remains that are inexplicable by glaciology and modern geology in general?

R
The aquatic graveyards cited above from all over the globe are but one piece of the puzzle of evidences which would support some catastrophe of global dimensions. When one considers all the evidence as a whole, local events are not a tenable explanation. So far i have introduced the evidences of massive amounts of tusk and bone intermixed with icy sand in the northern extremes, and followed that up by evidences of these huge formations of 'aquatic graveyards' all around the globe. stay tuned, there's more to come.

[rogero]

The aquatic graveyards cited above from all over the globe are but one piece of the puzzle of evidences which would support some catastrophe of global dimensions. When one considers all the evidence as a whole, local events are not a tenable explanation. So far i have introduced the evidences of massive amounts of tusk and bone intermixed with icy sand in the northern extremes, and followed that up by evidences of these huge formations of 'aquatic graveyards' all around the globe. stay tuned, there's more to come.

So then, you don't have any supporting citations from the scientific literature?

I am staying tuned, but I will also be vigilant for properly cited and supported evidence. After all, whether you're aware of this or not, such is the most essential feature of scientific method.

R

[runtmc2jc]

Fissures and Bones:
In numerous locations exist fissures cram-packed full of the splintered bones of many species of animals, both extinct and extant. In England in the neighborhood of Plymouth on the Channel, clefts of various widths in limestone formations are filled with rock fragments, angular and sharp, and with bones of animals- mammoth, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison. The bones are "broken into innumerable fragments. No skeleton is found entire. The separate bones, in fact, have been dispersed in the most irregular manner, and without any bearing to their relative position in the skeleton. Neither do they show wear, nor have they been gnawed by beasts of prey, though they occur with the bones of hyaena, wolf, bear and lion." ( J. Prestwich, "On Certain Phenomena Belonging to the Close of the Last Geological Period and on Their Bearing upon the Tradition of the Flood" (London: Macmillian and Co., 1895) pp. 25-26). In other places such as Devonshire and Pembrokeshire in Wales, ossiferous breccia or conglomerates of broken bones and stones in fissures in limestone consist of angular rock fragments and "broken and splintered" bones with sharp fractured edges in a "fresh state," and in "splendid condition," showing no traces of gnawing. Prestwich, "Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, XLVIII, 336.
Osseous breccia in the valleys around Paris and fissures in the rocks on the tops of isolated hills in central France contain remnants of mammoth, wooly rhinoceros, and other animals. Mont Genay (1430 ft. high) is capped by a breccia containing remains of mammoth, reindeer, horse and other animals. On the summit of Mont de Sautenay between Dijon and Lyons, there is a fissure filled with bones of wolves, bears, horses and oxen. According to Albert Gaudry, professor at the Jardin des Plantes, the bones in this cleft are mostly broken and splintered into innumerable sharp fragments and are "evidently not those of animals devoured by beasts of prey; nor have they been broken by man. the remains of wolf were particularly abundant, together with those of cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox and deer... (ibid., pp 37-38). the state of preservation of the bones indicates that the animals-all of them-perished in the same period of time. Prestwich postulated the animals had fled to escape the rising waters. (ibid., p.38).
On the Mediterranean coast of France there are numerous clefts in the rocks crammed to overflowing with animal bones. Marcel de Serres in his survey of the Montagne de Pedemar found the bones all broken into fragments, but neither gnawed nor rolled. No coprolites were found, indicating the dead beasts had not lived in these hollows or fissures. ( Marcel de Serres, "Bulletin du Societe Geologique de France," 2e Serle, XV (1858) 233).
The Rock of Gibraltar contains numerous crevices filled with bones, broken and splintered. "The remains of panther, lynx, caffir-cat, hyaena, wolf, bear, rhinoceros, horse, wild boar, red deer, fallow deer, ibex, ox, hare, rabbit, have been found in these ossiferous fissures. The bones are most likely broken into thousands of fragments-none are worn or rolled, nor any of them gnawed, though so many carnivores then lived on the rock." (Prestwich, "On Certain Phenomena..", p. 47.) A human molar and some flints as well as broken pieces of pottery were discovered among the animal bones in some of the crevices. (Ibid., p.48).

On Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, on the continent of Europe and the British Isles, the broken bones of animals choke numerous fissures in rocks. The
hills around Palermo in Sicily disclosed and "extraordinary quantity of bones of hippopotami-in complete hecatombs." "Twenty tons of these bones were shipped from around the one cave of San Ciro within the first six months of exploiting them, and they were so fresh that they were sent to Marseilles to furnish animal charcoal for use in the sugar factories...No predaceous animals could have brought together and left such a collection of bones." (Ibid., p. 50). No teeth marks of hyena or of any other animal are found in this osseous mass. "The bones are those of animals of all ages down to the foetus, nor do they show traces of weathering or exposure." (Ibid., p.51)

(all of the above from velikovsky, "Earth in Upheaval," pp. 50-55)

What agent is responsible for filling fissures in rock all over Europe with the broken, splintered bones of such animals?

[runtmc2jc]

So then, you don't have any supporting citations from the scientific literature?

I am staying tuned, but I will also be vigilant for properly cited and supported evidence. After all, whether you're aware of this or not, such is the most essential feature of scientific method.

R
i believe i have cited the literature as quoted by velikovsky where applicable. are you denying the existance of the evidences as presented?

[rogero]

i believe i have cited the literature as quoted by velikovsky where applicable. are you denying the existance of the evidences as presented?

I'd like to see original citations, rather than those filtered through the crankish and populist writings of Velikovsky.

Are you denying that mainstream science, in particular glaciology, cannot explain the (putative??) evidence you have haphazardly presented? In particular, why is the consensus scientific community not concerned with the bizarro claims you put forth? Some kinda conspiracy maybe???

R

[Jugulum]

Are you denying that mainstream science, in particular glaciology, cannot explain the (putative??) evidence you have haphazardly presented?Uh, I think you have an unintention double-negative there, rogero. You probably meant "denying...can explain" or "maintaining...cannot explain".

[rogero]

Uh, I think you have an unintention double-negative there, rogero. You probably meant "denying...can explain" or "maintaining...cannot explain".

D'oh!!! Good catch, Jugs! It's a constant embarassment that I make these kinds of sloppy and incompetent mistakes. Twenty years ago I was very exact on the usage of the Innlish language. Now, alas, it appears I am sinking slowly and inevitably into a geriatric haze.

God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. Good luck and Godspeed and blessings for your graduate program. I realize how great an ordeal this is. I both envy your youth and do not envy the difficulty of the academic and political ordeal of graduate school. I'm so glad I don't have to do this again in my fifties!

God's Peace,

Roger

[Assyrian]

The aquatic graveyards cited above from all over the globe are but one piece of the puzzle of evidences which would support some catastrophe of global dimensions. When one considers all the evidence as a whole, local events are not a tenable explanation. So we have local graveyards which can all be explained by local events. It is only when 'we consider the evidence as a whole' that you say it cannot be explained by local events.

Well obviously. If all of these graveyards are part of one larger event then a local catastrophe cannot explain it. But what evidence is there that all of these graveyards are connected? What evidence is there that we should consider them as a whole? Do they share common fossils that would indicate these animals were alive at the same time? Do they all have the same radiometric date? Are they all from the same geological layer?

Without any evidence to connect them, there is no reason to consider them as anything other than 'a local catastrophe for local fossils'.

Blessings Assyrian

[runtmc2jc]

So we have local graveyards which can all be explained by local events. It is only when 'we consider the evidence as a whole' that you say it cannot be explained by local events.

Well obviously. If all of these graveyards are part of one larger event then a local catastrophe cannot explain it. But what evidence is there that all of these graveyards are connected? What evidence is there that we should consider them as a whole? Do they share common fossils that would indicate these animals were alive at the same time? Do they all have the same radiometric date? Are they all from the same geological layer?

Without any evidence to connect them, there is no reason to consider them as anything other than 'a local catastrophe for local fossils'.

Blessings Assyrian

good points. when we're done with the evidences (so we can see the whole picture), then we should visit these questions.

[runtmc2jc]

Buckland was not inclined to attribute these fossil deposits to a global flood, which seems to be a notion cropping up in this thread. Buckland’s arguments against this notion have the same force today as when set down 170 years ago, and apply just as well to rule out the bizarre notion that these are related to any single global catastrophe.

Cheers -- Sylas[/QUOTE] i maintain your use of "bizarre" as an adjective here is indicative of some animosity towards the biblical text.

[runtmc2jc]

[.' Large bone deposits are common and not unusual, comprising a 'much of the mass' is an undocumented assertion on your part. Extinction events are known to kill large nembers of animals also, and the end of the last Ice Age represented an extinction event. Large numbers of animals could very well be isolated without sufficient food on island areas when the sea level went up as the glaciers melted. Thereare many natural explanations for these narural disasters.[/QUOTE]
in many of these circumstances, apparently the sheer number of bones was not common and was unusual to those who discovered or studied them.

[kuboes1831]

Aquatic Graveyards:

here's some more evidence of a catastrophe of global dimensions. The Old Red Sandstone of Scotland is an enormous geological formation replete with countless remains of sealife. It is over 8000 feet thick and many a thousand square miles wide. It consists of a vast stratum of water-rolled pebbles, varying in depth from 100 feet to 100 yards including porphyries of vitreous fracture that cut glass as readily as flint, and masses of quartz that strike fire quite as profusely from steel, -are yet polished and ground down into bullet-like forms. Hugh Miller (The Old Red Sandstone - Boston 1865 p.48). In this red sandstone abundant aquatic fauna is embedded, found in disturbed positions. The figures are contorted, contracted, curved. The tail in many instances is bent to the full. The pterichthys shows its arms extended at their stiffest angle... the attitudes of all the ichthyolites (any fossil fish) display apparent fear, anger and pain. The remains suffered nothing from the after-attacks of predaceous fishes, none such seemed to survive. (ibid p.222). This area comprises 1/2 of Scotland, 'a thousand different localities' disclose the same scene of destruction. this same scenario can be found in many other places all around the globe, in similiar and dissimilar formations.
Professor of Geology at the University of Oxford, William Buckland writes of Monte Bolca in northern Italy: "the circumstances under which the fossil fishes are found at Monte Bolca seem to indicate that they perished suddenly.... the skeletons of these fish lie parallel to the laminae of the strata of the calcareous slate, they are always entire, and closely packed on one another... all these fishes must have died suddenly...and have been speedily buried in the calcareous sediment then in the course of deposition. From the fact that certain individuals have even preserved traces of colour upon their skin, we are certain that they were entombed before decomposition of their soft parts had taken place. (W. Buckland, "Geology and Mineralogy" - Philadelphia 1837).
Buckland also wrote about fish deposits in the Harz Mountains of Germany: "...many of the fishes of this slate at Mansfeld, Eisleben, etc., have a distorted attitude, which has often been assigned to writhing in the agonies of death...as these fossil fishes maintain the attitude of the rigid stage immediately succeeding death, it follows that they were buried before putrefaction had commenced, and apparently in the same bituminous mud, the influx of which had caused their destruction. (ibid., p.103)
This same picture is seen in the red sandstone of Scotland, the limestone of Monte Bolca in Lombardy, the bituminous slate of Mansfeld in Thuringia, and also by the coal formation of Saarbrucken on the Saar, "the most celebrated deposits of fossil fishes in Europe"; the calcareous slate of Solenhofen; the blue slate of Glarus; the marlstone of Oensingen in Switzerland and of Aix in Provence, to name only a few of the better-known sites in Europe.
In North America, similar strata, "packed full of splendidly preserved fishes" are found in the black limestone of Ohio and Michigan, in the Green River bed of Arizona, the diatom beds of Lompoc, California and in many other formations. (G. McCready Price, "Evolutionary Geology and New Catastrophism" (1926); J.M. Macfarlane, "Fishes the Source of Petroleum" (1923). as cited by velikovsky - "Earth in Upheaval" (p.18-22)

What agent of catastrophism is responsible for these vast sepulchres of fossill fishes found all around the globe?


You have completely misread and misunderstood both Hugh Miller and William Buckland, neither of who when they wrtoe accepted a global flood and definitely never accepted only one global flood.

Be careful how you read.

[runtmc2jc]

I'd like to see original citations, rather than those filtered through the crankish and populist writings of Velikovsky.

Are you denying that mainstream science, in particular glaciology, cannot explain the (putative??) evidence you have haphazardly presented? In particular, why is the consensus scientific community not concerned with the bizarro claims you put forth? Some kinda conspiracy maybe???

R
the terms "crankish and populist" and "bizarro" are betraying any vestige of open-mindedness.........also, i don't see anything haphazard in my presentation of the evidence. it happens to coincide with the order of the work cited. BTW, not all scientists disagree with velikovsky, so there is no unified response by the scientific community, and the only conspiracy i know of regarding velikovsky is the absolute blackballing of him by the scientific community when his "Worlds in Collision" was first published. Many of the supposed 'elite' condemned his book without ever even reading it. Then, in the midst of it's best-seller status to the great unwashed (the public), the academic/scientific community put so much pressure on the publisher (MacMillan & Co.) by threatening to forgo any more orders from their lucrative school-book division, Mac & Co. sold the rights to the book to Doubleday. (That's in the midst of best-seller status). How's that for open minds and applying the scientific method to a new theory? My intent is to present the evidences (which are apparently not well known throughout) and then discuss what the possible cause(s) are without getting cantankerous or condescending. At this point there's no need to even consider velikovsky's theories behind the evidences, let's just consider the evidences.

[runtmc2jc]

You have completely misread and misunderstood both Hugh Miller and William Buckland, neither of who when they wrtoe accepted a global flood and definitely never accepted only one global flood.

Be careful how you read.

i did not claim nor infer that these men embraced the theory of a global flood as the causation for the formation/anomalies they wrote about. i simply cited their evidences and let the reader draw their own conclusions as to their cause. I also do not claim only one great inundation in our planet's history, but do suscribe to the biblical narrative concerning the flood of Noah.

[Jugulum]

the terms "crankish and populist" and "bizarro" are betraying any vestige of open-mindedness.........A negative judgement does not betray closed-mindedness, any more than a guilty verdict indicates a biased jury.

[rogero]

the terms "crankish and populist" and "bizarro" are betraying any vestige of open-mindedness....


Your opinion of course, but the fact that you are using Velikovsky, whose work is not accepted as more than quackery by any mainstream scientist, bespeaks the lack of any vestigial sign of your openmindedness.


...also, i don't see anything haphazard in my presentation of the evidence.


Again, that's your opinion. I haven't seen you give a reference from a peer-reviewed scientific journal giving a careful description of the evidence you are attempting to present.


it happens to coincide with the order of the work cited. BTW, not all scientists disagree with velikovsky, so there is no unified response by the scientific community, and the only conspiracy i know of regarding velikovsky is the absolute blackballing of him by the scientific community when his "Worlds in Collision" was first published.

It appears you are contradicting yourself. What mainstream scientist(s) agree with Velikovsky? Why do you think V was "blackballed" by the scientific community? Maybe he was too smart for them and thus simply too intimidating? Or maybe he was just a crankish nutcake who couldn't and wouldn't back up his bizzaro "theories" with consistent, coherent, empirical evidence?


Many of the supposed 'elite' condemned his book without ever even reading it. Then, in the midst of it's best-seller status to the great unwashed (the public), the academic/scientific community put so much pressure on the publisher (MacMillan & Co.) by threatening to forgo any more orders from their lucrative school-book division, Mac & Co. sold the rights to the book to Doubleday. (That's in the midst of best-seller status). How's that for open minds and applying the scientific method to a new theory?

Public appeal is a logically and ethically invalid means to assess the efficacy of purported scientific theory. And how do back up your claim that many scientists didn't even read it? Your argument about switching publishers sounds like a wise business decision for both companies. You have presented no evidence for closed-mindedness --- except for perhaps your own.


My intent is to present the evidences (which are apparently not well known throughout) and then discuss what the possible cause(s) are without getting cantankerous or condescending. At this point there's no need to even consider velikovsky's theories behind the evidences, let's just consider the evidences.

But you haven't presented any evidence! That is my point. Narrow yourself down to a specific set of data from a peer-reviewed scientific journal and then (and only then!) can we begin to have a reasoned discussion.

BTW, does V reference peer-reviewed scientific journals in his populist (yes, populist -- your last paragraph supports this) books? I ask you this to give you a hint for where to look for supporting data.

R

[sylas]

Buckland was not inclined to attribute these fossil deposits to a global flood, which seems to be a notion cropping up in this thread. Buckland’s arguments against this notion have the same force today as when set down 170 years ago, and apply just as well to rule out the bizarre notion that these are related to any single global catastrophe.

Cheers -- Sylas i maintain your use of "bizarre" as an adjective here is indicative of some animosity towards the biblical text.

Of course you do. Meanwhile, I maintain that your peculiar notions have very little to do with the bible, and everything to do with uncriticial reading of Velikovsky and superficial understanding of the data.

Buckland was not arguing against a global flood. As far as I know, he never rejected the notion of a global flood. What he refuted was a proposed association of certain lines of empirical data with the global flood. This distinction is often lost when Buckland is cited.

Buckland was explaining why it is not sensible to attribute the fossil deposits in question to a single global flood. He's right. The details of the data cannot be explained in terms of a single global flood. They are only be associated with a single flood by studiously avoiding the details.

Cheers -- Sylas

[runtmc2jc]

But you haven't presented any evidence! That is my point. Narrow yourself down to a specific set of data from a peer-reviewed scientific journal and then (and only then!) can we begin to have a reasoned discussion.

i guess all the 'facts' as presented do not qualify as evidence in your opinion. either the formations, bones, tusks, etc.,etc, as i've cited (quite extensively so far - and we've only scratched the surface) exist and therefore are evidence, or they don't exist. once again, do you deny the existance of the evidences as presented? i'm not asking you to agree with velikovsky's or anybody's else's theories of their causation, just to their existance. they do exist and they are evidences of some causation. My proposal is to review all this data, and then discuss what could have caused them, after we have looked at the whole picture, not just bits and pieces. i will continue to cite the original sources, many of whom were acknowledged experts in their fields at the time of their publishing.

[runtmc2jc]

Of course you do. Meanwhile, I maintain that your peculiar notions have very little to do with the bible, and everything to do with uncriticial reading of Velikovsky and superficial understanding of the data.

Buckland was not arguing against a global flood. As far as I know, he never rejected the notion of a global flood. What he refuted was a proposed association of certain lines of empirical data with the global flood. This distinction is often lost when Buckland is cited.

Buckland was explaining why it is not sensible to attribute the fossil deposits in question to a single global flood. He's right. The details of the data cannot be explained in terms of a single global flood. They are only be associated with a single flood by studiously avoiding the details.

Cheers -- Sylas

thank you for your insight. once again i object to the term 'peculiar' - perhaps we can avoid the subtle digs and objectively discuss the subject, maybe both sides can learn some things and be intellectually stimulated.

[runtmc2jc]

Norfolk Forest-Bed

In Cromer, Norfolk near the North Sea coast, and in other places on the British Isles, exist "forest-beds" comprised of a great number of stumps of trees, many in the upright position, often with roots interlocking. Within this bed, bones of sixty species of mammals, besides birds, frogs, and snakes were found. Among the mammals were the saber-toothed tiger, huge bear, mammoth, straight-tusked elephant, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, bison and modern horse. Two exclusively northern species - glutton and musk-ox - were found among animals from temperate and tropical lattitudes. Of the thirty species of large land animals of the forest-bed, only six still exist in any part of the world- all others are extinct- and only three are presently native to the British Isles. (W.B. Wright, "The Quarternary Ice Age", 1937, p.110)
Remains of sixty-eight species of plants were found indicating a "climate and geographical conditions very similar to those of Norfolk at the present day." (Ibid).

Immediately above the forest-bed is a fresh-water deposit with arctic plants - arctic willow and dwarf birch- and land shells. It is "a remarkable change from the climatic conditions of the forest-bed below.......(it) is such as to indicate a lowering of temperature of about 20 degrees. (Ibid., p.111). On top of the arctic fresh-water plants and shells is a marine layer. 'Astarte borealis' and other mollusk shells are found "in the position of life, with both valves united." These species "are arctic, but, as the bed seems in other places to contain 'Ostrea edulis' (a mollusk), which requires a temperate sea, the evidence is conflicting as to the climate." (Ibid.)

Velikovsky asks, "what could have brought together or in quick succession, all these animals and plants, from the tundra of the Arctic Circle and from the jungle of the tropics, from lush oak forests and from desert, from lands of many latitudes and altitudes, from fresh-water lakes and rivers, and from the salt seas of the north and the south? The shells with closed valves furnish evidence that the mollusks did not die a natural death but were buried alive."

He then offers his theory as to the mechanism of deposit. "It would appear that this agglomeration was brought together by a moving force that rushed overland, left in its wake marine sand and deep-water creatures, swept animals and trees from the south to the north, and then, turning from the polar regions back toward the warm regions, mixed its burden of arctic plants and animals in the same sediment where it had left those from the south. Animals and plants of land and sea from various parts of the world were thrown together, one group upon another, by some elemental force that could not have been an overflowing river. Also bones of animals already extinct in earlier epochs were carried out of their beds and thrown into the jumble." (Velikovsky, "Earth in Upheaval", pp.56-58)

[runtmc2jc]

A negative judgement does not betray closed-mindedness, any more than a guilty verdict indicates a biased jury.

agreed. however when one employs condescending terms it may indicate some animus in the psyche of the author.

[shunyadragon]

in many of these circumstances, apparently the sheer number of bones was not common and was unusual to those who discovered or studied them.

Many of your references are a little old and there is a certain amount of amazement scientists express when they find discoveries like these, but I appeal to two basic principles. The first is Occam's Razor, which would indicate the simplist explanation fits better than one that requires a more involved complicated explanation. The second is a more modern perspective of the data of any particular discovery, should be understood in light of the whole knowledge of the related sciences. In terms of these considerations, local catastrophies of vaste proportions are common and these bone deposites would not be significantly different than what results from deaths by local catastrophies today.

When applying these two principles you would need to compare any data to other related information, for example the sedimentary and fossil record as a whole. The sedimentary record as a whole is decidedly non-catastrophic.

[Arnold]

Many of your references are a little old and there is a certain amount of amazement scientists express when they find discoveries like these, but I appeal to two basic principles. The first is Occam's Razor, which would indicate the simplist explanation fits better than one that requires a more involved complicated explanation. The second is a more modern perspective of the data of any particular discovery, should be understood in light of the whole knowledge of the related sciences. In terms of these considerations, local catastrophies of vaste proportions are common and these bone deposites would not be significantly different than what results from deaths by local catastrophies today.

When applying these two principles you would need to compare any data to other related information, for example the sedimentary and fossil record as a whole. The sedimentary record as a whole is decidedly non-catastrophic.I am not here to choose sides. But I would really like to hear your explanation for how the remains of tropical animals and plants could be mixed with the remains arctic animals and plants...

[runtmc2jc]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon]Many of your references are a little old and there is a certain amount of amazement scientists express when they find discoveries like these, but I appeal to two basic principles. The first is Occam's Razor, which would indicate the simplist explanation fits better than one that requires a more involved complicated explanation. The second is a more modern perspective of the data of any particular discovery, should be understood in light of the whole knowledge of the related sciences. In terms of these considerations, local catastrophies of vaste proportions are common and these bone deposites would not be significantly different than what results from deaths by local catastrophies today.

I agree with you that some of these evidences presented could be the result of a local catastrophe, albeit on a vast proportion as you state. However I don't think that model holds for some of the evidence, particularly the preponderance of tusk and bone in the arctic (such that they actually comprise a major component of the soil), the fissures (often several hundred feet above sea level) throughout several continents that are filled with fragmented splintered bones of many species, and the forest-bed example most recently posted.

[shunyadragon]

I am not here to choose sides. But I would really like to hear your explanation for how the remains of tropical animals and plants could be mixed with the remains arctic animals and plants...

I do not believe it is a valid argument that tropical animals and plants are mixed with arctic animals and plants. The arctic has not always been arctic, in warmer periods of geologic history what is now arctic has been quite temporate, and continental drift accounts for parts of the arctic being in warmer climates in the past. In fact this is happening today with global warming.

It would help to give some reference to these claims, because selective older evaluations of fossil evidence may be misleading. I know of no instances where tropical animals and plants have been found mixed with arctic animals and plants. Some animal and plant remains claimed to be tropical are not truely tropical. For example the rhino and various related elephant and mammoth species are adapted to a wide range of climaitic environments from near arctic to tropical conditions. This phenomenon is also true of plants. It must be understood that true arctic conditions do not support many plants, and animals that live in these environments mostly rely on the ocean for food.

[Arnold]

I do not believe it is a valid argument that tropical animals and plants are mixed with arctic animals and plants. The arctic has not always been arctic, in warmer periods of geologic history what is now arctic has been quite temporate, and continental drift accounts for parts of the arctic being in warmer climates in the past. In fact this is happening today with global warming.

It would help to give some reference to these claims, because selective older evaluations of fossil evidence may be misleading. I know of no instances where tropical animals and plants have been found mixed with arctic animals and plants. Some animal and plant remains claimed to be tropical are not truely tropical. For example the rhino and various related elephant and mammoth species are adapted to a wide range of climaitic environments from near arctic to tropical conditions. This phenomenon is also true of plants. It must be understood that true arctic conditions do not support many plants, and animals that live in these environments mostly rely on the ocean for food.So on what basis do you reject the alleged evidence of post #108?

[runtmc2jc]

Cumberland Cavern

Near Cumberland, Marlyand, USA, is a cavern or closed fissure with "a peculiar assemblage of animals. Many of the species are comparable to forms now living in the vicinity of the cave; but others are distinctly northern or Boreal in their affinities, and some are related to species peculiar to the southern, or Lower Austral, region." (J.W. Gidley and C.L. Gazin, "The Pleistocent Vertebrate Fauna from Cumberland Cave, Maryland, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 171 (1938)).
A crocodilid and a tapir are representative of southern climate; a wolverine and a lemming "are distinctly northern." It seems "highly improbable" that they co-existed in one place; the scientist who explored the cavern for the Smithsonian Institution as soon as it was discovered and who returned there in the following years for closer investigation, J.W. Gidley, contended that the animals were contemporaneous: the position of the bones excluded any other explanation. "This strange assemblage of fossil remains occurs hopelessly intermingled..." (Gidley in Explorations and Field-work of the Smithsonian Institution for the Year 1913 (Washington 1914); Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1918, pp. 281-287.)
So it happened that animals of northern regions-wolverine and lemming, the long-tailed shrew, mink, red suirrel, muskrat, porcupine, hare and elk-were heaped together with animals "suggesting warmer climatic conditions"-peccary, crocodilid and tapir. Animals that now live on the western coast of America-coyote, badger and pumalike cat-are in this assemblage. Animals that live in areas of plentiful water supply-beaver and muskrat and mink-are found in the Cumberland cavern jumbled together with animals of arid regions-coyote and badger-and those of wooded regions together with animals of open terrain, like the horse and the hare. Extinct animals are found there intermingled with extant forms. Death came to all of them at the same time. Any theory that attempts to explain the presence of animal bones from various climates in one and the same locality by a sequence of glacial and interglacial periods must stumble on the bones of the Cumberland cavern.
(Velikovsky, "Earth in Upheaval", pp.59-60).

[rogero]

Cumberland Cavern

Near Cumberland, Marlyand, USA, is a cavern or closed fissure with "a peculiar assemblage of animals. Many of the species are comparable to forms now living in the vicinity of the cave; but others are distinctly northern or Boreal in their affinities, and some are related to species peculiar to the southern, or Lower Austral, region." (J.W. Gidley and C.L. Gazin, "The Pleistocent Vertebrate Fauna from Cumberland Cave, Maryland, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 171 (1938)).

Wow, great -- a 67-year-old reference! Do you think present-day paleontologists/glaciologists have ignored this evidence? FYI, it's expected that fossil forms resemble local life forms.


A crocodilid and a tapir are representative of southern climate; a wolverine and a lemming "are distinctly northern." It seems "highly improbable" that they co-existed in one place; the scientist who explored the cavern for the Smithsonian Institution as soon as it was discovered and who returned there in the following years for closer investigation, J.W. Gidley, contended that the animals were contemporaneous: the position of the bones excluded any other explanation. "This strange assemblage of fossil remains occurs hopelessly intermingled..." (Gidley in Explorations and Field-work of the Smithsonian Institution for the Year 1913 (Washington 1914); Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1918, pp. 281-287.)

Ooh boy, a ninety plus year old reference! Here's a term that I will bring up again and again in reference to your posts --- historical cherry-picking.


So it happened that animals of northern regions-wolverine and lemming, the long-tailed shrew, mink, red suirrel, muskrat, porcupine, hare and elk-were heaped together with animals "suggesting warmer climatic conditions"-peccary, crocodilid and tapir. Animals that now live on the western coast of America-coyote, badger and pumalike cat-are in this assemblage. Animals that live in areas of plentiful water supply-beaver and muskrat and mink-are found in the Cumberland cavern jumbled together with animals of arid regions-coyote and badger-and those of wooded regions together with animals of open terrain, like the horse and the hare. Extinct animals are found there intermingled with extant forms. Death came to all of them at the same time. Any theory that attempts to explain the presence of animal bones from various climates in one and the same locality by a sequence of glacial and interglacial periods must stumble on the bones of the Cumberland cavern.
(Velikovsky, "Earth in Upheaval", pp.59-60).

Oh boy, a fifty plus year-old quote from a crankish nutcake who thinks he's a persecuted genius that's ignored by the scientific mainstream and who appeals to conspriracy-theorist laypersons like you who think you've found the answer to all of the problems of the origins issue.

Again, I will ask you for references to data from peer-reviwed scientific journals supporting your hero nutbag Velikovsky's screed. (Oh, I see -- it's all a conspiracy. Black helicopters, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bildebergers, the Kennedys... oh the humanity!)

R

[Arnold]

Wow, great -- a 67-year-old reference! Do you think present-day paleontologists/glaciologists have ignored this evidence? FYI, it's expected that fossil forms resemble local life forms.Then please present these alleged investigations...


Ooh boy, a ninety plus year old reference! Here's a term that I will bring up again and again in reference to your posts --- historical cherry-picking.



Oh boy, a fifty plus year-old quote from a crankish nutcake who thinks he's a persecuted genius that's ignored by the scientific mainstream and who appeals to conspriracy-theorist laypersons like you who think you've found the answer to all of the problems of the origins issue.

Again, I will ask you for references to data from peer-reviwed scientific journals supporting your hero nutbag Velikovsky's screed. (Oh, I see -- it's all a conspiracy. Black helicopters, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bildebergers, the Kennedys... oh the humanity!)

RI have not read Velikovski's works but the evidence posts here seem to be lists of others' reports that Velikovski has compiled. Are you saying those reports are all lies?

[Arnold]

So shunyadragon I see you are now on the board, will you answer my question?

Please address post #115 as well...

[runtmc2jc]

Wow, great -- a 67-year-old reference! Do you think present-day paleontologists/glaciologists have ignored this evidence? FYI, it's expected that fossil forms resemble local life forms.

Ooh boy, a ninety plus year old reference! Here's a term that I will bring up again and again in reference to your posts --- historical cherry-picking.

oh boy, a fifty plus year-old quote from a crankish nutcake who thinks he's a persecuted genius that's ignored by the scientific mainstream and who appeals to conspriracy-theorist laypersons like you who think you've found the answer to all of the problems of the origins issue.

Again, I will ask you for references to data from peer-reviwed scientific journals supporting your hero nutbag Velikovsky's screed. (Oh, I see -- it's all a conspiracy. Black helicopters, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bildebergers, the Kennedys... oh the humanity!)

R
i guess by your reasoning we should throw out all works apparently older than you. There goes the works of galileo, copernicus, newton, aristotle, plato, the early church fathers, etc, etc. Your over-the-edge rhetoric is possibly indicative of a flimsy (IMHO) belief system on your part.

[rogero]

Then please present these alleged investigations...


What investigations are you referring to?


I have not read Velikovski's works but the evidence posts here seem to be lists of others' reports that Velikovski has compiled. Are you saying those reports are all lies?

Yes, oh wise and glorious rhetorician. Do you have a problem with a request for well-documented evidence? Or perhaps you agree with Runt that the vast majority of scientists are liars?

[rogero]

i guess by your reasoning we should throw out all works apparently older than you. There goes the works of galileo, copernicus, newton, aristotle, plato, the early church fathers, etc, etc. Your over-the-edge rhetoric is possibly indicative of a flimsy (IMHO) belief system on your part.

No, Runt -- I want to see a reference from a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the kind of evidence you espouse. I have no problem at all with an "older than me" reference, as long as it's been properly vetted and passed the test of time. It's not clear that your nonsense meets either of these criteria.

BTW, do you think that most (all?) modern scientists are liars? Also --- how much geology and astronomy have you studied?

R

[shunyadragon]

Norfolk Forest-Bed

In Cromer, Norfolk near the North Sea coast, and in other places on the British Isles, exist "forest-beds" comprised of a great number of stumps of trees, many in the upright position, often with roots interlocking. Within this bed, bones of sixty species of mammals, besides birds, frogs, and snakes were found. Among the mammals were the saber-toothed tiger, huge bear, mammoth, straight-tusked elephant, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, bison and modern horse. Two exclusively northern species - glutton and musk-ox - were found among animals from temperate and tropical lattitudes. Of the thirty species of large land animals of the forest-bed, only six still exist in any part of the world- all others are extinct- and only three are presently native to the British Isles. (W.B. Wright, "The Quarternary Ice Age", 1937, p.110)
Remains of sixty-eight species of plants were found indicating a "climate and geographical conditions very similar to those of Norfolk at the present day." (Ibid).

Immediately above the forest-bed is a fresh-water deposit with arctic plants - arctic willow and dwarf birch- and land shells. It is "a remarkable change from the climatic conditions of the forest-bed below.......(it) is such as to indicate a lowering of temperature of about 20 degrees. (Ibid., p.111). On top of the arctic fresh-water plants and shells is a marine layer. 'Astarte borealis' and other mollusk shells are found "in the position of life, with both valves united." These species "are arctic, but, as the bed seems in other places to contain 'Ostrea edulis' (a mollusk), which requires a temperate sea, the evidence is conflicting as to the climate." (Ibid.)

Velikovsky asks, "what could have brought together or in quick succession, all these animals and plants, from the tundra of the Arctic Circle and from the jungle of the tropics, from lush oak forests and from desert, from lands of many latitudes and altitudes, from fresh-water lakes and rivers, and from the salt seas of the north and the south? The shells with closed valves furnish evidence that the mollusks did not die a natural death but were buried alive."

He then offers his theory as to the mechanism of deposit. "It would appear that this agglomeration was brought together by a moving force that rushed overland, left in its wake marine sand and deep-water creatures, swept animals and trees from the south to the north, and then, turning from the polar regions back toward the warm regions, mixed its burden of arctic plants and animals in the same sediment where it had left those from the south. Animals and plants of land and sea from various parts of the world were thrown together, one group upon another, by some elemental force that could not have been an overflowing river. Also bones of animals already extinct in earlier epochs were carried out of their beds and thrown into the jumble." (Velikovsky, "Earth in Upheaval", pp.56-58)

I do not doubt the existence of this evidence, just the outdated interpretation.

I have no problem with this evidence explaining the beginning of the Ice Age. There is no need for a catastrophic world event to explain it. The beginning and end of Ice Ages happens very quickly. No force is needed to explain this evidence, only a climate change from temporate to arctic conditions with the beginning of the Ice Age.

One objection to the outdated description is the claim of the presence of tropical animals. All of the animals mentioned have temporate varieties and species including the straight tusked elephant. Even today you have temporate and frigid varieties of tropical species like the snow monkeys of Japan.

By today's knowledge of these periods of time there are not any animals from earlier epochs in these deposits. All the animals are well known to the time the deposits took place.

As I said, citing older publications (1937) is not good when much newer scientific information is available concerning these finds.

[shunyadragon]

Cumberland Cavern

Near Cumberland, Marlyand, USA, is a cavern or closed fissure with "a peculiar assemblage of animals. Many of the species are comparable to forms now living in the vicinity of the cave; but others are distinctly northern or Boreal in their affinities, and some are related to species peculiar to the southern, or Lower Austral, region." (J.W. Gidley and C.L. Gazin, "The Pleistocent Vertebrate Fauna from Cumberland Cave, Maryland, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 171 (1938)).
A crocodilid and a tapir are representative of southern climate; a wolverine and a lemming "are distinctly northern." It seems "highly improbable" that they co-existed in one place; the scientist who explored the cavern for the Smithsonian Institution as soon as it was discovered and who returned there in the following years for closer investigation, J.W. Gidley, contended that the animals were contemporaneous: the position of the bones excluded any other explanation. "This strange assemblage of fossil remains occurs hopelessly intermingled..." (Gidley in Explorations and Field-work of the Smithsonian Institution for the Year 1913 (Washington 1914); Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1918, pp. 281-287.)
So it happened that animals of northern regions-wolverine and lemming, the long-tailed shrew, mink, red suirrel, muskrat, porcupine, hare and elk-were heaped together with animals "suggesting warmer climatic conditions"-peccary, crocodilid and tapir. Animals that now live on the western coast of America-coyote, badger and pumalike cat-are in this assemblage. Animals that live in areas of plentiful water supply-beaver and muskrat and mink-are found in the Cumberland cavern jumbled together with animals of arid regions-coyote and badger-and those of wooded regions together with animals of open terrain, like the horse and the hare. Extinct animals are found there intermingled with extant forms. Death came to all of them at the same time. Any theory that attempts to explain the presence of animal bones from various climates in one and the same locality by a sequence of glacial and interglacial periods must stumble on the bones of the Cumberland cavern.
(Velikovsky, "Earth in Upheaval", pp.59-60).

I am very familar with the Cumberland cavern since I am from Maryland with an intense interest in Geology and archeology since I was seven years old. Again, you are citing old 1914-1938 scientific literature. In more modern scientific research and literature it is well documented that these species and varieties are not tropical, but arid, semi-arid to temporate. Arid species are no problem for the region. see below.

Facts:

(1) The Yangzi River Crocodilid is indeed adapted to a temporate climate in China.

(2) Appalachia has a semi-arid to arid climate band running northeast to the southwest in the rain shadow of the Allegheny front. This climatic zone is known to exist since before the last glacial period. The river valleys and the mountains on either side are quite lush and temporate, but in this band you find many arid to semi-arid plants and animals including abundant prickly pear cactus. I know this region well because I mapped soils there for 3 years. This arid to semi-arid climatic zone is only a few kilometers from Cumberland, Maryland, It is called the 'Shale Barrens' by some.

[Arnold]

What investigations are you referring to?You said, "Do you think present-day paleontologists/glaciologists have ignored this evidence?"

Yes, oh wise and glorious rhetorician. Do you have a problem with a request for well-documented evidence? Or perhaps you agree with Runt that the vast majority of scientists are liars?You are the one who just called it "this evidence". Please drop the personal attacks and answer my question in your next post. It just makes you look like you don't have an answer - which could very well be the case I guess...

[runtmc2jc]

I am very familar with the Cumberland cavern since I am from Maryland with an intense interest in Geology and archeology since I was seven years old. Again, you are citing old 1914-1938 scientific literature. In more modern scientific research and literature it is well documented that these species and varieties are not tropical, but arid, semi-arid to temporate. Arid species are no problem for the region. see below.

Facts:

(1) The Yangzi River Crocodilid is indeed adapted to a temporate climate in China.

(2) Appalachia has a semi-arid to arid climate band running northeast to the southwest in the rain shadow of the Allegheny front. This climatic zone is known to exist since before the last glacial period. The river valleys and the mountains on either side are quite lush and temporate, but in this band you find many arid to semi-arid plants and animals including abundant prickly pear cactus. I know this region well because I mapped soils there for 3 years. This arid to semi-arid climatic zone is only a few kilometers from Cumberland, Maryland, It is called the 'Shale Barrens' by some.

if those animals were adaptable to this area in question, then i would presume there is fossil evidence of them in various locations, not just those crammed in a cave. is this the case? are you saying peccary, crocodilid and tapir have left their remains in the area (as well as the lemming?) other than in the cave? either way, some catastrophic event must have sealed their doom in the cave, i guess the bone of contention (no pun intended) would be the scale of said catastrophe.

[runtmc2jc]

No, Runt -- I want to see a reference from a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the kind of evidence you espouse. I have no problem at all with an "older than me" reference, as long as it's been properly vetted and passed the test of time. It's not clear that your nonsense meets either of these criteria.

BTW, do you think that most (all?) modern scientists are liars? Also --- how much geology and astronomy have you studied?

R
i find it interesting that you would term 'evidence' as 'nonsense' - a careful reading of my posts would reveal that i've repeatedly requested to simply view and consider these various evidences (from all around the globe) first before even discussing their possible cause, although my leaning is clearly evident. to answer your second question, no i don't believe most or all of modern scientists are liars. i do believe some percentage is corrupt due to money- grants, large corporation sponsorship, tenure, and the basic human trait of pride manifested as being unwilling to admit when one is wrong. also it seems a number of scientists proceed with 'a priori' notions such as God is a myth and the bible mythology, and undoubtedly some scientists are possessed with the notion that man is the creator, hence you have such practices as in-vitro fertilization, cloning and sex-change operations, to name a few. And to be perfectly honest, while much of what science has given mankind may be beneficial, other by-products have created a plethora of problems as well. (i.e. - certain chemicals, unnatural food products, certain medicines/treatments, etc., which have been proven to harm the environment as well as the human body.)

[shunyadragon]

if those animals were adaptable to this area in question, then i would presume there is fossil evidence of them in various locations, not just those crammed in a cave. is this the case? are you saying peccary, crocodilid and tapir have left their remains in the area (as well as the lemming?) other than in the cave? either way, some catastrophic event must have sealed their doom in the cave, i guess the bone of contention (no pun intended) would be the scale of said catastrophe.

Yes, the fossils are found in other places. Again, these references and the conclusions are a bit old. The bones got there by local flood events. Caves like this are commonly underground rivers, and sediment records in the cavern indicate they were deposited in more than one event. Appalachia is prown to severe sudden floods related to hurricanes from the Atlantic. I participated in the recovery and cleanup of such a flood event in the 1980's. On a local scale it was quite catastrophic, partly because these floods are resricted to river valleys surrouded by steep mountains, which makes them more catastrohic than if they occured on flat open topography.

I brought out one important point neglected in your responses. All over the world including in the Appalachia region there are continuous non-catastrophic sediment deposits that falsify any consideration of a world event. Many of these continuous deposits are varved lake sediments, and delta deposits.

[rogero]

i find it interesting that you would term 'evidence' as 'nonsense' - a careful reading of my posts would reveal that i've repeatedly requested to simply view and consider these various evidences (from all around the globe) first before even discussing their possible cause, although my leaning is clearly evident. to answer your second question, no i don't believe most or all of modern scientists are liars. i do believe some percentage is corrupt due to money- grants, large corporation sponsorship, tenure, and the basic human trait of pride manifested as being unwilling to admit when one is wrong. also it seems a number of scientists proceed with 'a priori' notions such as God is a myth and the bible mythology, and undoubtedly some scientists are possessed with the notion that man is the creator, hence you have such practices as in-vitro fertilization, cloning and sex-change operations, to name a few. And to be perfectly honest, while much of what science has given mankind may be beneficial, other by-products have created a plethora of problems as well. (i.e. - certain chemicals, unnatural food products, certain medicines/treatments, etc., which have been proven to harm the environment as well as the human body.)

I still haven't seen you present any evidence that is considered such by the scientific community. Again, a three-generational old reference from a philosophy journal cited by a populist quack is not what I would consider "evidence". We must nail down the observational specifics before we can have a reasonable discussion.

So far from your craptastic (for Perry! :wink:) tangential citations I can draw no conclusion or even know where to begin a reasoned discussion. How in your mind do the purported data in these quasi-references obviate standard scientific explanations (which also include catastrophes!) from glaciation and flooding events?

And, BTW, I don't give a flying crap whether many or even the majority of scientists are atheists or view the Bible as pure mythology. This is a "guilt by association" logical fallacy. There are plenty of theists (Christians even -- like me) who have no problem with the tentative and reasoned conclusions of modern scientific methodology.

Sex-change operations??? Give me a break! :lol: The stench of strawmen burning is strong with this one. :teeth:

R

[rogero]

You said, "Do you think present-day paleontologists/glaciologists have ignored this evidence?"

You are the one who just called it "this evidence".


Ok, Mr. Semantics -- are you trying to compete with Leutnant Limonite (Cap'n Ochre)? If so, you will lose. :lol:

In hindsight, I guess I shoulda put "evidence" thusly in quotes.


Please drop the personal attacks and answer my question in your next post. It just makes you look like you don't have an answer - which could very well be the case I guess...

My, my -- you are a hypersensitive li'l fella, ain't ya?

My main point is that Runt hasn't cited any kind of verified and well-documented "evidence" (there, is that better?) that can be discussed in a reasonable manner. What he has cited can be explained quite handily by standard mainstream science. Where is his punch line, his coup-de-grace (as it were)?

R

[Arnold]

My, my -- you are a hypersensitive li'l fella, ain't ya?Can't you ever get beyond schoolyard condescension?

My main point is that Runt hasn't cited any kind of verified and well-documented "evidence" (there, is that better?) that can be discussed in a reasonable manner. What he has cited can be explained quite handily by standard mainstream science. Where is his punch line, his coup-de-grace (as it were)?

RSo you've checked these reports? Or are you just pulling a YEC and dismissing them out-of-hand?

[rogero]

Can't you ever get beyond schoolyard condescension?


No. I've read your posts, and I know your style. It's just too much fun! :lol:


So you've checked these reports? Or are you just pulling a YEC and dismissing them out-of-hand?

No, but I want mainstream scientific verification of these "reports". That's the way things work in the real world, Son. Unless you are advocating some sort sort of systematic supression of data like it seems (could just be my prejudice speaking) that our friend Runt is purporting.

R

[Arnold]

No. I've read your posts, and I know your style. It's just too much fun! :lol:Well I've read a few of your posts as well - you have some growing up to do...



No, but I want mainstream scientific verification of these "reports". That's the way things work in the real world, Son. Unless you are advocating some sort sort of systematic supression of data like it seems (could just be my prejudice speaking) that our friend Runt is purporting.

RSo you dismiss what you have not seen. Very open-minded of you.

[rogero]

Well I've read a few of your posts as well - you have some growing up to do...


Yep, I know. At least I have the walnuts to admit it. :teeth:


So you dismiss what you have not seen. Very open-minded of you.

No idea what you mean here. True -- I haven't seen scientifically-documented evidence from Runt, and I feel free to dismiss his reference to crankish sources that have certainly been vetted by the mainstream scientific community out-of-hand.

Do you have any idea how science works, Son? Is every mainstream scientific theory subject to political propaganda and thus automatically liable to rejection by the scientifically-naive (ability to run a theodolite notwithstanding) without any systematic consideration of the evidence?

Ah, this is too much fun!

R

[Arnold]

Yep, I know. At least I have the walnuts to admit it. :teeth:You want credit for being childish?



No idea what you mean here. True -- I haven't seen scientifically-documented evidence from Runt, and I feel free to dismiss his reference to crankish sources that have certainly been vetted by the mainstream scientific community out-of-hand.

Do you have any idea how science works, Son? Is every mainstream scientific theory subject to political propaganda and thus automatically liable to rejection by the scientifically-naive (ability to run a theodolite notwithstanding) without any systematic consideration of the evidence?

Ah, this is too much fun!

RFunny, a child calling me "son".

You are what you criticize. I have only asked questions and you have simply dismissed them - is that how your science works?

[Arnold]

Shunyadragon, thanks for the informative answers...

[rogero]

You want credit for being childish?



Yes. At my age, it's a pleasure! :wink:


Funny, a child calling me "son".


It's a Midwestern 'Merikan figure of speak. If you ain't man enough to accept this affectionate form of address, then what can I say?


You are what you criticize. I have only asked questions and you have simply dismissed them - is that how your science works?

I haven't simply dismissed anything. IMHO, you have been a rhetorical disruptive influence. You've tried hard --- oh, you've tried hard. The upshot is that Runt hasn't presented any data vetted through the mainstream scientific community. If you want to assert that this is some sort of liberal political conspiracy, then by all means have at it.

Do you want to discuss science, or do you want to discuss politics? BTW, you may be surprised at some of my political views.

R

[Arnold]

Yes. At my age, it's a pleasure! :wink:Good luck finding someone besides your mother willing to give you any credit...



It's a Midwestern 'Merikan figure of speak. If you ain't man enough to accept this affectionate form of address, then what can I say?Your condescension is nothing more than water off a duck's back to me. When you act like a clown you should expect to look like a fool...



I haven't simply dismissed anything. IMHO, you have been a rhetorical disruptive influence. You've tried hard --- oh, you've tried hard. The upshot is that Runt hasn't presented any data vetted through the mainstream scientific community. If you want to assert that this is some sort of liberal political conspiracy, then by all means have at it.

Do you want to discuss science, or do you want to discuss politics? BTW, you may be surprised at some of my political views.

RHow do you know those reports have not been "vetted through the mainstream scientific community"? Again, you are what you criticize. You don't know, but are willing to dismiss them anyway.

[rogero]

Good luck finding someone besides your mother willing to give you any credit...



Well, that remains to be seen... :lol:


Your condescension is nothing more than water off a duck's back to me. When you act like a clown you should expect to look like a fool...

Are you comparing me to Horhay? If so, them's fightin' words!

Now, back to reality --- if you could actually address in a cogent way the data (or more probably, the unsupported litany of populist nonsense spouted off by Runt and his populist-influenced ilk) then I might -- just might -- have the slightest modicum of respect for your apologetic capabilites. Then again, I haven't the foggiest notion what your apologetic position is. Is it some form of traditional Chrisitianity tied inexoriably with North American conservative politics? I'm just simply confused.

R



How do you know those reports have not been "vetted through the mainstream scientific community"? Again, you are what you criticize. You don't know, but are willing to dismiss them anyway.

I don't know. ...And I have the honesty to admit I don't know.

[Arnold]

Well, that remains to be seen... :lol:Don't hold your breath...


Now, back to reality --- if you could actually address in a cogent way the data (or more probably, the unsupported litany of populist nonsense spouted off by Runt and his populist-influenced ilk) then I might -- just might -- have the slightest modicum of respect for your apologetic capabilites. Then again, I haven't the foggiest notion what your apologetic position is. Is it some form of traditional Chrisitianity tied inexoriably with North American conservative politics?I have never come to these science forums to be apologetic about anything. In this thread I was just curious so I asked a couple of questions - the horror! But I see that curiosity doesn't fit well with your science either.



I'm just simply confused.OK

[Arnold]

I don't know. ...And I have the honesty to admit I don't know.Took you long enough...

[rogero]

Don't hold your breath...



Don't worry -- I'm not holding mine! :wink:


I have never come to these science forums to be apologetic about anything. In this thread I was just curious so I asked a couple of questions - the horror! But I see that curiosity doesn't fit well with your science either.


But your curiousity IMHO didn't seem to me to further the epistemology of the crux of the question of the thread starter (who, BTW, I love like a brother in the Christian sense, but who is still (IMHO) a hillbilly moron in the scientific sense).

Ask any questions you want, Son. But ask them in a focused manner that participants in this thread can address in a non-ambiguous manner.


OK

OK to you as well, my friend! :wink:

R

[Arnold]

But your curiousity IMHO didn't seem to me to further the epistemology of the crux of the question of the thread starter (who, BTW, I love like a brother in the Christian sense, but who is still (IMHO) a hillbilly moron in the scientific sense).Where is this rule that I have to "further the epistemology of the crux of the question of the thread starter"?

Ask any questions you want, Son. But ask them in a focused manner that participants in this thread can address in a non-ambiguous manner.I asked you in post #117:

I have not read Velikovski's works but the evidence posts here seem to be lists of others' reports that Velikovski has compiled. Are you saying those reports are all lies?Your response in post #120 was:

Yes, oh wise and glorious rhetorician.

Now you say:

I don't know. ...And I have the honesty to admit I don't know.So which is it? You seem to be having trouble keeping your story straight. Is this more of your type of science?




You are right - this is getting to be fun...


[Your turn to call me names and generally denigrate me...]

[rogero]

Where is this rule that I have to "further the epistemology of the crux of the question of the thread starter"?


What "rule" are you talking about, Sonny?


I asked you in post #117:

Your response in post #120 was:



Now you say:

So which is it? You seem to be having trouble keeping your story straight. Is this more of your type of science?


I think I'm very good at keeping my story straight.

Now, back to science. Where is the documented data of Runt and Perry? If one thinks such data exists, where is the scientific discussion of such? If one thinks these putative data are ignored by the mainstream scientific community, then why is this the case???

Arnold -- do you have anything to add to this discussion other than your tit-for-tat rhetoric? If not, I will match you phrase-for-phrase, and it will be a great pleasure for me. Do you want to make this a war of attrition, or do you perhaps want to acquiesce to reason?

...Nah....!!!!


You are right - this is getting to be fun...


Dang straight it is! :lol:


[Your turn to call me names and generally denigrate me...]

Done diddly did it! Now, ... right back at you! :wink:

[Arnold]

I think I'm very good at keeping my story straight.That's the really scary part - you actually think you have...


Arnold -- do you have anything to add to this discussion other than your tit-for-tat rhetoric? If not, I will match you phrase-for-phrase, and it will be a great pleasure for me. Do you want to make this a war of attrition, or do you perhaps want to acquiesce to reason?What reason? You can't seem to follow my story either - you really do have problems. My contribution has been questions. I have not made any assertions at all. Your contribution has been answers - contradictary ones.

[rogero]

That's the really scary part - you actually think you have...


It's very possible I've been delusional. I don't deny that.


And you can't seem to follow my story either - you really do have problems. My contribution has been questions. I have not made any assertions at all. Your contribution has been answers - contradictary ones.

I agree I have lots of problems. Do you?

Your contributions have been questions about unsupported references to purported "data" from dubious sources. Your questions have as much truth value as questions about alien incursions into SW American trailer parks.

Do you want to keep this up, or do you want to ask Runt to back us his crankishly ignornant (albeit innocent) nonsense with scientifically documented data that we all can discuss in an open forum? The choice is yours, Buddy Boy, and I am more than willing to engage either way.

R

[Arnold]

It's very possible I've been delusional. I don't deny that.Admission is the first step to recovery.


I agree I have lots of problems.I noticed.

Your contributions have been questions about unsupported references to purported "data" from dubious sources.That's one of the reasons I asked them - Doh!

Do you want to keep this up, or do you want to ask Runt to back us his crankishly ignornant (albeit innocent) nonsense with scientifically documented data that we all can discuss in an open forum? The choice is yours, Buddy Boy, and I am more than willing to engage either way."Engage"? Is that what you think you do?

You still have some things in need of admission...

[runtmc2jc]

Whales in the Mountains:

In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered. Bones of whale have also been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario, a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; (Dana, Manual of Geology, p. 983) and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level. (Dunbar, Historical Geology, p.453).
A species of Tertiary whale, Zeuglodon, left its bones in great numbers in Alabama and other Gulf states. The bones of these creatures covered the fields in such abundance and were "so much of a nuisance on the top of the ground that the farmers piled them up to make fences." (George McCready Price, "Common-sense Geology," (1946), pp. 204-5)

To account for the presence of whales in the hills of Vermont and Montreal, at elevations of 500 and 600 feet, requires the lowering of the land to that extent, OR possibly an ocean tide, carrying the whales to their resting places inland. In either case herculean force would have been required to push mountains below sea level, or to cause the sea to inrupt, but the latter explanation is clearly catastrophic.

from v. (Earth in Upheaval, pp.46-48)

[rogero]

Admission is the first step to recovery.


Dang right it is!


I noticed.


It's appreciated. I hate it when my students fall asleep in class.


That's one of the reasons I asked them - Doh!


So, back to the substance of the thread, what's your opinion about the Veliskovsian "data" that Runt has proferred? Quite honestly, I have no idea how to interpret it, since I have no assurance that it's from a reliable and vetted source. That's been the main point of my resistance. Quite frankly I have no clue as to the intent of your support of Runt and resistance to my attempt for empirical clarification.



"Engage"? Is that what you think you do?


Yes. And I will continue to engage you, whether in a reasonable scientific debate or a rhetorical tit-for-tat. The choice is yours. Methinks the former would be much more edifying, but either would provide an entertaining dalliance to an old fart like me. The choice is yours.


You still have some things in need of admission...

I'm not smelling what you're cookin' here. Getting back on topic...

Maybe you should attempt to address the topic of the thread? Do you know of any empirical evidence for a global flood as per the Fundy (Perry!) interpretation of Genesis?

R

[Arnold]

So, back to the substance of the thread, what's your opinion about the Veliskovsian "data" that Runt has proferred? Quite honestly, I have no idea how to interpret it, since I have no assurance that it's from a reliable and vetted source. That's been the main point of my resistance. Quite frankly I have no clue as to the intent of your support of Runt and resistance to my attempt for empirical clarification.I have no opinion - that's why I asked the questions.

Yes. And I will continue to engage you, whether in a reasonable scientific debate or a rhetorical tit-for-tat. The choice is yours. Methinks the former would be much more edifying, but either would provide an entertaining dalliance to an old fart like me. The choice is yours.You are being delusional again...


Maybe you should attempt to address the topic of the thread? Do you know of any empirical evidence for a global flood as per the Fundy (Perry!) interpretation of Genesis?No.

[rogero]

I have no opinion - that's why I asked the questions.


Fair enough.


You are being delusional again...

That's quite possible. I've been accused of this before. :wink:


No.

Okey doke. Back to our originally-schedulled program. :smile:

[geochron]

Whales in the Mountains:

In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered. Bones of whale have also been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario, a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; (Dana, Manual of Geology, p. 983) and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level. (Dunbar, Historical Geology, p.453).
A species of Tertiary whale, Zeuglodon, left its bones in great numbers in Alabama and other Gulf states. The bones of these creatures covered the fields in such abundance and were "so much of a nuisance on the top of the ground that the farmers piled them up to make fences." (George McCready Price, "Common-sense Geology," (1946), pp. 204-5)

To account for the presence of whales in the hills of Vermont and Montreal, at elevations of 500 and 600 feet, requires the lowering of the land to that extent, OR possibly an ocean tide, carrying the whales to their resting places inland. In either case herculean force would have been required to push mountains below sea level, or to cause the sea to inrupt, but the latter explanation is clearly catastrophic.

from v. (Earth in Upheaval, pp.46-48)

Amusing that there's about 40 million years of difference in these remains, which is somewhat difficult to achieve with a global flood.

Zeuglodon became extinct about 40 million years ago, conventional view has an extended "Gulf of Mexico" at that time.

http://www.gsa.state.al.us/gsa/Paleoweb/palpage_statefos2.html

Montreal - Sounds like the Champlain Sea to me, which was about 10,000 years ago.

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/champlain/champlain.html

As for Vermont, check

http://www.paleoportal.org/time_space/state.php?name=Vermont

[runtmc2jc]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon]I do not doubt the existence of this evidence, just the outdated interpretation.

One objection to the outdated description is the claim of the presence of tropical animals. All of the animals mentioned have temporate varieties and species including the straight tusked elephant. Even today you have temporate and frigid varieties of tropical species like the snow monkeys of Japan.

Even the hippo?

[runtmc2jc]

I am very familar with the Cumberland cavern since I am from Maryland with an intense interest in Geology and archeology since I was seven years old. Again, you are citing old 1914-1938 scientific literature. In more modern scientific research and literature it is well documented that these species and varieties are not tropical, but arid, semi-arid to temporate. Arid species are no problem for the region. see below.

Facts:

(1) The Yangzi River Crocodilid is indeed adapted to a temporate climate in China.

because (A) - there is a termporate climate in China; and (B) - there is evidence of a crocodilid in this temporate region of China; - and (C) there is a termporate region of Appalachia.......does not necessarily add up to a crocodilid in Appalacia, unless you have evidence which supports that contention. i think you would have to agree that hippo and crocodilid on the one hand, and lemming on the other, represent quite a divergent collection.

(2) Appalachia has a semi-arid to arid climate band running northeast to the southwest in the rain shadow of the Allegheny front. This climatic zone is known to exist since before the last glacial period. The river valleys and the mountains on either side are quite lush and temporate, but in this band you find many arid to semi-arid plants and animals including abundant prickly pear cactus. I know this region well because I mapped soils there for 3 years. This arid to semi-arid climatic zone is only a few kilometers from Cumberland, Maryland, It is called the 'Shale Barrens' by some.

Sounds like an interesting place to visit. I've always wanted to visit Appalachia on up to Vermont. Maybe one day it'll happen..... "Shale Barrens" sounds like something out of LOTR.

[shunyadragon]

[/BOX]

Sounds like an interesting place to visit. I've always wanted to visit Appalachia on up to Vermont. Maybe one day it'll happen..... "Shale Barrens" sounds like something out of LOTR.

The point of bringing up the Yangze River croc is to demonstrate the fallicy that these species are necessarilly tropical, because the remains found are related to tropical animals. Older outdated scientific references tend to make this error. More recent finds and research confirms that mammals and reptiles have adapted to a wide range of climates. Various primate species and other mammals like the tapur are now known to adapt to a wide range of climatic conditions.

Another poit worth mentioning is this region has a wide range of climatic conditions today within several hundred kilometers in the same watershed that these local catastrophic floods are known to occur supporting a wide range of animals and plants. They range to near arctic (tundra) up on the allegheny plateau (5000+ft) to arid and temperate at lower elevations.

[runtmc2jc]

In Northern China:

in the village of Choukoutien, near Peking, in caverns and fissures a great mass of animal bones was found. "The most astonishing fact was the discovery of this unimaginable wealth of bones of fossil animals" (Weidenreich). These rich ossiferous deposits occur in association with human skeletal remains.
The discoverers of the bones were perplexed by the human and animal remains: the bones belonged to animals of the tundras, or a cold-wet climate, of steppes and prairies, or dry climate; and of jungles, or warm-moist climate, "in a strange mixture." Mammoths and buffaloes and ostriches and arctic animals left their teeth, horns, claws, and bones in one great melange, and though similar situations exist in various places in others parts of the world, the geologists of China regarded their find as enigmatic.
It is asserted that since late Tertiary times and through the time of the Great Ice Age in Europe and America, China experienced "progressive desiccation interrupted by pluvial intervals." (J.S. Lee, "The Geology of China," (London, 1939), p.371). "The general absence of ice-sculptured features" led the naturalist to the conclusion that in northern China, as in northern Siberia, there were no glacial conditions and no formation of ice cover. On the other hand, erratic blocks and striated boulders are found in the valleys and on the hills. So by what mechanism were the bones transported into the fissures of rocks? And what striated the rocks and transported boulders far from the source of their origin and high onto hills?
At Tientsin marine sand and clays with the shells of sea mollusks have been found exposed on the surface of the ground. Borings made in the same location "showed the presence of sand and clays with fresh-water shells down to a depth of more than 507 feet below the marine layer which is exposed on the surface." (Ibid., p. 206)

Velikovsky poses the following: "Was not the irrupted sea the agent that threw together the animals of various lattitudes and carried rocks of foreign origin to the tops of hills? Did not the mountains that sprang up in the age of man rise in the upheaval that also moved the seas out of their borders? Were not animals of various habitats swept into fissures--human beings with them--when mountains rose, seas irrupted, rock debris was carried towards summits and climate changed?" (V., "Earth in Upheaval," p.62-63)

[Arnold]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon]I do not doubt the existence of this evidence, just the outdated interpretation.

One objection to the outdated description is the claim of the presence of tropical animals. All of the animals mentioned have temporate varieties and species including the straight tusked elephant. Even today you have temporate and frigid varieties of tropical species like the snow monkeys of Japan.

Even the hippo?How could tapers, crocodiles and hippopotamuses live in a climate where open water freezes?

[runtmc2jc]

The point of bringing up the Yangze River croc is to demonstrate the fallicy that these species are necessarilly tropical, because the remains found are related to tropical animals. Older outdated scientific references tend to make this error. More recent finds and research confirms that mammals and reptiles have adapted to a wide range of climates. Various primate species and other mammals like the tapur are now known to adapt to a wide range of climatic conditions.

Another poit worth mentioning is this region has a wide range of climatic conditions today within several hundred kilometers in the same watershed that these local catastrophic floods are known to occur supporting a wide range of animals and plants. They range to near arctic (tundra) up on the allegheny plateau (5000+ft) to arid and temperate at lower elevations.

"local catastrophic floods" is your interpretation of the event. you mixed in your opinion with facts to make it appear that your opinion is a fact. Have you ever worked for the DNC? (just a joke).

[shunyadragon]

"local catastrophic floods" is your interpretation of the event. you mixed in your opinion with facts to make it appear that your opinion is a fact. Have you ever worked for the DNC? (just a joke).

The concept of 'local catastrophic events' is not just my interpretation of the facts or opinion, it is the view held by virtually all 99%+ scientists in the fields related to these phenomenon. This is verified in many polls like the Newsweek poll where the scientists almost unanimously support evolution and the non-catastrophic ancient history of the earth. There are abundant non-catastrophic sediment deposits such as, varved lake deposits, and river terraces in the same region as these catastrophic events that caused the deposits at places like the Cumberland Caverns. This is also reflected in the sediment record of all sedimentary rocks known. They almost all non-catastrophic in nature.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Amusing that there's about 40 million years of difference in these remains, which is somewhat difficult to achieve with a global flood.

Zeuglodon became extinct about 40 million years ago, conventional view has an extended "Gulf of Mexico" at that time.

http://www.gsa.state.al.us/gsa/Paleoweb/palpage_statefos2.html

Montreal - Sounds like the Champlain Sea to me, which was about 10,000 years ago.

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/champlain/champlain.html

As for Vermont, check

http://www.paleoportal.org/time_space/state.php?name=Vermont

Very good. Since most of these "challenges" end up with such proficient answers, it is reasonable to expect all "challenges" to be answered so reasonably. I appreciate you and the others here who take the time to answer the YEC/global flood "challenges". Thank you.

[runtmc2jc]

The concept of 'local catastrophic events' is not just my interpretation of the facts or opinion, it is the view held by virtually all 99%+ scientists in the fields related to these phenomenon. This is verified in many polls like the Newsweek poll where the scientists almost unanimously support evolution and the non-catastrophic ancient history of the earth. There are abundant non-catastrophic sediment deposits such as, varved lake deposits, and river terraces in the same region as these catastrophic events that caused the deposits at places like the Cumberland Caverns. This is also reflected in the sediment record of all sedimentary rocks known. They almost all non-catastrophic in nature.

i'll be sure to run out and secure a copy of the latest Newsweek for all the latest scientific news updates.

[shunyadragon]

i'll be sure to run out and secure a copy of the latest Newsweek for all the latest scientific news updates.

Newsweek is maginal on science updates, but better than V. You might want to try Discovery or Scientific American.

[runtmc2jc]

Newsweek is maginal on science updates, but better than V. You might want to try Discovery or Scientific American.

my response was just a weak attempt at sarcasm.

[shunyadragon]

my response was just a weak attempt at sarcasm.

My response that Newsweek does better than V was the appropriate response.

[runtmc2jc]

My response that Newsweek does better than V was the appropriate response.


a response like that moves you to the front of the nutcake line.

[runtmc2jc]

LA BREA TAR PITS

In asphalt mixed with clay and sand lie the bones of both extinct and still living animal species. This find was first described in 1875, by which time already thousands of tons of ashpalt had been removed and shipped to San Francisco for roofing and paving. (Cf. J.C. Merriam, "The Fauna of Rancho La Brea," Memoirs of the University of California, I, No.2 (1911).
Beds of petroleum shale (rock of laminated structure formed by the consolidation of clay), ascribed to the Tertiary Age, having in many places a thickness of about 2000 feet, extend from Cape Mendocino in northern Calif. to Los Angeles and beyond, a distance of over 450 miles. The asphalt beds of Rancho La Brea are an outcrop of this large bituminous formation.
Since 1900 the University of California has been collecting these fossils, "a most remarkable mass of skeletal material.".... Most spectacular of the remains is the saber-toothed tiger....The animal remains are crowded together in the asphalt pit in an unbelievable agglomeration. In the first excavation carried on by the U. of Calif., "a bed of bones was encountered in which the number of saber-tooth and wolf skulls together averaged twenty per cubic yard." (Ibid.). No fewer than 700 skulls of the saber-toothed tiger have been recovered. (R.S. Lull, "Fossils" (1931), p.28). Among other animals unearthed in this pit were bison, horses, camels, sloths, mammoths, mastodons, and also birds, including peacocks....
The large number of animals that filled this asphalt bed to overflowing is baffling.... "As the greater number of the animals in the Rancho La Brea beds have been entrapped in the tar, it is to be presumed that in a large percentage of cases the major portions of the skeleton has been preserved. Contrary to expectations, connected skeletons are not common." (Merriam, "Memoirs of the University of California", I, No. 2). The bones are splendidly preserved in the asphalt, but they are "broken, mashed, contorted, and mixed in a most heterogeneous mass, such as could never have resulted from the chance trapping and burial of a few stragglers." (Price, "The New Geology," p. 579). Were not the herds of frightened animals found at La Brea engulfed in a catastrophe? Could it be that at this particular spot large herds of wild beasts, mostly carnivorous, were overwhelmed by falling gravel, tempests, tides and raining bitumen? (C.E. Brasseur, "Historie des nations civilisees du Mexique," (1857-59), I, p.55; "Popul-Vuh, le livre sacre," ed. Brasseur (1861) p.25). Similar finds have been unearthed in California at Carpinteria and McKittrick, found to have been made under comparable circumstances. Plants found in the Carpinteria pits were, with one exception, "members of the Recent flora", or of the flora now living 200 miles to the north. (R.W. Chaney and H.L. Mason, "A Pleistocene Flora from the Asphalt Deposits at Carpinteria, California," in "Studies of the Pleistocene Paleobotany of California," (Carnegie Institution, 1934)). Separate bones of a human skeleton were also discovered in the asphalt of La Brea. It was assumed to belong to an Indian of the Ice Age, but does not differ from the normal skulls of Indians. The human bones were found under the bones of an extinct species of vulture. These finds suggest that the time when the human body was buried preceded the extinction of that species of vulture, or at least coincided with it; in a turmoil of elements the vulture met its death, as did possibly the rest of its kind, with the saber-toothed tiger and many other species and genera. (from "Earth in Upheaval," pp. 64-67)

[shunyadragon]

LA BREA TAR PITS

In asphalt mixed with clay and sand lie the bones of both extinct and still living animal species. This find was first described in 1875, by which time already thousands of tons of ashpalt had been removed and shipped to San Francisco for roofing and paving. (Cf. J.C. Merriam, "The Fauna of Rancho La Brea," Memoirs of the University of California, I, No.2 (1911).
Beds of petroleum shale (rock of laminated structure formed by the consolidation of clay), ascribed to the Tertiary Age, having in many places a thickness of about 2000 feet, extend from Cape Mendocino in northern Calif. to Los Angeles and beyond, a distance of over 450 miles. The asphalt beds of Rancho La Brea are an outcrop of this large bituminous formation.
Since 1900 the University of California has been collecting these fossils, "a most remarkable mass of skeletal material.".... Most spectacular of the remains is the saber-toothed tiger....The animal remains are crowded together in the asphalt pit in an unbelievable agglomeration. In the first excavation carried on by the U. of Calif., "a bed of bones was encountered in which the number of saber-tooth and wolf skulls together averaged twenty per cubic yard." (Ibid.). No fewer than 700 skulls of the saber-toothed tiger have been recovered. (R.S. Lull, "Fossils" (1931), p.28). Among other animals unearthed in this pit were bison, horses, camels, sloths, mammoths, mastodons, and also birds, including peacocks....
The large number of animals that filled this asphalt bed to overflowing is baffling.... "As the greater number of the animals in the Rancho La Brea beds have been entrapped in the tar, it is to be presumed that in a large percentage of cases the major portions of the skeleton has been preserved. Contrary to expectations, connected skeletons are not common." (Merriam, "Memoirs of the University of California", I, No. 2). The bones are splendidly preserved in the asphalt, but they are "broken, mashed, contorted, and mixed in a most heterogeneous mass, such as could never have resulted from the chance trapping and burial of a few stragglers." (Price, "The New Geology," p. 579). Were not the herds of frightened animals found at La Brea engulfed in a catastrophe? Could it be that at this particular spot large herds of wild beasts, mostly carnivorous, were overwhelmed by falling gravel, tempests, tides and raining bitumen? (C.E. Brasseur, "Historie des nations civilisees du Mexique," (1857-59), I, p.55; "Popul-Vuh, le livre sacre," ed. Brasseur (1861) p.25). Similar finds have been unearthed in California at Carpinteria and McKittrick, found to have been made under comparable circumstances. Plants found in the Carpinteria pits were, with one exception, "members of the Recent flora", or of the flora now living 200 miles to the north. (R.W. Chaney and H.L. Mason, "A Pleistocene Flora from the Asphalt Deposits at Carpinteria, California," in "Studies of the Pleistocene Paleobotany of California," (Carnegie Institution, 1934)). Separate bones of a human skeleton were also discovered in the asphalt of La Brea. It was assumed to belong to an Indian of the Ice Age, but does not differ from the normal skulls of Indians. The human bones were found under the bones of an extinct species of vulture. These finds suggest that the time when the human body was buried preceded the extinction of that species of vulture, or at least coincided with it; in a turmoil of elements the vulture met its death, as did possibly the rest of its kind, with the saber-toothed tiger and many other species and genera. (from "Earth in Upheaval," pp. 64-67)

Again your citations are old and more confusing than the actual evidence. The broken bones and mixing are clearly result of carnavores feeding on those trapped, and than becoming trapped themselves. The vulture and the human are clear examples. Okam's Razor would sort the evidence easily an compare it to contemporary tar pits and other natural traps which trap animals and result in similar situations today as we see in the Rancho La Berea Tar Pits.

You have avoided the overwhelming evidence that in the surrounding area around these supposed catastrophic sites there are abundant continuous non-catastrophic sediment deposits covering a larger span of time.

[runtmc2jc]

Again your citations are old and more confusing than the actual evidence. The broken bones and mixing are clearly result of carnavores feeding on those trapped, and than becoming trapped themselves. The vulture and the human are clear examples. Okam's Razor would sort the evidence easily an compare it to contemporary tar pits and other natural traps which trap animals and result in similar situations today as we see in the Rancho La Berea Tar Pits.


That tired old dog won't hunt. talk about outdated. that explanation strains at the borders of credulity given all the evidence concerning the condition and quantity of the remains.


You have avoided the overwhelming evidence that in the surrounding area around these supposed catastrophic sites there are abundant continuous non-catastrophic sediment deposits covering a larger span of time.

[shunyadragon]

[BOX]

No, the condition, quality and quantity of the remains simply reflects what we see happening today in places like Africa where similar locals exist. The quantity simply is a result of tens if not hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation. The conditions reflect death struggles and predation, just as we see in similar situations around the world.

The facts still remain that must sediment deposits of the world are clearly no-catatrophic.

[runtmc2jc]

No, the condition, quality and quantity of the remains simply reflects what we see happening today in places like Africa where similar locals exist. The quantity simply is a result of tens if not hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation. The conditions reflect death struggles and predation, just as we see in similar situations around the world.

The facts still remain that must sediment deposits of the world are clearly no-catatrophic.


could you please cite the work that shows any on-going situations today that mirror the conditions found at Rancho La Brea.

[runtmc2jc]

No, the condition, quality and quantity of the remains simply reflects what we see happening today in places like Africa where similar locals exist. The quantity simply is a result of tens if not hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation. The conditions reflect death struggles and predation, just as we see in similar situations around the world.

The facts still remain that must sediment deposits of the world are clearly no-catatrophic.


i will quote the author regarding this untenable explanation: "To explain the presence of these bones in the asphalt, the theory was offered that the animals became entrapped in the tar, sank in it, and were embedded in asphalt when the tar hardened. However, the large number of animals that filled this asphalt bed to overflowing is baffling. Moreover, the fact that the vast majority of them are carnivorous, whereas in any fauna the majority of animals would be herbivorous--otherwise the carnivores would have no victims for their daily food--requires explanation. So it was assumed that some animal, caught in the tar, cried out, thus attracting more of its kind, and these were trapped, too, and at their cries carnivorous animals came, followed by more and more. This explanation might be valid if the state of the bones did not testify that the ensnarement of the animals by the tar happened under violent circumstances. Oil from which the volatile elements have evaporated leaves asphalt, tar and other bitumens. "As the greater number of the animals in the Rancho La Brea beds have been entrapped in the tar, it is to be presumed that in a large percentage of cases the major portion of the skeleton has been preserved. Contrary to expectations, connected skeletons are not common." (Merriam, "Memoirs of the University of California," I, No. 2). The bones are "splendidly" preserved in the asphalt, but they are "broken, mashed, contorted and mixed in a most heterogeneous mass, such as could never have resulted from the chance trappings and burial of a few stragglers." (Price, "The New Geology," p.579).

[rogero]

i will quote the author regarding this untenable explanation: "To explain the presence of these bones in the asphalt, the theory was offered that the animals became entrapped in the tar, sank in it, and were embedded in asphalt when the tar hardened. However, the large number of animals that filled this asphalt bed to overflowing is baffling. Moreover, the fact that the vast majority of them are carnivorous, whereas in any fauna the majority of animals would be herbivorous--otherwise the carnivores would have no victims for their daily food--requires explanation. So it was assumed that some animal, caught in the tar, cried out, thus attracting more of its kind, and these were trapped, too, and at their cries carnivorous animals came, followed by more and more. This explanation might be valid if the state of the bones did not testify that the ensnarement of the animals by the tar happened under violent circumstances. Oil from which the volatile elements have evaporated leaves asphalt, tar and other bitumens. "As the greater number of the animals in the Rancho La Brea beds have been entrapped in the tar, it is to be presumed that in a large percentage of cases the major portion of the skeleton has been preserved. Contrary to expectations, connected skeletons are not common." (Merriam, "Memoirs of the University of California," I, No. 2). The bones are "splendidly" preserved in the asphalt, but they are "broken, mashed, contorted and mixed in a most heterogeneous mass, such as could never have resulted from the chance trappings and burial of a few stragglers." (Price, "The New Geology," p.579).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I've never read your creative nutcake mentor's works, so I'm asking you to e'splain in what sense these carnivores got trapped in tar by violent circumstances? -- other than the obvious observation that a live ani-mule getting trapped in a tar pit would constituent "violence" to some degree?

To reiterate, what do you (-- rather your Jedi Master --) mean specifically by violent circumstances?

R

[Assyrian]

i will quote the author regarding this untenable explanation: "To explain the presence of these bones in the asphalt, the theory was offered that the animals became entrapped in the tar, sank in it, and were embedded in asphalt when the tar hardened. However, the large number of animals that filled this asphalt bed to overflowing is baffling. Moreover, the fact that the vast majority of them are carnivorous, whereas in any fauna the majority of animals would be herbivorous--otherwise the carnivores would have no victims for their daily food--requires explanation. So it was assumed that some animal, caught in the tar, cried out, thus attracting more of its kind, and these were trapped, too, and at their cries carnivorous animals came, followed by more and more. This explanation might be valid if the state of the bones did not testify that the ensnarement of the animals by the tar happened under violent circumstances. Oil from which the volatile elements have evaporated leaves asphalt, tar and other bitumens. "As the greater number of the animals in the Rancho La Brea beds have been entrapped in the tar, it is to be presumed that in a large percentage of cases the major portion of the skeleton has been preserved. Contrary to expectations, connected skeletons are not common." (Merriam, "Memoirs of the University of California," I, No. 2). The bones are "splendidly" preserved in the asphalt, but they are "broken, mashed, contorted and mixed in a most heterogeneous mass, such as could never have resulted from the chance trappings and burial of a few stragglers." (Price, "The New Geology," p.579).

What kind of catastrophe would preferentially trap carnivores rather than herbivores? Do herbivores float better in a flood? :wink:

However, a trapped distressed animal, or a decaying one, will attract carnivores. Trapped carnivores will attract other carnivores, who in turn attract more. A herbivore may initially attract some others from the herd, but it sets off a chain of carnivore death, resulting in the strange observation that the majority of the trapped animals are carnivores.

Blessings Assyrian

[runtmc2jc]

What kind of catastrophe would preferentially trap carnivores rather than herbivores? Do herbivores float better in a flood? :wink:

However, a trapped distressed animal, or a decaying one, will attract carnivores. Trapped carnivores will attract other carnivores, who in turn attract more. A herbivore may initially attract some others from the herd, but it sets off a chain of carnivore death, resulting in the strange observation that the majority of the trapped animals are carnivores.

Blessings Assyrian

that's a nice, comfortable scenario, but it doesn't agree with the remains as found in situ. as to why there were more carnivores, i'm not really sure, but that puzzle doesn't negate the untenability of the traditional explanation as you and others proffer.

[runtmc2jc]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I've never read your creative nutcake mentor's works, so I'm asking you to e'splain in what sense these carnivores got trapped in tar by violent circumstances? -- other than the obvious observation that a live ani-mule getting trapped in a tar pit would constituent "violence" to some degree?

To reiterate, what do you (-- rather your Jedi Master --) mean specifically by violent circumstances?

R

well, i know you don't really want to hear what the jedi-master has to say regarding the source of these anomalies, but let's just leave it at... it must have been some catastrophe that we are not witnessing in the present....there's much more evidence, paleonotological, geological, illogical, etc., (all the world over) that points to repeated, large-scale (even, yes ....i'll say it - GLOBAL)....catastrophes, Noah's flood being one of them.

p.s. - yes you're right on the quote thingy, i haven't taken the time to learn all the intricacies of the tools available here. perhaps you could enlighten one struggling with such details.....peace

[rogero]

well, i know you don't really want to hear what the jedi-master has to say regarding the source of these anomalies, but let's just leave it at... it must have been some catastrophe that we are not witnessing in the present....there's much more evidence, paleonotological, geological, illogical, etc., (all the world over) that points to repeated, large-scale (even, yes ....i'll say it - GLOBAL)....catastrophes, Noah's flood being one of them.

p.s. - yes you're right on the quote thingy, i haven't taken the time to learn all the intricacies of the tools available here. perhaps you could enlighten one struggling with such details.....peace

1) the "quote" thingy is easily dealt with. Simply start your quoted text with (exempli gratia) "" and end it with "" == modulo of course the actually quotation ("" "") signs.

2) How does the Ranco LaBrea Tar pits venue indicate global catastrophism? Does local catastrophism equate evidentially with global catasrohism?

I guess Ithink youmissed my point somewhere along the line. -- Don't know for sure though, since your disjointed and quasi-relevant answers only very occasionally address posed.

R

[Assyrian]

that's a nice, comfortable scenario, but it doesn't agree with the remains as found in situ. as to why there were more carnivores, i'm not really sure, but that puzzle doesn't negate the untenability of the traditional explanation as you and others proffer.
It explains the carnovores. Unless you can show how a global flood would concentrate carnivores, it cannot fit what happened at the tar pits.

Blessings Assyrian

[Jugulum]

that's a nice, comfortable scenario, but it doesn't agree with the remains as found in situ. as to why there were more carnivores, i'm not really sure, but that puzzle doesn't negate the untenability of the traditional explanation as you and others proffer.It explains the carnovores. Unless you can show how a global flood would concentrate carnivores, it cannot fit what happened at the tar pits.How does the traditional explanation explain there being more carnivores?

[Assyrian]

I know very little about tar pits. They feature in the odd program and film we get from across the Atlantic along with volcanoes in LA. But it seems to me, an animal trapped in tar is going to attract carnivores, who in turn will attract more carnivores when they get stuck. Herbivores may blunder in by accident, but carnivores are attracted there by distressed and dead animals.

Assyrian

[rogero]

How does the traditional explanation explain there being more carnivores?

Didn't Assyrian suggest an answer in #172? I'm more interested in how V's catastrophism explains the La Brea sitchy-a-shun.

R

P.S. I noticed my attempt at an explanation of the TWeb Quote feature failed due to the operating system being smarter than me. So, here's another attempt:

Let % stand for "[" and ^ stand for "]". Then an example of proper coding of the TWeb quote would be:

%QUOTE=Rogero's a Jagdorf^ How'm I doin'? %/QUOTE^

[Jugulum]

I know very little about tar pits. They feature in the odd program and film we get from across the Atlantic along with volcanoes in LA. But it seems to me, an animal trapped in tar is going to attract carnivores, who in turn will attract more carnivores when they get stuck. Herbivores may blunder in by accident, but carnivores are attracted there by distressed and dead animals.

AssyrianOh, I see you already suggested this. My bad.

[sylas]

(You can use the "disable" tag around a block of text in which you want other tags to be disabled. In this post, I use disable to explain how to use quote tags. I also use indent and font to let the sample text stand out.)

Use the tags and around text quoted from another user. You can add an author by using . For example, to quote the end of most of my posts, use
[QUOTE=sylas]Cheers -- Sylas

The result appears as follows:
Cheers -- Sylas
Cheers -- Sylas

[rogero]

(You can use the "disable" tag around a block of text in which you want other tags to be disabled. In this post, I use disable to explain how to use quote tags. I also use indent and font to let the sample text stand out.)

Use the tags around text quoted from another user. You can add an author by using [quote=author]. For example, to quote the end of most of my posts, use


The result appears as follows:

Cheers -- Sylas

Thanks for the info, Sylas!

R

[runtmc2jc]

It explains the carnovores. Unless you can show how a global flood would concentrate carnivores, it cannot fit what happened at the tar pits.

Blessings Assyrian


i didn't intend to infer the tar pits were evidence of a global flood, but evidence of a large scale catastrophe of some unknown origin.

[runtmc2jc]

Petrified bones of reptiles, birds and mammals are often found in large unbroken areas....the size of the continental areas covered by (river) floods traditionally theorized to be the agent responsible for the burial and entombing of animals implies catastrophic events on a large scale, and such events, far-beyond what is observed on seasonally overflowing rivers today, contradict the principle of uniformity. The very process of sediment formation is not without its problem. Sediment building is supposed to go on permanently in the sea, the building material being the detritus carried by the rivers or broken by the billows from the rocks on the coast and, mainly, the ooze, or calcareous skeletons of myriads of minute living beings, which are abundant in the sea and find their graves on the bottom. The thickness of the sediment on the bottom of the ocean is supposed to give a timetable for the age of the ocean. But contrary to expectations, in some places on the bottom of the ocean core samples have detected almost no sedimentary rock, indicating that the bottom of the ocean was formed in those places only recently, and in other places, even on land, the sedimentary rock is enormously thick, sometimes tens of thousands of feet. If one and the same process continually and equally deposits the calcareous ooze and detritus on the sea bottom, the inequalities in sedimentary bedrock are as little explained as the formation of fossils. The explanation of the origin of fossils by the theory of uniformity and evolution contradicts the fundamental principle of these theories: Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present. Today no fossils are formed. Both these phenomena are explainable by the cataclysmic events in the past. The floor of the ocean was lifted in some places, and dropped in others, the sediment was violently shifted, the content of the ocean depths was spilled onto the land, land animals were engulfed and buried by enormous tides carrying debris, in many places avalanches of sand and volcanic dust entombed the aquatic life, fish skeletons remaining in poses of death, undevoured and undecayed.

[runtmc2jc]

Petrified bones of reptiles, birds and mammals are often found in large unbroken areas....the size of the continental areas covered by (river) floods traditionally theorized to be the agent responsible for the burial and entombing of animals implies catastrophic events on a large scale, and such events, far-beyond what is observed on seasonally overflowing rivers today, contradict the principle of uniformity. The very process of sediment formation is not without its problem. Sediment building is supposed to go on permanently in the sea, the building material being the detritus carried by the rivers or broken by the billows from the rocks on the coast and, mainly, the ooze, or calcareous skeletons of myriads of minute living beings, which are abundant in the sea and find their graves on the bottom. The thickness of the sediment on the bottom of the ocean is supposed to give a timetable for the age of the ocean. But contrary to expectations, in some places on the bottom of the ocean core samples have detected almost no sedimentary rock, indicating that the bottom of the ocean was formed in those places only recently, and in other places, even on land, the sedimentary rock is enormously thick, sometimes tens of thousands of feet. If one and the same process continually and equally deposits the calcareous ooze and detritus on the sea bottom, the inequalities in sedimentary bedrock are as little explained as the formation of fossils. The explanation of the origin of fossils by the theory of uniformity and evolution contradicts the fundamental principle of these theories: Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present. Today no fossils are formed. Both these phenomena are explainable by the cataclysmic events in the past. The floor of the ocean was lifted in some places, and dropped in others, the sediment was violently shifted, the content of the ocean depths was spilled onto the land, land animals were engulfed and buried by enormous tides carrying debris, in many places avalanches of sand and volcanic dust entombed the aquatic life, fish skeletons remaining in poses of death, undevoured and undecayed.


Earth in Upheaval, pp222-223

[Assyrian]

i didn't intend to infer the tar pits were evidence of a global flood, but evidence of a large scale catastrophe of some unknown origin.

Sorry my mistake. :sad:

Still, I think the same question could be asked about large scale catastrophes. How would they concentrate carnivores?

Assyrian

[runtmc2jc]

Sorry my mistake. :sad:

Still, I think the same question could be asked about large scale catastrophes. How would they concentrate carnivores?

Assyrian


i agree the remains are puzzling in that sense.

[rogero]

i agree the remains are puzzling in that sense.

Then what's your point?

As a follow-up, what do the Rancho La Brea tar pits have to do with catastrophism? What kind of catastrophism?

R

[runtmc2jc]

You post proves nothing. The claims of "Dr. Shelley" (repeated with no reference so that anyone can check the source), hardly prove the universality of the flood. If such an event had happened there would be geological evidence of it all over the world. & there isn't.

Shalom,
George


there is a plethora of evidence for large scale (even possibly global) catastrophes (floods included), all over the world, discussed earlier in this very thread from post 75 on. Just because you deny the existance of such evidence, does not make it so.

[runtmc2jc]

Then what's your point?

As a follow-up, what do the Rancho La Brea tar pits have to do with catastrophism? What kind of catastrophism?

R

I believe I previously offered this one explanation, but I'll repeat it again here: "Were not the herds of frightened animals found at La Brea engulfed in a catastrophe? Could it be that at this particular spot large herds of wild beasts, mostly carnivores, were overwhelmed by falling gravel, tempests, tides and raining bitumen?" (Worlds in Collision, p.66;) (see C.E. Brasseur, "Historie des nations civilisees du Mexique," (1857-59),I,55; Popul-Vuh, le livre sacre, ed. Brasseur (1861), p.25.
As to what the agent of the proposed catastrophe actually was, as postulated by the author, I know you don't really want to hear!

[rogero]

I believe I previously offered this one explanation, but I'll repeat it again here: "Were not the herds of frightened animals found at La Brea engulfed in a catastrophe? Could it be that at this particular spot large herds of wild beasts, mostly carnivores, were overwhelmed by falling gravel, tempests, tides and raining bitumen?" (Worlds in Collision, p.66;) (see C.E. Brasseur, "Historie des nations civilisees du Mexique," (1857-59),I,55; Popul-Vuh, le livre sacre, ed. Brasseur (1861), p.25.
As to what the agent of the proposed catastrophe actually was, as postulated by the author, I know you don't really want to hear!

Raining bitumen? What a gut-buster! Do you even know what bitumen is, Noob -- let alone why it would be raining from the sky? What's even more amusing is that poor scientifically-ignorant sycophants like you can be taken in by this garbage.

You do understand the difference in genre of science and science-fiction, do you not?

R

P.S. Please note the bolded emphasis in your quote. Could it be that monkeys spontaneously fly out of my butt? I dare you to provide scientific proof to the contrary! :lol:

[rogero]

there is a plethora of evidence for large scale (even possibly global) catastrophes (floods included), all over the world, discussed earlier in this very thread from post 75 on. Just because you deny the existance of such evidence, does not make it so.

If there is a "plethora of evidence" for the kind of catastrophism that you ignorant layman followers of nutcakes like V and "Dr." Shelley espouse, perhaps you could enlighten the Satanically-blinded scientific community here with obvious examples of this catastrophism?

BTW, Runt -- in case you haven't picked up on this before -- modern geology does not discount catastrophic causality when the data warrant the same. To say otherwise is indicative of the ignorant strawman promulgated by quacks like your hero V and despicably agendized cultic quacks like AiG and the rest of their creationist ilk, whose only goal I see is to attempt to close the door of Heaven in the face of people who don't buy hook-line-and-sinker into their pseudo-Christian cult -- and this via a strawman of Christendom of the type you ignorantly espouse..

R

[runtmc2jc]

Agate Spring Quarry

In Sioux County, Nebraska in Agate Spring Quarry, is a fossil-bearing deposit up to twenty inches thick. The state of the bones indicate a long and violent transportation before they reached their final resting place. "The fossils are in such remarkable profusion in places as to form a veritable pavement of interlacing bones, very few of which are in their natural articulation with one another." (R.S. Lull, "Fossils," p.34.) A single block specimen on display in the American Museum of Natural History in New York contains about 100 bones to the square foot. There is no way of explaining such an aggregation of fossils as a natural death retreat of animals of various genera. The most numerous mammal was the twin-horned rhinoceros (Diceratherium), along with the extinct Moropus and bones of a giant swine (Dinohyus hollandi) that stood 6 ft. high. The Carnegie Museum, which also excavated the cite, in a space of 1350 square ft. found 164,000 bones or about 820 skeletons. (average mammal skeleton of 200 bones). This area represents only 1/20 of the fossil bed in the quarry, suggesting to Lull the entire area would yield about 16,400 skeletons of the twin-horned rhinoceros, 500 skeletons of the clawed horse (Moropus) and 100 skeletons of the giant swine. The transportation was in a violent cataract of water, sand and gravel, that left marks on the bones. Tens of thousands of animals were carried over an unknown distance, then smashed into a common grave. The catastrophe was most probably ubiquitous, for these animals did not survive but became extinct. There is nothing in their skeletons to warrant regarding them as degenerate and doomed to extinction. In many other places of the world similar finds have been made. Big Bone Lick, Kentucky contained the bones of 100 mastodons, besides many other extinct animals. In San Pedro Valley, Ca., skeletons of the mastodon are found standing upright, in the posture in which they died, mired in gravel, ash and sand. Fossils found in John Day Basin, Oregon, and the glacial Lake Florissant, Colorado, are embedded in valcanic ash. In the southern states fossil bones were quarried for the commercial exploitation of phosphates. In Switzerland a conglomerate of bones of animals belonging to different climates and habitats was found in Kesslerloch near Thayngen; Alpine types are there in one "Tiergemisch" with animals of the steppe and of the forest fauna. (Heierli, "Das Kesslerloch bei Thayngen," Neue Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, Vol. XLIII (1907); H. Brokmann-Jerosch in Die Veranderungen des Klimas, Publ. by the XI-th International Geological Congress (1910)). In Germany, a gravel pit at Neukoln (Rixdorf) disclosed two faunas: mammoth, musk ox, reindeer and arctic fox "suggest a boreal climate"; lion, hyena, bison, ox, and two species of elephant "suggest varying degrees of warmer climate." The faunas were interpreted as belonging to two periods--glacial and interglacial--but the bones were found all together. "It seems probable that the relations are more complicated than has been realized." (Flint, "Glacial Geology," p.329.) Great multitudes of animals that filled prairies and forests, water and air, forms, fragile or sturdy, with an urge to live and multiply, were more than once suddenly called upon to write their names in the register of extinction.
(from Earth in Upheaval, pp. 67-69).

[rogero]

Agate Spring Quarry

In Sioux County, Nebraska in Agate Spring Quarry, is a fossil-bearing deposit up to twenty inches thick. The state of the bones indicate a long and violent transportation before they reached their final resting place. "The fossils are in such remarkable profusion in places as to form a veritable pavement of interlacing bones, very few of which are in their natural articulation with one another." (R.S. Lull, "Fossils," p.34.) A single block specimen on display in the American Museum of Natural History in New York contains about 100 bones to the square foot. There is no way of explaining such an aggregation of fossils as a natural death retreat of animals of various genera. The most numerous mammal was the twin-horned rhinoceros (Diceratherium), along with the extinct Moropus and bones of a giant swine (Dinohyus hollandi) that stood 6 ft. high. The Carnegie Museum, which also excavated the cite, in a space of 1350 square ft. found 164,000 bones or about 820 skeletons. (average mammal skeleton of 200 bones). This area represents only 1/20 of the fossil bed in the quarry, suggesting to Lull the entire area would yield about 16,400 skeletons of the twin-horned rhinoceros, 500 skeletons of the clawed horse (Moropus) and 100 skeletons of the giant swine. The transportation was in a violent cataract of water, sand and gravel, that left marks on the bones. Tens of thousands of animals were carried over an unknown distance, then smashed into a common grave. The catastrophe was most probably ubiquitous, for these animals did not survive but became extinct. There is nothing in their skeletons to warrant regarding them as degenerate and doomed to extinction. In many other places of the world similar finds have been made. Big Bone Lick, Kentucky contained the bones of 100 mastodons, besides many other extinct animals. In San Pedro Valley, Ca., skeletons of the mastodon are found standing upright, in the posture in which they died, mired in gravel, ash and sand. Fossils found in John Day Basin, Oregon, and the glacial Lake Florissant, Colorado, are embedded in valcanic ash. In the southern states fossil bones were quarried for the commercial exploitation of phosphates. In Switzerland a conglomerate of bones of animals belonging to different climates and habitats was found in Kesslerloch near Thayngen; Alpine types are there in one "Tiergemisch" with animals of the steppe and of the forest fauna. (Heierli, "Das Kesslerloch bei Thayngen," Neue Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, Vol. XLIII (1907); H. Brokmann-Jerosch in Die Veranderungen des Klimas, Publ. by the XI-th International Geological Congress (1910)). In Germany, a gravel pit at Neukoln (Rixdorf) disclosed two faunas: mammoth, musk ox, reindeer and arctic fox "suggest a boreal climate"; lion, hyena, bison, ox, and two species of elephant "suggest varying degrees of warmer climate." The faunas were interpreted as belonging to two periods--glacial and interglacial--but the bones were found all together. "It seems probable that the relations are more complicated than has been realized." (Flint, "Glacial Geology," p.329.) Great multitudes of animals that filled prairies and forests, water and air, forms, fragile or sturdy, with an urge to live and multiply, were more than once suddenly called upon to write their names in the register of extinction.
(from Earth in Upheaval, pp. 67-69).

Runt,

Do you realize this borders on the forbidden "argument via weblink"? The upshot is that you haven't provided any commentary/question of your own.

I do commend you for entertaining us with yet more of your hero V's sci-fi brillance. Note that I'm giving both you and him the benefit of the doubt. He is writing sci-fi here, right? If not, then apparently he wasn't up on the current scholarship in Pleistoncene glaciology and paleontology. If that's the case, it's a shame that sucn an intelligent, amusing, and talented writer could be misled so.

R

[runtmc2jc]

Runt,

Do you realize this borders on the forbidden "argument via weblink"? The upshot is that you haven't provided any commentary/question of your own.

I do commend you for entertaining us with yet more of your hero V's sci-fi brillance. Note that I'm giving both you and him the benefit of the doubt. He is writing sci-fi here, right? If not, then apparently he wasn't up on the current scholarship in Pleistoncene glaciology and paleontology. If that's the case, it's a shame that sucn an intelligent, amusing, and talented writer could be misled so.

R
i would think you could specifically counter any claims rather than make a blanket indictment. It would be very difficult for v. to be up on 'current' scholarship since he passed away some 20+ years ago. you did not specifically address one single issue raised in the post.

[rogero]

i would think you could specifically counter any claims rather than make a blanket indictment.

Hmmm..., rather ironic given that you seem inexplicably to reject mainstream science in favor of regurgitation by cut-n-paste of the views of a populist author without any perceptible vetting of his facts and ideas.


It would be very difficult for v. to be up on 'current' scholarship since he passed away some 20+ years ago.

OK, fair enough. Now, if V's ideas are so darned compelling, why haven't they been substantiated by the scientific community? We do know more and more as we pass into the future, in the sense our database of knowledge grows. Why then haven't at least a few of V's hypotheses (or wild conjectures?) become part of an active research program? I mean there are thousands of fresh pimply-faced grad students out there who are drooling for an Earth-shaking dissertation project -- a fortiori some of the ones so amusing and entertaining like the V-meister.


you did not specifically address one single issue raised in the post.

Then why don't you bring up one specific issue, state why mainstream science can't explain this issue (which would indicate that you've actually pondered the alternatives) and maybe we (you, me, and other regular participants) can have an intelligent and friendly* repartee?

R

* I realize that many of my "enemies" here will find this a tad droll. :blush:

[Arnold]

maybe we (you, me, and other regular participants) can have an intelligent and friendly* repartee?

R

* I realize that many of my "enemies" here will find this a tad droll. :blush: :yes:

Having been treated as an enemy by you I guess I qualify to reply. I wonder though - is it possible for a man with permanent scowl to have "an intelligent and friendly repartee"?

[rogero]

:yes:

Having been treated as an enemy by you I guess I qualify to reply. I wonder though - is it possible for a man with permanent scowl to have "an intelligent and friendly repartee"?

If you want to see a permanent scowl, just look in a mirror. We both have axes to grind -- yours is ultra-conservative North American politics, mine is opposing the disgusting mind-control cult that is YEC (and a few psychotic OECs like Jack777). We are alike in other ways -- for example neither of us contributes anything of substance to a debate (at least I haven't seen you contribute -- maybe you believe you have though) and we both seem to relish to niche of pot-stirrer.

R

[Arnold]

If you want to see a permanent scowl, just look in a mirror. We both have axes to grind -- yours is ultra-conservative North American politics, mine is opposing the disgusting mind-control cult that is YEC (and a few psychotic OECs like Jack777). We are alike in other ways -- for example neither of us contributes anything of substance to a debate (at least I haven't seen you contribute -- maybe you believe you have though) and we both seem to relish to niche of pot-stirrer.

RNice try. I am not like you. I often don't even respond to personal attacks, and I almost never initiate them. You however...

I'm not sure which debates you are referring to. If it is OEC versus YEC then it is true that I don't debate them, I stay to the periphery and mostly ask questions - real potstirring stuff huh? You however...

[rogero]

Nice try. I am not like you. I often don't even respond to personal attacks, and I almost never initiate them. You however...



Give me an example of a "personal attack", my friend. Is someone who posts in strong disagreement to your clearly agendized views "personally attacking" you? Do we need to start the violin music?


I'm not sure which debates you are referring to. If it is OEC versus YEC then it is true that I don't debate them, I stay to the periphery and mostly ask questions - real potstirring stuff huh? You however...

That's right, you're a land surveyor by profession, and thus have, a priori, no qualification in science. That hasn't stopped you from throwing out Flieger abwehr Kanonen (or what you refer to as "asking questions") to attempt to gut-punch the participant with whom you disagree. E.g, boy look at all that kerogen in the Canadian Rockies. We don't have an energy problem, it's all Liberal propaganda anywho. That Glennn Morton's just a Liberal moron -- who cares if he's worked in the oil industry for thirty years?

You're being more than a tittle hypocritical here. Can you give an example of your postings in the Science areas of TWeb where your posts were other than pot-stirring?

[Arnold]

Give me an example of a "personal attack", my friend. Is someone who posts in strong disagreement to your clearly agendized views "personally attacking" you? Do we need to start the violin music?All you have to do is look at this thread. My first post was a question - #111. Your first post to me was an insult - #120. I did not respond by insulting you, but you continued anyway...

That's right, you're a land surveyor by profession, and thus have, a priori, no qualification in science. That hasn't stopped you from throwing out Flieger abwehr Kanonen (or what you refer to as "asking questions") to attempt to gut-punch the participant with whom you disagree. E.g, boy look at all that kerogen in the Canadian Rockies. We don't have an energy problem, it's all Liberal propaganda anywho. That Glennn Morton's just a Liberal moron -- who cares if he's worked in the oil industry for thirty years?

You're being more than a tittle hypocritical here. Can you give an example of your postings in the Science areas of TWeb where your posts were other than pot-stirring?Your characterization of my posts in the science forums is in error. Neither have I "gut-punched" anyone, or even argued about any scientific evidences pertaining to YEC/OEC, etc. I see no reason to have to prove myself beyond the example of this thread...

And I have not been a surveyor for almost twenty years.

[rogero]

All you have to do is look at this thread. My first post was a question - #111. Your first post to me was an insult - #120. I did not respond by insulting you, but you continued anyway...

#120 was not a response to #111. Why are you trying to create the false impression that you are martyr at the hands of mean ol' rogero? Are you that insecure?

FYI, rogero is nothing more than a pissant here with respect to a general opinion of gravitas among nearly all posters. You will not score many points attacking me, and of course you realize that I will always respond in kind. I'm not a very magnaminous fella. :lol:


Your characterization of my posts in the science forums is in error. Neither have I "gut-punched" anyone, or even argued about any scientific evidences pertaining to YEC/OEC, etc. I see no reason to have to prove myself beyond the example of this thread...

That's your opinion. Perhaps "gut-punched" is not the appropriate term. "Impishly disruptive" may be more appropriate. In any case, I have seen you do nothing more than attempt to disrupt and sidetrack threads with no heuristic alternative, all the while hiding behind some faux-innocent claim of neutrality. Why aren't you man enough to commit to a position on the origins issue?

I have no idea what your origins position is. I've made it quite clear many times that I believe that God creates through the processes that are clearly evident in nature today, and that exegesis of the ancient Hebrew origins story has to be concorded, either theologically or scientifically or both, with the empirical facts of nature. What is your position? I can only infer vaguely your position based upon whom you throw marbles out to attempt to trip up.

Can you help us out here, Arnold? Grow a pair and tell us what you really think. :wink:

R




And I have not been a surveyor for almost twenty years.
It's been 27 years for me. What are you doing now, BTW?

[Arnold]

#120 was not a response to #111. Why are you trying to create the false impression that you are martyr at the hands of mean ol' rogero? Are you that insecure?I did not connect the two. I was just illustrating that my first post on the thread was a sincere question - no "gut-punch". And that your first post to me was an insult.

That's your opinion. Perhaps "gut-punched" is not the appropriate term. "Impishly disruptive" may be more appropriate. In any case, I have seen you do nothing more than attempt to disrupt and sidetrack threads with no heuristic alternative, all the while hiding behind some faux-innocent claim of neutrality. Why aren't you man enough to commit to a position on the origins issue?Empty allegation...

I have no idea what your origins position is. I've made it quite clear many times that I believe that God creates through the processes that are clearly evident in nature today, and that exegesis of the ancient Hebrew origins story has to be concorded, either theologically or scientifically or both, with the empirical facts of nature. What is your position? I can only infer vaguely your position based upon whom you throw marbles out to attempt to trip up.I have challenged both sides on some assertions. Oxmixmudd and I just had an amiable exchange over the conudrum of believing on the one hand that science leads Scripture with creation, whereas with TE's Scripture leads science with the resurrection. I see that as an inconsistancy - he was satisfied with it. We agreed to disagree. On other occasions I have challenged some assumptions by evolutionists (not the science). So I ask questions and challenge assertions that I see as inconsistant with a rational understanding of creation.

Can you help us out here, Arnold? Grow a pair and tell us what you really think. :wink:Sorry - I can discuss Bible doctrine in only a very limited way. Creation doctrine is not within that limitation.

It's been 27 years for me. What are you doing now, BTW?I daytrade over the internet on the NY and NASDAQ stock exchanges.

[rogero]

I did not connect the two. I was just illustrating that my first post on the thread was a sincere question - no "gut-punch". And that your first post to me was an insult.

I take back (or took back) that gut-punch remark a couple of posts ago and replaced it with the more appropriate "impishly disruptive". It's a common misconception to not see one's own faults.


Empty allegation...

No more empty that any of yours, IMHO.


I have challenged both sides on some assertions. Oxmixmudd and I just had an amiable exchange over the conudrum of believing on the one hand that science leads Scripture with creation, whereas with TE's Scripture leads science with the resurrection. I see that as an inconsistancy - he was satisfied with it. We agreed to disagree. On other occasions I have challenged some assumptions by evolutionists (not the science). So I ask questions and challenge assertions that I see as inconsistant with a rational understanding of creation.

He was satisfied with it 'cus he's a much more gentle person than me. I thought your question was a ridiculous hypothetical. Now that you mention "inconsistency", the main reason I participate here is to highlight the inconsistencies of the YEC (and a few OEC) POV -- e.g., the hypocrisy of staking out a particular interpretation of the origins-relevant portions of scripture and then intimating that the scientific community (other than a small handful of inconsistent nutcakes) has a ontologically equivalent interpretation of empirical data of creation itself.


Sorry - I can discuss Bible doctrine in only a very limited way. Creation doctrine is not within that limitation.

Exceedingly strange... Why are you posting 1) on a theology forum and 2) in science-of-origins areas of this forum if you're not interested in discussing creation doctrine??? Do you belong to some sort of cult (other than the Fundie Christian YEC cult) such that the revelation of your membership would be embarrassing to you? If so, why would want to be a member of that cult? If not, then IMHO you're just playing an impish game.



I daytrade over the internet on the NY and NASDAQ stock exchanges.
Ah, hence the avatar. Daytrading's risky biznezz. I guess you do have a pair afterall (or are simply "nuts" to have that vocation), in spite of your unwillingness to discuss your theology of origins. :wink:

R

[shunyadragon]

Agate Spring Quarry

In Sioux County, Nebraska in Agate Spring Quarry, is a fossil-bearing deposit up to twenty inches thick. The state of the bones indicate a long and violent transportation before they reached their final resting place. "The fossils are in such remarkable profusion in places as to form a veritable pavement of interlacing bones, very few of which are in their natural articulation with one another." (R.S. Lull, "Fossils," p.34.) A single block specimen on display in the American Museum of Natural History in New York contains about 100 bones to the square foot. There is no way of explaining such an aggregation of fossils as a natural death retreat of animals of various genera. The most numerous mammal was the twin-horned rhinoceros (Diceratherium), along with the extinct Moropus and bones of a giant swine (Dinohyus hollandi) that stood 6 ft. high. The Carnegie Museum, which also excavated the cite, in a space of 1350 square ft. found 164,000 bones or about 820 skeletons. (average mammal skeleton of 200 bones). This area represents only 1/20 of the fossil bed in the quarry, suggesting to Lull the entire area would yield about 16,400 skeletons of the twin-horned rhinoceros, 500 skeletons of the clawed horse (Moropus) and 100 skeletons of the giant swine. The transportation was in a violent cataract of water, sand and gravel, that left marks on the bones. Tens of thousands of animals were carried over an unknown distance, then smashed into a common grave. The catastrophe was most probably ubiquitous, for these animals did not survive but became extinct. There is nothing in their skeletons to warrant regarding them as degenerate and doomed to extinction. In many other places of the world similar finds have been made. Big Bone Lick, Kentucky contained the bones of 100 mastodons, besides many other extinct animals. In San Pedro Valley, Ca., skeletons of the mastodon are found standing upright, in the posture in which they died, mired in gravel, ash and sand. Fossils found in John Day Basin, Oregon, and the glacial Lake Florissant, Colorado, are embedded in valcanic ash. In the southern states fossil bones were quarried for the commercial exploitation of phosphates. In Switzerland a conglomerate of bones of animals belonging to different climates and habitats was found in Kesslerloch near Thayngen; Alpine types are there in one "Tiergemisch" with animals of the steppe and of the forest fauna. (Heierli, "Das Kesslerloch bei Thayngen," Neue Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, Vol. XLIII (1907); H. Brokmann-Jerosch in Die Veranderungen des Klimas, Publ. by the XI-th International Geological Congress (1910)). In Germany, a gravel pit at Neukoln (Rixdorf) disclosed two faunas: mammoth, musk ox, reindeer and arctic fox "suggest a boreal climate"; lion, hyena, bison, ox, and two species of elephant "suggest varying degrees of warmer climate." The faunas were interpreted as belonging to two periods--glacial and interglacial--but the bones were found all together. "It seems probable that the relations are more complicated than has been realized." (Flint, "Glacial Geology," p.329.) Great multitudes of animals that filled prairies and forests, water and air, forms, fragile or sturdy, with an urge to live and multiply, were more than once suddenly called upon to write their names in the register of extinction.
(from Earth in Upheaval, pp. 67-69).

You have just described several local catastrophic events, involving volcanic eruptions just as we see today. There are many local catastrophic events that cause wide spread death and destruction in recent history, but you have still failed to respond to the fact that 95%+ of all sedimentary deposits are non-catastrophic.

For example, the volcanic eruption of Pompei during the Roman times was just as catastrophic and devastating as any you describe, but we know full well that volcanic eruptions are local events. It is not unusual for Mammoths, other animals and people to caught and perserved through quick burial where they were at the time of the event.

Still quoting old stuff, and being closer to the source? is not true, because they were no closer to the time these events took place than scientists today. Today we have far more knowledge and information in science to understand these events.

[Arnold]

I take back (or took back) that gut-punch remark a couple of posts ago and replaced it with the more appropriate "impishly disruptive". It's a common misconception to not see one's own faults.Then have look in the mirror.


No more empty that any of yours, IMHO.Ah, I already illustrated it when I pointed to your first post to me on this thread. Nice try though...

He was satisfied with it 'cus he's a much more gentle person than me. I thought your question was a ridiculous hypothetical.Hardly.

Now that you mention "inconsistency", the main reason I participate here is to highlight the inconsistencies of the YEC (and a few OEC) POV -- e.g., the hypocrisy of staking out a particular interpretation of the origins-relevant portions of scripture and then intimating that the scientific community (other than a small handful of inconsistent nutcakes) has a ontologically equivalent interpretation of empirical data of creation itself.Good for you.


Exceedingly strange... Why are you posting 1) on a theology forum and 2) in science-of-origins areas of this forum if you're not interested in discussing creation doctrine??? Do you belong to some sort of cult (other than the Fundie Christian YEC cult) such that the revelation of your membership would be embarrassing to you? If so, why would want to be a member of that cult? If not, then IMHO you're just playing an impish game.I am not part of a cult, nor am I a "Fundie Christian YEC". But I cannot reveal my reasons for not participating in almost all theological discussions. Sorry. But it does not prevent me from participating on the periphery and philosophically, which is what I do.

Ah, hence the avatar. Daytrading's risky biznezz. I guess you do have a pair afterall (or are simply "nuts" to have that vocation), in spite of your unwillingness to discuss your theology of origins. :wink:

RProbably both... :lol:

[rogero]

Then have look in the mirror.

I do it all the time. I have no problem with recognizing my own faults. Do you?


Ah, I already illustrated it when I pointed to your first post to me on this thread. Nice try though...

You illustrated it, and I didn't agree.

Hardly.

IMHO your question was a riduculous hypothetical. Here's a ridiculous hypothetical for you: "If you could be provided with clear unambiguous empirical evidence that Hillary Rodham were a conservative Republican with pro-life, pro-traditional moral, and fiscally libertarian views, would you consider voting for her in the 2008 Presidential election?" Yes or no? Pure and simple. See how easy it is to be an impish pot-stirrer?


Good for you.

Thanks. Now, what was your origins position again? :lol:

I am not part of a cult, nor am I a "Fundie Christian YEC". But I cannot reveal my reasons for not participating in almost all theological discussions. Sorry. But it does not prevent me from participating on the periphery and philosophically, which is what I do.

You're entitled to your opinions and your privacy. But I will restate my amazement and amusement that you feel the need to post boldly in theological and origins fora and are not willing to share your personal views. IMHO, it's much easier to stand on the sidelines like some kind of drunken NFL fan and snipe at the players than it is to commit to a position, put on the uniform and go roll around on the turf. I won't go so far as to say your stance is cowardly, but it is certainly a much easier and more comfortable one.


Probably both... :lol:
So, you have ballbearings when it comes to daytrading and gambling your family's wealth, but are a skittery pansy when it comes to discussing your origins position -- which would have no effect in either a pecuniary manner or on personal reputation on you and yours. Hmmm..., do you belong to some kind cult of which you are embarassed? Just curious...

You're an interesting character, Arnold, and one strange bird. :lol:

R

[Arnold]

You're entitled to your opinions and your privacy. But I will restate my amazement and amusement that you feel the need to post boldly in theological and origins fora and are not willing to share your personal views. IMHO, it's much easier to stand on the sidelines like some kind of drunken NFL fan and snipe at the players than it is to commit to a position, put on the uniform and go roll around on the turf. I won't go so far as to say your stance is cowardly, but it is certainly a much easier and more comfortable one.I am beginning to think you have me mixed up with someone else. I have only posted in maybe half a dozen science threads and have not taken any postions on YEC/OEC.


So, you have ballbearings when it comes to daytrading and gambling your family's wealth, but are a skittery pansy when it comes to discussing your origins position -- which would have no effect in either a pecuniary manner or on personal reputation on you and yours. Hmmm..., do you belong to some kind cult of which you are embarassed? Just curious...

You're an interesting character, Arnold, and one strange bird. :lol:

RI don't care what you think about my refusal to debate theology. I have stated it a number of times since I have been on TWeb, and long before I ever posted in the science forums. I have my reasons. But they do not preclude me from asking questions or, as I said before, to particpate on the fringes.

[rogero]

I am beginning to think you have me mixed up with someone else. I have only posted in maybe half a dozen science threads and have not taken any postions on YEC/OEC.
I don't think so. Although your apparent primary goal on TWeb is to advocate conservative politics (much of which I agree with BTW) you have engaged threads often enough that I remember (and my short term memory ain't that great) with numerous posts attacking the mainstream science position as put forth by scientifically-trained and literate Christians.


I don't care what you think about my refusal to debate theology. I have stated it a number of times since I have been on TWeb, and long before I ever posted in the science forums. I have my reasons. But they do not preclude me from asking questions or, as I said before, to particpate on the fringes.
I don't care that you don't care that I care. I have never seen you post this idiosyncratic position before this thread. Do you have a link to where you're stated this? It's quite bizarre. Why on Earth would you not want to declare a theological position? That screams "cult" to me.

Hey, maybe we'll have a little game here, and I'll try to guess your ideology? Since this is the first round, I'll start out with two guesses:.

Are you either 1) Atheist or 2) Mormon ? Yes or no?

This could be a fun game! Anyone wanna join me?

R

[Arnold]

I don't think so. Although your apparent primary goal on TWeb is to advocate conservative politics (much of which I agree with BTW) you have engaged threads often enough that I remember (and my short term memory ain't that great) with numerous posts attacking the mainstream science position as put forth by scientifically-trained and literate Christians.Nope - in fact I have admitted that I am not well versed in science, and so I do not argue it.


I don't care that you don't care that I care. I have never seen you post this idiosyncratic position before this thread. Do you have a link to where you're stated this?Post # 4 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1068663&highlight=discuss#post1068663) (Maybe you can even glean a little insight into me here...)

While I cannot discuss doctrines per se (unfortunately I have transgressed this the odd time), I will admit to what you describe. It is easy to fall into the trap of telling yourself you are arguing doctrines for the good of the other person, or because we are looking to learn new things, or some other excuse, but mostly we think we are right and the other person is wrong, and they simply need to be corrected - almost at any cost. I don't have an explanation for it other than selfishness - most people just like to win the argument and hate to lose (including myself here).






It's quite bizarre. Why on Earth would you not want to declare a theological position? That screams "cult" to me.

I believe everything in the Apostle's creed. I believe in the Trinity. I believe in salvation by grace alone. Sound cultlike to you?

[rogero]

Nope - in fact I have admitted that I am not well versed in science, and so I do not argue it.


I remember you arguing with Glenn Morton, a petroleum geophysicist with 30 years experience in the industry, about the potential of Canadian Rockies kerogens.


Post # 4 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1068663&highlight=discuss#post1068663) (Maybe you can even glean a little insight into me here...)

[/color]

Sorry, I missed that post. I don't read every post on this forum. So, do I gather from this that you don't want to argue theology, but do want to comment on when you think a participant is being unfair to an opponent or is just trying to win for the sake of winning? If so, is it your intent to stay "neutral" on a theological issue? Such neutrality is very difficult to maintain.


I believe everything in the Apostle's creed. I believe in the Trinity. I believe in salvation by grace alone. Sound cultlike to you?
No, it doesn't. Sounds like my position. What did sound cultish (or at least quite strange) to me was your prior unwillingness to state this very basic (and innocuous for the standpoint of TWeb) theological position.

Thanks for clearing this up!

R

[Arnold]

I remember you arguing with Glenn Morton, a petroleum geophysicist with 30 years experience in the industry, about the potential of Canadian Rockies kerogens.That was about the Alberta oils sands, something I know a bit about because I was an oilfield surveyor and surveyed up there a few times, and because the oil sands are in the news here on a regular basis. Hardly theology, hardly OEC/YEC science. And we weren't arguing geology, but water supplies and trees. I would not dream of arguing geology with a geologist, but being a geologist does not mean one knows everything there is to know about the oilfield, which is a huge topic that covers much more than just geology, and about which I have firsthand knowledge.


Sorry, I missed that post. I don't read every post on this forum. So, do I gather from this that you don't want to argue theology, but do want to comment on when you think a participant is being unfair to an opponent or is just trying to win for the sake of winning? If so, is it your intent to stay "neutral" on a theological issue? Such neutrality is very difficult to maintain.No, I don't feel that it is my place to referee theological discussions, but if I see something wrong or questionable in someone's philosophical, logical or evidentiary position relating to something I am interested in at the time I may jump in with a question or to point out an inconsistency. One thread was about the speed of light. The OP claimed that there was no evidence that the speed of light had slowed down. I did not have a position on it, but I did a quick Google search and found what seemed to be contradictory evidence so I posted it (also stating that I did not know if it was true or not). In the end it turned out to not be true, and I learned about the speed of light in the thread. (Met a whole bunch of nice new friends from the evolutionary side as well. [/sarcasm])


No, it doesn't. Sounds like my position. What did sound cultish (or at least quite strange) to me was your prior unwillingness to state this very basic (and innocuous for the standpoint of TWeb) theological position.

Thanks for clearing this up!

RI thought it was that I wouldn't state my theology for creation that was the problem. I said a number of times that I was not a cultist. Anyway, glad that clears it up for you.


Besides the reason listed in the link I posted that I find most theological discussions to be peeing contests that enlighten few and mostly just create animosity, I have thought of a few other possible reasons that a person in my position might not wish to participate directly in many theological discussions. I am not saying that all or any of these apply to me (I am going to keep you guessing), but I just wish to illustrate that there may be a number of different reasons for my position:

Maybe it's because I am a famous theologian and I wish to remain anonymous and that I might fear to be revealed if I were to present many of my positions in a public forum.

Or maybe I am a politician that is cautious in case his identity might be revealed and his theological positions become a topic for smears.

Or maybe I am writing a definitive book that will blow away many misconceptions, but would require posting too much of it on TWeb just to answer simple theological questions.

Or maybe I am undecided on many theological positions and so can't state them.

Or maybe there is something not in this list...

[rogero]

That was about the Alberta oils sands, something I know a bit about because I was an oilfield surveyor and surveyed up there a few times, and because the oil sands are in the news here on a regular basis. Hardly theology, hardly OEC/YEC science. And we weren't arguing geology, but water supplies and trees. I would not dream of arguing geology with a geologist, but being a geologist does not mean one knows everything there is to know about the oilfield, which is a huge topic that covers much more than just geology, and about which I have firsthand knowledge.


No, I don't feel that it is my place to referee theological discussions, but if I see something wrong or questionable in someone's philosophical, logical or evidentiary position relating to something I am interested in at the time I may jump in with a question or to point out an inconsistency. One thread was about the speed of light. The OP claimed that there was no evidence that the speed of light had slowed down. I did not have a position on it, but I did a quick Google search and found what seemed to be contradictory evidence so I posted it (also stating that I did not know if it was true or not). In the end it turned out to not be true, and I learned about the speed of light in the thread. (Met a whole bunch of nice new friends from the evolutionary side as well. [/sarcasm])


I thought it was that I wouldn't state my theology for creation that was the problem. I said a number of times that I was not a cultist. Anyway, glad that clears it up for you.


Besides the reason listed in the link I posted that I find most theological discussions to be peeing contests that enlighten few and mostly just create animosity, I have thought of a few other possible reasons that a person in my position might not wish to participate directly in many theological discussions. I am not saying that all or any of these apply to me (I am going to keep you guessing), but I just wish to illustrate that there may be a number of different reasons for my position:

Maybe it's because I am a famous theologian and I wish to remain anonymous and that I might fear to be revealed if I were to present many of my positions in a public forum.

Or maybe I am a politician that is cautious in case his identity might be revealed and his theological positions become a topic for smears.

Or maybe I am writing a definitive book that will blow away many misconceptions, but would require posting too much of it on TWeb just to answer simple theological questions.

Or maybe I am undecided on many theological positions and so can't state them.

Or maybe there is something not in this list...

Ok, fair enough.

But from now on to me you will always be Arnie the Mystery Man. :wink:

Godspeed,

Roger

[Arnold]

Ok, fair enough.

But from now on to me you will always be Arnie the Mystery Man. :wink:

Godspeed,

RogerIn more ways than you may know. I am not sure if you are aware of the history of TWeb, but it "evolved" from another bulletin board. I was on that board and eventually came here. I know everyone who came from that board - but here's the kicker - none of them know who I am (was on the other board). It drives some of them nuts - and it's kinda fun... :lol:

[rogero]

In more ways than you may know. I am not sure if you are aware of the history of TWeb, but it "evolved" from another bulletin board. I was on that board and eventually came here. I know everyone who came from that board - but here's the kicker - none of them know who I am (was on the other board). It drives some of them nuts - and it's kinda fun... :lol:

Very interesting, Arnie... :smile:

[runtmc2jc]

OK rogero, you can run but you can't hide. here's the next bit of evidence which could support a global catastrophe such as Noah's flood.

The Siwalik Hills:

These hills are in the foothills of the Himalayas, north of Delhi. They extend for several hundred miles and are 2000-3000 feet high. The discovery of their unusually rich fossil beds drew the attention of scientists in the 19th century. Animal bones of species and genera, living and extinct, were found there in most amazing profusion. Among the unusual specimens were the carapace of a tortoise 20 feet long and an elephant species with tusks about fourteen feet long. These fossil beds are stocked with animals of so many and such varied species that the animal world of today seems impoverished by comparison. "This sudden bursting on the stage of such a varied population of herbivores, carnivores, rodents and of primates, the highest order of the mammals, must be regarded as a most remarkable instance of rapid evolution of species," (D.N. Wadia, "Geology of India," (2nd edition, 1939) p.268.) The hippopotamus, which "generally is a climatically specialized type" (DeTerra), pigs, rhinoceroses, apes, oxen filled the interior of the hills almost to bursting. A.R. Wallace, considered a co-originator of the theory of natural selection along with Darwin, was among the first to draw attention, in terms of astonishment, to the Siwalik extinction. Of nearly 30 species of elephants found in these beds, only one species has survived in India. "The sudden and widespread reduction by extinction of the Siwalik mammals is a most startling event for the geologist as well as the biologist. The great carnivores, the varied races of elephants belonging to no less than 25-30 species ....the numerous tribes of large and highly specialized ungulates which found such suitable habitats in the Siwalik jungles of the Pliocene epoch, are to be seen no more in an immediately succeeding age." (Ibid. p.279). The early thought that these deposits were alluvial in their nature, debris carried down by the torrential Himalayan streams, was later discarded due to..." the remarkable homogeneity that the deposits possess" and a "uniformity of lithologic composition" in a multitude of isolated basins, at considerable distances from one another. (Ibid. p. 270).There must have been some agent that carried these animals and deposited them at the feet of the Himalayas and, after the passage of a geological age, repeated the performance--for in the Siwalik Hills there are animals of more than one age, and signs of more than one destruction. There was also a movement of the ground. "The disrupted part of the fold has slipped bodily over for long distances, thus thrusting the older pre-Siwalik rock of the inner ranges of the mountains over the younger rocks of the outer ranges." (Ibid. p.264). If the cause of these paroxysms and destruction was not local, one would expect similar effects at the other end of the Himalayas and beyond that range. Thirteen hundred miles from the Siwalik Hills, in central Burma, the deposits cut by the Irrawaddy River "may reach 10,000 feet." "Two fossiliferous horizons occur in this series separated by about 4000 feet of sands." The upper horizon (bed), characterized by mastodon, hippopotamus, and ox, is similar to one of the beds in the Siwaliks. "The sediments are remarkable for the large quantities of fossil-wood associated with them .... Hundreds and thousands of entire trunks of silicified trees and huge logs lying in the sandstones" suggest the denudation of "thickly forested" areas. (Ibid. pp. 274-275). Animals met death and extinction by the elementary forces of nature, which also uprooted forests and from Kashmir to Indo-China threw sand over species and genera in mountains thousands of feet high. (from Earth in Upheaval: pp.78-81)

[rogero]

OK rogero, you can run but you can't hide. here's the next bit of evidence which could support a global catastrophe such as Noah's flood.

The Siwalik Hills:

These hills are in the foothills of the Himalayas, north of Delhi. They extend for several hundred miles and are 2000-3000 feet high. The discovery of their unusually rich fossil beds drew the attention of scientists in the 19th century. Animal bones of species and genera, living and extinct, were found there in most amazing profusion. Among the unusual specimens were the carapace of a tortoise 20 feet long and an elephant species with tusks about fourteen feet long. These fossil beds are stocked with animals of so many and such varied species that the animal world of today seems impoverished by comparison. "This sudden bursting on the stage of such a varied population of herbivores, carnivores, rodents and of primates, the highest order of the mammals, must be regarded as a most remarkable instance of rapid evolution of species," (D.N. Wadia, "Geology of India," (2nd edition, 1939) p.268.) The hippopotamus, which "generally is a climatically specialized type" (DeTerra), pigs, rhinoceroses, apes, oxen filled the interior of the hills almost to bursting. A.R. Wallace, considered a co-originator of the theory of natural selection along with Darwin, was among the first to draw attention, in terms of astonishment, to the Siwalik extinction. Of nearly 30 species of elephants found in these beds, only one species has survived in India. "The sudden and widespread reduction by extinction of the Siwalik mammals is a most startling event for the geologist as well as the biologist. The great carnivores, the varied races of elephants belonging to no less than 25-30 species ....the numerous tribes of large and highly specialized ungulates which found such suitable habitats in the Siwalik jungles of the Pliocene epoch, are to be seen no more in an immediately succeeding age." (Ibid. p.279). The early thought that these deposits were alluvial in their nature, debris carried down by the torrential Himalayan streams, was later discarded due to..." the remarkable homogeneity that the deposits possess" and a "uniformity of lithologic composition" in a multitude of isolated basins, at considerable distances from one another. (Ibid. p. 270).There must have been some agent that carried these animals and deposited them at the feet of the Himalayas and, after the passage of a geological age, repeated the performance--for in the Siwalik Hills there are animals of more than one age, and signs of more than one destruction. There was also a movement of the ground. "The disrupted part of the fold has slipped bodily over for long distances, thus thrusting the older pre-Siwalik rock of the inner ranges of the mountains over the younger rocks of the outer ranges." (Ibid. p.264). If the cause of these paroxysms and destruction was not local, one would expect similar effects at the other end of the Himalayas and beyond that range. Thirteen hundred miles from the Siwalik Hills, in central Burma, the deposits cut by the Irrawaddy River "may reach 10,000 feet." "Two fossiliferous horizons occur in this series separated by about 4000 feet of sands." The upper horizon (bed), characterized by mastodon, hippopotamus, and ox, is similar to one of the beds in the Siwaliks. "The sediments are remarkable for the large quantities of fossil-wood associated with them .... Hundreds and thousands of entire trunks of silicified trees and huge logs lying in the sandstones" suggest the denudation of "thickly forested" areas. (Ibid. pp. 274-275). Animals met death and extinction by the elementary forces of nature, which also uprooted forests and from Kashmir to Indo-China threw sand over species and genera in mountains thousands of feet high. (from Earth in Upheaval: pp.78-81)

Runt,

I'm neither running nor hiding. Exactly how are these old and cherry-picked references compiled by your nutcake hero supposed to indicate a global flood? You're lots smarter than me since you've read V and I haven't, thus you should have no problem 'splaining this to me.

You gotta do better than just continuing to cut-n-paste a few paragraphs from your mentor's populist works.

R

[runtmc2jc]

Runt,

I'm neither running nor hiding. Exactly how are these old and cherry-picked references compiled by your nutcake hero supposed to indicate a global flood? You're lots smarter than me since you've read V and I haven't, thus you should have no problem 'splaining this to me.

You gotta do better than just continuing to cut-n-paste a few paragraphs from your mentor's populist works.

R

old and cherry-picked they may be, but that doesn't make them irrelevant to the topic. I've never even come close to claiming I am smarter than you, and BTW, fyi, this is not a cut-n-paste job. (at least not technically). We're nearing the end of the evidences I have to present, so after that we can talk causation and how it all applies to the possibility of a global flood, if you haven't been able to add it all up for yourself by then.

[rogero]

old and cherry-picked they may be, but that doesn't make them irrelevant to the topic. I've never even come close to claiming I am smarter than you, and BTW, fyi, this is not a cut-n-paste job. (at least not technically). We're nearing the end of the evidences I have to present, so after that we can talk causation and how it all applies to the possibility of a global flood, if you haven't been able to add it all up for yourself by then.

I guess that means you manually transcribed the text into your word processor, rather than cut-n-pasted?

So far the evidences you've presented haven't been additive at all IMO.

You need to present more specifics before a reasonable discussion of alternatives is possible. For example, in your previous post:


These hills are in the foothills of the Himalayas, north of Delhi. They extend for several hundred miles and are 2000-3000 feet high. The discovery of their unusually rich fossil beds drew the attention of scientists in the 19th century. Animal bones of species and genera, living and extinct, were found there in most amazing profusion. Among the unusual specimens were the carapace of a tortoise 20 feet long and an elephant species with tusks about fourteen feet long. These fossil beds are stocked with animals of so many and such varied species that the animal world of today seems impoverished by comparison. "This sudden bursting on the stage of such a varied population of herbivores, carnivores, rodents and of primates, the highest order of the mammals, must be regarded as a most remarkable instance of rapid evolution of species," (D.N. Wadia, "Geology of India," (2nd edition, 1939) p.268.) ...



1) What kind of "beds" are we talking about? Are they all part of one stratigraphic unit?

2) What are the lithologies?

3) What is the type of fossilation - (mold/cast, replacement, permineralization, original material?) V says there are "bones". Does that imply original material? Are there bones of modern animals together with fossils of other animals? This is very confusing.

4) What is the relative stratigraphic age of this sequence?

5) How well has the region been explored, and in what peer-reviewed journals does the research reside? It's important that these data are available in peer-reviewed form so that the greater scientific community can study and analyze and plan for further exploration if deemed warranted.

As usual there's a lot of rhetoric in what V writes here, e.g., "impoverished by comparison". Also, I don't see how Wadia can mention "rapid evolution" without referencing the stratigraphic extent of these formation(s). It's 1939 reference. We know alot more about the mechanisms of evolution now. The modern synthesis with chemical genetics was unknown then, as well as the notion of Punc Eek.

Overall, the reference is quite worthless to me. It's old, rhetoric-filled, and severely lacking in essential scientific details. And again I ask, what does this have to do with a global flood?

R

[runtmc2jc]

I guess that means you manually transcribed the text into your word processor, rather than cut-n-pasted?

So far the evidences you've presented haven't been additive at all IMO.

You need to present more specifics before a reasonable discussion of alternatives is possible. For example, in your previous post:


1) What kind of "beds" are we talking about? Are they all part of one stratigraphic unit?

2) What are the lithologies?

3) What is the type of fossilation - (mold/cast, replacement, permineralization, original material?) V says there are "bones". Does that imply original material? Are there bones of modern animals together with fossils of other animals? This is very confusing.

4) What is the relative stratigraphic age of this sequence?

5) How well has the region been explored, and in what peer-reviewed journals does the research reside? It's important that these data are available in peer-reviewed form so that the greater scientific community can study and analyze and plan for further exploration if deemed warranted.

As usual there's a lot of rhetoric in what V writes here, e.g., "impoverished by comparison". Also, I don't see how Wadia can mention "rapid evolution" without referencing the stratigraphic extent of these formation(s). It's 1939 reference. We know alot more about the mechanisms of evolution now. The modern synthesis with chemical genetics was unknown then, as well as the notion of Punc Eek.

Overall, the reference is quite worthless to me. It's old, rhetoric-filled, and severely lacking in essential scientific details. And again I ask, what does this have to do with a global flood?

R

just the type of reply I would expect from you. For more detail I would suggest investigating the cited sources....peace.......and love.

[runtmc2jc]

Here's the next evidence to consider:

Fossils in Florida

In 1915-1916 human remains were found in association with the bones of the Ice Age (Pleistocene) animals, many of which either became extinct, like the saber-toothed tiger, or have disappeared from the Americas, like the camel. Besides the human bones, pottery was found, as well as bone implements and worked stone. Ales Hrdlicka of the Smithsonian Institution, a renowned anthropologist, wrote that the "advanced state of culture, such as that shown by the pottery, bone implements, and worked stone brought from a considerable distance, implies a numerous population spread over large areas, acquainted thoroughtly with fire, with cooking food, and with all the usual primitive arts"; the human remains and relics could not be of antiquity "comparable with that of fossil remains with which they are associated." ("Premilinary Report on Finds of Supposedly Ancient Human Remains at Vero, Florida", Journal of Geology, XXV (1917)). He also published the opinion of W.H. Holmes, head curator of the Department of Anthropology of the U.S. National Museum, who investigated the pottery obtained by Hrdlicka from Vero. These were bowls "such as were in common use among the Indian tribes of Florida." When compared with vessels from Florida earth mounds, "no significant distinction can be made; in material, thickness of walls, finish of rim, surface finish, color, state of preservation, and size and shape," the vessels "are identical." There thus appears "not the least ground in the evidence of the specimens themselves for the assumption that the Vero pottery pertains to any other people than the mound-building Indian tribes of Florida of the pre-Columbian time." But the bones of man and his artifacts were found among the extinct animals. The discoverer of the Vero deposits, E.H. Sellards, state geologist of Florida and a very capable paleontologist, wrote in the debate that ensued: "That the human bones are fossils normal to this stratum and contemporaneous with the associated vertebrates is determined by their place in the formation, their manner of occurrence, their intimate relation to the bones of other animals, and the degree of mineralization of the bones." This "degree of mineralization of the human bones is identical with that of the associated bones of the other animals." In his view the evidence obtained "affords proof that man reached America at an early date and was present on the continent in association with a Pleistocene (Ice Age) fauna." ("On the Association of Human Remains and Extinct Vertebrates at Vero, Florida," Journal of Geology XXV (1917))... The human skulls, though fosssilized, did not differ from the skulls of the Indians of today. Another find 30 miles to the north in Melbourne contained "a remarkably rich assemblage of animal bones, many of which represent species which became extinct at or after the close of the Pleistocene (Ice Age) epoch." (J.W. Gidley, "Ancient man in Florida," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. XL, pp. 491-502; J.W. Gidley and F.B. Loomis, "Fossil man in Florida," American Journal of Science, 5th Ser., Vol 12, pp. 254-65). The discoverer, J.W. Gidley of the U.S. National Museum, established unequivocally that in Melbourne-as in Vero-the human bones were of the same stratum and in the same state of fossilization as the bones of the extinct animals. And again human artifacts were found with the bones. The "projectile points, awls, and pins" found are of the same workmanship as those unearthed in early Indian sites, two thousand of which are known in the area. All these and other considerations of an anthropological and geological nature, being summed up, prove, in the opinion of I. Rouse, that "the Vero and Melbourne man should have been in existance between 2000 B.C. and the year zero A.D." (I. Rouse, "Vero and Melbourne Man," Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Ser. II, Vol. 12 (1950), pp. 224ff). This does not solve the problem of the association of extinct animals and man who lived between two and four thousand years ago, in the second and first millenia before the present era. There is no proper way out of this dilemma, other than the assumption that now extinct animas still existed in historical times and that the catastrophe which overwhelmed man and animals and annihilated numerous species occured in the second or first millenium before the present era. Velikovsky sums it up as follows: "The geologists are right: the human remains and artifacts of Vero and Melbourne in Florida are of the same age as the fossils of the extinct animals. The anthropologists are equally right: the human remains and artifacts are of the second or first millennium before the present era. What follows? It follows that the extinct animals belonged to the recent past. It follows also that some paroxysm of nature heaped together these assemblages; the same paroxysm of nature may have destroyed numerous species so that they became extinct." (from Earth in Upheaval, pp. 167-169)

[runtmc2jc]

I guess that means you manually transcribed the text into your word processor, rather than cut-n-pasted?

So far the evidences you've presented haven't been additive at all IMO.

You need to present more specifics before a reasonable discussion of alternatives is possible. For example, in your previous post:


1) What kind of "beds" are we talking about? Are they all part of one stratigraphic unit?

2) What are the lithologies?

3) What is the type of fossilation - (mold/cast, replacement, permineralization, original material?) V says there are "bones". Does that imply original material? Are there bones of modern animals together with fossils of other animals? This is very confusing.

4) What is the relative stratigraphic age of this sequence?

5) How well has the region been explored, and in what peer-reviewed journals does the research reside? It's important that these data are available in peer-reviewed form so that the greater scientific community can study and analyze and plan for further exploration if deemed warranted.

As usual there's a lot of rhetoric in what V writes here, e.g., "impoverished by comparison". Also, I don't see how Wadia can mention "rapid evolution" without referencing the stratigraphic extent of these formation(s). It's 1939 reference. We know alot more about the mechanisms of evolution now. The modern synthesis with chemical genetics was unknown then, as well as the notion of Punc Eek.

Overall, the reference is quite worthless to me. It's old, rhetoric-filled, and severely lacking in essential scientific details. And again I ask, what does this have to do with a global flood?

R


rogero- check out my new post in the Student Lounge

[rogero]

just the type of reply I would expect from you. For more detail I would suggest investigating the cited sources....peace.......and love.

So, this is just the type of reply I would expect from you -- someone would doesn't understand how science works. Poorly cited material used for hyperbolic rhetoric effect by a sci-fi writer is not sufficient to facilitate an intelligent discussion.

Also, the onus is on you to find the original references and provide the information I requested. Your nutcake hero working vicariously through you is attacking the mainstream science position. I have no idea what V is even talking about here, let alone why it would be problem for mainstream science. You are on the offense, we are on the defense. The burden of proof is on you.

[rogero]

rogero- check out my new post in the Student Lounge

Student Lounge??? Why the Student Lounge? I'll go there as soon as I can find a Campus Map, as I never leave the Science Building and I'm fearful of the outside world.

Do they have a bar there?

[rogero]

Here's the next evidence to consider:

Fossils in Florida

In 1915-1916 human remains were found in association with the bones of the Ice Age (Pleistocene) animals, many of which either became extinct, like the saber-toothed tiger, or have disappeared from the Americas, like the camel. Besides the human bones, pottery was found, as well as bone implements and worked stone. Ales Hrdlicka of the Smithsonian Institution, a renowned anthropologist, wrote that the "advanced state of culture, such as that shown by the pottery, bone implements, and worked stone brought from a considerable distance, implies a numerous population spread over large areas, acquainted thoroughtly with fire, with cooking food, and with all the usual primitive arts"; the human remains and relics could not be of antiquity "comparable with that of fossil remains with which they are associated." ("Premilinary Report on Finds of Supposedly Ancient Human Remains at Vero, Florida", Journal of Geology, XXV (1917)). He also published the opinion of W.H. Holmes, head curator of the Department of Anthropology of the U.S. National Museum, who investigated the pottery obtained by Hrdlicka from Vero. These were bowls "such as were in common use among the Indian tribes of Florida." When compared with vessels from Florida earth mounds, "no significant distinction can be made; in material, thickness of walls, finish of rim, surface finish, color, state of preservation, and size and shape," the vessels "are identical." There thus appears "not the least ground in the evidence of the specimens themselves for the assumption that the Vero pottery pertains to any other people than the mound-building Indian tribes of Florida of the pre-Columbian time." But the bones of man and his artifacts were found among the extinct animals. The discoverer of the Vero deposits, E.H. Sellards, state geologist of Florida and a very capable paleontologist, wrote in the debate that ensued: "That the human bones are fossils normal to this stratum and contemporaneous with the associated vertebrates is determined by their place in the formation, their manner of occurrence, their intimate relation to the bones of other animals, and the degree of mineralization of the bones." This "degree of mineralization of the human bones is identical with that of the associated bones of the other animals." In his view the evidence obtained "affords proof that man reached America at an early date and was present on the continent in association with a Pleistocene (Ice Age) fauna." ("On the Association of Human Remains and Extinct Vertebrates at Vero, Florida," Journal of Geology XXV (1917))... The human skulls, though fosssilized, did not differ from the skulls of the Indians of today. Another find 30 miles to the north in Melbourne contained "a remarkably rich assemblage of animal bones, many of which represent species which became extinct at or after the close of the Pleistocene (Ice Age) epoch." (J.W. Gidley, "Ancient man in Florida," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. XL, pp. 491-502; J.W. Gidley and F.B. Loomis, "Fossil man in Florida," American Journal of Science, 5th Ser., Vol 12, pp. 254-65). The discoverer, J.W. Gidley of the U.S. National Museum, established unequivocally that in Melbourne-as in Vero-the human bones were of the same stratum and in the same state of fossilization as the bones of the extinct animals. And again human artifacts were found with the bones. The "projectile points, awls, and pins" found are of the same workmanship as those unearthed in early Indian sites, two thousand of which are known in the area. All these and other considerations of an anthropological and geological nature, being summed up, prove, in the opinion of I. Rouse, that "the Vero and Melbourne man should have been in existance between 2000 B.C. and the year zero A.D." (I. Rouse, "Vero and Melbourne Man," Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Ser. II, Vol. 12 (1950), pp. 224ff). This does not solve the problem of the association of extinct animals and man who lived between two and four thousand years ago, in the second and first millenia before the present era. There is no proper way out of this dilemma, other than the assumption that now extinct animas still existed in historical times and that the catastrophe which overwhelmed man and animals and annihilated numerous species occured in the second or first millenium before the present era. Velikovsky sums it up as follows: "The geologists are right: the human remains and artifacts of Vero and Melbourne in Florida are of the same age as the fossils of the extinct animals. The anthropologists are equally right: the human remains and artifacts are of the second or first millennium before the present era. What follows? It follows that the extinct animals belonged to the recent past. It follows also that some paroxysm of nature heaped together these assemblages; the same paroxysm of nature may have destroyed numerous species so that they became extinct." (from Earth in Upheaval, pp. 167-169)

Runt,

You've got to learn to use paragraphs! Also, a reference newer than 1950 would help your credibiliy as well.

Mainstream scientists accept that humans existed in the Pleistocene and thus coexisted with some now-extinct animals such as the sabre-toothed tiger.

BTW, the Pleistocene ended with the end of Wisconsinan ice age about 10,000 years ago. I have no idea where V is coming up with the dates in the bolded text. Also, in the last sixty-five years paleoanthropologists believe through evidence that H. sapiens were in the Americans much earlier than the experts of the time that V cites. Here's (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1106_031106_firstamericans_2.html) a nice little article about human migration to the Americas.

I'm still confused. How is your citation supposed to evidence The Great Flood of Noah's time?

R

[rogero]

Student Lounge??? Why the Student Lounge? I'll go there as soon as I can find a Campus Map, as I never leave the Science Building and I'm fearful of the outside world.

Do they have a bar there?

Edited to add: Sorry about your dead cat George...

If he does end up in Heaven, maybe he will meet some of his distant feline cousins -- like the noble and gnarly Sabre-Toothed tigers V speaks about. Any maybe when you get there, you'll find out that V will apologize to for misleading you (and so many others) with his sci-fi passed off as unrecognized genius by an unfair scientific community.

[runtmc2jc]

Edited to add: Sorry about your dead cat George...

If he does end up in Heaven, maybe he will meet some of his distant feline cousins -- like the noble and gnarly Sabre-Toothed tigers V speaks about. Any maybe when you get there, you'll find out that V will apologize to for misleading you (and so many others) with his sci-fi passed off as unrecognized genius by an unfair scientific community.


thanks for your comment. i'm ready to embrace the whole truth when everything is revealed, so i'm content that some of v. will be right, and some may be wrong, that's ok with me. as we say in the hood - it's all good.

[rogero]

thanks for your comment. i'm ready to embrace the whole truth when everything is revealed, so i'm content that some of v. will be right, and some may be wrong, that's ok with me. as we say in the hood - it's all good.

Dem straight, Bro. God is good. If V has a better way of interpreting the evidence, then I'm open to it. So far I haven't seen it. The consensus science interpretation of all the extant evidence -- archeological, geological, biological, astronomical is so totally cool, logical, and consistent -- that I have no need to look for alternate explanations. Afterall, as Christians (and theists) we have faith that God creates. Isn't that the important thing?

Those of us who are interested investigate nature (creation!) itself to try to ascertain how God creates. It's really a beautiful thing -- much more beautiful than any human author of fiction (regardless of scientific or literary credential) could possibly spin.

For you and me and Charlie and your deceased wife and my Mom and Dad -- Who knows what glorious things await?

God's Peace and Love to you, Runt ---

Roger

[runtmc2jc]

Dem straight, Bro. God is good. If V has a better way of interpreting the evidence, then I'm open to it. So far I haven't seen it. The consensus science interpretation of all the extant evidence -- archeological, geological, biological, astronomical is so totally cool, logical, and consistent -- that I have no need to look for alternate explanations. Afterall, as Christians (and theists) we have faith that God creates. Isn't that the important thing?

Those of us who are interested investigate nature (creation!) itself to try to ascertain how God creates. It's really a beautiful thing -- much more beautiful than any human author of fiction (regardless of scientific or literary credential) could possibly spin.

For you and me and Charlie and your deceased wife and my Mom and Dad -- Who knows what glorious things await?

God's Peace and Love to you, Runt ---

Roger

amen. however, if there is a 'collective amnesia' concerning our catastrophic past, then how can we ascertain if 'science' is honestly going to investigate it?.........peace

[runtmc2jc]

Runt,

You've got to learn to use paragraphs! Also, a reference newer than 1950 would help your credibiliy as well.

Mainstream scientists accept that humans existed in the Pleistocene and thus coexisted with some now-extinct animals such as the sabre-toothed tiger.

BTW, the Pleistocene ended with the end of Wisconsinan ice age about 10,000 years ago. I have no idea where V is coming up with the dates in the bolded text. Also, in the last sixty-five years paleoanthropologists believe through evidence that H. sapiens were in the Americans much earlier than the experts of the time that V cites. Here's (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1106_031106_firstamericans_2.html) a nice little article about human migration to the Americas.

I'm still confused. How is your citation supposed to evidence The Great Flood of Noah's time?

R

glad to see you're on top of your game. actually, this is the time of the exodus according to v. which in his opinion was a catastrophe of possible global implications, as opposed to a local event in Egypt and its surrounding environs.

[rogero]

glad to see you're on top of your game.

IMHO I don't feel on top of much of anything anymore. There is some basic geology and other science that I recall fairly well, and usually I'm able to understand the P=>Q stuff.


actually, this is the time of the exodus according to v. which in his opinion was a catastrophe of possible global implications, as opposed to a local event in Egypt and its surrounding environs.
It seems that dating is a controversial point for V. To your knowledge was he a YEC? I don't think mainstream scientists -- biologists, geologists, glaciologists, archeologists -- believe that (e.g.) sabre-toothed tigers coexisted with H. sapiens during the time of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt. I have no idea where V. is coming up with this concept.

Also, what kind of catastrophe did V think occurred at this time (4Ka?)? Meteor impact of some sort? There should some evidence in the crust somewhere if that's the case.

Peace,

R

[runtmc2jc]

IMHO I don't feel on top of much of anything anymore. There is some basic geology and other science that I recall fairly well, and usually I'm able to understand the P=>Q stuff.


It seems that dating is a controversial point for V. To your knowledge was he a YEC? I don't think mainstream scientists -- biologists, geologists, glaciologists, archeologists -- believe that (e.g.) sabre-toothed tigers coexisted with H. sapiens during the time of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt. I have no idea where V. is coming up with this concept.

Also, what kind of catastrophe did V think occurred at this time (4Ka?)? Meteor impact of some sort? There should some evidence in the crust somewhere if that's the case.

Peace,

R

i don't want to get into the specifics of causation just yet, but you're thinking along the right lines. i believe v. dates the exodus to about 1500 bce (that's a rough guess off the top of my head)...and i know for a fact that saber-tooths were contemporary with homo-sapes because i've seen it on the Flintstones.

[runtmc2jc]

Raining bitumen? What a gut-buster! Do you even know what bitumen is, Noob -- let alone why it would be raining from the sky? What's even more amusing is that poor scientifically-ignorant sycophants like you can be taken in by this garbage.

You do understand the difference in genre of science and science-fiction, do you not?

R

P.S. Please note the bolded emphasis in your quote. Could it be that monkeys spontaneously fly out of my butt? I dare you to provide scientific proof to the contrary! :lol:


sorry i missed this one earlier - i believe bitumen is an asphalt-like substance consisting mainly of hydrocarbons. (at least that's what my funk n' wagnall's says). i'm still attempting to clear my mind of the mental picture you provided with you p.s. thanks much!

[runtmc2jc]

The Origin of Coal

Does not the very existance of vast coal beds and their enigmatic constituency cry out for a large-scale catastrophic genesis? Long, slow processes cannot explain the anomalies found therin. The following is a brief treatment of the subject by Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval, pp. 215-220.

Seams of coal are sometimes 50 or more feet thick...besides the vast amount of plant material, erratic boulders are often encased in coal. Various kinds of marine life are mixed with coal. Carbonaceous and bituminous shales are frequently packed with fossilized marine fish. Deep-sea crinoids and clear-water ocean corals often alternate with the coal beds.

Apparently....forests burned, a hurricane uprooted them, and a tidal wave or seccession of tidal waves coming from the sea fell upon the charred and splintered trees and swept them into great heaps, tossed by billows, and covered them with marine sand, pebbles and shells, and weeds and fishes; another tide deposited on top of the sand more carbonized logs, threw them in other heaps, and again covered them with marine sediment. The heated ground metamorphosed the charred wood into coal, and, if the wood or the ground where it was buried was drenched in a bituminous outpouring, bituminous coal was formed. Wet leaves sometimes survived the forest fires and, swept into the same heaps of logs and sand, left their design on the coal. Thus it is that seams of coal are covered with marine sediment; for that reason also a seam may bifurcate and have mariine deposits between its branches.

Professor emeritus of botany at Lund University, Heribert Nilsson, presented the results (H. Nilsson, "Synthetische Artbildung", 2 vols. (1953), Ch. VII-VIII) of an inquiry into the botanical and zoological composition of the brown coal (lignite) of Geiseltal in Germany, made by Johannes Weigelt of Halle and his group (published in 'Nova Acta Leopoldina', 1934-41.) Many plants found in Geiseltal lignite are tropical, of species that do not grow even in the subtropics. A long list of tropical families, genera, and species, discerned in Geiseltal coal, was made known. (E. Hoffmann; W. Beyn). Algae and fungi on the leaves preserved in the coal are found presently on plants in Java, Brazil, and Cameroons (Kock).

Besides the dominating tropical flora in Geiseltal, plants are represented there from almost every part of the globe. The associated insect fauna of Geiseltal coal is found "In present Africa, in East Asia, and in America in various regions, preserved in almost original purity" (Walther and Weigelt). The coal of Geiseltal is rated as belonging to the beginning of the Tertiary time.

As to the reptilian, avian, and mammalian fauna, the coal is a "veritable graveyard." Apes, crocodiles and marsupials left their remains in this coal. An Indo-Australian bird, an American condor, tropical giant snakes, East Asian salamander, left their remains there too. (G. Kuhn). Some of the animals are of the steppe habitat, and others like crocodiles, came from the swamps.

Not only do the origin and the habitats of plants and animals offer a very paradoxical picture, but so also does their state of preservation. Chlorophyll is preserved in the leaves found in the brown coal (Weigelt and Noack). The leaves must have been rather quickly excluded from contact with air and light, or rapidly entombed: these were neither leaves falling off the plants in the fall nor leaves exposed to the action of light and atmosphere after being torn off by a storm. Entire strata of leaves from all parts of the world, counted by the billions, though torn to shreds but with their fine fibers (nervature) intact, in many cases still green, are found in the Geiseltal lignite.

It is not different with the animals....The muscles and the epidermis of the animals were found to have retained their fine structure (Voigt). Also the colors of the insects are preserved in their original splendor. The very process of fossilization with silica invading the tissues must have ocurred "fast blitzschnell" - almost immediately, in Nilsson's opinion. While the membranes and the colors of the insects are preserved so well, it is difficult to find a complete insect; mostly only torn parts are found (Voigt).

Nilsson was convinced that the remains found were carried there by onrushing water from all parts of the world, but mainly from the coasts of the equatorial belt of the Pacific and Indian oceans-from Madagascar, Indonesia, Australia, and the west coast of the Americas. One thing is, however, evident: coal originated in cataclysmic circumstances.

[runtmc2jc]

rogero - i'm going to repost this in a new thread in an effort to involve some more people. i enjoy your replies and insight so let's see if others will engage as well.

[rogero]

rogero - i'm going to repost this in a new thread in an effort to involve some more people.


Good idea. Don't expect an enthusiastic reception though!


i enjoy your replies and insight...
That's hard to believe. :lol:

R

[rogero]

sorry i missed this one earlier - i believe bitumen is an asphalt-like substance consisting mainly of hydrocarbons. (at least that's what my funk n' wagnall's says). i'm still attempting to clear my mind of the mental picture you provided with you p.s. thanks much!

Good. Now why would bitumen be raining from the skies? Any idea what V has in mind here?

R

[rogero]

The Origin of Coal

Does not the very existance of vast coal beds and their enigmatic constituency cry out for a large-scale catastrophic genesis? Long, slow processes cannot explain the anomalies found therin. The following is a brief treatment of the subject by Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval, pp. 215-220.

Seams of coal are sometimes 50 or more feet thick...besides the vast amount of plant material, erratic boulders are often encased in coal. Various kinds of marine life are mixed with coal. Carbonaceous and bituminous shales are frequently packed with fossilized marine fish. Deep-sea crinoids and clear-water ocean corals often alternate with the coal beds.

Apparently....forests burned, a hurricane uprooted them, and a tidal wave or seccession of tidal waves coming from the sea fell upon the charred and splintered trees and swept them into great heaps, tossed by billows, and covered them with marine sand, pebbles and shells, and weeds and fishes; another tide deposited on top of the sand more carbonized logs, threw them in other heaps, and again covered them with marine sediment. The heated ground metamorphosed the charred wood into coal, and, if the wood or the ground where it was buried was drenched in a bituminous outpouring, bituminous coal was formed. Wet leaves sometimes survived the forest fires and, swept into the same heaps of logs and sand, left their design on the coal. Thus it is that seams of coal are covered with marine sediment; for that reason also a seam may bifurcate and have mariine deposits between its branches.

Professor emeritus of botany at Lund University, Heribert Nilsson, presented the results (H. Nilsson, "Synthetische Artbildung", 2 vols. (1953), Ch. VII-VIII) of an inquiry into the botanical and zoological composition of the brown coal (lignite) of Geiseltal in Germany, made by Johannes Weigelt of Halle and his group (published in 'Nova Acta Leopoldina', 1934-41.) Many plants found in Geiseltal lignite are tropical, of species that do not grow even in the subtropics. A long list of tropical families, genera, and species, discerned in Geiseltal coal, was made known. (E. Hoffmann; W. Beyn). Algae and fungi on the leaves preserved in the coal are found presently on plants in Java, Brazil, and Cameroons (Kock).

Besides the dominating tropical flora in Geiseltal, plants are represented there from almost every part of the globe. The associated insect fauna of Geiseltal coal is found "In present Africa, in East Asia, and in America in various regions, preserved in almost original purity" (Walther and Weigelt). The coal of Geiseltal is rated as belonging to the beginning of the Tertiary time.

As to the reptilian, avian, and mammalian fauna, the coal is a "veritable graveyard." Apes, crocodiles and marsupials left their remains in this coal. An Indo-Australian bird, an American condor, tropical giant snakes, East Asian salamander, left their remains there too. (G. Kuhn). Some of the animals are of the steppe habitat, and others like crocodiles, came from the swamps.

Not only do the origin and the habitats of plants and animals offer a very paradoxical picture, but so also does their state of preservation. Chlorophyll is preserved in the leaves found in the brown coal (Weigelt and Noack). The leaves must have been rather quickly excluded from contact with air and light, or rapidly entombed: these were neither leaves falling off the plants in the fall nor leaves exposed to the action of light and atmosphere after being torn off by a storm. Entire strata of leaves from all parts of the world, counted by the billions, though torn to shreds but with their fine fibers (nervature) intact, in many cases still green, are found in the Geiseltal lignite.

It is not different with the animals....The muscles and the epidermis of the animals were found to have retained their fine structure (Voigt). Also the colors of the insects are preserved in their original splendor. The very process of fossilization with silica invading the tissues must have ocurred "fast blitzschnell" - almost immediately, in Nilsson's opinion. While the membranes and the colors of the insects are preserved so well, it is difficult to find a complete insect; mostly only torn parts are found (Voigt).

Nilsson was convinced that the remains found were carried there by onrushing water from all parts of the world, but mainly from the coasts of the equatorial belt of the Pacific and Indian oceans-from Madagascar, Indonesia, Australia, and the west coast of the Americas. One thing is, however, evident: coal originated in cataclysmic circumstances.

I'm not aware of major problems in consensus theories on coal genesis. I certainly don't see how a catastrophic model helps, especially with explaining thick coal seams.

I know YECs don't like the swamp model, since it would take too much time for the organic matter to accumuate. The wild 'n whacky alternative YEC coal model involves "floating veggie mats" as espoused by BPayne here in TWeb. You might want to look up his posts and pay attention to the contributions by a genuince coal geologist who goes by the name Cycad.

Are you aware of any of the small handful of YEC geologists that give V's fanciful scenario any credence?

R

[shunyadragon]

glad to see you're on top of your game. actually, this is the time of the exodus according to v. which in his opinion was a catastrophe of possible global implications, as opposed to a local event in Egypt and its surrounding environs.

In a rather interesting way 'V' was correct, but not on 'D' SciFi movie scale he describes. The exodus likely occured in a cyclic global drought event, similar to what occured ~4200 years ago, and in the 1700's when Napolean invaded Egypt. These global droughts are devastating to ancient world civilizations, and create similar situations as described as the '7 plagues' in the Exodus story.

[runtmc2jc]

In a rather interesting way 'V' was correct, but not on 'D' SciFi movie scale he describes. The exodus likely occured in a cyclic global drought event, similar to what occured ~4200 years ago, and in the 1700's when Napolean invaded Egypt. These global droughts are devastating to ancient world civilizations, and create similar situations as described as the '7 plagues' in the Exodus story.

are a 'pillar of cloud by day' and a 'pillar of fire by night' byproducts of a drought event as you proffer? how about the noises heard, and the absolute darkness? a parting of the sea? i don't doubt the drought events, several are described in the biblical text. but i think it might be a stretch to attribute some of these specific conditions to a draught at the time of the exodus.

[runtmc2jc]

I'm not aware of major problems in consensus theories on coal genesis. I certainly don't see how a catastrophic model helps, especially with explaining thick coal seams.

I know YECs don't like the swamp model, since it would take too much time for the organic matter to accumuate. The wild 'n whacky alternative YEC coal model involves "floating veggie mats" as espoused by BPayne here in TWeb. You might want to look up his posts and pay attention to the contributions by a genuince coal geologist who goes by the name Cycad.

Are you aware of any of the small handful of YEC geologists that give V's fanciful scenario any credence?

R

with seams of coal up to 50 or more feet thick, it is estimated that it would take a 12 ft. layer of peat deposit to make a layer of coal 1 ft. thick; and 12 feet of peat deposit would require plant remains 120 feet high. How tall and thick must a forest be to create a seam of coal 50 feet thick? In some places there must have been 50-100 successive huge forests, one replacing the other, since so many seams of coal are formed.The 'floating veggie mats' theory doesn't account for the fact that in many cases a fossilized tree trunk is embedded in coal standing 'on its head', nor accounts for the presence of erratic boulders encased in coal beds. (I forgot - Morton says erratics are the byproducts of glaciation - which many are....... but not all). i think the evidence presented in the previous post is pretty compelling for a catastrophic origin of large-scale proportions.........peace

[rogero]

with seams of coal up to 50 or more feet thick, it is estimated that it would take a 12 ft. layer of peat deposit to make a layer of coal 1 ft. thick; and 12 feet of peat deposit would require plant remains 120 feet high. How tall and thick must a forest be to create a seam of coal 50 feet thick? In some places there must have been 50-100 successive huge forests, one replacing the other, since so many seams of coal are formed.The 'floating veggie mats' theory doesn't account for the fact that in many cases a fossilized tree trunk is embedded in coal standing 'on its head', nor accounts for the presence of erratic boulders encased in coal beds. (I forgot - Morton says erratics are the byproducts of glaciation - which many are....... but not all). i think the evidence presented in the previous post is pretty compelling for a catastrophic origin of large-scale proportions.........peace
I don't see how coal deposits give compelling evidence of catastrophic origins. The Pennsylvanian period in the Paleozoic lasted over 40 million years. This is more than ample time for vast accumulations of organic material as well as intervening episodes of erosion/non-deposition and the deposition of clastics from riverine flooding and the like. The standard model explains both the thickness of the seams and the episodic interferences in the stratigraphic units.

If you're really interested in this, you should 1) focus on a particular coal formation and 2) ask targeted questions to a geologist who actual knows something about coal (Glenn, Shuny, Aniso, and Cycad are good candidates here on TWeb).

Peace to you as well.

R