| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"FireBirdBlue" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2006 04:28:07 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Science and the Future |
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
You can believe what your want and so can everyone else. That still
doesn't prove that God exists.
Try again
Also, science cannot foresee the future. It cannot even foresee the
results of its own discoveries. When DDT was developed, for example, it
was hoped that this new weapon would forever solve the problem of
insect pests. It would provide protection for plants and keep in check
those insects that spread diseases such as malaria. However, the German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said that this "blessing for
mankind . . . an undreamed-of achievement for chemistry" later
became "a rather questionable blessing. . . . DDT's victory march
through Germany is over." And not only in Germany but also in many
other countries where its use has been banned. Science failed to
foresee the negative effects it would have on other forms of life,
including man.
Remember, too, Alfred Nobel, after whom the Nobel peace prize is named.
He was a man of peace, yet he invented dynamite. Why? He wrote to a
friend: "I should like to invent a substance or machine with such
terrible power of mass destruction that war would thereby be made
impossible for ever." Two world wars since Nobel's death have
proved that his invention failed to have the effect he hoped for.
Albert Einstein also hoped that the development of the atom bomb, based
largely upon his theories, would eliminate forever the danger of war.
Yet bitter wars are still being fought, and civilization finds itself
sitting on a nuclear powder keg, terrified that someone will light the
fuse. Shortly before he died, Einstein is reported to have said: "If
I had only known, I would have been a locksmith."
It is sadly ironic that science, which has improved the lives of so
many millions, has also provided the means by which man can destroy
himself. If only scientists could foretell the future! They cannot, of
course, but the Bible does.
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
20 Sep 2006 02:15:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:27:24 GMT, in alt.atheism , Strategos
<Strategos@ajedrez.pr> in <gG1Qg.6538$uj3.3771@trnddc08> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
I will snip for brevity, I read Mark response and understand many of his
points on the subject and I respect his opinions
Lets examen this,with the Bible record in mind, let us now consider the
Assyro-Babylonian mythology ... [and] the Sumerian myth ....
That's what I meant about Middle East. The flood myths of Utnapishtim,
Atrahasis, and Noah are derived from the same tradition. The flood myths
in the rest of the world are entirely different.
It seems that way. But the core is the same, Global Flood, God or gods
and a human savior, with some sort of mechanism to save a few.
Well, flood stories are going to have floods in them no doubt. And a
remarkable number of myths have gods of some sort. And they tend to
have humans in them as well. "Trickster steals fire/bow/net" stories
tend to have someone stealing X, gods, and humans in them. And they
are pretty common as well.
[snip]
Which others? you made statement that others did not resemble the
noachian flood.
My favorite is the Navaho story of people climbing atop a mountain,
going through a whole in the sky, and ending up in this world. They
then plug up the whole to stop the flood. That does not particularly
resemble the Noah story, does it? (Well, it does because I suspect
that both are mammalian creation stories.)
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
16 Sep 2006 12:54:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol-Basic" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
16 Sep 2006 11:17:27 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists
found no trace of it? Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence
some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface
of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during
a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can
sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the
evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record.
At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers
stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed
North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the
world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a
sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and
quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of
Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have
been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. Many have argued that
this event was the Flood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack May" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 12:54:05 AM |
|
|
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists
found no trace of it?
There are multiple records of large floods, but no record of the entire
world being flooded or any mechanism to make a world wide flood possible.
There are stories all around the Black Sea of a large flood, all about the
same time. That flood looks like it was caused by Mediterranean sea rising
and filling in the Black sea at a time when the present bottom was farm
land. The rising sea level was from melting glaciers at end of the ice age.
The Mediterranean used to be dry land until a rising sea flooded it. The
Columbia River Gorge between Washington and Oregon was gouged out at the
end of the ice age when an ice dam gave way releasing a massive amount of
water
Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For
example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been
shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages.
But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of
water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is
being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Highly unlikely since difference in evidence between a world wide and local
flood would be monumentally different.
Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At
one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked
their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North
America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world,
species of mammals became extinct.
That was caused by the big climate change at the end of the last ice age.
<At the same time, there was a
sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and
quick-frozen in Siberia.
You got it totally backwards. The climate change came first leading to the
extinction. You do realize I hope that these times can be easily measured
now with present technology. No need for wild guesses like yours.
Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of
Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have
been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. Many have argued that
this event was the Flood.
So what? We know a lot more now than was known way back then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 05:20:04 PM |
|
|
Jack May wrote:
<snip>
There are stories all around the Black Sea of a large flood, all about the
same time. That flood looks like it was caused by Mediterranean sea rising
and filling in the Black sea at a time when the present bottom was farm
land. The rising sea level was from melting glaciers at end of the ice age.
Jack May:
You have been misled.
The latest that the Black Sea just possibly _might_ have
experienced a catastrophic flood event that "suddenly"
raised its level was before farmers arrived in the area.
However, marine scientists stopped discussing the possibility of
such a flood a couple of years ago, because:
1) the original BSFloode hypothesis has been abandoned by
one of the two principal proponents (William Ryan), who has
replaced it with an earlier, much-less-dramatic, but
also-poorly-supported-by-evidence version, which has not
gained acceptance among scientists who know about these things;
2) there is no real evidence that any such event ever happened; and
3) there is abundant evidence that none such ever happened.
And the farm land was not supposed to have been on the bottom,
but rather near the top, as the Black Sea was
never less than 2000 metres deep during the last several
tens of millions of years, if not for hundreds of millions of years.
The lowest level that was claimed for the Black Sea was
-155 m below present sea level, and Bob Ballard went looking for
a "habitation site" (he never did find one) at a more reasonable
-100 m, and Ryan later suggested that the Black Sea level
might have been, if you look at the evidence just right, at
- 85 m, so the Black Sea wasn't really "filled in", even by
an imaginary flood event. .
The Mediterranean used to be dry land until a rising sea flooded it.
Yes, most of the floor of the Mediterranean Sea has salt deposits
indicating that at one time or another parts of that sea floor were
exposed to the air, but the last time that such a salt deposit formed
was more than 5 million years ago.
Also, the cause of the flooding that ended that period of
salt-deposit
formation is unknown; it may have been the result of a rise in global
sea level, but equally possibly, it may have been the result of
excavation of soft rock in the valleys at the west end of
the Mediterranean Basin by springs of saltwater percolating
from the Atlantic Ocean through the rock and soft sediment
near Gibraltar.
But as this all would have happened before our ancestors
stopped looking like long-legged apes, none of it is pertinent to
the origin of the Biblical flood myth.
The Columbia River Gorge between Washington and Oregon was
gouged out at the end of the ice age when an ice dam gave way
releasing a massive amount of water
Yes, but that happened several times, as water built up in valleys
in northern Idaho behind glacial ice blocking drainage westward,
until the impounded water was deep enough to float and break up
the glacial ice.
And then more ice would flow southward from the Cordilleran Ice
Sheet and block a valley and create a pro-glacial lake again, and
if the level of the lake water rose faster than it could flow over or
around the ice, then it might get high enough to float the ice again,
and another flood would crach across eastern Washington State
and down the lower Columbia River valley.
The last time it happened was after the Cordilleran Ice Sheet had
started to recede from its farthesty extent, and after that it never
advanced to block valleys in northern Idaho again, so yes,
the last event might have been said to have occurred
"at the end of the ice age", but that's just because
it couldn't have happened again, later.
As to the rest of what you've written, I agree, for the most part.
-
Daryl Krupa
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 07:54:14 AM |
|
|
Jack May wrote:
You got it totally backwards. The climate change came first leading to the
extinction. You do realize I hope that these times can be easily measured
now with present technology. No need for wild guesses like yours.
Just about any organic less than 20,000 years old can be accurately
dated by carbon 14 measurements, unless the specimen has somehow become
radioactively contaminated or has been burned.
So what? We know a lot more now than was known way back then.
Did you know that Alfered Wallace also attended seances? Wallace was
clever enough to have hypothosized natural selection (as did Darwin),
but he was nowhere near as scienficcally thorough as Darwin. Darwin held
off publishing -Origin of Species- partly because of caution and the
desire to make the strongest case possible in favor of natural selection.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol-Basic" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 08:41:01 AM |
|
|
Jack May wrote:
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists
found no trace of it?
There are multiple records of large floods, but no record of the entire
world being flooded or any mechanism to make a world wide flood possible.
There is a record. But that record you refuse to accept.
There are stories all around the Black Sea of a large flood, all about the
same time. That flood looks like it was caused by Mediterranean sea rising
and filling in the Black sea at a time when the present bottom was farm
land. The rising sea level was from melting glaciers at end of the ice age.
However I can put on my Atheist sombrero and say that the Black Sea
Stories are hog wash. Why should I accept those in lieu of the jewish one?
Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For
example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been
shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages.
But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of
water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is
being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Highly unlikely since difference in evidence between a world wide and local
flood would be monumentally different.
How so?
Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At
one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked
their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North
America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world,
species of mammals became extinct.
That was caused by the big climate change at the end of the last ice age.
<At the same time, there was a
sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and
quick-frozen in Siberia.
You got it totally backwards. The climate change came first leading to the
extinction. You do realize I hope that these times can be easily measured
now with present technology. No need for wild guesses like yours.
Not when you find Siberian Mammoths still chewing on their food why they
were frozen to death. If the animals took a long time chewing on their
food, then they deserved to be extinct.
Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of
Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have
been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. Many have argued that
this event was the Flood.
So what? We know a lot more now than was known way back then.
Or we may not know enough yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 07:20:43 PM |
|
|
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:NfcPg.3939$2P3.3336@trnddc02...
Jack May wrote:
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given
in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments
right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists
found no trace of it?
There are multiple records of large floods, but no record of the entire
world being flooded or any mechanism to make a world wide flood
possible.
There is a record. But that record you refuse to accept.
There are stories all around the Black Sea of a large flood, all about
the
same time. That flood looks like it was caused by Mediterranean sea
rising
and filling in the Black sea at a time when the present bottom was farm
land. The rising sea level was from melting glaciers at end of the ice
age.
However I can put on my Atheist sombrero and say that the Black Sea
Stories are hog wash. Why should I accept those in lieu of the jewish one?
Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For
example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has
been
shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages.
But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result
of
water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is
being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Highly unlikely since difference in evidence between a world wide and
local
flood would be monumentally different.
How so?
Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record.
At
one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked
their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North
America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world,
species of mammals became extinct.
That was caused by the big climate change at the end of the last ice
age.
<At the same time, there was a
sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and
quick-frozen in Siberia.
You got it totally backwards. The climate change came first leading to
the
extinction. You do realize I hope that these times can be easily
measured
now with present technology. No need for wild guesses like yours.
Not when you find Siberian Mammoths still chewing on their food why they
were frozen to death. If the animals took a long time chewing on their
food, then they deserved to be extinct.
Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of
Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have
been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. Many have argued that
this event was the Flood.
So what? We know a lot more now than was known way back then.
Or we may not know enough yet.
Animals "deserve" to be extinct?? I wish the same applied to you. The flood
is impossible from several angles. The ark couldn't have carried enough food
for all the animals. Many were carnivores and ate the very animals stored on
the ark. Don't tell me 8 humans without guns held back lions, tigers, and
the rest. Getting rid of the waste from all those animals couldn't have been
done by 40 people working 24 hours a day, much less just 8. The weight of
the water falling would have crushed the ark. The water canopy you JW's
claim was around the earth would have suffocated and crushed animal life
long before the flood. You obviously have no idea how much water weighs.
What about disease? No animal got "bird flu" or leprosy in the people? Not
one of the animals died, thereby wiping out a "kind"?
Do a Google search on the flood. You will find that no reputable scientist
believes it. Yes, I know, they are all "blinded by Satan". So is everyone
who disagrees with the WT. Again I must insist, the WT and JW's is more an
issue of psychological needs than it is of provable religion. God cannot be
proven. If you claim humans are so complex they MUST have needed a creator,
then I'll argue that God is millions of times MORE complex, thereby
requiring a CREATOR himself due to that fact. Who was God's creator? And if
you grant me that (and you won't), I'll ask who created him. Yes, it's the
logic circle of death. It has no answer. Someone had to be first, yet your
beliefs say that it's God. You can't prove God. I realize WE are here, maybe
first, maybe not. But at least I can use my five senses to study mankind. Is
the planet earth on the shelf of some Martian laboratory?? I have no idea.
But we have just as much chance and right of being first as you God does.
You claim one day he just "woke up" and found himself in existence? No, he
always was alive? Then why did he wait so long to create Jesus and then
people?? What did he do by himself for billions of years of eternity? Look
in a mirror? How did time begin? Did god create time? What was the world
like before time was created? How much "time" went by before he created
"time"? You see how it all goes? No answers. Just the WT's silly statements
and promises.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack May" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 03:14:04 PM |
|
|
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:NfcPg.3939$2P3.3336@trnddc02...
Jack May wrote:
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
Not when you find Siberian Mammoths still chewing on their food why they
were frozen to death. If the animals took a long time chewing on their
food, then they deserved to be extinct.
If this is true, the more likely reason is that they fell through the ice on
a lake. Falling though ice on a lake is a common occurrence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FireBirdBlue" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 03:34:34 PM |
|
|
Jack May wrote:
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:NfcPg.3939$2P3.3336@trnddc02...
Jack May wrote:
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
Not when you find Siberian Mammoths still chewing on their food why they
were frozen to death. If the animals took a long time chewing on their
food, then they deserved to be extinct.
If this is true, the more likely reason is that they fell through the ice on
a lake. Falling though ice on a lake is a common occurrence.
Most animals are familiar with their sourroundings. It part of thier
survival instinct.
How nay elephnats fall into lakes on a dialy basis?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack May" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 09:03:17 PM |
|
|
"FireBirdBlue" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158525274.168025.112340@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jack May wrote:
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:NfcPg.3939$2P3.3336@trnddc02...
Jack May wrote:
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
Not when you find Siberian Mammoths still chewing on their food why
they
were frozen to death. If the animals took a long time chewing on their
food, then they deserved to be extinct.
If this is true, the more likely reason is that they fell through the ice
on
a lake. Falling though ice on a lake is a common occurrence.
Most animals are familiar with their sourroundings. It part of thier
survival instinct.
How nay elephnats fall into lakes on a dialy basis?
We have a lot of mastodons that have been frozen in place and in the tar
pits. Animals in general die from a lot of mistakes. They understand
their environment, but not perfectly.
A good example is squirrels that when they are in danger crunch up to a
surface or tree to keep from being seen by hawks, etc. They also do the
same thing on the road when they see a car coming.
Bad mistakes = flat squirrels
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 01:20:16 PM |
|
|
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
There is a record. But that record you refuse to accept.
There is not enough water on earth or in its atmosphere to cover all the
land.
However I can put on my Atheist sombrero and say that the Black Sea
Stories are hog wash. Why should I accept those in lieu of the jewish one?
Bob Ballard (he who found Titanic) found substantial evidence of a Black
Sea flood. We are talking about seeing human dwelling structures
underwater and evidence how the Black Sea was once impounded and the
barrier holding it in gave way.
Old wives tales are not scientific evidence. Nothing in the Bible (or
the Q'ran or the I Ching) qualifies as scientific evidence.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 04:45:37 PM |
|
|
Bob Kolker wrote:
<snip>
Bob Ballard (he who found Titanic) found
substantial evidence of a Black Sea flood.
Bob Kolker:
No, he did not, and what you have written, below,
does not accord with what Ballard has said, written, or done.
He found some shells from mollusks that live in brackish water,
and some shells from mollusks that live in salty water,
and some pieces of wood, and some rocks,
and a flattish underwater strip that is probably an old coastline,
but none of that was evidence of a Black Sea flood.
We are talking about seeing human dwelling structures underwater
Maybe you are, but Ballard wasn't:
he called his Site 82 a "habitation site", and said that
the outline that seemed to be formed by
a succession of bumps on the sea floor
was reminiscent of
the outlines of foundations of structures seen on land nearby.
No structure, and certainly no "structures", were found by
Ballard's expeditions to the Black Sea.
The radiocarbon dates his people obtained from material
removed from his Site 82 indicated that
one piece of wood was from the Bronze Age
(well after everybody agrees the Black Sea was at, or above,
global sea level, and so not possibly associated with
a terrestrial dwelling at Site 82, except by accident) ,
and the other two from the Napoleonic Era
(suggestiong that, if the "habitation site" at Site 82
is indeed the result of human artifice, that it is the remains of
a shipwreck near the time of the Crimean War, or more recently).
and evidence how the Black Sea was once impounded and
the barrier holding it in gave way.
No, no, no, you've got it backwards:
Ballard was looking for an indication that
a barrier had restrained the global ocean from
entering the Black Sea, and that that barrier
holding oceanic seawater _OUT_ of the Black Sea
gave way, and flooded human settlements
more than 100 metres below modern sea level.
As it happens, there is no evidence that the Black Sea was ever
impounded by any barrier than the ones that exist today,
and no evidence that ocean water was ever restricted from entering
the Black Sea by any barrier other than those that exist today,
and thus no evidence for the giving-way of any barrier to water flow
into or out of the Black Sea at any time.
The radiocarbon dates on Ballard's shell samples indicated that
there was a gap centuries between
the latest brackish-water shell and
the earliest saltwater shell, which is
evidence of a gradual change in the salinity of Black Sea water,
exactly what would be expected after global sea level rose to
the level needed for it to slowly overflow into the Black Sea
through the Bosphorus Strait and eventually replace
the older brackish water of the Black Sea with salt water at
the -100 m level, after filling up the lower part of the Black Sea
basin,
and not evidence of a sudden flood at all.
Old wives tales are not scientific evidence. Nothing in the Bible
(or the Q'ran or the I Ching) qualifies as scientific evidence.
And you have not got the general idea of
the erroneous hypothesis that prompted Ballard to go on
a Quixotic quest for 7500-year-old settlements
deep under the surface of the Black Sea.
Nothing in what you have written above qualifies as
scientific information.
Ballard has publically admitted that
he did not find anything particularly interesting at Site 82.
He has not been back to Site 82 since removing the wood samples
for dating, although he has been back to the Turkish Black Sea coast.
If you want some Internet references to support what I've written,
ask for them here.
-
Daryl Krupa
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol-Basic" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 02:03:59 PM |
|
|
Bob Kolker wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
There is a record. But that record you refuse to accept.
There is not enough water on earth or in its atmosphere to cover all the
land.
You have some sort of scientific evidence for this?
However I can put on my Atheist sombrero and say that the Black Sea
Stories are hog wash. Why should I accept those in lieu of the jewish
one?
Bob Ballard (he who found Titanic) found substantial evidence of a Black
Sea flood. We are talking about seeing human dwelling structures
underwater and evidence how the Black Sea was once impounded and the
barrier holding it in gave way.
What next Atlantis? Do you have reference? I could say those dwelling
are pre-Noah flood.
Old wives tales are not scientific evidence. Nothing in the Bible (or
the Q'ran or the I Ching) qualifies as scientific evidence.
Bob Kolker
The Bible is not a scientific manual. But it does have evidence of many
things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack May" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 09:14:52 PM |
|
|
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:z_gPg.1224$wU4.802@trnddc06...
Bob Kolker wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
The Bible is not a scientific manual. But it does have evidence of many
things.
It is easy to prove the flood according to the Bible never happened. The
proof is in our genes.
If the only people that were left are the people that were on the Arc, that
extreme event would show up in the genes.
The National Geographic just did reach that tracked one genetic change that
happened 65K years ago. They tracked that all the way back to the one tribe
where the gene change started and propagated out from there. That tribe is
still there in the African rift valley and the associated hour program
interviewed that tribe.
That gene is the one that gave humans the ability be creative and innovative
which shaped the entire world. Before then, there were seldom any weapon
improvements are art on cave walls
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wendalin" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 11:36:00 PM |
|
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_72dnbscceSGnJPYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com...
That gene is the one that gave humans the ability be creative and
innovative which shaped the entire world. Before then, there were seldom
any weapon improvements are art on cave walls
You wont be finding that information in his Watchtower and Awake! magazines.
;-)
WE.........
"FireBirdBlue" aka "Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> sociopath Antonio
Santana JABRIOL (Jehovahs Witness) <Xabriol@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1158551441.028967.254230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Antonio Santana, Jehovahs Witness gives Usenet a fine Watchtower inspired
"Witness."
You can't even be a woman to your husband, and the sick poor soul has
to download porn so he can pop a boner with viagra.
==================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "FireBirdBlue" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
18 Sep 2006 04:47:14 AM |
|
|
Wendalin wrote:
You can't even be a woman to your husband, and the sick poor soul has
to download porn so he can pop a boner with viagra.
==================================================
Truth hurts doesn't it?
After all he is requesting it on the Internet and thus it a legit
solicitation
http://tinyurl.com/r5lex
http://tinyurl.com/hywe3
Carolyn and Randy Adamo Gulley
3245 North Lamar Road Mount Juliet TN 37122-7806
Phone 615-459-9345
Now watch how Carol goes Bonzai...These atheists have no hope. They
can't stand to be outed with the truth...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wendalin" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
18 Sep 2006 08:50:53 AM |
|
|
"FireBirdBlue" is JABRIOL <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158572834.416806.250730@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Truth hurts doesn't it?
It sure must hurt you like a b*tch to be exposed for the porn freak,
slanderer, pervert, child abuser and net stalker you are. It's eating your
guts out. Envying us for what we have is a sin. Your god said so.
Here's what the Watchtower Society teaches their followers - note constant
obsession and reference to sex in 95% of the above Jehovah's Witnesses
messages:
"FireBirdBlue" is Antonio Santana JABRIOL (Jehovahs Witness)
<Xabriol@gmail.com>
spewed more toxic waste in message
news:1158551441.028967.254230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Antonio Santana, Jehovahs Witness gives Usenet a fine Watchtower inspired
"Witness."
You can't even be a woman to your husband, and the sick poor soul has
to download porn so he can pop a boner with viagra.
You claim JW keep thier wives as slaves... Yet you were the slave of a
whole Biker gang, and they tore your innard and plague it with
disease... and you blame God as well.
One day when your rotting carcass is found on your trailer floor. we
will all know.. some will hold you accountable for your own actions in
life
=========================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "FireBirdBlue" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
18 Sep 2006 07:06:58 PM |
|
|
Wendalin wrote:
"FireBirdBlue" is JABRIOL <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158572834.416806.250730@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Truth hurts doesn't it?
It sure must hurt you like a b*tch to be exposed for the porn freak,
My name is not Randy Gulley. It was him using your HOTN account to
download porn. I remeber when you told Snooze it was a retard friend of
yours using your account. Is Randy a retard?
slanderer, pervert, child abuser and net stalker you are.
Am I...? As I recall, you was the one that file a false police report,
and you were outted by your own sheriff dept. Go ahead call them again,
you know they will put your lard as in Irons if you do.
? It's eating your
guts out.
LOL in comoparison to you who, has no guts at all. LOL.
Envying us for what we have is a sin. Your god said so.
I can't Envy what you don't have.
Here's what the Watchtower Society teaches their followers - note constant
obsession and reference to sex in 95% of the above Jehovah's Witnesses
messages:
I am was not the one that posted on the Net how the doctors gutted your
innard, and sex was painful...
It was you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 04:31:21 PM |
|
|
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
You have some sort of scientific evidence for this?
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor#Water_Vapor_Density
Measurements of vapor concentration are expressed as specific humidity
or percent relative humidity. The annual mean global concentration of
water vapor would yield about 25 mm of liquid water over the entire
surface of the Earth if it were to instantly condense. However, the mean
annual precipitation for the planet is about 1 meter, which indicates a
rapid turnover of water in the air.
[edit]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
end of quote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the water in the oceans, rivers, lakes, streams and ponds are
already at ground or sea level. To cover the earth we would need enough
water to pile up to a depth of 30,000 feet (the height of Everest or
K-2). But the water in the atmospher if it all condensed out at once
would produce a whopping 25 milimeters depth. So where is the rest of
the water? Assume a meter depth. The height of Everest is about 10
kilometers. Where is the rest of the water?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 04:12:00 PM |
|
|
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
The Bible is not a scientific manual. But it does have evidence of many
things.
Nothing in the Bible has any scientific validity as such. It would have
to be verified independently of Biblical sources. The Bible is a Book of
Tales, like Tolkien's -History of Middle Earth-.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wendalin" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 11:32:42 PM |
|
|
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4n5oivF8s65rU1@individual.net...
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
The Bible is not a scientific manual. But it does have evidence of many
things.
Nothing in the Bible has any scientific validity as such. It would have to
be verified independently of Biblical sources. The Bible is a Book of
Tales, like Tolkien's -History of Middle Earth-.
They dance around the questions as to how showing rods to animals in the act
of breeding produce striped young. Also as to how a ***** and a snake can
speak to humans.
WE........
"FireBirdBlue" aka Jabriol-Basic aka Antonio Santana JABRIOL (Jehovahs
Witness) <Xabriol@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1158551441.028967.254230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Antonio Santana, Jehovahs Witness gives Usenet a fine Watchtower inspired
"Witness."
You can't even be a woman to your husband, and the sick poor soul has
to download porn so he can pop a boner with viagra.
===================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
18 Sep 2006 02:52:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:41:01 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <NfcPg.3939$2P3.3336@trnddc02> wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Jabriol-Basic" <basic@blubber.es> wrote in message
news:r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists
found no trace of it?
There are multiple records of large floods, but no record of the entire
world being flooded or any mechanism to make a world wide flood possible.
There is a record. But that record you refuse to accept.
There is a document, many actually, making various claims about
various world-wide floods. It is a question of physical evidence,
though.
There are stories all around the Black Sea of a large flood, all about the
same time. That flood looks like it was caused by Mediterranean sea rising
and filling in the Black sea at a time when the present bottom was farm
land. The rising sea level was from melting glaciers at end of the ice age.
There is not a cluster of flood stories around the Black Sea. In fact,
initially the least sensible part of the Black Sea Flood claim was how
stories of that flood could somehow get to Mesopotamia. There is no
record of any significant movement of people in that direction at the
appropriate time. All the movement we know of goes in the other
direction.
However I can put on my Atheist sombrero and say that the Black Sea
Stories are hog wash. Why should I accept those in lieu of the jewish one?
Easy, look at the physical evidence and see what it says, don't trust
the stories and don't trust summaries of stories.
Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For
example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been
shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages.
But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of
water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is
being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Highly unlikely since difference in evidence between a world wide and local
flood would be monumentally different.
How so?
A local flood often leave evidence of where the flood topped out. For
example I was recently in Utah and went to Antelope Island (a "cool"
trip, even at 105 degrees). I stood there and look out at that flat
desolate valley. Then I noticed these "humps" on the near-by hill.
There were a series of very clear horizontal lines. I realized that I
was seeing the ancient shoreline of Lake Bonneville, several hundred
feet above the current lake levels. In addition with a world-wide
flood we would be able to date various floods around the world to the
same time.
Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At
one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked
their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North
America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world,
species of mammals became extinct.
That was caused by the big climate change at the end of the last ice age.
<At the same time, there was a
sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and
quick-frozen in Siberia.
You got it totally backwards. The climate change came first leading to the
extinction. You do realize I hope that these times can be easily measured
now with present technology. No need for wild guesses like yours.
Not when you find Siberian Mammoths still chewing on their food why they
were frozen to death. If the animals took a long time chewing on their
food, then they deserved to be extinct.
Except they were not "still chewing" their food.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html
Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of
Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have
been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. Many have argued that
this event was the Flood.
So what? We know a lot more now than was known way back then.
Or we may not know enough yet.
Sure, but that is not the way to bet. Maybe we are misreading the
Bible and it is really the instructions for a very complicated game
that is a cross between American profession football and cricket. It
is just not very likely.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 07:37:39 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:17:27 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists
found no trace of it?
Worse yet, why so much evidence that should not be there if the Earth
had flooded in the last 100,000 years? Why so many layers of ice in
Greenland and Antarctica? Why the large ice caps in the first place?
Why so much diversity of life? Why do we tend to find organisms where
we find fossils of their ancestors? For example we find sloth fossils
in North and Central America, just where we find sloths, but not in
Australia. But in Australia we find kangaroo fossils.
Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence
some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface
of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during
a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can
sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the
evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. You made the unsupported claim that
"apparent" glacial activity can be due to water, then suddenly jump to
a suggestion that, in effect, all evidence of glacial activity is due
to water. Not only is that logic false on the face of it, but it does
not help. There is clear, not "apparent" evidence of glacial activity
in particular areas and not in others.
Let me take an example you might know about, given that you live on
the East Coast of the U.S. Go and get a map of New York/New England.
See Long Island? See Cap Cod? Those are the edges of where the North
American Glacier was. Long Island/Cap Cod are the debris that the
glaciers pushed in front of them and dropped. (The break between Long
Island and Cap Cod is due to subsequent river action.) You can go and
look at the material and it is quite clear. You can also go to all
those U-shaped valleys in CT and see the gravel dropped by the
glaciers. That is absolutely not something that a flood would do. It
is actually pretty easy to distinguish between glaciers and floods,
that is why this was established science over *200* years ago. The ice
ages were investigated and accepted when creationism was the accepted
scientific position. It was ice ages, and not Darwin, that led people
to abandon the idea of a young Earth/Flood and go with an old Earth/no
Flood.
Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record.
At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers
stalked their prey in Europe,
Many times actually. Saber-toothed is something that has evolved
multiple times.
horses larger than any now living roamed
North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the
world, species of mammals became extinct.
Actually there is some evidence of various large die-offs of *large
mammals*. But not of other organisms. The die-offs then are nothing
like those of the K-T event or the great Permian extinction. Regarding
this extinction of the large mammals, there is an interesting debate
over the relative importance of climate change as opposed to human
action.
At the same time, there was a
sudden change of climate.
For what value of sudden? Over a small number of decades? Centuries?
What?
Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and
quick-frozen in Siberia.
They died when it was cold, not because it suddenly got cold. The
claim was that they somehow had fresh flowers in their gut, flowers
that do not grow in cold areas. Both parts are wrong: the food was not
fresh and those plants do grow near glaciers. Furthermore it is a
great big stretch to go from some sudden cold to a world-wide flood.
Sure, you can wave you hands and speak of this or that, but when you
look at the real world and real evidence it does not work. That much
rain would heat things up, not cool them down. Rain release heat when
it falls.
Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of
Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have
been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. Many have argued that
this event was the Flood.
But the evidence says otherwise. Wallace was wrong about this. No big
deal, people have been wrong about things. There is 150 of detailed
work following Wallace looking into such things. The only way to get
this to support a flood is to ignore massive amounts of evidence and
distort others.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol-Basic" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 08:58:19 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:17:27 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists
found no trace of it?
Worse yet, why so much evidence that should not be there if the Earth
had flooded in the last 100,000 years? Why so many layers of ice in
Greenland and Antarctica? Why the large ice caps in the first place?
Why so much diversity of life? Why do we tend to find organisms where
we find fossils of their ancestors? For example we find sloth fossils
in North and Central America, just where we find sloths, but not in
Australia. But in Australia we find kangaroo fossils.
Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence
some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface
of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during
a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can
sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the
evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. You made the unsupported claim that
"apparent" glacial activity can be due to water, then suddenly jump to
a suggestion that, in effect, all evidence of glacial activity is due
to water. Not only is that logic false on the face of it, but it does
not help. There is clear, not "apparent" evidence of glacial activity
in particular areas and not in others.
I don't see any glaciers in the tropics...
Let me take an example you might know about, given that you live on
the East Coast of the U.S. Go and get a map of New York/New England.
See Long Island? See Cap Cod? Those are the edges of where the North
American Glacier was. Long Island/Cap Cod are the debris that the
glaciers pushed in front of them and dropped. (The break between Long
Island and Cap Cod is due to subsequent river action.) You can go and
look at the material and it is quite clear. You can also go to all
those U-shaped valleys in CT and see the gravel dropped by the
glaciers. That is absolutely not something that a flood would do. It
is actually pretty easy to distinguish between glaciers and floods,
that is why this was established science over *200* years ago. The ice
ages were investigated and accepted when creationism was the accepted
scientific position. It was ice ages, and not Darwin, that led people
to abandon the idea of a young Earth/Flood and go with an old Earth/no
Flood.
Matt, the world has gotten smaller a during the asian Tsunami... How nay
millions of years did that take?
Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record.
At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers
stalked their prey in Europe,
Many times actually. Saber-toothed is something that has evolved
multiple times.
and just dissapeared in short order?
horses larger than any now living roamed
North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the
world, species of mammals became extinct.
Actually there is some evidence of various large die-offs of *large
mammals*. But not of other organisms. The die-offs then are nothing
like those of the K-T event or the great Permian extinction. Regarding
this extinction of the large mammals, there is an interesting debate
over the relative importance of climate change as opposed to human
action.
A debate? How nice.
At the same time, there was a
sudden change of climate.
For what value of sudden? Over a small number of decades? Centuries?
What?
few days?
Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and
quick-frozen in Siberia.
They died when it was cold, not because it suddenly got cold. The
claim was that they somehow had fresh flowers in their gut, flowers
that do not grow in cold areas. Both parts are wrong: the food was not
fresh and those plants do grow near glaciers.
What if their were no glacier near? and there was no cold area. That the
point that is being made.
Furthermore it is a
great big stretch to go from some sudden cold to a world-wide flood.
Sure, you can wave you hands and speak of this or that, but when you
look at the real world and real evidence it does not work. That much
rain would heat things up, not cool them down. Rain release heat when
it falls.
You know opinion on "Evidence"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 11:34:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:58:19 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <%vcPg.3941$2P3.228@trnddc02> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:17:27 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists
found no trace of it?
Worse yet, why so much evidence that should not be there if the Earth
had flooded in the last 100,000 years? Why so many layers of ice in
Greenland and Antarctica? Why the large ice caps in the first place?
Why so much diversity of life? Why do we tend to find organisms where
we find fossils of their ancestors? For example we find sloth fossils
in North and Central America, just where we find sloths, but not in
Australia. But in Australia we find kangaroo fossils.
Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence
some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface
of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during
a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can
sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the
evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. You made the unsupported claim that
"apparent" glacial activity can be due to water, then suddenly jump to
a suggestion that, in effect, all evidence of glacial activity is due
to water. Not only is that logic false on the face of it, but it does
not help. There is clear, not "apparent" evidence of glacial activity
in particular areas and not in others.
I don't see any glaciers in the tropics...
Ok. So what evidence do geologists see in the tropics that they say
came from glaciers? (There are glaciers in the tropics, btw. But look
quickly, they are retreating fast.)
Let me take an example you might know about, given that you live on
the East Coast of the U.S. Go and get a map of New York/New England.
See Long Island? See Cap Cod? Those are the edges of where the North
American Glacier was. Long Island/Cap Cod are the debris that the
glaciers pushed in front of them and dropped. (The break between Long
Island and Cap Cod is due to subsequent river action.) You can go and
look at the material and it is quite clear. You can also go to all
those U-shaped valleys in CT and see the gravel dropped by the
glaciers. That is absolutely not something that a flood would do. It
is actually pretty easy to distinguish between glaciers and floods,
that is why this was established science over *200* years ago. The ice
ages were investigated and accepted when creationism was the accepted
scientific position. It was ice ages, and not Darwin, that led people
to abandon the idea of a young Earth/Flood and go with an old Earth/no
Flood.
I want to point out that you have no response here to this evidence
pointing to glaciers and not a Flood. Don't get involved in other
issues, go and look. Look at the map, look at the rocks. If you
actually care stay focused.
Matt, the world has gotten smaller a during the asian Tsunami... How nay
millions of years did that take?
It got smaller by an itsy bitsy bit. Which is irrelevant. Please do
not argue for some strawman.
Now for those who don't get his reference Jabriol is trying to pretend
that we are back in some cartoon version of 18th century science (he
would probably not use those terms) and that the argument is between
some (nonsensical) uniformitarianism vs one particular notion of
catastrophism. His point, then, is to show that if one thing somehow
came from a "catastrophe", then all claims of catastrophe are correct.
This is nonsense now and distorts the 2-300 year old argument.
Modern science uses some of both ideas. Modern uniformitarianism says
that the *rules* are uniform across time. (And this is tested as well,
but that is a different topic.) Processes can occur at varying rates.
So a river can erode a little every day (uniform) and have yearly
floods and have 100 year floods and have 1000 year floods (no
implication of a cycle). But showing that a given river had a great
big flood does not show that there was once a world wide flood.
Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record.
At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers
stalked their prey in Europe,
Many times actually. Saber-toothed is something that has evolved
multiple times.
and just dissapeared in short order?
I don't think they all disappeared in short order.
horses larger than any now living roamed
North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the
world, species of mammals became extinct.
Actually there is some evidence of various large die-offs of *large
mammals*. But not of other organisms. The die-offs then are nothing
like those of the K-T event or the great Permian extinction. Regarding
this extinction of the large mammals, there is an interesting debate
over the relative importance of climate change as opposed to human
action.
A debate? How nice.
Yes, it is interesting. Very roughly speaking there is evidence that
when people come into an area the megafauna, the very large mammals,
die out. Suggests that people kill them off, right? Ah, but there is
also evidence that the climate in those areas was changing at that
time, maybe climate did it? Ah, but maybe the climate changes enabled
the people to enter the area. The evidence does not point clearly to
an single answer, so science does not have a clear answer. But that
does not mean it could point to a flood.
At the same time, there was a
sudden change of climate.
For what value of sudden? Over a small number of decades? Centuries?
What?
few days?
Nope. That is not what the evidence says.
Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and
quick-frozen in Siberia.
They died when it was cold, not because it suddenly got cold. The
claim was that they somehow had fresh flowers in their gut, flowers
that do not grow in cold areas. Both parts are wrong: the food was not
fresh and those plants do grow near glaciers.
What if their were no glacier near? and there was no cold area. That the
point that is being made.
And the point is wrong. These frozen mammoths, all of which were cold
weather animals, did not all die at the same time, they did not die
all of a sudden, they did not die from some sudden freeze. That is
based on garbled accounts of the evidence.
Furthermore it is a
great big stretch to go from some sudden cold to a world-wide flood.
Sure, you can wave you hands and speak of this or that, but when you
look at the real world and real evidence it does not work. That much
rain would heat things up, not cool them down. Rain release heat when
it falls.
You know opinion on "Evidence"
Yes. You like it when you think it says what you want. When you don't
like the results you claim it is interpretation. So go give us the
interpretation of the evidence that says it shows a Flood. Tell us how
a Flooded world leaves behind frozen mammoths *in place* still
*frozen*. Don't attack the scientific view, give your own.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol-Basic" |
|
| Title: Re: Flood legends was Re: TOBS: Science and the Future |
17 Sep 2006 01:49:44 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:58:19 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <%vcPg.3941$2P3.228@trnddc02> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:17:27 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <r%3Pg.1141$wU4.1082@trnddc06> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:47:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jabriol-Basic
<basic@blubber.es> in <WnSOg.140$uj3.136@trnddc08> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Jabriol-Basic wrote:
Prove it.
Why don't you prove your beliefs, anyway
There cannot have been a deluge that large, in the timescale given in
the babble. Varve formations date back over thirteen thousand years,
with every single year counted. The difference in types of
sedimentation would be extreme.
If it were true we would find a thin layer of oceanic sediments right
round the wearth, not especially deeply buried.
There is no such layer.
http://tinyurl.com/gnxma
So? That is someone's post regarding flood legends. It has nothing
meaningful to say about varve deposits.
If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists
found no trace of it?
Worse yet, why so much evidence that should not be there if the Earth
had flooded in the last 100,000 years? Why so many layers of ice in
Greenland and Antarctica? Why the large ice caps in the first place?
Why so much diversity of life? Why do we tend to find organisms where
we find fossils of their ancestors? For example we find sloth fossils
in North and Central America, just where we find sloths, but not in
Australia. But in Australia we find kangaroo fossils.
Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence
some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface
of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during
a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can
sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the
evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. You made the unsupported claim that
"apparent" glacial activity can be due to water, then suddenly jump to
a suggestion that, in effect, all evidence of glacial activity is due
to water. Not only is that logic false on the face of it, but it does
not help. There is clear, not "apparent" evidence of glacial activity
in particular areas and not in others.
I don't see any glaciers in the tropics...
Ok. So what evidence do geologists see in the tropics that they say
came from glaciers? (There are glaciers in the tropics, btw. But look
quickly, they are retreating fast.)
I will.
Let me take an example you might know about, given that you live on
the East Coast of the U.S. Go and get a map of New York/New England.
See Long Island? See Cap Cod? Those are the edges of where the North
American Glacier was. Long Island/Cap Cod are the debris that the
glaciers pushed in front of them and dropped. (The break between Long
Island and Cap Cod is due to subsequent river action.) You can go and
look at the material and it is quite clear. You can also go to all
those U-shaped valleys in CT and see the gravel dropped by the
glaciers. That is absolutely not something that a flood would do. It
is actually pretty easy to distinguish between glaciers and floods,
that is why this was established science over *200* years ago. The ice
ages were investigated and accepted when creationism was the accepted
scientific position. It was ice ages, and not Darwin, that led people
to abandon the idea of a young Earth/Flood and go with an old Earth/no
Flood.
I want to point out that you have no response here to this evidence
pointing to glaciers and not a Flood. Don't get involved in other
issues, go and look. Look at the map, look at the rocks. If you
actually care stay focused.
I think the glacier were formed by a rapid climate change. same evidence
different theory.
Matt, the world has gotten smaller a during the asian Tsunami... How nay
millions of years did that take?
It got smaller by an itsy bitsy bit. Which is irrelevant. Please do
not argue for some strawman.
Not a strawman, and you know better. The globe became tiny in a few
seconds, cause a major disaster in the indian ocean. The only reason you
agree with it, because we were both alive when this event occur. We
witness it. And it is major event, that may occur again. Many scientist
believe if a meteor fell in the right place our climate will change very
quickly, not in millions of years.
And that is my basis for a global event like the flood. Not mystical
Mumbo Jumbo.
check out this article http://miac.uqac.ca/MIAC/impactearth.htm
sudden change of climate.
For what value of sudden? Over a small number of decades? Centuries?
What?
few days?
Nope. That is not what the evidence says.
Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and
quick-frozen in Siberia.
They died when it was cold, not because it suddenly got cold. The
claim was that they somehow had fresh flowers in their gut, flowers
that do not grow in cold areas. Both parts are wrong: the food was not
fresh and those plants do grow near glaciers.
What if their were no glacier near? and there was no cold area. That the
point that is being made.
And the point is wrong. These frozen mammoths, all of which were cold
weather animals, did not all die at the same time, they did not die
all of a sudden, they did not die from some sudden freeze. That is
based on garbled accounts of the evidence.
I see you have certain disagreements with "evidence" eh? Welcome aboard
my ship.
here is an interesting read on "evidence"
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/DINO.htm
So how did all these animals die? Especially known to Cuvier was the
frozen mammoth found near the mouth of the Lena River in 1799. Seven
years later, a botanist, Adams, on tour in Siberia, retrieved it for the
Russian Academy of Sciences. By that time, most of it had thawed and
much of the animal's flesh had been eaten by dogs, polar bears, wolves,
wolverines, and foxes. About all that remained were a frozen foreleg,
some hair and wool, and the bones. The Adams mammoth, an earlier frozen
woolly rhinoceros, the large supply of fossil ivory for export, and
other evidences, convinced Cuvier that the megacatastrophe that befell
the mammoths and other Pleistocene animals was sudden and intense.(6)
Furthermore it is a
great big stretch to go from some sudden cold to a world-wide flood.
Not really.
Sure, you can wave you hands and speak of this or that, but when you
look at the real world and real evidence it does not work. That much
rain would heat things up, not cool them down. Rain release heat when
it falls.
You know opinion on "Evidence"
Yes. You like it when you think it says what you want. When you don't
like the results you claim it is interpretation. So go give us the
interpretation of the evidence that says it shows a Flood. Tell us how
a Flooded world leaves behind frozen mammoths *in place* still
*frozen*. Don't attack the scientific view, give your own.
Hardcore scientists do the exact same thing. So do judges, juries, and
common people. Piltdown man is a prime example. OJ Simpson trial was
another.
I am not attacking the scientific view, I am using it.
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
