Gensis: Accurate account?

Religions > Bible > Gensis: Accurate account?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	""
Date:	25 Aug 2003 07:20:14 AM
Object:	Gensis: Accurate account?

All,
one of the most contreversial biblical books in the endless debate on the
origin of life and evolution is Genesis however many do not understand it
in the porper way, including creationist (6dayquikie guys and gals
) the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.
Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth
Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries
in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun,
and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an
earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a
‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that
dominates the night.’—Genesis 1:14-18. The first part of Genesis
indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before
the first Genesis “day".
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	25 Aug 2003 10:59:52 PM

"Ted Holden" <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:GD6dnVGNUZjHS9eiXTWJjA@fcc.net...

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

< unmarked snip by Ted here >

Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?

http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html

Ah, Ted, as you know, anyone can write an article, anyone can make
claims and anyone can put up a web site.
I am not interested in being referred to YOUR web site as if that ends
the matter. It does not.
I challenged you to debate the issue.
Are you game? Or will you run...again?
< more unmarked snippage by Ted here >
< snip of my own - Ted's web site advertising and pretentious .sig >
.

User: "Ted Holden"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	26 Aug 2003 12:18:11 AM

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?

http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html

The basic problem: it's simply not close to obvious that you know anything
at all about this sort of topic or would be any more capable of holding up
your own end of such a debate than PeeWee Johnson would be of holding up
his end of a fight with Joe Louis.
Charles Ginenthal is a sort of an expert on the topic. The claim that there
is no hard evidence for one or more global floods is basically ignorant;
there's mountains of such evidence.
It has always seemed obvious to me in fact that the continental shelves are
basically just the pre-flood ocean boundaries. They appear in formation to
be similar to what we see on our own continents:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860098.html
There is simply more water on the Earth now than there ever was before the
time of Noah. The areas we live in now would have been viewed as plateaus
before the (Noachian) flood and sparsely inhabited if inhabited at all.
Much of human settlement from prior to that event has to be below the waves
at present and in fact scientists are presently finding cities beneath the
waves:
http://www.lightwatcher.com/old_lightbytes/underwatercity.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_1697000/1697565.stm
A city 2000' beneath the waves off Cuba amounts to evidence of a global
flood, and of the fact that the waters of that flood haven't gone anywhere
since then but are still right out there off the coasts of Virginia, the
Carolinas, Georgia, Florida etc. etc.
Also citable as evidence of either global floods or something similar and
just as bad are the muck deposits which cover much of Canada, Alaska,
andSiberia, and the condition in which we find the bones of pleistocene
animals and forest remains in that muck. The muck deposits are over a mile
deep in places if memory serves and appear to be the remains of a former
world age which has simply beeen turned over in the ground, as if by the
hand of a giant farmer using a giant plow.
Vine Deloria ("Red Earth, White Lies") describes the evidence of the mammoth
extinctions in North America:
##########################################################################
In even the most prejudiced murder trial there is one essential element:
there has to have been a killing. Fancy legal terminology generally
requires a body the corpus delictus as the TV detec- tive shows are fond of
telling us. It would seem reasonable, if one was to promulgate a theory of
blitzkrieg slaughter as have Martin and Diamond, to identiiy where the
bodies are buried and then take the reader on a gut-wrenching tour through
a graveyard of waste and butchery. We are deprived of this vicarious thrill
because the evidence of the destruction of the megafiuna suggests a
scenario well outside the orthodox interpretation of benign natural
processes. Therefore mere mention of the reality of the situation is
anathema to most scholars. So let us see what the actual situation is.
The first explorers of the northern shores of Siberia and its offshore
northern islands and of the interior of Alaska, and some of its northern
islands, were stunned to discover an astro- nomical number of bones of
prehistoric animals piled indis- criminately in hills and buried in the
ground. The graveyards of these animals were classified as "antediluvian"
(prior to Noah's flood) by the majority of scientists and laypeople alike
who still believed the stories of the Old Testament. Near these grave-
yards, incidentally, but located in riverbanks on the northern shore of
Siberia, are found the famous Siberian mammoths whose flesh was supposedly
edible when thawed.
Reading an extensive set of quotations is always tedious to readers but I
hope you will bear with me in this chapter be- cause it is only in the
repetition of the reports of the discoveries of these areas that the entire
picture of the demise of the mam- moths and other creatures really becomes
clear. These Siberian remains are not the thousands of mammoth bones which
Jared Diamond thinks are searched frantically by archaeologists seek- ing
signs of human butchering. It is doubtful that any archaeol- ogists or
paleontologists have made extensive studies of the skeletons in these
locations or we would certainly have a far different view of megafauna
extinction than is presently ac- ceptable to orthodox scholars.
Russian expeditions to Siberia and the northern islands of the Arctic Ocean
began in the latter half of the eighteenth cen- tury, and with the
discovery of these large mounds of animal bones, most prominently the tusks
of mammoths and other herbivores, franchises were given to enterprising
people who could harvest the ivory for the world market. Liakoff seems to
have been the first iniportant ivory trader and explorer in the late
eighteenth century. After his death the Russian govern- ment gave a monopo~
to a businessman in Yakutsk who sent his agent, Sannikofi, to explore the
islands and locate additional sources of ivory. Sannikoff's discoveries of
more islands and his reports on the animal remains found there are the best
firsthand accounts of the Siberian animal graveyards.
Hedenstrom explored the area in 1809 and reported back on the richness of
the ivory tusks. Sannikoff discovered the island of Kotelnoi, which is
apparently the richest single location, in 1811. Finally, the czar decided
to send an official expedition and from 1820 to 1823, Admiral Ferdinand
Wrangell, then a young naval lieutenant, did a reasonably complete survey
of the area. Since these expeditions and explorations were inspired by
commercial interests and not scientific curiosity; the reports are entirely
objective with no ideological or doctrinal bias to slant the interpretation
of the finds.
Around the turn of the century interest in the Siberian is- lands seems to
have increased, whether as a result of the few Christian fundamentalists
who were not reconciled to evolu- tion frantically searching for tangible
proof of Noah's flood, or as part of the leisure activities of the English
gendemen of the time, we can't be sure. The definitive article on the
Siberian prehistoric animal remains was written by the Reverend D. Gath
Whitley and published by the Philosophical Society of Great Britain under
the title "The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean." It drew on older
sources, primarily reports of expedi- tions of the ivory traders, and
captured the spectacular nature of the discoveries well.
Liakoff discovered, on an island that now bears his name, rather substantial
cliffs composed primarily of frozen sand and hundreds of elephant tusks.
Later, when the Russian govern- ment sent a surveyor, Chwoinoff, to the
island he reported that, with the exception of son~e high mountains, the
island seemed to be composed of ice and sand and bones and tusks of ele-
phants (or mammoths) which were simply cemented together by the
cold.Whitley reported:
Sannikoff explored Kotelnoi, and found that this large
island was full of the bones and teeth of elephants, rhi-
noceroses, and musk-oxen. Having explored the coasts,
Sannikoff determined, as there was nothing but bar-
renness along the shore, to cross the island. He drove in
reindeer sledges up the Czarina River, over the hills,
and down the Sannikoff River, and completed the cir-
cuit of the island.All over the hills in the interior of the
island Sannikoff found the bones and tusks of ele-
phants, rhinoceroses, buffaloes, and horses in such vast
numbers, that he concluded that these animals must
have lived in the island in enormous herds, when the
climate was milder.5
Hedenstrom explored Liakoff's island in 1809 and discov- ered that". .. the
quantity of fossil ivory . . . was so enormous, that, although the ivory
diggers had been engaged in collecting ivory from it for forty years, the
supply seemed to be quite undiminished. On an expanse of sand little more
than half a mile in extent, Hedenstrom saw ten tusks of mammoths stick- ing
up, and as the ivory hunters had left these tusks because there were still
other places where the remains of mammoths were still more abundant, the
enormous quantities of elephants' tusks and bones in the island may be
imagined?' Indeed, a number of explorers reported that after each ocean
storm the beaches were littered with bones and tusks which had been ly- ing
on the sea bottom and brought to shore by wave action.
The elephant or mammoth bones and tusks were the most spectacular finds
primarily because they were so plentiful and consequently they attracted
public attention the most. The is- lands contained an incredible mixture of
bones of many extinct and some living species of mammals. Mixed with the
animal bones were trees in all kinds of conditions. Whitley quoted some of
the Russian explorers as reporting "it is only in the lower strata of the
New Siberian wood-hills that the trunks have that position which they would
assume in swimming or sinking undisturbed. On the summit of the hills they
lie flung upon 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?'7
A few conclusions can be drawn from the reports of the Russian ivory
traders. First, it appeared that several reasonably large islands were
built primarily of animal bones, heaped in massive hills and held together
by frozen sand. To indicate the scope of the debris, we should note that
all of these islands are found on modern maps of the area, indicating that
we are not talking about little tracts of land of limited area. Second, the
sea floor north of Siberia and surrounding the islands was covered with so
many additional bones that it was worthwhile for the ivory traders to check
the beaches after every storm to gather up tusks and other bones.
Third, and very important for estimating the scope of the disaster, the
ivory was of outstanding quality, so much so that the area provided most of
the world's ivory for over a century. Estimates of the number of tusks
taken from the islands range in the neighborhood of 100,000 pairs taken
between the 1770s and the 1900s. Whitley noted that Sannikoff himself had
brought away 10,000 pounds of fossil ivory from New Siberia Island alone in
1809.9- In reality; however, only about a quarter of the ivory was of
commercial grade, so the true figure must approach half a million pairs of
tusks.
Fourth, an amazing variety of animals, many extinct, were mixed with the
mammoth and rhinoceros bones, although these two animals have become
symbolic of the whole menagerie. Fifth, trees, plants, and other floral
materials were in- discriminately mixed with the animal remains, sometimes
lead- ing the Russians to suppose that the islands represented a sunken
isthmus or broad stretch of land where these animals and the companion
plants lived in a warmer climate. The chaotic na- ture of stratification of
the remains soon abused that notion.
Finally, it is important to note that none of the bones of any of the
species had carving or butchering marks made by human beings. N.
K.Vereshchagin wrote: "The accumulations of mam- moth bones and carcasses
of mammoth, rhinoceros, and bison found in frozen ground in Indigirka,
Kolyma, and Novosibirsk lands bear no trace of hunting or activity of
primitive man. Here large herbivorous animals perished and became extinct
because of climatic and geomorphic changes, especially changes in the
regime of winter snow and increase in depth of snow cover."9 The "climatic
and geomorphic changes" must have been very sudden indeed and exceedingly
violent, consid- ering the fact that these bones are always described as
"heaps" of material deposited as if they had been thrown into a pile by an
incredibly strong force.
The testimony regarding the richness of the animal remains in the Arctic
north of the continental masses is not restricted to Russian sources.
Stephen Taber, writing in his report "Perenni- ally Frozen Ground in
Alaska: Its Origins and History," had this to say about the Siberian
islands:
Pfizenmayer [citation omittedj states that in the New Siberia island
collectors have "found inexhaustible sup- plies of mammoth bones and tusks
as well as bones and horns of rhinoceros and other diluvial mammals"; and
Dr. Bunge, during expeditions in the summers of 1882-1884, "gathered almost
two thousand five hun- dred first class mammoth tusks on the new Siberian
is- lands of Lyakhov; Kotelnyi, and Fadeyev;" although many collectors had
previously obtained ivory from the islands since their discovery in 1770 by
Lyakhov.~~
It would seem obvious to anyone seriously pursuing the question of the
demise of the mammoth and the other mega- herbivores that a good place to
locate the bodies to determine the cause of their demise would be the
islands north of the Siberian peninsula. Yet we hear not a word about them
in sci- entific articles and books concerning the overkill hypothesis.
When we inquire if the Alaskan area has similar deposits, we learn that the
situation is the same. Early gold miners in Alaska discovered that in many
cases they had to strip off a strange de- posit popularly called "muck" in
order to get to the gold-bearing gravels.The muck was simply a frozen
conglomerate of trees and plants, sand and gravels, some volcanic ash, and
thousands if not milhons of bits of broken bones representing a wide
variety of late Pleistocene and modern animals and plants.
Two scholars describe the scenes of destruction and chaos which the muck
represents. Frank Hibben, in an article survey- ing the evidence of early
man in Alaska, said that while the for- mation of muck was not clear,". . .
there is ample evidence that at least portions of this material were
deposited under cata- strophic conditions. Mammal remains are for the most
part dis- membered and disarticulated, even though some fragments yet
retain in this frozen state, portions of llgaments, skin, hair, and flesh.
Twisted and torn trees are piled in splintered masses con- centrated in
what must be regarded as ephemeral canyons or arroyo cuts."'1
Stephen Taber's report echoes the same conditions. He says: "Fossil bones
are astonishingly abundant in frozen ground of Alaska, but articulated
bones are scarce, and complete skeletons, except for rodents that died in
their burrows, are almost un- known."'2 Many laypeople will be confused by
this technical language and fail to grasp what Taber is saying, allowing
him to imply a benign orthodox interpretation when the situation re- quires
that a clearer picture be drawn.
When a scholar says "articulation" of bones he means an arrangement of bones
that a person observing them would identify as a complete skeleton and from
which an experienced observer could identify the species.To say that
articulated bones are scarce, then, means that the bones are scattered and
mixed so badly that expert examination is needed to idemify even the bone
itself, let alone the species from which it comes. Remem- ber this problem
of articulation, for we shall meet it again in another context. Taber
concludes with the observation that "the dispersal of the bones is as
striking as their abundance and indicates general destruction of soft parts
prior to burial."13 In other words,Alaskan muck is a gigantic pile of bones
represent- ing a bewildering number of species, a good number of them the
megafauna I have been discussing.
We find the missing megafauna of the late Pleistocene in the Siberian
islands, in the islands north ofAlaska, and in the muck in the Alaskan
interior. Obviously we have here victims of an immense catastrophe which
swept continents and left the de- bris in the far northern latitudes piled
in jumbled masses that now form decent-sized islands. Most anthropologists
and ar- chaeologists avoid discussing these deposits because the ortho- dox
uniformitarian interpretation of the natural processes precludes sudden
unpredictable actions.
Paul Martin, in private correspondence with me in June 1993, stated flatly
that the mammoths could not have been de- stroyed by any such force or
event.14 The sole basis he gave for that conclusion was radiocarbon dating
of mammoth remains in the Siberian and Alaskan muck. I will have more to
say about the reliability of radiocarbon dating below but if we were to
accept his argument, then we would have to create a scenario where
Paleo-Indians kill all these animals without leaving a trace of a spear
point or hatchet blade, drag the carcasses out to sea some 150 miles north
ofAlaska, and dispose of the evidence of their misdeeds. Here friendly
wolves would not be much help.
Although Martin maintains that his thesis explains the disap- pearance of
the megafauna, his argument really centers on the loss of three species:
mammoths, mastodons, and ground sloths, with an occasional reference to
horses and camels that makes it appear as if the important species have
been covered. But overkill avoids asking about the possibly half-million
mammoth skeletons lying frozen in the Arctic regions because that would
completely negate the theory.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '

Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	28 Aug 2003 01:36:25 PM

< Ted has again set follow-ups ONLY to s.a.p. - this reply will appear
in all appropriate groups as part of the original thread >
"ted holden" <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:H-OcnSBJ57Ox39OiXTWJjQ@fcc.net...

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

And then you contradict yourself, Ted:

The only
doctoring of groups I've ever done on any of these threads is to
eliminate talk.origins because talk.origins is often hosed somehow or
other and including it sends posts into never-never land.

Two things. First, obviously you didn't just reply to other posters,
then.

Right?

Second, talk.origins was never a newsgroup in this thread. Here's the
first message in the thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3240111624d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=20030825.052100.24234.19022%40webmail17.nyc.untd.com

See talk.origins anywhere in there, Ted?

I said [on any of these threads]. Not just this one. You basically accused
me of something I've never done.

No, I accused you of something you DID do, and I proved you did it.
No one with an ounce of sense is going to buy your weaseling, Ted.
You tried a dishonest tactic, you were caught at it and, as usual, you
don't have the integrity to own up to it.
Not only that, but you did it again - followups were again set to
s.a.p. only.
Why was that, Ted? Was it so that replies would be seen only in a
newsgroup that you don't read or participate in?
Bad news, Ted? *I* read s.a.p.
What you are trying is subterfuge. You were caught. You'll keep
doing it NOW to presume to save face.
But you've been exposed.

Other than that, I still see zero evidence of you actually knowing anything
at all about geology or any of the topics under discussion here or of being
able to hold up your end of anything resembling a debate. All I see coming
from you is rhetoric and sophistry.

I've already responded to all of this, Ted. I have asked you specific
questions about your claims that you have dodged and I've cited a
couple of facts that directly contradict - if not outright falsify -
other assertions you have made.
And I'm not done with you, Ted.
Since there's been very little in the way of supported facts on either
side (mostly because you are dodging the burden of proof for your
claims), it's too early to say who knows what in this "debate," but
I'll grant that it's not much of a debate when all YOU can do is make
assertions about which you later avoid the burden of proof.

Other people I've gotten into debates with have at least put forth the
effort to come up with alternate explanations or provide counterarguments,
however lame. With you, I don't even see the effort. As the democrats
would say, there doesn't seem to be any "there" there...

Who are you trying to convince, Ted?
I've put up several questions and comments - all of which you have
dodged.
With respect to your claims about a global flood (of which you are now
vacillating - I'll deal with that later), what are the specific
credentials of your "expert," Charles Ginenthal, why does the city
found 2,000 feet under the water show that there was a GLOBAL flood,
and why don't we find many such cities if there was a GLOBAL flood?
Those are pertinent questions, Ted, and there were other such
questions besides - all directly topical and related to the claims you
made.
You are making excuses and attempting to dodge them.

Take the question of muck deposits which I've sited as evidence of cosmic
disasters for instance. Your non-response:

"I can appreciate the imagery as much as anyone, Ted, but why aren't
the commonly forwarded explanations sufficient to explain this? Why
must you invoke a Flood for which there is NO evidence?

amounts to nothing more than rhetoric. There ISN'T any commonly forwarded
explanation for the muck deposits.

I planned to refute this later, Ted, but since you brought it up (it's
the only thing you've asserted that I haven't answered - YET), define
"muck" for me in some scientifically meaningful way.
Ted, as usual for you phonies and science haters, you have dodged all
of the responses and found the one that I haven't answered (again,
YET) and you want to exploit that in an attempt to misdirect from the
fact that you haven't really answered anything intelligently or with
anything more than pathetic references to web sites.

If you can think of one, you need to
get it published in one of some peer-reviewed geological journal which
takes submissions from lawyers; nobody else has one.

Well, the fact is that there are explanations for what we see in the
geological record; and those explanations can be found in
first-semester science texts.
But it is hard to answer, I'll admit, when you use vague and
unspecific language and make no specific references.

Again, all I see in your posts are rhetoric, accusations, and name calling.

All this does, Ted, is add "hypocrite" to your list of "talents."

Why would anybody want to get involved in a "debate" like that?

I suspect that this is true; and it's why you engage in these things
rather regularly.
The fact, Ted, is that you use rhetoric, accusations and name calling
almost constantly. When you are challenged on specifics, you run
away. When THAT doesn't work, you toss a few posts at others
suggesting that they do what you (claim to) do, and that's ignore the
poster. Then you try a few tricks with a Google search and
demonstrate that your research skills are so lacking, you can' even
get THAT right (how many people have I called a liar and/or a coward,
Ted? Was it 84,000? Was it about 500?). Then you whine about being
stalked (I wonder what Harry Hope would have to say about that) and
when none of that works, you try to PRETEND to debate the issues, but
as soon as you are challenged on specifics, you whine about the lack
of knowledge of your opposition and complain about "rhetoric,"
"accusations" and "name calling."
No one is going to be fooled, Ted. The facts are very simple. If you
want to complain about credentials, I've said that I have advanced
degrees in business, law and history - certainly mostly irrelevant to
our discussions. I have no problem admitting that while I note that
you have never, in all the years I've been reading, posted YOUR
credentials. So your arguments about that are moot. We're a couple
of laypeople and we're discussing (however acrimoniously on your part)
issues about which neither of us is an expert.
Regardless, I'm going to stomp you into the dirt; and there isn't a
thing you can do about it.
.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	28 Aug 2003 09:53:37 AM

< alt.talk.creationism, alt.bible, alt.atheism restored >
"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<LYH2b.102136$2x.30621@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...

"Ted Holden" <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:Sx-cnX454cfrcteiXTWJiQ@fcc.net...

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?

http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html

The basic problem: it's simply not close to obvious that you know

anything

at all about this sort of topic or would be any more capable of holding up
your own end of such a debate than PeeWee Johnson would be of holding up
his end of a fight with Joe Louis.

You're not nearly as intimidating as you think you are.

< snip >
You might want to watch out for old Ted here, Geoff. He's pulled a
fast one on you and a couple of others in the thread.
Your reply only appeared in sci.anthropology.paleo. That happened
because Ted had set the follow-ups to appear only in that group.
But Ted doesn't read sci.anthropology.paleo.
It's one of his more dishonest tactics, you see. Fewer see the
refutations directed at him this way. Ted is Usenet-savvy enough to
know that most who reply to him will blow it off if they refute his
claims or challenge is assertions and don't get an answer; and those
who read and participate in the groups in which Ted is present never
see those answers and challenges, so he creates for himself a false
image of invincibility.
Just FYI. If you're going to deal with the likes of a Ted Holden, you
have to be aware of these tactics.
.

User: "Snubis"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	02 Feb 2004 06:15:22 PM

On Thu 28 Aug 2003 09:53:37a,

(David
Sienkiewicz) wrote in
news:35fa3772.0308280653.3942a238@posting.google.com:

< alt.talk.creationism, alt.bible, alt.atheism restored >

"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<LYH2b.102136$2x.30621@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...

"Ted Holden" <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:Sx-cnX454cfrcteiXTWJiQ@fcc.net...

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply
no hard evidence for it?

http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html

The basic problem: it's simply not close to obvious that you know

anything

at all about this sort of topic or would be any more capable of
holding up your own end of such a debate than PeeWee Johnson would be
of holding up his end of a fight with Joe Louis.

You're not nearly as intimidating as you think you are.

< snip >

You might want to watch out for old Ted here, Geoff. He's pulled a
fast one on you and a couple of others in the thread.

Your reply only appeared in sci.anthropology.paleo. That happened
because Ted had set the follow-ups to appear only in that group.

But Ted doesn't read sci.anthropology.paleo.

It's one of his more dishonest tactics, you see. Fewer see the
refutations directed at him this way. Ted is Usenet-savvy enough to
know that most who reply to him will blow it off if they refute his
claims or challenge is assertions and don't get an answer; and those
who read and participate in the groups in which Ted is present never
see those answers and challenges, so he creates for himself a false
image of invincibility.

Just FYI. If you're going to deal with the likes of a Ted Holden, you
have to be aware of these tactics.

Whatever, cretin.
--
€
.

User: "firstjois"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	02 Feb 2004 06:49:39 PM

This is off topic for sci.anthropology.paleo, please remove the newsgroup
from this discussion.
Thanks,
Jois
"Snubis" <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:98c740ffdb2eaf272b95babd9efbd953@news.teranews.com...
: On Thu 28 Aug 2003 09:53:37a,

(David
: Sienkiewicz) wrote in
: news:35fa3772.0308280653.3942a238@posting.google.com:
:
: > < alt.talk.creationism, alt.bible, alt.atheism restored >
: >
: > "Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
: > news:<LYH2b.102136$2x.30621@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
: >> "Ted Holden" <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message
: >> news:Sx-cnX454cfrcteiXTWJiQ@fcc.net...
: >> > David Sienkiewicz wrote:
: >> >
: >> >
: >> > >> > Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply
: >> > >> > no hard evidence for it?
: >> > >>
: >> > >> http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html
: >> > >
: >> > > Ah, Ted, as you know, anyone can write an article, anyone can make
: >> > > claims and anyone can put up a web site.
: >> > >
: >> > > I am not interested in being referred to YOUR web site as if that
: >> > > ends the matter. It does not.
: >> > >
: >> > > I challenged you to debate the issue.
: >> >
: >> > The basic problem: it's simply not close to obvious that you know
: >> anything
: >> > at all about this sort of topic or would be any more capable of
: >> > holding up your own end of such a debate than PeeWee Johnson would
be
: >> > of holding up his end of a fight with Joe Louis.
: >>
: >> You're not nearly as intimidating as you think you are.
: >
: > < snip >
: >
: > You might want to watch out for old Ted here, Geoff. He's pulled a
: > fast one on you and a couple of others in the thread.
: >
: > Your reply only appeared in sci.anthropology.paleo. That happened
: > because Ted had set the follow-ups to appear only in that group.
: >
: > But Ted doesn't read sci.anthropology.paleo.
: >
: > It's one of his more dishonest tactics, you see. Fewer see the
: > refutations directed at him this way. Ted is Usenet-savvy enough to
: > know that most who reply to him will blow it off if they refute his
: > claims or challenge is assertions and don't get an answer; and those
: > who read and participate in the groups in which Ted is present never
: > see those answers and challenges, so he creates for himself a false
: > image of invincibility.
: >
: > Just FYI. If you're going to deal with the likes of a Ted Holden, you
: > have to be aware of these tactics.
:
: Whatever, cretin.
:
:
: --
: ?
.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	28 Aug 2003 12:02:21 PM

"ted holden" <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:SIecncd3jebsrdOiU-KYvw@fcc.net...

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

Your reply only appeared in sci.anthropology.paleo. That happened
because Ted had set the follow-ups to appear only in that group.

But Ted doesn't read sci.anthropology.paleo.

It's one of his more dishonest tactics, you see....

All I've done with this thread is replyy to other posters.

And then you contradict yourself, Ted:

The only
doctoring of groups I've ever done on any of these threads is to eliminate
talk.origins because talk.origins is often hosed somehow or other and
including it sends posts into never-never land.

Two things. First, obviously you didn't just reply to other posters,
then.
Right?
Second, talk.origins was never a newsgroup in this thread. Here's the
first message in the thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3240111624d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=20030825.052100.24234.19022%40webmail17.nyc.untd.com
See talk.origins anywhere in there, Ted?
Here's your first reply in the thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Q_WdnVaR5esjjdeiXTWJkw%40fcc.net&output=gplain
I don't see talk.origins referenced there, either, Ted, but you did
set followups only to sci.anthropology.paleo. See this line:
Followup-To: sci.anthropology.paleo
Here's my first reply to you in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3240111624d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35fa3772.0308251923.2f83a952%40posting.google.com
Here's your response:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=GD6dnVGNUZjHS9eiXTWJjA%40fcc.net&output=gplain
Note the follow-up line in the header.
You've done this in every reply to me in this thread, even as "bob
johnson."
Resetting follow-ups in such a way is dishonest, Ted. You attempted
deception on the readers.
That's lying, Ted; but you already know that I have no respect for you
largely because of your lack of personal and intellectual integrity.
For example, I'm STILL waiting to hear about modern cars that don't
pollute, your explanation for the appearance of teeth in baleen whale
embryos and, of course, these questions from THIS thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1910800237d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35fa3772.0308262108.4e728aed%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1910800237d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35fa3772.0308262114.6051818%40posting.google.com&rnum=20
All you've done is duck, dodge, shuck and jive - and try your normal
abrasive tactics.
It hasn't worked, Ted. You've shown precisely what I've been saying
all along: You're an intellectual lightweight who never met a
pseudoscience he didn't love.

There are better things in life to be paranoid over.

Hardly paranoid, Ted. It's a little hard to apply the definition of
paranoia to someone who spends most of his Usenet time running from
me.
I'm just doing what I do best: Exposing a fraud.
.

User: "ted holden"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	28 Aug 2003 02:55:52 PM

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

And then you contradict yourself, Ted:

Two things. First, obviously you didn't just reply to other posters,
then.

Right?

Second, talk.origins was never a newsgroup in this thread. Here's the
first message in the thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3240111624d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=20030825.052100.24234.19022%40webmail17.nyc.untd.com

See talk.origins anywhere in there, Ted?

I said [on any of these threads]. Not just this one. You basically accused
me of something I've never done.
Other than that, I still see zero evidence of you actually knowing anything
at all about geology or any of the topics under discussion here or of being
able to hold up your end of anything resembling a debate. All I see coming
from you is rhetoric and sophistry.
Other people I've gotten into debates with have at least put forth the
effort to come up with alternate explanations or provide counterarguments,
however lame. With you, I don't even see the effort. As the democrats
would say, there doesn't seem to be any "there" there...
Take the question of muck deposits which I've sited as evidence of cosmic
disasters for instance. Your non-response:
"I can appreciate the imagery as much as anyone, Ted, but why aren't
the commonly forwarded explanations sufficient to explain this? Why
must you invoke a Flood for which there is NO evidence?
amounts to nothing more than rhetoric. There ISN'T any commonly forwarded
explanation for the muck deposits. If you can think of one, you need to
get it published in one of some peer-reviewed geological journal which
takes submissions from lawyers; nobody else has one.
Again, all I see in your posts are rhetoric, accusations, and name calling.
Why would anybody want to get involved in a "debate" like that?
Ted
.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	26 Aug 2003 06:55:31 PM

Ted Holden <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<Sx-cnX454cfrcteiXTWJiQ@fcc.net>...

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?

http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html

The basic problem: it's simply not close to obvious that you know anything
at all about this sort of topic

I could say the same about you, Ted, since all you seem to be capable
of doing is arguing from incredulity, quoting liberally from other
sources (and showing that you are so lacking in understanding of the
basic concepts that you can't put anything in your own words) and
relying on your normally brusque and abrasive commentary to get you
out of these things, to wit:

or would be any more capable of holding up
your own end of such a debate than PeeWee Johnson would be of holding up
his end of a fight with Joe Louis.

Yeah, Ted, you're a real scary guy.
But let's return you to those thrilling days of yesterweek, when I
asked you about all of those other claims.
Remember, Ted, about the issues of whale evolution, the "war crimes"
of General Clark, the "teenage intern" Clinton was supposed to have
"porked" and the alleged "fact" that new vehicles, "properly
maintained," don't pollute?
You made claims about all of those things, Ted, and you ran when I
challenged you about them.
You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I remain unimpressed with comparison
such as you make above. The fact is that it's you who have fallen
short in our exchanges.

Charles Ginenthal is a sort of an expert on the topic.

Is he now?
Well, Ted, as near as I've been able to determine, he's a crackpot - a
Velikovskian as you are, yourself.
Am I supposed to be impressed by that?
Of course, I am always amused when one of you loons wants to cite an
"authority," never seeming to understand that for every (rare)
"authority" you can cite or quote, someone who really DOES understand
these issues can cite an actual expert on the subject who isn't a
crackpot and doesn't have a vested interest in perpetuating crank
ideas.
Ginenthal is the publisher of "The Velikovskian," right? Outside of
that, exactly what are his credentials?
I think it's a fair question, Ted, seeing as how you are presenting
him as "a sort of expert."

The claim that there
is no hard evidence for one or more global floods is basically ignorant;
there's mountains of such evidence.

No, Ted, there isn't a whit of evidence that a global flood of the
sort described in Genesis ever occurred - not even once.
I don't base that statement on ignorance, Ted. It's a fact.

It has always seemed obvious to me in fact that the continental shelves are
basically just the pre-flood ocean boundaries.

And why is it so obvious to you, Ted? Explain.

They appear in formation to
be similar to what we see on our own continents:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860098.html

And...?

There is simply more water on the Earth now than there ever was before the
time of Noah.

And your evidence for this is what, Ted?

The areas we live in now would have been viewed as plateaus
before the (Noachian) flood and sparsely inhabited if inhabited at all.

They would?
How do you know that, Ted?

Much of human settlement from prior to that event has to be below the waves
at present and in fact scientists are presently finding cities beneath the
waves:

http://www.lightwatcher.com/old_lightbytes/underwatercity.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_1697000/1697565.stm

A city 2000' beneath the waves off Cuba amounts to evidence of a global
flood,

How so, Ted?
Isn't it possible that other mechanisms, fairly well-understood by any
first-semester geology student, could account for the presence of
remains of cities under the waves?
Why don't we find many such cities? Wouldn't that be expected if
there ever was a GLOBAL flood of the sort described in Genesis?
Why it is, Ted, that the ancient Egyptians - among other ancient
civilizations - don't seem to know anything about the Flood?
Why is it that there is absolutely NO geological evidence that the
Noahic Deluge ever occurred?

and of the fact that the waters of that flood haven't gone anywhere
since then but are still right out there off the coasts of Virginia, the
Carolinas, Georgia, Florida etc. etc.

And what is your evidence of this?

Also citable as evidence

You haven't cited any evidence, Ted, you've made a series of
assertions.

of either global floods or something similar and
just as bad are the muck deposits which cover much of Canada, Alaska,
andSiberia, and the condition in which we find the bones of pleistocene
animals and forest remains in that muck. The muck deposits are over a mile
deep in places if memory serves and appear to be the remains of a former
world age which has simply beeen turned over in the ground, as if by the
hand of a giant farmer using a giant plow.

I can appreciate the imagery as much as anyone, Ted, but why aren't
the commonly forwarded explanations sufficient to explain this? Why
must you invoke a Flood for which there is NO evidence?

Vine Deloria ("Red Earth, White Lies") describes the evidence of the mammoth
extinctions in North America:

< snip >
Tell you what, Ted: You get Ginenthal or DeLoria here into the groups,
and I'll debate them.
Until then, present YOUR evidence.
So far, you haven't done that. All you've done is made assertions.
I'm not impressed by assertions and neither will anyone else who has
an ounce of sense or who understands how these things work.
If you're going to presume to be Joe Louis to my PeeWee Johnson,
you're going to have to do a damn sight better than this, because if
this is the best you can do (and I already know that it is), you just
knocked yourself out...Joe.
.

User: "bob johnson"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	27 Aug 2003 02:35:52 PM

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

of either global floods or something similar and
just as bad are the muck deposits which cover much of Canada, Alaska,
andSiberia, and the condition in which we find the bones of pleistocene
animals and forest remains in that muck. The muck deposits are over a
mile deep in places if memory serves and appear to be the remains of a
former world age which has simply beeen turned over in the ground, as if
by the hand of a giant farmer using a giant plow.

I can appreciate the imagery as much as anyone, Ted, but why aren't
the commonly forwarded explanations sufficient to explain this? Why
must you invoke a Flood for which there is NO evidence?

"The commonly forwarded explainations"?
There aren't any commonly forwarded explainations for the muck deposits,
Dave. It's pretty much as Vine notes:
"...the evidence of the destruction of the megafiuna suggests a
scenario well outside the orthodox interpretation of benign natural
processes. Therefore mere mention of the reality of the situation is
anathema to most scholars."
You need to invent one and commonly forward it. The scientific community
would be heavily in your debt.
Other than that, I stopped just short of claiming that a global flood caused
the muck deposits, i.e. I noted that either a global flood or something
just as bad, i.e. some other sort of a cosmic disaster would cause such a
thing. I.e. either a flood of continental dimensions or something else
capable of lifting vast quantities of dirt, trees, and animals into the air
and then dropping them in heaps. That's basically what the evidence
suggests.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '

Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
.

User: "Ted Holden"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	26 Aug 2003 09:27:26 PM

David Sienkiewicz wrote:
[ ...sophistry...]

Tell you what, Ted: You get Ginenthal or DeLoria here into the groups,
and I'll debate them.

Guys like you are the reason serious scholars like DeLoria don't bother with
usenet forums. Deloria gets invited to whitehouse functions and Library of
Congress events:
http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/2002/program/authors/
Why would he want to bother with riffraff? That's basically MY assignment;
not his.
Other than that, what if anything was anybody supposed to see in your
non-response to the evidence I cited which might indicate that you knew
anything about geology or anything like that?
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '

Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	27 Aug 2003 12:04:21 AM

"Ted Holden" <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:dL6cne1ORehzhdGiU-KYvg@fcc.net...

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

[ ...sophistry...]

Why is it sophistry, Ted? Do you even know what sophistry is?
Let me tell the readers what you snipped, Ted. What you snipped were
facts and questions that at least bring into question your
anti-science and anti-intellectual claims.
You are afraid of those questions, Ted. That's why you snipped them.
And, as usual, you run from them.

Tell you what, Ted: You get Ginenthal or DeLoria here into the groups,
and I'll debate them.

Yippee, Ted. What does THAT mean?
After all, lots of strange people get invited to those kinds of
things. Remember Nancy's astrologers?

Why would he want to bother with riffraff? That's basically MY assignment;
not his.

Really, Ted?
Who "assigned" this to you? What is the qualification?
You know, Ted, it's funny. Ed thinks I'm part of the "scientific
establishment," while you represent quite the opposite.

Other than that, what if anything was anybody supposed to see in your
non-response to the evidence I cited

What evidence did you cite, Ted?
All *I* saw were assertions. There was no evidence, there were no
facts and there was nothing presented by you to support anything.

which might indicate that you knew
anything about geology or anything like that?

Well, Ted, if you would actually cite your evidence and give me
something to discuss, I'd gladly do that.
The burden of proof is on YOU, Ted. I don't have to prove you wrong.
You have to prove yourself right.
YOU say that there's geological evidence for the Flood? Okay, you've
been challenged to present it.
Where, specifically, did you do that?
.

User: "Ted Holden"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	27 Aug 2003 05:56:57 AM

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

You are afraid of those questions, Ted. That's why you snipped them.

And, as usual, you run from them....

Run from WHAT??
A bunch of stupid sophistic comments like "Really, Ted?" ?????????
Is that really your entire stock in trade, Dave?
Is that really the closest you can come to holding up your end of a
"debate", Dave? I mean, near as I can tell, it seems to be.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '

Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.

.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	27 Aug 2003 12:55:58 PM

Ted Holden <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<v0Cdnf-EPIHFDdGiXTWJjg@fcc.net>...

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

You are afraid of those questions, Ted. That's why you snipped them.

And, as usual, you run from them....

Run from WHAT??

Things like:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1910800237d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35fa3772.0308262108.4e728aed%40posting.google.com
By the way, Ted, who's Bob Johnson? What was THAT supposed to be?
.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	27 Aug 2003 12:08:30 AM

"bob johnson" <bjohnson@bigjohnson.net> wrote in message news:ZkqdnY9WPsTVpNGiXTWJiA@fcc.net...

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

...
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Dinoglyphs/dinoglyphs.html
[ ... vapid sophistry...]

Why was it sophistry, Ted?
I asked you questions about your claims. They are YOUR claims, right?
I asked for evidence and you pointed me to a web site and cited
nothing. You rely on cranks like Deloria and you didn't make an
argument at all.

What if anything in your non-response was supposed to make anybody think you
knew something about American Indian pegroglyphs, oral traditions, or
iconography, Sienkiewicz?

Well, nothing yet, Ted, since I haven't address that part of it.
Is there a problem?

I mean, you talk about debates, but all I see is
name calling and sophistry.

So now you're going to complain about sophistry and name calling?
What is sophistry, Ted?
And name calling? My, my, my. How much more obviously can you show
what a hypocrite you are?

Other people I've gotten into real debates
with have at least put forth the effort to try to come up with real
arguments which address the issues to hand.

I did just that, Ted. I asked specific questions and cited specific
facts and you ran from them.

In particular, if you want to claim that the petroglyphs at Agawa Rock and
in Utah and the southwest are all fakes and forgeries,

Where did I say that, Ted?
Trying a little misdirection again, eh?

then you need to
present a theory explaining how the state park systems of both Ontario and
Utah could be perpetrating the same fraud on the public without either of
them even being aware they were doing it.

I don't need to explain anything I didn't claim or even imply, Ted.
Learn to read, keep things in context, and HONESTLY represent your
opposition. Then try again.
By the way, Ted? "Bob Johnson?"
That's not real original, is it?
You DO know that changing your ID in such a manner violates most user
agreements, don't you?
< snip >
.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	27 Aug 2003 12:14:38 AM

Ted, here are the questions and facts that I posted and that YOU
avoided - as usual.
david.sienkiewicz@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0308261555.b495d5b@posting.google.com>...

Ted Holden <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<Sx-cnX454cfrcteiXTWJiQ@fcc.net>...

< snip >

But let's return you to those thrilling days of yesterweek, when I
asked you about all of those other claims.

Remember, Ted, about the issues of whale evolution, the "war crimes"
of General Clark, the "teenage intern" Clinton was supposed to have
"porked" and the alleged "fact" that new vehicles, "properly
maintained," don't pollute?

You made claims about all of those things, Ted, and you ran when I
challenged you about them.

You'd probably like people to forget about all of these things, eh,
Ted?
< snip >

Charles Ginenthal is a sort of an expert on the topic.

Is he now?

Well, Ted, as near as I've been able to determine, he's a crackpot - a
Velikovskian as you are, yourself.

Am I supposed to be impressed by that?

Of course, I am always amused when one of you loons wants to cite an
"authority," never seeming to understand that for every (rare)
"authority" you can cite or quote, someone who really DOES understand
these issues can cite an actual expert on the subject who isn't a
crackpot and doesn't have a vested interest in perpetuating crank
ideas.

Ginenthal is the publisher of "The Velikovskian," right? Outside of
that, exactly what are his credentials?

Well, Ted? What exactly ARE Ginenthal's credentials?
< snip >

It has always seemed obvious to me in fact that the continental shelves are
basically just the pre-flood ocean boundaries.

And why is it so obvious to you, Ted? Explain.

Why didn't you explain, Ted?

They appear in formation to
be similar to what we see on our own continents:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860098.html

And...?

There is simply more water on the Earth now than there ever was before the
time of Noah.

And your evidence for this is what, Ted?

What is your evidence that there is more water on the Earth now than
during the time of Noah?
Ted, I think you know that to explain this, you'll also have to prove
at least to some satisfactory level that Noah was an historical
person.
Can you do that?
Then provide your measurements and support your claims.

The areas we live in now would have been viewed as plateaus
before the (Noachian) flood and sparsely inhabited if inhabited at all.

They would?

How do you know that, Ted?

Where's the answer to this, Ted?

How so, Ted?

Isn't it possible that other mechanisms, fairly well-understood by any
first-semester geology student, could account for the presence of
remains of cities under the waves?

Isn't it possible, Ted?

Why don't we find many such cities?

Well, Ted? Why DON'T we find many of these cities? Why are they so
rare?

Wouldn't that be expected if
there ever was a GLOBAL flood of the sort described in Genesis?

Well, Ted?

Why it is, Ted, that the ancient Egyptians - among other ancient
civilizations - don't seem to know anything about the Flood?

The ancient Egyptians didn't know anything about your global flood,
Ted, and they RELIED on flooding.
So why is that, Ted?

Why is it that there is absolutely NO geological evidence that the
Noahic Deluge ever occurred?

And if there is, why didn't you cite ANY of it?

and of the fact that the waters of that flood haven't gone anywhere
since then but are still right out there off the coasts of Virginia, the
Carolinas, Georgia, Florida etc. etc.

And what is your evidence of this?

The crickets are getting loud from your side of the planet, Ted.

Also citable as evidence

You haven't cited any evidence, Ted, you've made a series of
assertions.

And as we can see, Ted, you didn't address a single point that I made
or answer a single question.
Not one, Ted. You didn't even try. You snipped it all away, whined
about "sophistry" and "name calling" and you showed me yet again that
you're all bluster and blow; and no "go" at all.
Try again, Ted. People are watching.
.

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	26 Aug 2003 06:58:42 AM

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:20:14 GMT, <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
wrote:

the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.

Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present.

It's still wrong about the order of events, no matter how desperately
you try to rationalize them.
The order in which life appears in the book of the history of life
written in the rocks of the earth differs from the order given in
Genesis 1.
Genesis 1
Day 3
Trees bearing fruit and flowering plants
Day 5
Swimming creatures and birds
Day 6
Beasts of the field and man
Now science has determined that the earth's ocean had life 3 billion
years ago, but sticking to the concept of "swimming and swarming"
creatures, let's say 600 million years ago.
The first land plants did not show up until 160 million years later.
Anything you could call a tree didn't exist until Devonian times,
another 40 million years after that. There were no flowering or fruit
bearing trees until Jurassic times, 250 million years later still,
about the time the first flying creatures appeared.
"Beasts of the field" in the form of amphibians, reptiles and
dinosaurs appeared long before birds.
## An honest god is the noblest work of man....
.

User: "John Vogel"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	26 Aug 2003 11:30:46 AM

"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:4kimkv4tr9srph50kklckf64hftkfk5f8h@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:20:14 GMT, <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
wrote:

the Genesis account was not written to show the "how" of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.

Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present.

It's still wrong about the order of events, no matter how desperately
you try to rationalize them.

The order in which life appears in the book of the history of life
written in the rocks of the earth differs from the order given in
Genesis 1.

Genesis 1
Day 3
Trees bearing fruit and flowering plants
Day 5
Swimming creatures and birds
Day 6
Beasts of the field and man

Now science has determined that the earth's ocean had life 3 billion
years ago, but sticking to the concept of "swimming and swarming"
creatures, let's say 600 million years ago.

The first land plants did not show up until 160 million years later.
Anything you could call a tree didn't exist until Devonian times,
another 40 million years after that. There were no flowering or fruit
bearing trees until Jurassic times, 250 million years later still,
about the time the first flying creatures appeared.

"Beasts of the field" in the form of amphibians, reptiles and
dinosaurs appeared long before birds.

## An honest god is the noblest work of man....

Can you supply some scientific articles for your assertions? I'm not at all
calling your integrity or honesty into question, but am interested in how
you arrived at these conclusions.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	26 Aug 2003 07:42:12 PM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:30:46 -0400, "John Vogel"
<jvogel2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

Now science has determined that the earth's ocean had life 3 billion
years ago, but sticking to the concept of "swimming and swarming"
creatures, let's say 600 million years ago.

The first land plants did not show up until 160 million years later.
Anything you could call a tree didn't exist until Devonian times,
another 40 million years after that. There were no flowering or fruit
bearing trees until Jurassic times, 250 million years later still,
about the time the first flying creatures appeared.

"Beasts of the field" in the form of amphibians, reptiles and
dinosaurs appeared long before birds.

## An honest god is the noblest work of man....

Can you supply some scientific articles for your assertions? I'm not at all
calling your integrity or honesty into question, but am interested in how
you arrived at these conclusions.

A first year university geology text, or even a decent high school
text has that data. Here's an online review of the sequence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#history
## Shall God govern by the laws of nature,
## or priests by fictitious miracles?
John Adams
.

User: "Rich Travsky"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	31 Aug 2003 05:52:20 PM

John Ings wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:17:06 -0400, Ted Holden <medved@fcc.net> wrote:

Now science has determined that the earth's ocean had life 3 billion
years ago, but sticking to the concept of "swimming and swarming"
creatures, let's say 600 million years ago.

The people telling you that are the same people telling you that dinosaurs
died out 65 million years ago, and we know that's rubbish:

"We" do?

Ted and the voices in his head - that or him and his telepathic doggies...

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Dinoglyphs/dinoglyphs.html

"If comebody could provide a coercive case for the fact that American
Indians dealt with dinosaurs on a regular basis" --- it would have to
include unfossilized remains of said dinosaurs. In prarie soil we find
the bones of not only buffalo, but camels, sloths and mammoths. Bones
only a few tens of thousands of years old. In the La Brea Tar Pits we
find bones of sabre-toothed tigers and dire wolves. Now if you can
show me some unfossilized dino bones...

"For the truth about evolutionism, check out one or more of:
1. Michael Denton's "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", available in
major book outlets. "

While you at it you might also have a look at "Nature;s Destiny" by
the same author. In it he writes that he has solved his difficulties
with evolution, though he espouses divinely directed evolution.

All such dating schemes were primarily formulated to provide Chuck Darwin
with the time he thought he needed for evolution. That's all there really
is to them.

The geologist Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology 30
years before Darwin published his Origin of Species, and in it he
showed his findings that the earth was millions of years old.

## Some would keep their brains on a fact free diet.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	26 Aug 2003 07:03:40 PM

Ted Holden <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<6oadnUcpLOkuwtaiXTWJkA@fcc.net>...

John Ings wrote:

Now science has determined that the earth's ocean had life 3 billion
years ago, but sticking to the concept of "swimming and swarming"
creatures, let's say 600 million years ago.

The people telling you that are the same people telling you that dinosaurs
died out 65 million years ago, and we know that's rubbish:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Dinoglyphs/dinoglyphs.html

Ah, yes, a citation directing us to YOUR website.
No "vested interest" there, eh, Ted?
Well, the fact is that, your idiocies aside, it is generally true that
the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
Yes, there are some who hold that birds are what remains of the
dinosaurs; but in general, it's not an inaccurate statement.

All such dating schemes were primarily formulated to provide Chuck Darwin
with the time he thought he needed for evolution.

They were?
Really, Ted?
Are you sure?

That's all there really
is to them.

No, Ted, all there really is to them is SCIENCE.
All there is to you is crackpottery and arrogance based on ignorance
and fear of science.
How sad for you.
< snip >
.

User: "bob johnson"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	26 Aug 2003 11:45:29 PM

David Sienkiewicz wrote:

...
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Dinoglyphs/dinoglyphs.html
[ ... vapid sophistry...]

What if anything in your non-response was supposed to make anybody think you
knew something about American Indian pegroglyphs, oral traditions, or
iconography, Sienkiewicz? I mean, you talk about debates, but all I see is
name calling and sophistry. Other people I've gotten into real debates
with have at least put forth the effort to try to come up with real
arguments which address the issues to hand.
In particular, if you want to claim that the petroglyphs at Agawa Rock and
in Utah and the southwest are all fakes and forgeries, then you need to
present a theory explaining how the state park systems of both Ontario and
Utah could be perpetrating the same fraud on the public without either of
them even being aware they were doing it.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '

Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
.

User: "David Sienkiewicz"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	25 Aug 2003 10:23:10 PM

Ted Holden <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<Q_WdnVaR5esjjdeiXTWJkw@fcc.net>...

Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] wrote:

one of the most contreversial biblical books in the endless debate on the
origin of life and evolution is Genesis however many do not understand it
in the porper way, including creationist (6dayquikie guys and gals
) the Genesis account was not written to show the how of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.

Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth
Genesis day. There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries
in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun,
and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an
earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a
greater light that rules the day and the moon a lesser light that
dominates the night.Genesis 1:14-18. The first part of Genesis
indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before
the first Genesis day".

Very good. There are any number of things in the OT which indicate that it
was written by humans, to the best of their understandings at the time.

Wow, Ted, THIS is profound!

It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood
is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional
flood.

Well, no, Ted, it's not the "dogma of established science" so much as
the CONCLUSION of established science.
Watch carefully, Ted, and you'll see why.

That, however, does not jive with the facts of the historical
record.

The word is "jiBe," Ted, and the fact is that it is the Flood that
does not jibe with any evidence, be it historical, geological or even
scientific in a general sense.

The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger,
solar-system-wide calamity.

Oh, my!
I'm sure you will waste no time in providing some evidence for this?
Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?

In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice
within a short space:

Gen. 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth
forty days and forty nights;...

Gen. 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the
flood were upon the earth."

These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event
within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these
seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:

"...Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and
the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."

Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one
day.

No, Ted, most interpret this as LEGEND and nothing more.
Only those who cling to anything but actual science would presume
"interpret" it any other way.

That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood.
The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn't use
articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".

And why is that, Ted?
< snip more bizarre exegesis and the silly little .sig >
Ted, here's the deal: All of the nonsensical "speculation" that you
bore us with fails to deal with one very basic issue: The Flood, as
described in Genesis, never happened. You see, that's the problem
with the "explanation" that you provide. It ASSUMES THE CONCLUSION
and then tries to find a reason for it, despite the fact that the
conclusion is known by the best evidence to be false.
Now I realize, Ted, that this is way over your head; but there's
always the chance that you understand it.
So, if you want, we can debate it - right here.
Care to give it a go?
.

User: "Anne"
Title: Re: Gensis: Accurate account?	27 Aug 2003 01:28:16 PM

"The first part of Genesis

indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before
the first Genesis day".

More then likely that was the case before the Creator started on His
seven days in the first book, with each day spanning millions&millions
of years. We've absolutely no idea, or can we honestly fathom what a
day would be to the Creator. But something incredibly fantastic did
occur.
Anne
david.sienkiewicz@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0308251923.2f83a952@posting.google.com>...

Ted Holden <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<Q_WdnVaR5esjjdeiXTWJkw@fcc.net>...

Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] wrote:

Very good. There are any number of things in the OT which indicate that it
was written by humans, to the best of their understandings at the time.

Wow, Ted, THIS is profound!

It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood
is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional
flood.

Well, no, Ted, it's not the "dogma of established science" so much as
the CONCLUSION of established science.

Watch carefully, Ted, and you'll see why.

That, however, does not jive with the facts of the historical
record.

The word is "jiBe," Ted, and the fact is that it is the Flood that
does not jibe with any evidence, be it historical, geological or even
scientific in a general sense.

The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger,
solar-system-wide calamity.

Oh, my!

I'm sure you will waste no time in providing some evidence for this?

Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?

No, Ted, most interpret this as LEGEND and nothing more.

Only those who cling to anything but actual science would presume
"interpret" it any other way.

And why is that, Ted?

< snip more bizarre exegesis and the silly little .sig >

Ted, here's the deal: All of the nonsensical "speculation" that you
bore us with fails to deal with one very basic issue: The Flood, as
described in Genesis, never happened. You see, that's the problem
with the "explanation" that you provide. It ASSUMES THE CONCLUSION
and then tries to find a reason for it, despite the fact that the
conclusion is known by the best evidence to be false.

Now I realize, Ted, that this is way over your head; but there's
always the chance that you understand it.

So, if you want, we can debate it - right here.

Care to give it a go?