What is your best arguments against a world wide flood.

booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16"Okay, but if there was no evidence of a flood, why
do we have 1 third of the Himalayas covered with
seashells?"
-------------
As a previous poster wrote, it is called plate
tectonics. The continents of India and Eurasia are
colliding and the Himalayas are being uplifted. When
India and Eurasia collided, an ancient seaway was
crushed and uplifted between them. There are many
books that discuss what has happened in the
Himalayas in great detail. Some online
web pages are:1. The Himalayas: Two continents collide
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/himalaya.html2. Himalayan tectonics
404: Earth and Environment3. Geology of the Himalayan Mountains
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html4. Colisiones continentales y Orogenesis
http://tlacaelel.igeofcu.unam.mx/...D/colision/colision.html5. PLATE T-48 HIMALAYAN FRONT AND TIBETAN PLATEAU
GES DISCUsing satellite GPS surveying, scientists can
observe the Himalayas grow in real time. Some
references are:1. Deformation Kinematics of Tibeatan Plateau
Determined from GPS Observations by Jinwei Renhttp://center.shao.ac.cn/APSG/pdfs/Renjinwei.pdf.2. Jouanne, F., Mugnier, J. L., Pandey, M. R.,
Gamond, J. F., Le Fort, P., Serrurier, L., Vigny, C.
and Avouac, J. P., 1999, Oblique convergence in the
Himalayas of western Nepal deduced from preliminary
results of GPS measurements. Geophysical Research
Letters. vol. 26 , no. 13 , p. 1933. - Abstract
no. 1999GL900416 athttp://www.agu.org/.../abs/gl/1999GL900416/1999GL900416.html3. Thompson, S. C., 2001, Active tectonics in the central
Tien Shan, Kyrgyz Republic. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Earth and Space Sciences,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. On-line
at:http://louie.geology.washington.edu/...han_web/tienshan.htmlSome random references:Bilham and others, 1997, GPS measurements of present-day
convergence across the Nepal Himalayas: Nature, v. 386,
pp. 61-64.Searle, M. P., and Treloar, P. J., 1993, Himalayan
tectonics - an introduction. In Himalayan Tectonics,
P. J. Treloar and M. P. Searle, pp.1-7. Geological
Society of london special Publication no. 74,
Geological society of London, London, England.Shen, and others, 2000, Contemporary crustal deformation
in east Asia constrained by Global Positioning System
measurements, Journal of Geophysical Research. vol. 105,
pp. 5721-5734.+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16"why was a whale's skeleton found on a 3000-foot
mountaintop?"
-------Since you don't provide the specifics of location, it is
most impossible to give a specific answer. In the Andes
of South America, whales are found at such elevation
because of plate tectonics and mountain building. Even
Darwin in his voyages of the Beagle observed the Andes
being actively uplifted. Nothing is mysterious about such
whales if a person takes the time to look up and read
what has been published in the scientific literature
about them.+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16"Why was Pillow Lava Found on a 15000-foot mountain
(pillow lava forms ONLY underwater)?"
--------Again, without an exact location for these pillow
lavas, it is difficult to give a specific answer.
However, many of these pillow lavas were part of
oceanic crust either uplift when an ancient seaway
was crushed and uplifted between two continental
plates or when oceanic crust was scraped off against
a continental plate to form coastal mountains as
as the rest of the plate was subducted.Those people who don't know what pillow lavas are
can go read:Pillow Lava
This service is temporarily unavailablePhoto glossary of volcano terms
Volcano Hazards Program
Volcano Hazards ProgramWORLD'S (?) GREATEST PILLOW LAVA
http://www.cuesta.edu/deptinfo/geology/pillow_lava.htmIt is nothing that a person can sleep on. :-) :-)+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16"Study astronomy and geology: the earth is tilted
on its axis. However, stonehenge and the Ramses
star-map of Egypt do not line up well as how they
should. In fact, if you mapped out how the earth's
axis is 'wobbly' you'll find that it is behaving
like a spinning top that was struck forcefully
about 4.5 thousand years ago (4500 y.a.) That is
about the same time as the flood of Noah,
according to the Bible. Interesting."
--------I am not an archaeologist, so I can't answer this
question. However, if Mr. booboocruise wants
an answer to this question, he can post it to the
Hall of "Ma'at" Messageboard at:http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/post.php?f=1
http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/index.phpThis messageboard is run by lay people who are very
interested and knowledgeable about Egypt and other
ancient sites. Without a doubt, they can any question
that he might have about the Ramses star-map of
Egypt and Stonehenge. In fact, they have very
frequent discussions about the astronomy and
ancient people, including the Egyptians. The above
question can be easily answered by the people who
post to this messagboard.+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16"The Smithsonian is responsible for hiding much evidence
bias on their part)."
-------Not everything a person hears is true. :-)This is standard excuse of the "true believers" in alien
abductions, exterrestrial visitors to Earth, Atlantic,
and anybody else whose ideas visibly lack any hard,
evidence to support their claims or beliefs. The excuse
that either some governmental agency, group of
conventional scientists, or combination thereof is
suppressing all evidence of the existence of some
knowledge is the favorite theme of fictional books and
TV shows, e.g., "X-Files". What it does is twists the lack
of evidence supporting a specific idea to evidence of a
conspiracy to suppress this idea. The absence of
evidence is magically transmuted from the lack of
proof for a specific position to evidence of a
conspiracy against this position by whatever the
supporters of this position consider the "establishment".Essentially, claims, such as the "The Smithsonian is
responsible for hiding much evidence...", is just mean-
spirited slander by the people that Mr. booboocruise
heard it from of the type that often characterizes Texas
politics. Not only does this excuse explain the lack
of evidence for a position, it also has the purpose of
tarring and feathering the opposition as evil people
who indulge in deceit and fraud and can't be trusted.
This excuse is at its basic core nothing more than
a personal attack on the integrity of ones opponents
instead of discussing the evidence or lack of that
might exist.+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16"Many musuems I have BEEN TO will hide the fact that
there exist polystrate fossils and human remains
that were found "out of place" in the geologic column."
-------This is not true. The polystrate fossils and human
remains that Mr. booboocruise have been published
openly in the scientific literature. The problem is
that conventional scientists don't interpret them
the same as YE creationists do.For example, a forthright discussion about one
set of alleged "out-of-place" human remains can be
read online in "The Life and Death of Malachite
Man by Glen J. Kuban at:http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htmThe Malachite Man is also discussed in:Coulam, N. J., and Schroedl, A. R., III, 1995, The
Keystone Azurite Mine in Southeastern Utah. Utah
Archaeology. vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-122.Strahler, A. N., 1987, Science and Earth history;
the evolution/ creation controversy. Prometheus Books.
Buffalo, New York, 552 pp.In another example, a significant number of these
so called "out-of-place" human remains are
openly discussed by Michael Brass in his book "The
Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, Fossil and Gene Records
Explored".Page not found – The Antiquity of Man
Page not found – The Antiquity of Man
Publications | Human NatureAs far as polystrate fossils are concerned, go read:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/...lystrate/polystrate_trees.html ,
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/..._origins/polystrate_trees.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html , and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/dawson_tree2.html .++++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16"Seriously, the only place that the geologic column
really exists is in the textbook (much of the fossils
found in the rock layers do not 'support' their
theory, so they simply disregard the evidence for the
Flood."
--------Actually there many places where a complete geologic
column exists. This is discussed in detail by Glenn
Morton in "The Geologic Column and Its Implications
to the Flood" at:http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htmGlenn Morton's otherw eb pages can be found at:http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htmandhttp://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fld.htm
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/yungerth.htmIn case of the geologic column existing, Glenn Morton
certainly is not the person disregarding the evidence
:-) :-)++++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16"Do not believe that there is NO evidence for the
flood--there is more evidence FOR it... but
evolutionists, from my experience, are very good at
covering up or making you believe there is no evidence."
------This, in my opinion, nothing more than a personal
attack on the integrity of conventional scientists
that falsely tars and feathers them as being deceitful
in the manner in which they discuss the topic of a
Noachian Flood. The above statement simply dismisses
the arguments on the part of conventional scientists
against a Noachian Flood as being fraudulent instead
arguing the specific merits and demerits of their
arguments.Yours,Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas.

In message 20, booboocruise wrote:"Actually, The whale's skeleton was unearthed atop
Sanhorn Mountain in the North Sea (an area not
known to be affected by shifting plates to the point
of 3000 feet of uplift)."A mountain in the North Sea? If it is **in** the North Sea,
than how could its top be 3,000 ft above sea level? :-) :-)
Watch those prepositions.From the excerpts of Dr. Sullivan's 1829 "geology
lectures" that various web pages provide, it is very
difficult, even impossible, to verify the different
aspects of what Dr. Sullivan stated about whale
skeleton. To understand this problem, a person
need only look at "Christian Evidences" at:
http://www.grmi.org/...l/Richard_Riss/evidences2/12noah.htmlThere, in relationship to this whale skeleton, it is stated:"...a skeleton of a whale lay on top of the mountain
Sanhorn on the coast of the northern sea. . . . [The mountain]
is three thousand feet high and there is no cause that could
have conveyed the whale to that elevation except a deluge
rising to that height."The phrase "northern sea" is rather ambigous, at least in
terms of its modern usage. It is only an assumption that
the "northern sea" is the "North Sea".Also, I have to wonder what has been deleted from the
cited part of the lecture as a person finds "..." bewteen
the mention of the "northern sea" and "[The mountain]".Anyway, there is one online relief map of Europe at:City Colleges of Chicago - MaintenanceThere is only one area along the coast of the North Sea
where a person can elevations of around 3,000 ft is
near the coast. It is at the southwwest end of Norway.
If you stretch the definition of "near" a couple of places
along the east coast of England and Scotland might
qualify as well.There is a map of mountains in Norway with elevations
of 1,000 m or more at at:Institutt for informatikk (UiB)
Institutt for informatikk (UiB)
Institutt for informatikk (UiB) None of them are actually on the coast of the North Sea
although several can be found on the coast of the Norwegian
Sea. Now the question becomes does the "northern sea"
actually refer to the "Norwegian Sea"?In terms of the Norwegian Sea, one possible mountain is
"Sandhornet", which is 994 m high and located on the
island Sandhornya, Nordland It can be found at:Institutt for informatikk (UiB)
Institutt for informatikk (UiB) "Sanhorn" is very close to Sandhornet in spelling and
in elevation 994 m (3260 ft). Sandhoret is located on
island on the coast of the Nowegian Sea. The problem
about whether a whale was found on this mountain and
where on this mountain a whale was actually found
remains.Where is detailed documentation about the
context and discovery of this whale skeleton
published, if any place?A big problem here is that the lecture notes provide
absolutely nothing in the way of any sort of data or
published citations that document a whale having been
found on "mountian Sanhorn". Nothing is said about
the who found the whale, in what strata the whale was
found, and any of the other details about the
circumstances of this find. Also, a person is left not
knowing whether Sulliman's information about this
find comes from his own observations, observations
published in a journal, information published in a
newspaper article, or from third-hand or second-hand
sources. As a result, it is impossible to either
determine or judge anything about the credibility
and accuracy of the source of his information about
where the whale skeleton was found.(I would be very curious is Mr. Bobocruise can
specifically tell us exactly who "unearthed" this
whale skeleton, the exact date it was found, who
found it, how it was found, the type of strata
from which it was recovered, and other details
of this discovery and excavation of this whale
skeleton.)Yours,Bill Birkeland
Houston, TX[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-23-2003]

Inmessage 33, booboocruise wrote:
"------------------------
Re: She sells seashells
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill, you are focusing on the wrong part of the
argument (where was the mountain)?"The exact location of the whale skeleton is an very
part of determining whether the whale skeleton is
anomalous or not. Without an exact location it is
completely impossible for any interpretation of
its significance to be made at all and to know whether
or not it nothing more the vivid imagination of whoever
or whatever Dr. Sullivan used as a source for his geology
lectures. Without an exact location and specific data on
on who found it, how it was excavated, and from what
type of strata it was excavated, Mr. booboocruise has
**neither** argument **nor** any evidence. Without
this information the story about the whale found on the
mountain is just an entertaining but scientifically useless
story. The location is **not** the "wrong part" of the
argument, but one of many **essential** facts, which
Mr. booboocruise seems incapable of supplying, that are
needed to make a fish story into something that might
resemble a scientific argument for his ideas.The importance of location and context in understanding
how whales get where they are found can be found in
"A Whale of a Tale" by Darby South at:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.htmlAll sorts of claims were made about the catastrophe
burial of whale standing on its tail until someone
looked at this fossil in the context of its location and the
strata enclosing it.+++++++++++++Inmessage 33, booboocruise wrote:"Sorry, it was a miscommunication of where the
mountain was that boasted a whale and where
the mountain was that had the other flood-evidence
(i.e. corral). The mountain that really had a whale
(((SANHORN MOUNTAIN))) is in Michigan.How can the mountain with the whale be located in
Michigan given what Dr. Sullivan stated as cited by
Christian Evidences" at:
http://www.grmi.org/...al/Richard_Riss/evidences2/12noah.htm ?This web page cites Byron C. Nelson (1968:85) as stating"...a skeleton of a whale lay on top of the mountain
Sanhorn on the coast of the northern sea. . . . [The
mountain] is three thousand feet high and there is no
cause that could have conveyed the whale to that
elevation except a deluge rising to that height."the references is:Nelson, Byron C., 1968, The Deluge Story in Stone: A
History of the Flood Theory of Geology" by, 1968,
Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Publishers.1. As far as I know, neither Lake Michigan, Lake
Huron, nor Lake Superior are known by anyone
as the "northern sea". This includes Yale professors
in New England.2. Also, the highest point of Michigan is Mt. Arvon
with an elevation of 1,979 ft. According to
simple mathmatics, this is 1,021 ft **below** the
elevation for Mt. Sanhorn given by Dr. Sullivan.
How can the mountain on which the whale was found be
1,021 ft above the highest point in Michigan, if it
is located in Michigan? This doesn't make any sense
to me at all.More information on the highest pount in Michigan.File Not Found
http://www.adamroddy.com/States/MI.html
Page not found | Highpointers Club
http://members.tripod.com/~dlwick/hiptmi.htmThis does not sound like a miscommunication, rather
it sounds like Mr. booboocruise doesn't know, like
everybody else, exactly where this mountain with a
whale on it is located. If nobody really knows where
this mountain is located, it is simply impossible,
as I noted above, to evaluate its significance to
any degree.+++++++++++++++++
Inmessage 33, booboocruise wrote:"THe mountain with the researchers' findings of other
such evidence is in the mountain range Timor (I'm not
familiar yet with that area,"Citing an unknown researcher who has found "other
such evidence" in an unnamed mountain range in Timor
certainly proves nothing. It is like me telling you that
since an unknown person saw pink unicorns in some
part of Timor on an unspecified date proves that pink
unicorns exists.+++++++++
Inmessage 33, booboocruise wrote:"but I know now that Sanhorn , not Sandhornet, is in
Michigan, along glacial deposits where ONLY a deluge
"flood" could have caused the location of the whale's
skeleton). If you want more, get a hold of Dr. C
omninellis' book "Creative Defense: Evidence
AGAINST Evolution""If Mt. Sanhorn is 3,000 ft tall, it is physically
impossible for it to be located in Michigan. If Mr.
booboocruise believes it is located in Michigan, he
is just as lost as everyone else is as to the real
location of the Mt. Sanhorn. For all that Mr. Sullivan
tells us about its location, it could be in somewhere
either in Middle Earth or some continent of Earthsea.
Regardless, it certainly is not in Michigan. If nobody
knows where this mountain is located, it and its
alleged whale skeleton are useless as proof of anything.
It is impossible to make any interpretations of how it
got there unless we know "where" happens to be. The
article "Whale of Tale" shows the importance of knowing
the location and geologic context of fossil whales.
Again this article can be found at:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.htmlYE creationists were wrong about the "whale buried
while standing on it tail". A person has to wonder
if YE creationists have their facts wrong about the
Mt. Sanhorn whale also. Given that nobody knows where
it was found, it is impossible to determine what the
real truth about the Mt. Sanhorn whale is at this time.Yours,Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-23-2003]

NOTE: At the request of the administrator, in the below message, I have taken out the appropriate carriage returns. I will see how this works.On 04-23-2003 11:35 PM, booboocruise wrote:"------------------------------------------
Re: Whales was
-----------------------------------------
You're getting off the subject."No I am not getting off the subject. I am pointing out that the story about the "whale on mountain" that you consider an important and critical and important piece of evidence is, at worst, totally unsupported by any sort of descriptive documentation that it has the credibility of reports of UFOs and alien abductions. In facts, even such reports provide far more in specific details as to time, locations, participants, and other aspects of the event than the geology lecture you cited. This allows people to examine the credibility of such reports, which is impossible in your case given the lack of detail as provided by Dr. Sullivan's geology lectures. At best, Mr. booboocruise and the web pages from which he obtained the report of a "whale on the mountains" failed completely to go back to the primary literature to find and report to us the details about this alleged discovery. If Mr. booboocruise wants to use his "whale on the mountain" as a major piece of evidence for a global flood, he needs to provide at least the basic detail needed to have an informed and intelligent discussion about it. Otherwise, it is useless as evidence of anything.A good example of the lack of necessary information in the "whale in the mountain" is illustrated by the different locations which have been proposed as to where it has been found, e.g., the Great lakes, North Sea, and Norwegian Sea. This confusion is a result of the ambiguous nature of the term "northern sea" and the inability of Mr. booboocruise to provide any real details about the "whale on the mountain. He needs to understand that there are numerous bodies of water, of which the Great Lakes are not one, that are called the "northern sea." For example, some "northern seas" are listed below with some examples of their usage.1. Arctic Ocean as the "Northern Sea"INSROP (International Northern Sea Route Programme)
http://www.fni.no/insrop/Northern Sea Culture
po.karelia.ru !.Northern Sea Ice Extremes
Uma Bhatt, International Arctic Research Center
http://www.arsc.edu/science/northernsea.htmlThe discovery and history of exploration of the
Northern Sea Route
http://www.polarmuseum.sp.ru/Eng/route.htm2. Northern Pacific Ocean as the "Northern Sea"Status of Northern Sea Otters in Washington
Western Ecological Research Center (WERC) | U.S. Geological SurveyEumetopias jubatus, THE RACE ROCKS TAXONOMY
(Northern Sea Lions)
Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions3. Ocean Off Of Sri Lanka as the "Northern Sea"Sri Lankan Navy Assaults Fishermen in the Northern Sea
http://www.eelamnation.com/news/2001/012211.htmlIf Mr. booboocruise will check these web pages out, he will find that none of them are connected to the Talk.Origins Archive, which refutes his statement that I quote "EVERYTHING" from their web site. Similar, the web pages about the highest point in Michigan are not part of the Talk.Origins web site, which also refutes the statement by Mr. booboocruise:"Don't quote EVERYTHING from one site just
because you like their opinion on the matter."Similarly, the web pages about the Himalaya Mountains that I listed in a previous post did not come from the Talk.Origins Archive, which again refutes the above statement. Contrary, to the false claim made twice by Mr. booboocruise, I cite data / "quote" from a number of web sites in addition to the Talk.Origins web site. Mr. booboocruise is severely mistaken to believe that "EVERYTHING" that contradicts his arguments comes from a web page on the Talk.Origins web site.++++++++++++++On 04-23-2003 11:35 PM, booboocruise wrote:"Also, I've noticed that you often quote from
Talkorigins. Do you have ANY idea how bias they
are?"They happen to have very well written, extremely well researched articles about various topics concerning the evolution - creations controversy. They are a very convenient because the articles are online where people can access, read, and judge for themselves the quality of the arguments provided in each article. Still Mr. booboocruise greatly exaggerates the frequency, which with I "quote" / post an URL to the Talk.Origins web sites. Finally, the people who run the "talk.origins" web site discuss the repeated claims of "bias" by Young Earth creationists, whose ox they admittedly gore in the process of discussing the facts, at:Welcome to the Talk.Origins ArchiveThe Talk.Origins web site is far less biased and considerably far more factually accurate by orders of magnitude than the fiction masquerading as science found at web site like Dr. Dino's recommended by Mr. booboocruise. Anyone who recommends Dr. Dino's web site as a source of information doesn't understand either the meaning of the word "bias".++++++++++++++On 04-23-2003 11:35 PM, booboocruise wrote:"No, I mentioned "God created the Universe" not
"did God create the universe" YOU ARE THE ONE
who made the mistake--look further. Besides,
what does the first four letters have to do
with it anyway?"What does this have to do with the report about a "whale on the mountain" being found? I far as I can remember and find, I have only discussed geological evidence for a Noachian Flood and nothing about God. Mr. booboocruise appears to have confused me with someone else here.++++++++++++++On 04-23-2003 11:35 PM, booboocruise wrote:"Anyway, talkorigins is VERY bias (i typed up a
letter and sent it to them, showing a few minor
details they messed up on, like the law of
increasing entropy). THEY didnt even acknowledge
me. (THE NEVER CALLED, THEY NEVER EMAILED ME,
AND THEY DIDNT EVEN POST IT IN THE FAQ's section)."The Talk.Origins Archive is an unfunded, completely volunteer run web site. They simply do not have the time to answer ever letter and comment that they get. Only the people who provide them with coherent, very well researched, and very well argued comments have any hope of a reply. Only the best of the best articles ever have any hope of being "published" as a FAQ. They simply receive too many emails and letters for all of them to be personally answered by their very limited and all volunteer staff, who have more important matters do with their lives, e.g., earning a living, doing real scientific research, working on grant proposals, families, and so forth, than answering every letter and email sent them. The ones that are most likely to get left unanswered are the letter and emails that have either major factual or logical flaws in or mindlessly recycle scientifically bankrupt arguments taken from various Young Earth creationist web sites.If a person positively wants an answer, that person needs to submit his or hers arguments not by snail mail, but by way of the feedback page at:The TalkOrigins Archive: FeedbackThe Talk.Origins people do make the best possible attempt to answer all questions and comments submitted by people by way of this feedback page as the available volunteer's time and number permit.This web site even provides a web page listing Young Earth creationist sites, where they direct people interested in the other side of the controversy at:The Talk.Origins Archive: Other Web SitesFor a documented example of bias in Young Earth creationist web sites a person can go read "A Failed Attempt to Dialog with Creationists" at:Unsuccessful dialog with young-earth creationists about an error++++++++++++++On 04-23-2003 11:35 PM, booboocruise wrote:"Don't quote EVERYTHING from one site just because
you like their opinion on the matter."Mr. booboocruise has an extremely weird, if not
illiterate definition of " EVERYTHING". :-) :-)If Mr. booboocruise would go back over my various posts, he would find that I "quote" a lot of material from many other web pages. His compliant that I quote "EVERYTHING" is so false as to be laughable nonsense. For example, I have quoted a lot from "Glenn Morton's Creation/Evolution Page" at:http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/Cre-Ev.htmNot only does Glenn Morton has nothing to do with the Talk.Origins web site but he is also a born-again Christian.Also, I have posted from stuff listed on Glen J. Kuban's "The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy" at:http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htmGlen J. Kuban has a more general web page at:http://members.aol.com/gkuban/Again, Glen Kuban is an evangelical Christian and he certainly not a pawn of the people who operate the Talk.Origins Archive.One of the web pages that I noted of Kuban's was "The Life and Death of Malachite Man" at:http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htmMaybe, now Mr. booboocruise can complain about how I quote "EVERYTHING" from web pages authored by people who are both Christians and have the first name of "Glen". :-) :-) :-)Previously, I also provided web links to the Hall of Ma'at, and links to Micheal Brass's book "The Antiquity of Man" which both have nothing to do with "Talk.Origins web site. I simply don't understand why Mr. booboocruise makes an issue of me posting links from the Talk.Origins web site when I also post links from a considerable number of other sites that have nothing to do with the Talk.Origins Archive.As far as I am concerned Mr. booboocruise's ill-tempered and false complaints about me favoring the Talk.Origins web site is nothing more than an attempt on his part to hide that he has nothing to provide me and others in this discussion about the "whale on the mountain" in terms of how, where, when, and in what strata, it was found and so forth other a hopelessly vague geology lecture by Dr. Sullivan than was given in 1829 about 174 years ago!!! A person has to wonder that if there was anything at all to this report, someone would have published the details about it somewhere in the last 174 years.Yours,Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-26-2003]