Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is your best arguments against a world wide flood.
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 46 of 47 (38123)
04-26-2003 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by booboocruise
04-24-2003 12:35 AM


Re: Whales was
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.html
The discovery and history of exploration of the
Northern Sea Route
http://www.polarmuseum.sp.ru/Eng/route.htm
2. Northern Pacific Ocean as the "Northern Sea"
Status of Northern Sea Otters in Washington
Western Ecological Research Center (WERC) | U.S. Geological Survey
Eumetopias jubatus, THE RACE ROCKS TAXONOMY
(Northern Sea Lions)
Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions
3. 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.html
If 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 Archive
The 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: Feedback
The 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 Sites
For 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.htm
Not 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.htm
Glen 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.htm
Maybe, 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 12:35 AM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-26-2003 5:40 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 47 of 47 (38125)
04-26-2003 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bill Birkeland
04-26-2003 5:01 PM


Bill, I don't know what your methodology is, but (as I see it) it would be easier reading, if your text was full page width.
I haven't edited any of your past messages, because taking out all the "enters", to restore things to full width, is no small undertaking.
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-26-2003 5:01 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024