|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is your best arguments against a world wide flood. | |||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2561 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"Okay, but if there was no evidence of a flood, whydo 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 collidehttp://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/himalaya.html 2. Himalayan tectonics404: Earth and Environment 3. Geology of the Himalayan Mountainshttp://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html 4. Colisiones continentales y Orogenesishttp://tlacaelel.igeofcu.unam.mx/...D/colision/colision.html 5. PLATE T-48 HIMALAYAN FRONT AND TIBETAN PLATEAUGES DISC Using satellite GPS surveying, scientists canobserve the Himalayas grow in real time. Some references are: 1. Deformation Kinematics of Tibeatan PlateauDetermined from GPS Observations by Jinwei Ren http://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 at http://www.agu.org/.../abs/gl/1999GL900416/1999GL900416.html 3. Thompson, S. C., 2001, Active tectonics in the centralTien 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 Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.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.html Some random references: Bilham and others, 1997, GPS measurements of present-dayconvergence across the Nepal Himalayas: Nature, v. 386, pp. 61-64. Searle, M. P., and Treloar, P. J., 1993, Himalayantectonics - 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 deformationin 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-footmountaintop?" ------- Since you don't provide the specifics of location, it ismost 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 pillowlavas, 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 arecan go read: Pillow LavaThis service is temporarily unavailable Photo glossary of volcano termsVolcano Hazards Program Volcano Hazards Program WORLD'S (?) GREATEST PILLOW LAVAhttp://www.cuesta.edu/deptinfo/geology/pillow_lava.htm It is nothing that a person can sleep on. :-) :-) +++++++booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16 "Study astronomy and geology: the earth is tiltedon 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 thisquestion. 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=1http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/index.php This messageboard is run by lay people who are veryinterested 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 evidencebias on their part)." ------- Not everything a person hears is true. :-) This is standard excuse of the "true believers" in alienabductions, 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 isresponsible 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 thatthere exist polystrate fossils and human remains that were found "out of place" in the geologic column." ------- This is not true. The polystrate fossils and humanremains 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 oneset 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.htm The Malachite Man is also discussed in: Coulam, N. J., and Schroedl, A. R., III, 1995, TheKeystone 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 theseso 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 ManPage not found – The Antiquity of Man Publications | Human Nature As 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 columnreally 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 geologiccolumn 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.htm Glenn Morton's otherw eb pages can be found at: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm and http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fld.htmhttp://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/yungerth.htm In case of the geologic column existing, Glenn Mortoncertainly is not the person disregarding the evidence :-) :-) ++++++++booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16 "Do not believe that there is NO evidence for theflood--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 personalattack 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 BirkelandHouston, Texas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2561 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In message 20, booboocruise wrote:
"Actually, The whale's skeleton was unearthed atopSanhorn 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 "geologylectures" 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.html There, in relationship to this whale skeleton, it is stated: "...a skeleton of a whale lay on top of the mountainSanhorn 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 interms 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 thecited 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 - Maintenance There is only one area along the coast of the North Seawhere 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 elevationsof 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 Seaalthough 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 andin 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 thecontext and discovery of this whale skeleton published, if any place? A big problem here is that the lecture notes provideabsolutely 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 canspecifically 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 BirkelandHouston, TX [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2561 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
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 verypart 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 understandinghow 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.html All sorts of claims were made about the catastropheburial 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 themountain 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 inMichigan 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 mountainSanhorn 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: AHistory of the Flood Theory of Geology" by, 1968, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Publishers. 1. As far as I know, neither Lake Michigan, LakeHuron, 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. Arvonwith 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 Foundhttp://www.adamroddy.com/States/MI.html Page not found | Highpointers Club http://members.tripod.com/~dlwick/hiptmi.htm This does not sound like a miscommunication, ratherit 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 othersuch evidence is in the mountain range Timor (I'm not familiar yet with that area," Citing an unknown researcher who has found "othersuch 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 inMichigan, 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 physicallyimpossible 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.html YE creationists were wrong about the "whale buriedwhile 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 BirkelandHouston, Texas [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2561 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
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 Culturepo.karelia.ru !. Northern Sea Ice ExtremesUma Bhatt, International Arctic Research Center http://www.arsc.edu/science/northernsea.html The discovery and history of exploration of theNorthern Sea Route http://www.polarmuseum.sp.ru/Eng/route.htm 2. Northern Pacific Ocean as the "Northern Sea" Status of Northern Sea Otters in WashingtonWestern 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 Seahttp://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 justbecause 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 fromTalkorigins. 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 aletter 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 becauseyou like their opinion on the matter." Mr. booboocruise has an extremely weird, if notilliterate 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 BirkelandHouston, Texas [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-26-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024