Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 227 of 460 (7342)
03-19-2002 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by wmscott
03-19-2002 4:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
See post 142 for a start, and I was referring to certain posters on this board, not to scientists.

JM: Post 142 is a brief synposis of certain points you are arguing. The problem is that most scientists don't cite (or note) works printed on discussion board cre-evo debate forums. I ask you again to formulate your thesis, provide data and submit it to an audience who will be able to evaluate and test your hypothesis. "The Great Debate" for all its interest, will not get you noticed by the scientific community. I'll say it again, if you want to overturn the orthodoxy, you must publish your analysis and allow the scientific community to evaluate it.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by wmscott, posted 03-19-2002 4:38 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 228 of 460 (7365)
03-19-2002 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by wmscott
03-19-2002 4:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
The drop stones at the higher elevations are evidence of a global flood due to the fact that it is impossible for the local terrain elevations to contain water to that depth. In other words, to get the water that high, you would need to flood the world. Which is why as I have been saying that these drop stones are an anomaly for the geologists.

But, once again, dropstones do not necessarily indicated a global flood. Dropstones are being deposited today. Are we presently in flood? And what are the elevations of these dropstones. I thought you said they were at 380 to 480 above sea level. This is not a global flood!!!
quote:
"it has not been our objective to provide better explanations," Exactly, that is why you have failed.
Oh, right. Leave out the rest of my reply! You have been getting better explanations all along as a bonus to our editing of your ideas. If you cannot see them then you are too wrapped up in your dogma.
quote:
You have based our arguments on a great faith in orthodox theories. The absence of better explanations in your arguments shows your blind faith in the absolute correctness of orthodox science. [quote] You have been given explanations. Why do you ignore them?
[quote]To you I am a heretic, with apostate theories not wroth considering because I challenge what you believe is the one true faith.

Actually, we were thinking something else.
quote:
Like arrogant inquisitors you cite your orthodoxy as the final authority, when in reality it is the evidence that has the final say.
And you don't think that ignoring our questions and suggestions is arrogant? Wmscott, you have some interesting ideas, but you do not understand evidence and what theories do. You have put on blinders and ignored any contrary evidence. You have selected the evidence you want and interpreted it in a vacuum of other geological data. You pass of radiometric ages with a wave of the hand and only call upon plate tectonics when you want some magical process that no one has ever seen. When cornered you quote the scripture. This is not a credible effort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by wmscott, posted 03-19-2002 4:21 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 229 of 460 (7375)
03-20-2002 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by wmscott
03-19-2002 4:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott
RE: "... heavens,... created (again?) on the fourth day."
There is no big mystery here, this is believed by many to refer to a clarification of the atmosphere so that the lights in the heavens could be seen clearly from the ground.


Even though the scripture plainly indicates otherwise.
quote:
scott
The 'creative days' are time periods or stages in development.

Now you want to redefine 'day' as if it could be a million years, even though THE CONTEXT includes the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning, the nth day".
quote:
Genesis is an account of the development of the planet,
Repeating this assertion does not make it true. You have yet to show a single text, or context, in which the word "earth" is identified as, or may be taken to mean, "planet." I have rebutted your Proof Texts.
quote:
The very fact that Jehovah is credited with the creation of the universe or heavens should clue you in to the fact that the account deals with all the earth.
Jehovah is not credited with creation in the first chapter of Genesis. Your theological arguments are lost on the scientific community, and will not fly among the majority of Christian scientists either.
quote:
... you have overlooked the fact the creator of the earth and inspirer of the Bible certainly knows the true form of the earth.
I have overlooked nothing.
quote:
So even if you are correct in what the ancient Hebrews believed about the earth, it would make the Bibles references to the whole of the earth that much more miraculous if as you claim, it was written by men who didn't know the extent of the earth.
You have yet to demonstrate that the Bible indicates earth to be a planet.
I will ignore the remainder of your post, which consists almost entirely of attempts to insult me.
I have examined your scriptural evidence.
It does not threaten my position.
Theological arrogance underpins your belief.
Scriptural evidence does not support your argument.
Seems to me you should choose one; science, or religion. You have not been combining them very well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by wmscott, posted 03-19-2002 4:21 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 230 of 460 (7390)
03-20-2002 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by wmscott
03-18-2002 4:30 PM



Wmscott writes:
Here are two references to the drop stones found in the Wisconsin Driftless area: ... (The Physical Geography of Wisconsin, Third Edition by Lawrence Martin 1965, pages 130-131)
But Martin's book is from 1965, and as the link just provided you says, "Black and several others in the 1960s suggested that the area was glaciated between 30 and 40ka B.P. and this idea spread widely through the scientific community." ( abstract of a paper by David Mickelson) Martin isn't even talking about the Wisconsian, but about a period thousands of years before. Mickelson's abstract briefly explains how Black's evidence was misinterpreted and concludes that there is no evidence of glaciation, ie, no erratics, in the Driftless Area. If the erratics in stream beds draining glaciated areas were actually dropstones then they'd be found randomly throughout the Driftless Area, but they're not. You're relying on a 40-year discarded theory.
At nearly 30 years Gwen Shultz's book is nearly as old, and her proposal of students hauling in erratics from neighboring regions to trick their geology professors is simply bizarre. It could happen, I guess. Did it? Who knows? (It doesn't take a very large rock to out-weigh what a half-ton pickup should carry. A piece of granite 2.3-foot square weighs one ton.) Regardless, the consensus view today is that there are no glacial erratics in the Driftless Area.
The fact of the matter is that though the Wisconsin Glaciation didn't reach the Driftless Area (nor the previous two glacial advances), past glaciations did. There's evidence of these older glaciations, some going back 65 million years, in various places like stream cuts through glacial till. But evidence of glaciation from the Wisconsian Period, especially in the form of erratics, is absent.
From Ice Age Trail: Glossary: "Erratics can be found along the entire Ice Age Trail, except where it traverses parts of the Driftless Area."
Since you like old data, here's a summary of an account from 1823 by a W. H. Keating: "In southwestern Wisconsin he noted the absence of the granite boulders, elsewhere known to have been brought by the continental glacier, but which he thought of as erratics of very old, or 'primitive,' rock, transported during the Flood. He commented upon this change and he did so close to the southern border of the district we now call the Driftless Area. After crossing the Driftless Area he observed the resumption of the erratics at the first point where one could possibly see them while following Keating's route."
The evidence is pretty clear. Except for a brief period around the 1960s when some evidence was misinterpreted, no erratics have been found in the Driftless Area. To persuade us you must show how the misinterpreted evidence from the 1960s was actually interpreted correctly, and in what ways the current interpretation is incorrect. What you're doing right now is simply declaring current scholarship incorrect without explanation.
Please notice I'm not saying that current scholarship cannot be wrong. I'm simply saying that if it *is* wrong you haven't demonstrated it yet.

Now Guys, the reason we are having this debate, is you are trying to convince me that my views are in error...
Not that you're in error, but that your evidence is unconfirmed, sketchy, and doesn't support your hypothesis. You should be seeking confirmation in cutting-edge scholarship instead of from 30 and 40 year-old books. Your criteria for accepting or rejecting data seems to be whether it agrees with you, when you should be seeking out the latest and greatest information. You should seek to reconcile your theory with what we know today.

But then instead of showing what these better answers are, you go and ignore the evidence or claim that I made it up.
When there's only one person making an extremely unusual and unlikely claim, the rational response is to ignore it or assume he made it up. Can you cite any recent scholarship that agrees with you?

You also demonstrate that so far, I seem to be the only one with a theory that solves the mystery of these anomalies, if in attacking my theory you need to resort to claims of fabrication.
One of the key qualities of science is replication. No one except you has gone to the Driftless Area and found marine diatoms beneath dropstones. Geologists don't even believe there are erratics in the Driftless Area, let alone dropstones. Since your data fails the replication requirement of science, why should anyone accept it as science?

Percipient wrote "You believe all land animals of the world were saved on Noah's ark 10,000 years ago." Incorrect assertion. It is obvious that many land animals survived in their locations without a migration to and back from a point in the middle east. Many animals managed to survive the flood on their own by rafting or other means.
It would be kind to say that this stretches credulity. Ever seen a cow rafted during a Mississippi flood? You either have to come up with a reasonable explanation, or somehow develop this one so it appears reasonable.
And regardless, you would still have a genetic "eye of the needle" event for which there is no evidence, unless you're advocating that entire herds of animals were rafted.
As long as were on the subject of credulity, I'm still amazed that you think a world-wide flood would leave little to no sediment. My earlier examples were for river floods, but if you prefer sea-flood examples then they're even better. When an unusual high tide brings water onto land the result is sediment everywhere. People are shoveling sand out of their houses for a week. In your scenario a comet has just struck the world with such force as to collapse glacial margins world-wide and release huge, mammoth amounts of water raising sea levels dramatically everywhere. Because of the recent cataclysms wave action would be at a maximum, and all expanding ocean margins would kick up huge amounts of sediment, especially given the huge availability of such material on land not recently submerged.

Percipient wrote "there are about 30 different theories for the origin of the Carolina Bays, and at this time there is no consensus." The reason there are so many is because none of them is any good, only the impact theory makes sense.
Can you see your own logical fallacy here? If there are so many theories only because "none of them is any good," then how could the impact theory be good? Obviously, by your logic, if it were good then there would be only one or a few theories. But since there are many theories, therefore none of them are good, and that includes the impact theory. I don't pretend to know the answer to the mystery of the Carolina Bays. As far as I can tell, there is insufficient evidence at this point to reach any definite conclusions.
The absence of isotopic and particulate evidence in ice cores is unfavorable to the impact theory, as is the absence of impact evidence at bay sites. You need to address these issues in order to possibly begin excluding other theories.

Percipient wrote "impacts so large as to cause shock waves that crumpled entire ice sheets" Not part of my theory, the ice sheets were too large to have been 'crumpled' by a single impact that the biosphere of the earth could have survived. The Carolina bays point towards multiple impacts spread out over a large area which would have resulted in large scale surface abrasion, but 'crumpling entire ice sheets' is a bit of over statement.
I was just reflecting your theory back to you. You need an impact with sufficient shock force to cause the simultaneous release of mammoth amounts of sub-glacial water simultaneously, not slowly such as would happen with just a single release point or two.
You also have to limit the force of impact to not cause a major extinction event.
You also have to show the amount of sub-glacial water was sufficient to flood the world. The glaciation was extensive, but not even close to worldwide. For example, in our hemisphere it only made it down a little south of the Canadian border. Not only that, but there is evidence of ice grinding against rock all through glaciated areas, so you have limited room in which to hide sub-glacial water.
You also have to show that the world's mountain ranges all popped up a couple miles after the flood.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by wmscott, posted 03-18-2002 4:30 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 231 of 460 (7395)
03-20-2002 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by edge
03-19-2002 11:19 AM



Fine. Dropstones are found at an elevation of 380 to 480 feet asl. What does this have to do with a global flood? I can see that we are not getting through, wmscott. You need to find evidence that shows not only that there was a global flood, but that your theory is diagnostic in explaining it. You have failed at this.
Good point, but I don't think you have to accept the presence of dropstones in the Driftless Area. Wmscott seems to be the only one who thinks they exist.
It was also interesting to see Wmscott's contention that the Mississippi wasn't dammed because, "There is of course no evidence for the giant damming of the Mississippi." There's no evidence for a world-wide flood, either, but that one he's sure of.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by edge, posted 03-19-2002 11:19 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by edge, posted 03-20-2002 10:32 AM Percy has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 232 of 460 (7399)
03-20-2002 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Percy
03-20-2002 10:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Good point, but I don't think you have to accept the presence of dropstones in the Driftless Area. Wmscott seems to be the only one who thinks they exist.

Of course. I shall remain skeptical of dropstones in the Driftless Area. The overwhelming majority of evidence seems to be against them. I think you perhaps are detecting a note of frustration on my part in agreeing to wmscott's interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 03-20-2002 10:14 AM Percy has not replied

wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 460 (7416)
03-20-2002 4:09 PM


If I may pop back in for a quick interjection...
Another question I might ask of wmscott is why are no dropstones found in Iowa, or Nebraska, or Texas, or Tennessee ... or Venezuela, for that matter?
If a huge ice sheet several miles thick, covering much of northern N. America broke up and dispersed in a matter of days, on top of a raging flood moving across the continent and back during that time, why didn't the scattered pieces of that ice sheet leave their dropstones everywhere?
Remember the release of subglacial meltwaters that causes wmscott's flood? They should be rafting huge chunks of ice all the way to the Gulf of Mexico and beyond.
Instead, we only find dropstones in areas KNOWN to have have been actually covered by ice sheets at one time or another. Logically, it would seem this is evidence of glaciation, not flooding.
Percy mentions the effect of waves and coastal erosion. We might ask a similar question...
What effect would a several miles high wall of water and/or ice released from several miles up sliding into the ocean have? Can you say "scouring" ??? Where ever that water came out, it should have eroded the continent down to bedrock and left huge drumlins, etc. It would have been like a firehose on a pile of powdered sugar.
Might it not also produce some sizeable waves? Very small pieces of glaciers sliding into the coastal bays of Alaska produce waves hundreds of meters high on opposing shorelines. When entire continental ice sheets slide into the ocean (or release subglacial melt... same effect), it would produce a tsunami big enough to make the Missoula floods look like an overturned spitoon. Why aren't the opposing shorelines carved up and eroded? We would expect to see streamlined hills, a tremendous layer of debris, coastal sediment washed inland for hundreds of miles, incredible turbidite deposits offshore, etc, etc.
None of that is found in the real world - not on the scale required to raise sea-level by thousands of meters. Therefore there is no evidence that a large amount of water or ice surged into the ocean at the end of the Pleistocene.

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 234 of 460 (7417)
03-20-2002 4:56 PM


Joe Meert
You are right, I really should quit wasting my time arguing that the sky is blue with people who don't want to believe it, and focus more on research and writing. This debate has been going around in circles away. It is time to reduce the time I spend on this board. It will take some time to prepare a paper or papers. Why don't you read my book or the many postings here and let me know what, if any, that you think could be the basis for an article that would interest you as an editor. You can e-mail me through my publisher. I have some ideas I want to pursue, some field work to do this year. What type of paper would you like to see? My thinking is the whole theory is too much for one paper any way and too controversial, so I have been thinking of trying a series of articles, one on each major part. The scientific community may find it easier to accept that way. What journal and journals are you the editor of and on the board of, maybe I will submit a paper to you some day.
edge & Percipient
Those rocks in the Driftless area are really giving you guys fits. I agree with the paper on the Driftless area never being glaciated, that agrees with my theory and explains the erratic the author of the paper reported. No matter what I say you two are not going to believe me anyway. Considering what a problem this seems to be for you guys, if I ever do a second edition, I will have to try and include some pictures of these trouble some rocks. By the way, these drop stones are not limited to the Driftless area. If you check the state geology books for the states that line the Mississippi, these rocks turn up in a number of river valleys that connect with the river. Drop stones also turn up in other parts of the world in places where glaciers could not have left them without a flood. It is not a local occurrence limited to just one area. One book states " erratic boulders comprise one of the important items that are ignored by orthodox geologists except as they occur in glaciated regions. There is not doubt that ice did carry these boulders for many miles and did deposit them on entirely different formations. Such 'erratics' are quite common in northern Europe and the glaciated area of North America. However, these boulders are also found in warmer climates far from any sings of glaciation. For example, in southern California there are many places where erratic boulders occur, but we have yet to read any geological report of their existence." Neglected Geological Anomalies, William R. Corliss, page 246. As usual Corliss is out in left field, but the author he quotes does make some interesting points about the occurrence of erratics in areas not reached by glaciers. A number of people over the years have pointed to ice rafting as the only way some of these rocks could have been deposited, Charles Darwin was one.
doctrbill
Psalms 14:1 & Romans 1:18-22.
You never did explain how at Genesis 1:2 the word 'earth' is really referring to a land region when the land doesn't rise above the waters until a later verse. In fact what I posted earlier is still true.
You have still failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted. Your line of reasoning that because you believe that some verses only refer to part of the earth, therefor no other verse can refer to all the earth, is childish. The context clearly contradicts your line of reasoning at Exodus 19:5 and Daniel 2:35 among many others.
Failure to cite a single reference that supports your unusual interpretation.
Failure to explain why you feel that "earth" applies to only a limited land area, when in Genesis 1:10 it is referring to all the land.
Failure to explain what 'earth' is being referred to in Genesis 1:2 before the creation of land.
Failure to explain Hebrews 11:7 "By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; and through this [faith] he condemned the world" As Mister Pamboli correctly pointed out the Greek word for world here is Kosmos which is here used with the meaning of all of the world of wicked mankind. Paul traveled to Spain, Rome and many other places, yet he believed that at the flood, the Kosmos had been condemned and destroyed. In using the word Kosmos Paul was clearly not referring to an event that effected only a portion of mankind living in one region of the earth.
Of course the reason why you have failed is best summed up in an other earlier post.
You also made a reference to 'good scholarship', you can not make that claim since as you have already admitted you don't even understand the dreams of Daniel which are mostly explained right in the book of Daniel. Having such a limited knowledge of basic Bible context clearly disqualifies you from 'good scholarship.' Since the meaning of many words is determined by the context, and as you have already shown an extremely low level of comprehension of Biblical context, you are completely unqualified to determine the meaning inferred by the usage of words in the Bible. Your low level of scholarship is also shown by your refusal and inability to post any references which support your interpretation. Considering the fact that your viewpoint is in conflict with biblical Hebrew dictionaries and biblical reference works, and you have responded to that conflict by labeling such works as biased and wrong, the only support for your interpretation is your own personal opinion based on a very shallow and erroneous view of the Bible. Your erroneous theories on the word circle at Isaiah 40:22 highlight your biased view, not even taking into account Job 26:7 stating the earth is hanging upon nothing. Both scriptures referring to the whole earth. To ignore the obvious meaning of these verses and many others such as Genesis 1:2, referring to the whole earth, requires a level of biased interpretation that renders your opinion valueless. Due to the fact that you support your opinion on a claimed standing as some sort of Bible scholar, it is time to rip that phony sheepskin off your back. I don't know if your body physically sat in the appropriate class rooms, but even if so, is clear that your mind failed to absorb much of anything. If you have a piece of paper, it would seem that is all you have, for you certainly are no Bible scholar in biblical knowledge or understanding.
You silly guy, you think I wrote that to insult you. Not insult, expose you as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, and you failed to answer a single charge I made against you. Hence it seems I was right. You ignore biblical reference works and even widely used biblical dictionaries that clearly contradict your theory and call them wrong and biased. You ignore other scriptures that conflict with your interpretations. You twist scriptures and ignore the context in a fruitless attempt to support your assertions. In fact in writing the above exposing you as a fraud, I probably didn't go far enough. If I was to peel away all the layers of lies wrapped around you, what would I find in the center? Probably someone else, a lying conniving atheist using a false persona as a 'Bible scholar' in a desperate attempt to discredit the word of God. Your methods, aims and lack of understanding all point to the very real possibility you are a total fraud, not just in your ridiculous anti-biblical claims, but also in who and what you claim to be. In short to sum things up, I can quote you.
I have examined your scriptural evidence.
It does not threaten my position.
Theological arrogance (and ignorance) underpins your belief.
Scriptural evidence does not support your argument.
wehappyfew
Long time no see. You are thinking too sudden, and some of the evidence you are asking for does exist, see the beginning of this post. You may also want to look at the earlier posting we had here while you were gone on super floods and the Mississippi river valley. By the way I have been thinking of getting off this board to do other things, been boring without you and Patrick. And I really should get back to my reading and research. Make sure you take a look at post 142 if you haven't already. I would be interested in your thoughts.

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by doctrbill, posted 03-20-2002 9:13 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 03-20-2002 10:42 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 238 by doctrbill, posted 03-20-2002 11:15 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 239 by edge, posted 03-21-2002 12:45 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 240 by Percy, posted 03-21-2002 3:11 PM wmscott has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 460 (7439)
03-20-2002 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by wmscott
03-19-2002 4:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
1)There would be both steam and water from the effects of the impact heat depending on the distance from the impact.
2)Frankly, it doesn't matter too much whether the water was liquid or vapor since the vapor would have rained out anyway and the effect would be pretty much the same in the end.
3)I was only looking to the impact shocks as a source of hydraulic pressure shock waves in the sub glacial lakes and water, resulting in simultaneous releases and the possible cause of some surging triggered by the termors.
4)Whether or not the shocks shattered the ice into pieces doesn't matter much, how much ended up in the sea to raise the level is the important part.
5)The change in things at the end of the ice age was to pronounced to be the result of a mere change in life style. Read about the Pleistocene extinction and the disappearance of Neanderthal man.
6)Yes they did get to the Americas by crossing water, but when did they get there? And why do the people living in Asia who didn't have to cross water at all, still have the same story? This suggests a common source before migration occurred.

1)I`m not arguing that the water is lost merely that if its vapour it won`t be "...impact melted water flowing off the ice sheet and into the sea..." as you put it... Also there wouldn`t be a lot of liquid water around plenty of vapour but not a large amount of liquid water...
2)Once again I`m not arguing that the vapour stays in the atmosphere, this whole conversation is about your use of the phrase "...impact melted water flowing off the ice sheet and into the sea..." which implied a lack of understanding of the mechanisms involved...
But I think you`ll find that the ammount of water released by an impact or series of impacts insufficient to cause a global flood....
3)Keep looking your own source for the Siberian impact states "Seismographs sensed slight tremors" note "slight tremmors"...
4)The shock wave does have to shatter solid ice in order for any sub glacial lake release pal, at the edges of the ice sheet, unless you think that hydraulic pressure could force the water through solid ice leaving said ice intact...
5)Lets see from this site...
The Pleistocene
quote:
It was during the Pleistocene that the most recent episodes of global cooling, or ice ages, took place. Much of the world's temperate zones were alternately covered by glaciers during cool periods and uncovered during the warmer interglacial periods when the glaciers retreated. Did this cause the Pleistocene extinctions? It doesn't seem likely; the large mammals of the Pleistocene weathered several climate shifts.
The Pleistocene also saw the evolution and expansion of our own species, Homo sapiens, and by the close of the Pleistocene, humans had spread through most of the world. According to a controversial theory, first proposed in the 1960s, human hunting around the close of the Pleistocene caused or contributed to the extinction of many of the Pleistocene large mammals. It is true that the extinction of large animals on different continents appears to correlate with the arrival of humans, but questions remain as to whether early human hunters were sufficiently numerous and technologically advanced to wipe out whole species. It has also been hypothesized that some disease wiped out species after species in the Pleistocene. The issue remains unsolved; perhaps the real cause of the Pleistocene extinction was a combination of these factors.

So we hunted things out of exsistence (or they dropped dead of disease) so we started rearing them as livestock to make our lives easier...
WTF are you trying to imply? That forming permanent or semi permanent settlements and adopting agriculture isn`t going to cause a huge change in lifestyle from hunter gathering....
Why do you think this would not cause a huge change in lifestyle...
6)So lets see they came from asia where there are also flood myths, they live well away from the sea. Thus the myths were probably brought with them from asia which makes it rather disingenuous to write "...Amerind traditions describe the emergence of dry land from beneath a global ocean (a peculiar concept to arise among Plains Indians if they "invented" the story!)" i.e "there must have been a flood because these people who live nowhere near the sea now have this myth..." or to claim that interior asian peoples always lived in the interior...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by wmscott, posted 03-19-2002 4:21 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 236 of 460 (7440)
03-20-2002 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by wmscott
03-20-2002 4:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott
you failed to answer a single charge I made against you. Hence it seems I was right.


Have you learned nothing from the story of Jesus?
-----------
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by wmscott, posted 03-20-2002 4:56 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 237 of 460 (7447)
03-20-2002 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by wmscott
03-20-2002 4:56 PM



Those rocks in the Driftless area are really giving you guys fits.
Well, that's precisely the point: they're rocks, not dropstones. Why can't you just explain to us why you think they're dropstones when professional geologists think they're just rocks? You've resisted offering any evidence for your position, leading naturally to the conclusion that you don't have any.

Considering what a problem this seems to be for you guys, if I ever do a second edition, I will have to try and include some pictures of these troublesome rocks.
Problem for us guys? You're the one with the theory that has convinced no one.
Anyway, you've got pictures? Why wait until the 2nd edition? Post 'em in a message. If you don't have anyplace on-line to put them then just send them to me at percipient@ and I'll load them onto the site's graphics area.
What's really puzzling is why you don't understand my skepticism. Everything I've read says that you find erratics only outside the Driftless Area. For example, I posted excerpts from two links in my previous message that say precisely that, one a contemporary description, the other from 1823. That's a pretty long stretch of time during which people's consistent observation has been that there are no erratics. Yet you, untrained and non-professional, say you've found erratics. Naturally I'm skeptical.

If you check the state geology books for the states that line the Mississippi, these rocks turn up in a number of river valleys that connect with the river.
Rivers that drain glaciated areas commonly contain erratics from the glacier.
As you said yourself, Corliss is out in left field. Strange that even though you're aware of this you accept his assertions about erratics. That someone like Corliss agrees with you should give you pause.
I know you're beset by a sea of protests, so there's no hurry to reply, but when you get a chance I'm still interested in hearing your explanations about the other points from my previous post to you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by wmscott, posted 03-20-2002 4:56 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 238 of 460 (7452)
03-20-2002 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by wmscott
03-20-2002 4:56 PM


The following verses have been taken out of context and strung together to say something which the author probably never intended:
quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
You are right, I really should quit wasting my time ... going around in circles ... the whole theory is too much ...

And now for something completely indifferent:
Here wm calls me a fool and tries to treaten me with the wrath of God.
quote:
Psalms 14:1 & Romans 1:18-22.
On a hopeful note, wm continues to explore truly fundamental clues.
quote:
You never did explain how at Genesis 1:2 the word 'earth' is really referring to a land region when the land doesn't rise above the waters until a later verse.
Modern creationism claims that the land rose above the water. Scripture suggests the exact opposite. Gen. 1:9
I have pointed out that "Jehovah" is not credited with creation in the First chapter of Genesis (the text in question). I suspect that you have not responded because it would open a can of worms regarding biblical theology.
quote:
You have still failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted.
You have not responded to the rebuttals I posted. Repetition of this complaint does not qualify as a response. Instead of answering my rebuttals you have attempted to mock my scholarship, curse my faith and denigrate my personna. This too, does not comprise an answer.
But your attempt to assassinate my character was wonderfully venemous! I re-post it here to entertain the potential "cloud of witnesses" who may wish to observe your godly conquest of the heathen.
quote:
wmsnott
You twist scriptures and ignore the context in a fruitless attempt to support your assertions. In fact in writing the above exposing you as a fraud, I probably didn't go far enough. If I was to peel away all the layers of lies wrapped around you, what would I find in the center? Probably someone else, a lying conniving atheist using a false persona as a 'Bible scholar' in a desperate attempt to discredit the word of God. Your methods, aims and lack of understanding all point to the very real possibility you are a total fraud, not just in your ridiculous anti-biblical claims, but also in who and what you claim to be. In short to sum things up, I can quote you.

Sounds like a man at the end of his rope, willi. But, nevertheless, feel free to quote me.
----------
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by wmscott, posted 03-20-2002 4:56 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 239 of 460 (7458)
03-21-2002 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by wmscott
03-20-2002 4:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Those rocks in the Driftless area are really giving you guys fits.

No, wmscott, it is you that is giving me fits. I have no problem with the data at all.
quote:
I agree with the paper on the Driftless area never being glaciated, that agrees with my theory and explains the erratic the author of the paper reported. No matter what I say you two are not going to believe me anyway. Considering what a problem this seems to be for you guys, if I ever do a second edition, I will have to try and include some pictures of these trouble some rocks.
As I said I have no problem with the data at all. If there are dropstones there, then they are readily explained by normal proglacial phenomena. Why invent some wacky scheme to get them there?
quote:
By the way, these drop stones are not limited to the Driftless area. If you check the state geology books for the states that line the Mississippi, these rocks turn up in a number of river valleys that connect with the river.
Exactly! They are a normal phenomenon of glacial lakes and marine glaciers.
quote:
Drop stones also turn up in other parts of the world in places where glaciers could not have left them without a flood. It is not a local occurrence limited to just one area. One book states " erratic boulders comprise one of the important items that are ignored by orthodox geologists except as they occur in glaciated regions. There is not doubt that ice did carry these boulders for many miles and did deposit them on entirely different formations. Such 'erratics' are quite common in northern Europe and the glaciated area of North America. However, these boulders are also found in warmer climates far from any sings of glaciation.
Yes, they can end up anywhere that water takes them from the icecaps to the tropics. It happens today. No flood necessary. An ocean takes them to such places. Please show us evidence for a flood!
quote:
For example, in southern California there are many places where erratic boulders occur, but we have yet to read any geological report of their existence." Neglected Geological Anomalies, William R. Corliss, page 246. As usual Corliss is out in left field, but the author he quotes does make some interesting points about the occurrence of erratics in areas not reached by glaciers.
Could it be that no one else attaches any special significance to these erratics?
quote:
A number of people over the years have pointed to ice rafting as the only way some of these rocks could have been deposited, Charles Darwin was one.
Well, you're going to have to go back in time an debate Darwin, then. Because only we are here. What is your point with this statement? Some people also thought that malaria was spread by breathing bad air. So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by wmscott, posted 03-20-2002 4:56 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 240 of 460 (7510)
03-21-2002 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by wmscott
03-20-2002 4:56 PM


Found this at the CNN site today in an article about the floods in Kentucky:

Cow Waiting for a Raft
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by wmscott, posted 03-20-2002 4:56 PM wmscott has not replied

wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 460 (7679)
03-22-2002 11:13 PM


scott,
You have demonstrated yet again why I sometimes find our discussions to be pointless. I made a reasoned, logical objection to various consequences implied by your theory, and you brushed them aside with a one-line response... "You are thinking too sudden"
I could dig back into these pages and find some of your own words that indicate "sudden" is a vast understatement. Words like these:
quote:
...that would have put between 31,460,000 cukm and 575,292,400 cukm [of water and/or ice] into the oceans in a short period of time.
(post 87)


Considering the ANNUAL flow of tha Amazon River is only 6300 cukm, I think we should be able to agree that is a lot of water or ice to travel into the ocean in a few weeks or months. Considering the water or ice has 6,000 to 45,000 feet of head behind it (post 87 again), the erosive force would be earth-shattering... literally. Yet you still do not cite any evidence of this tremendous outflow you theorize to have happened. Outflows millions of times larger than any "super river flood". There should be landforms like the Channeled Scablands, but a thousand times bigger, all over Europe and N. America.
You can find no evidence of the tsunamis that should have been dozens of miles high resulting from the massive ice sheets sliding into the oceans all at once. The impact of that big an object sliding into the ocean would displace millions of times more water than an asteroid impact or any other mundane geological disaster. The tsunamis would be far larger than any ever recorded in the geologic record. Millions of times larger.
But let's go ahead and take care of a few minor details that are nagging me. You cite dropstones in the Driftless Area of Wisconsin, and other areas of the world, as evidence of your global marine flood. Yet you repeatedly state the scott flood left no significant sediment deposits. There is an inherent contradiction implied in these two positions. Unfortunately your usage of technical geological terms outside of their strict definitions has led you astray. If you apply the correct criteria to identify the "dropstones" you have found, you would realize that they are certainly valid evidence of flooding... but without a correlated sequence of transgressive marine sediments, they are actually just as valid evidence for local non-marine flooding. In other words, they are not evidence against a global flood, but they are not evidence FOR it either. Lacustrine or floodplain sediments containing dropstones are common throughout the geologic record. No global flood is required to explain any of these dropstones, so at best this argument is consistent with, but not diagnostic of, a global flood.
Or else they are not actually "dropstones"...
You would be safer to use the more general term "glacial erratics". These do have the same strict diagnostic criteria which are working against your argument. If you can find glacial erratics in Alabama, for example, left by ice sheet fragments that floated south as the floodwaters drained off the continent... THAT would be significant. Glacial erratics nad dropstones in Wisconsin? Nobody's going to be puzzled by evidence of glaciation near a continent-sized ice sheet.
Even more nit-picky is to point out that you have repeatedly cited geological literature that states the Driftless Area was never glaciated in Wisconsian time. Yet you also claim that the ice sheets could have been far more widespread than geologists currently believe. These positions are also mutually exclusive. One of them needs to be dropped.
A more serious concern is your continued use of laughably ridiculous ice volumes to fuel your global flood. Even after Patrick presented several converging lines of evidence to rule out ice volumes significantly larger than 40-50,000,000 cukm, you still blithely postulate a flood depth of 4,000 feet (post 142 ...that post also gives a glaciated area of 192,400,000 sqkm, while your post 87 lists "45,000,000 sqkm believed to have been glaciated"). Assuming the 4,000 feet figure corresponds to post 87's 1219m flood depth, you state this "would take an ice volume of ... 621,202,400 cukm".
Problem 1. It appears that this figure ignores isostatic flexing under the ice sheet. The weight of that much ice would depress the land to far below sea-level, and only the portion above sea-level can contribute to a global flood. Therefore your total ice volume needs to be about 50% larger to get the required amount.
Problem 2. 50% larger than 621,000,000 cukm is essentially ALL THE WATER ON THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET!!!! The ocean basins would be dry plains with a few puddles on the bottom.
Ummm... problems 3-5 are not really neccessary at this point, are they?
The only option is to drastically reduce the size of your flood. As soon as you get into a realistic range for ice volume, your mechanism for unprecedented and unsupportable deep-mantle flexing disappears. The weight of a few hundred feet of water redistributed over the planet is inconsequential to deep mantle dynamics. There simply isn't enough energy to flex that much mantle rock. Until you show equations using actual values for mantle rheology, your idea is an elaborate fantasy that adds an interesting wrinkle to an old myth. But it is still nothing more than myth at this point.
Anytime you want assistance with proofing your material (are you really considering a second edition?), my original offer still stands. I hope you will take what I have written in this post as helpful criticism towards that end and that you will consider it more carefully than you did for my last couple of efforts.
be happy

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by wmscott, posted 03-28-2002 4:35 PM wehappyfew 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