Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

Okay buzz, time to put up some references in support of your claims. You've made a number of assertions in this and other threads, none of which you've bothered to support other than vaguely. Let's take a look at some of the recent ones: 1. aged prehistoric coelacanth: On the assumption that you're quoting the old oft-repeated creationist saw about "prehistoric coelocanths" being somehow a refutation of evolution, you might wish to actually consider researching an answer outside of the creationist websites. In the first place, the "coelocanth" that have been captured actually represent two living species of an order, Coelocanthini, that has been around for on the order of 340 my. The two species Latimeria chalumnae and L. manadoensis are the last surviving representatives. They aren't "living fossils", and they are only "coelocanths" because they belong to that order. Both are substantially different from their nearest fossil relative, Macropoma spp. to the point they aren't even considered the same genus. So where are the ancestral fossils of Latimeria? Buried in continental shelf sediments in out-of-the-way corners of the deep ocean. Which is why no one has found them. It WAS thought that the order was extinct, based on the last known fossils. Nice to know that there are still undiscovered species running around the planet, but the Latimeria are not "living fossils".2. Nebraska man: In the first place, Nebraska man was NEVER included in ANY textbook. When the tooth was discovered, it was touted in the media as a sensation "proving" that pre-humans had existed in North America. It was disputed in scientific circles almost immediately, and was thoroughly dropped within five years or so of the discovery. (I can dig up the exact timeline if you're interested). An example of wishful thinking coupled with politics and media sensationalism - that was discredited by scientists. This isn't any kind of a black eye for evolutionary theory any more than the Piltdown or archeoraptor hoaxes were. The only people clinging to this are creationists trying to discredit evolution. Pitiful, really.3. Java man: The only reason creationists can even think to use this early Homo erectus find as part of some vain attempt to again discredit evolution is the fact that the original bones were lost. However, plaster casts of the originals still exist. In any event, there have been innumerable erectus fossils discovered since, so even discounting completely Java man doesn't change the evolutionary sequence to modern humans. Again, a fairly desperate attempt to call into question evolution based on completely spurious arguments. Your creationist sources are badly misleading you. And now we drag in proven frauds that even most creationist organisations have discarded.1. Ballard's Black Sea discoveries unfortunately provide absolutely no support fo any creation account. The fact that the Mediterranean's rise at the end of the last ice age caused the breach of the Bosporus 7600 years ago. What's fascinating about the sort of "slow-motion" catastrophe is that the unique nature of the event created conditions for completely anoxic bottom layer - possibly preserving ancient lake-shore cultures. Almost 10 years ago Ballard found an ancient shoreline lying in 140 m of water. Since then submersibles and underwater archeologists have discovered innumerable artifacts from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age from the anoxic layers. If you want to consider the Black Sea flood to have been the source of all subsequent flood myths - including the Christian one - then more power to you. It most certainly doesn't mean that Noah, the Ark, and God were involved. An example of creationists seizing on any data, no matter how remotely relevant or how many alternative interpretations (especially scientific ones) are available to explain the evidence.2. Baugh's "coal skull" was found to be made from clay, his fossilized hammer wasn't fossilized, his "human and dino together" prints have been shown to be faked, etc. Not even the YEC organizations who are often guilty of faking or misinterpreting evidence will support Baugh. The man and all his "discoveries" have been so thoroughly refuted that even AiG won't use them any more.3. Ron Wyatt's chariot wheels in Aqaba were revealed to have been planted. His own son is the one who finally admitted that daddy had faked the evidence. John Baumgardner, a leading "creation scientist" often quoted by YECs, proved Wyatt's "ark" on Ararat was faked.I don't have to "smother" anything. Creationists shoot themselves and each other in the foot on a regular basis. Any wonder why it's difficult to accept that these people aren't dishonest charlatans? If this is where you get your "evidence", it's no longer a question of intepretation. It's a question of dishonest "lying for Jesus" vs science. I'll take the science every time.

Buzz, you're a real piece of work, ya know that? You're insisting that no one has refuted your claims about Baugh, etc. I invite your attention back to message 44 on this thread where each and every one of your non-biblical claims was addressed - and rebutted. And before you state that "they weren't refuted", I'd like to draw your attention to your post 41 that mine was a response to. The response I gave in #44 was precisely calculated to provide the exact same level of detail as you did in making your initial claim. You not only failed to provide substantiation of your assertions, you utterly failed to even address the post. And yet you have the unmitigated gall to post Talk about copouts. Almost 160 posts and you STILL haven't addressed the rebuttals (hint: a good start would be to provide data or evidence in support of your initial claim inre Baugh, etc. It is YOUR claim that Baugh is valid. YOU provide either substantiating evidence OR valid arguments in support.)