Posted by Cygnus [Cygnus] on April 06, 1999 at 16:47:04 {JK6FUAMFdMrol7LMpW5IL4bdfUTIaI}:
In Reply to: *Mammoths, Flood -- for WW posted by WW- on April 06, 1999 at 13:44:13:
Hi WW. If I may jump in, I'd like to demonstrate the difference between the quality of your posts and the quality of Alan's.
: You depend on other's research or writings to do some of yours, right? You say your sources are beyond dispute? What about the 10% of Brown's treatise that is unexplained?
What Alan relates is material contested and verifed by peers in the serious scientific community. I can't believe you ignored just about everything he wrote and deferred to the 10% he didn't deal with.
: I am not posting this info for those who have made up their minds, nor is it for the purpose of debate.
But it will be debated as long as you post. That's kind of the nature of this board? Why is it, WW, that you expect people who aren't sure to accept your information blindly? Do you realize that you have posted inaccurate material? Don't you feel a sense of responsibility for what post and that others will read?
: How much do you think would happen to the configuration of the earth's continents and seas if we had a close call with a planetary body?
Did you know that with a flat landscape, the whole earth would be covered by a mile and a
half of water? I'm sure you do.
Define "a close call." This is what is annoying about people who try to push wild assertions... you write such vague and undeterminable terms thereby making it impossible to understand exactly what your 'evidence' is and how to relate to it.
Also, are you seriously implying that the globe was relatively flat 5000 years ago?
: There is really too much evidence left out in all science because some of it cannot be pigeonholed into a category.
That may be true, and that is what allows pseudoscientists and crackpot propagandists to sell books.
: For instance, there is an ancient city that exists high up in the Andes. Spaniards were amazed at what they found and the local indians said the Ancients had made the city. It is too high for humans to do the WORK required to build it! NO way to grow the food at that height in the mountains.
What is the height? How large is the 'city' and what sorts of
structures remain? How old do archaeologists date it to be?
: Carvings on the blocks show people who do NOT LOOK LIKE the races now prevalent in the region.
What does "do not look like" mean? Do they have any resemblance at all? What are the differences?
: Who were the inhabitants? Therefore it was raised by catastrophism and likely very quickly. It is largely intact so a large area had to move at once.
How high did this large area 'have to move'? 5,000 feet? What sort of catastrophism would quickly raise a "city" that height or higher, keeping it "largely intact" where it can be distinguishable? What does "largely intact" mean, anyway?
: There are sandy SHORELINES at high elevations.
How large are these shorelines? It what condition are they? Exactly how high are these elevations? Is there another legitimate explanation for how they ended up where they did besides catastrophism?
: Ancient calendars from different cultures show a year as being 290 days, then after a break in time and evidence are 'corrected'.
So? This is supposed to support what idea?
: This idea that continents ONLY shift and move over millions of years is disputable.
Disputable by whom? With what evidence? Did you even read what AF's rebuttal of Brown said?
: Something happened in the ancient days, some catastrophic event or events. There are too many unanswered questions to just say 'it never happened'.
No one suggests there never existed any catastrophes. But what is "ancient?" What is the "it" that your skeptical opponents purportedly say never happened?
: Do you deny that the earth could have had a different tilt on the axis, allowing a much milder climate worldwide?
What degree differential are we talking about?
: There are salt lakes in mountains, fossilized aquatic creature's remains on mountains, the list goes on and on.
All explainable by an old earth without the need for incredible catastrophes within the past 10,000 years.
: I am also not 'afraid of what I will find', I have seen it and am not impressed. I have also realized that much more of the Bible than I thought can not be taken literally and it does not have to be!
What are you not impressed with? Alan's thorough debunking of people like Brown and your mammoth myth?
You have said that you must accept a literal Flood because Jesus and Peter did. Now it seems you are backtracking on that issue. Which is it, WW?
: There is a deeper, more spiritual meaning when one looks beyond the literal storyline.
True, but what does that get you? Where does that lead you? What classifies something as having 'spiritual meaning'? Where do you draw the line between literalism and symbolic imagery? Did Jonah really hang out in a fish's belly for a few days? Did God really rain down fire from the heavens so Elijah could look tough? Did Jesus actually mix some spit with some dirt and magically fix some dude's vision? Where does 'spirituality' turn into 'wishful imagination'?
: I also recognize where the Bible is in many ways a history of Israel and they used 'Yahweh commanded' to justify butchery and murder.
All right. Where does that stuff take you, then? What does that say about Yahweh, or any such Deity that Yahweh might be based on?
: It is not inerrant, it has an ancient view of events and the cosmos and it cannot be defended as literally word for word from God.
Okay, then why does your defense mechanism kick in so strongly? What exactly is your position that you are arguing? Or are you just searching and relaying information as you come across it, without regard for its validity or trustworthiness? If a piece looks interesting and raises questions due to inherent fuzziness of terms and concepts, why do you think it is worth sharing? Do you really read this stuff (and what you post summing up certain material)?
I hope no offense over this post was taken by you, WW, but Alan's posts are chock-full of facts and unadulterated
logic whereas yours are full of suppositions, incredulity, nonspecifics, and pseudoscientific jargon.