Posted by AF [AF] on April 06, 1999 at 17:27:19 {JK6FUAMFdMtWYktmF7cQdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: *Mammoths, Flood -- for WW posted by WW- on April 06, 1999 at 13:44:13:
: I realize you have done much research and honestly believe what you are telling me. You depend on other's research or writings to do some of yours, right?
Of course. What I present is essentially 99% the research of solid scientists that I've verified to the best of my ability and that I feel is backed up by solid facts.
: You say your sources are beyond dispute?
Of course not. I say that they're very good and that I've checked them and cross checked them for accuracy and reasonableness. You don't seem to understand that in science, nothing is 100% certain. Nor is anything in life. The only things that are 100% certain are mathematical or other pure logical constructs that have no counterpart in the real world.
: What about the 10% of Brown's treatise that is unexplained?
I have no doubt that if I or more competent people looked at that 10%, it would also be debunked. Brown is a crackpot in the subject of geology even more than the JWs are in the subject of religion. All you have to do is learn a bit of physics and geology to prove it to yourself, just as you had you educate yourself in certain things to realize what the JWs were all about.
: 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?
A lot.
: Did you know that with a flat landscape, the whole earth would be covered by a mile and a half of water?
Right. About 8,500 feet to be a bit more exact. So what?
: There is really too much evidence left out in all science because some of it cannot be pigeonholed into a category.
True in general, but meaningless unless you make it specific.
: 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. ...
References please. But if it's on the order of Walter Brown's garbage, don't bother.
: This idea that continents ONLY shift and move over millions of years is disputable.
By who? Walter Brown?
: Something happened in the ancient days, some catastrophic event or events. There are too many unanswered questions to just say 'it never happened'.
What is "it"?
: Do you deny that the earth could have had a different tilt on the axis, allowing a much milder climate worldwide?
Yes. Please don't quote Hapgood at me. He's another crank.
: There are salt lakes in mountains,
So what?
: fossilized aquatic creature's remains on mountains,
Indeed there are. If you'd read my writeup on the Flood on Osarsif's webpage you'd have found a pretty good explanation for this: during the ice age maxima the glaciers depressed the land by up to 2000 feet in some spots. After the weight of the ice was removed, the land gradually rebounded. Parts of Scandinavia have already rebounded some 1500 feet in 15,000 years. Hudson's Bay in Canada is shrinking as the land rises. Lake Champlain in New York State was part of the St. Lawrence Seaway shortly after the last glacial maximum ended, and fossils of seals and even whales have been found in the vicinity. As the land rose, the connections with the sea went away. Nothing unusual here.
: the list goes on and on.
"The list" meaning a list of somewhat unusual things that crackpots love to chew over.
: I am also not 'afraid of what I will find', I have seen it and am not impressed.
I don't believe you. You give no evidence of actually having looked at factual evidence in any detail. Instead, it looks to me like you're floundering around, dashing from opinion to wild opinion without taking the time to evaluate anything you look at, and you're being blown this way and that by the latest thing you've happened to read in that great swamp called pseudoscience.
: 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!
Good! That's a start!
: There is a deeper, more spiritual meaning when one looks beyond the literal storyline.
I agree. Whether this is deliberate or accidental, I don't know.
: I also recognize where the Bible is in many ways a history of Israel and they used 'Yahweh commanded' to justify butchery and murder. 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.
Then you've realized a great deal. I hope that you'll eventually realize that what you're doing these days is just grabbing for any kind of solid ground in a spiritual sea. I'd hope that you'd grab onto some solid chunk of reality and build from there. I've given you one way of making a start.
The very best way for you to figure out what's what is to go to a library and do some research. Do it in whatever area you like, but whatever you choose make sure you understand what you read. Don't accept or reject anything on the word of the author alone, but make judgments based on the facts he presents. If you don't feel comfortable with his presentation, then get other opinions. But please, please, please: don't limit yourself to the writings of charlatans like Walter Brown. Find out the facts for yourself and stop relying on the opinions of others. Rely on facts that you feel comfortable explaining to others. If you don't feel comfortable explaining something, then you don't understand it.
AF