For Christians. Was the flood real or just a myth?

[Unveiled Artist]

Pangaea broke up roughly 200 million years ago so . . . no.

There are quite a few variations on the Noah's Ark myth and all of them are flawed.

I know. Learned about it in college. Finally, Ill be finished in a week.

《---very happy.

That was my whole point of the pangea comment. I dont vet the connection between the Arch and the flood. The specifics wouldnt change anything religiously regardless how accurate they are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean present tense?



the definition of pangea

Thats the brief definition. Youre off by millions of years.

How was he wrong? He gave no date for the break up of Pangaea. And at the time of Pangaea roughly 70% of the Earth would have been covered by water. Actually probably a bit more of the Earth was covered by water. For one thing the Earth was not in an ice age then so there were no ice sheets. To be off by millions of years he would have had to have had a date for the break up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know. Learned about it in college. Finally, Ill be finished in a week.

《---very happy.

That was my whole point of the pangea comment. I dont vet the connection between the Arch and the flood. The specifics wouldnt change anything religiously regardless how accurate they are.

There was no "flood" and there was no "Arch <sic>". That is the whole point.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@gnostic and others are posting statements from the Bible, indicating the Flood was global, no local phenomenon!

Though they deny the event's veracity (they're actually trying to discredit the Bible), there is really so much evidence indicating it was worldwide!


Here's some information from a Dr. Hibben:


WORLDWIDE MAMMAL MASSACRE

Not many thousands of years ago, a series of bizarre catastrophes turned our earth into an animal
disaster area. It was a massacre of worldwide proportions. Today paleontologists stare at the Fossil
record. They ask themselves, "But why -and HOW?"
by Paul W. Kroll
THE PLACE: Alaska.
THE SUBJECT: A mysterious series of events that wiped out
mammal life in Alaska a few thousand years ago.
THE REPORTER: Frank C. Hibben, well-known professor of archaeology at the University of
New Mexico who visited Alaska in 1941. He surveyed the tragic effects visible in the fossil record.
Later, Dr. Hibben pieced together the facts in his book, The Lost Americans.

Here is a tiny part of the baffling story as he told it.

Animal Disaster Area

"In many places the Alaskan muck blanket is packed with animal bones and debris in trainload
lots."
"Within this mass, frozen solid. lie the twisted parts of animals and trees intermingled with lenses
of ice and layers of peat and mosses. It looks as though in the middle of some catacystimic
catastrophe. . . the whole Alaskan world of living animals and plants was suddenly frozen in mid-
motion in a grim charade" (Frank C. Hibben, The Lost Americans, New York; Apollo Editions,
1961. pp. 90, 91).
Tendons, ligaments, fragments skin and hair, hooves - all are preserved in the muck. In some cases,
portions of animal flesh have been preserved. Bones of mammoths, mastodons, bison, horses,
wolves, bears and lions are hopelessly entangled! One author counts 1,766 jaws and 4,838 meta-
podials from ONE species of bison in a small area near Fairbanks, Alaska, alone.
Archaeologist Hibben saw with his own eyes - and smelled with his own nostrils - the specter of
death. North of Fairbanks, Alaska, he saw bulldozers pushing the melting muck into sluice boxes
for the extraction of gold. As the dozers' blades scooped up the melting gunk, mammoth tusks and
bones "rolled up like shavings before a giant plane." The stench of rotting flesh -tons of it - could
be smelled for miles around.
Hibben and his colleagues walked the pits for days. As they followed the bulldozers they
discovered perfect bison skulls with horns attached, mammoth skin with long black hair and
jumbled masses of bones.

Appalling Death in Alaska

But let Hibben continue his grisly account:

"Mammals there were in abundance, dumped in all attitudes of death. Most of them were pulled
apart by some unexplained prehistoric catastrophic disturbance. Legs and torsos and heads and
fragments were found together in piles or scattered separately" ((ibid., p.97).
Logs, twisted trees, branches and stumps were interlaced with the mammal menagerie. The signs of
sudden death were legion.
For example, in the Alaskan muck, stomachs of frozen mammoths have been discovered. These
frozen stomach masses contain the leaves and grasses the animals had just eaten before death
struck. Seemingly, no animal was spared.
"The young lie with the old, foal with dam and calf with cow. Whole herds of animals were
apparently killed together, overcome by some common power" (ibid, p. 170).

Sudden and Unnatural Death

The muck pits of Alaska are filled with evidence of universal and catastrophic death. These animals
simply did not perish by any ordinary means. Multiple thousands of animals in their prime were
obliterated.
On reviewing the evidence before his eyes, Hibben concluded:
"We have gained from the muck pits of the Yukon Valley a picture of QUICK EXTINCTION. The
evidences of violence there are as obvious as in the horror camps of [Nazi] Germany. Such piles of
bodies of animals or men simply do not occur by any ordinary means" (ibid, p 170).
If you want the full impact of what Dr. Hibben surveyed read his book, The Lost Americans.
Why Paleontologists Are Puzzled
It is this type of colossal carnage which gives scientific workers gray hairs. But Alaska's immense
slaughterhouse remains as just one case in point.
Much of North America beyond Alaska's frontiers became an animal disaster area, It has never
recovered from the effects. North America would have made Africa's modern big-game country
look like a children's zoo in those B.C. ("Before Catastrophe") times.
The imperial mammoths, largest known members of the elephant family, thundered across western
North America. In New England, the mastodon, another elephant cousin, roamed the countryside.
Further north, another tusky relative, the woolly mammoth, made his home.
Besides elephants, the woolly rhinoceros, giant ground sloths, giant armadillos, bear-sized beavers,
saber-toothed tigers, camels, antelopes, giant jaguars ALL roamed the countryside.
Then, with alarming suddenness - all these creatures perished. The evidence is still with us in the
rocks for all to see. In varying degrees, it is found on every continent the world over.
Across the vast stretches of Siberia- on the other side of the Arctic ocean, the same type of
monstrous mammal pogrom is quite evident.
Worldwide Destruction Enigma
Africa is populated with an immense number of exotic animals. But fossil evidence shows that
African wildlife is just a shadow of its former self. The same is true for South America. Today,
there are few large animals in that continent. However, the fossil record contains the bones of many
extinct animals with strange-sounding names.

Europe and Asia were also struck by this mammalicide. But what was responsible for this mass
zoological homicide? A recent authoritative book on the subject is called Pleistocene Extinctions,

The Search for a Cause.

The book title reveals the truth: scientists are still "searching" for a cause. It is still a mystery. But
why?
Why is the Case of the Colossal Catastrophe still such an enigma? Why has no Sherlock Holmes of
paleontology been able to put together the clues - and deduce the answer?
The basis for the dilemma goes back many, many decades to the time of Charles Darwin. He too
was mystified by this universal mammal butchery. A butchery which gave the coup de grace to so
many species and genera.

Darwin Puzzles Over the Evidence

In his book The Origin of Species Darwin wrote, "The extinction of species has been involved in
the most gratuitous mystery... No one can have marvelled more than I have at the extinction of
species" (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: Collier, 1962, p. 341).
Darwin was referring to his five-year cruise as amateur naturalist aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. In his
notes he revealed WHY he and the paleontologists of today are puzzled by the record of
catastrophic death found in the rocks.
"What then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera?" Darwin asked in astonishment.
"The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy
animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North
America up to Behring's [Bering's] Straits, WE MUST SHAKE THE ENTIRE FRAMEWORK OF
THE GLOBE" (Charles Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the
Countries Visited During the Voyage of H. M. S. Beagle Round the World, citation under date of
January 9, 1834).

-- CONTINUED--

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How was he wrong? He gave no date for the break up of Pangaea. And at the time of Pangaea roughly 70% of the Earth would have been covered by water. Actually probably a bit more of the Earth was covered by water. For one thing the Earth was not in an ice age then so there were no ice sheets. To be off by millions of years he would have had to have had a date for the break up.

Verb: he said "is" not was. I said he was off by millions of years. Fraudian slip, I guess. I was being picky.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There was no "flood" and there was no "Arch <sic>". That is the whole point.

Basically.

Though you can correct me in my science as much as you want. Im no longer being graded on it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There was no "flood" and there was no "Arch <sic>". That is the whole point.

Basically.

Though you can correct me in my science as much as you want. Im no longer being graded on it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

PART 2 --

A Worldwide Catastrophe?

The same thought of violent catastrophe struck Alfred Russel Wallace in the latter 1800's.
Nonscientists today generally do not know very much about Wallace. He, in fact, developed the
idea of biological evolution simultaneously with Darwin. Had Darwin not been persuaded to
publish his ideas when he did, Wallace would have beat him to the punch and published first. As it
turned out, both of them read their papers at the same meeting to avert any possible bad feelings.
Wallace, like Darwin, was a shrewd observer and student of zoology and paleontology. He likewise
was struck by the decimation of mammal life in prehistoric times.
In 1876, Wallace wrote, "We live in a zoologically impoverished world, from which all the
hugest, and fiercest, and strangest forms have recently disappeared…yet it is surely a marvelous
fact, and one that has hardly been sufficiently dwelt upon, this sudden dying out of so many large
Mammalia, not in one place only but over half the land surface of the globe" (Alfred Russel
Wallace, Geographical Distribution of Animals, New York: Hafner, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 150).
Were Wallace alive today, he would probably change the latter portion of his statement to
read, "... over all the land surface of the globe." The effect was worldwide.
Wallace's immediate conclusion was that, "There must have been some physical cause for this great
change; and it must have been a cause capable of acting almost simultaneously over large portions
of the earth's surface"

What Was the Cause?

Darwin, Wallace and other scientists of that day put forth theories to explain this worldwide
decimation of animal life. But no theory was accepted by all scientists. ALL the theories had weak
points; no one idea accounted for all the phenomena.
Especially puzzling were the fossils of extinct animals in the deep Alaskan muck beds. Equally
perplexing was the Siberian record. The evidence at face value told a story of violent catastrophe.
The record demanded area-wide, continent-wide, indeed WORLDWIDE - and simultaneous ca-
tastrophe.
This baffled the original workers; it still baffles scientists today. Any ideas put forth today are
generally rehashes of theories thought of long ago.
"The mysteries of extinction are so many and so baffling," wrote two archaeologists, "that it is
small wonder no book in English has been written on the subject. Since 1906, when Henry Fairfield
Osborn summed the matter up in his paper of fifty-odd pages, 'The Causes of Extinction of
Mammalia," Eiseley [famed anthropologist] credits only two theories with contributing anything
new to the discussion" (Kenneth Macgowan and Joseph Hester, Early Man in the New World, New
York: Doubleday, 1962, p.202).

Were Ice Ages Responsible?

Earlier workers postulated that Ice Ages were responsible for the mass killings. Not long ago, many
paleontologists became rather cool to this idea. And for good reasons. The death-by-refrigeration
idea simply didn't hold water. It was put into deep freeze storage for the following reasons, neatly
summed up in a book already quoted.
"Horses, camels, sloths, antelopes, all found slim pickings in their former habitat. But what was to
prevent these animals from simply following the retreating ice to find just the type of vegetation
and just the climate they desired? If Newport is cold in the winter, go to Florida. If Washington
becomes hot in the summer, go to Maine" (Frank C. Hibben, The Lost Americans, New York:
Apollo Editions, 1961, p. 176).

This was a good question. And it couldn't be answered.
A typical problem was the glyptodont. Paleontologists regarded him as strictly tropical in
adaptation. But here was the rub. Glaciation could not account for his extinction, unless:
"Unless one is willing to postulate freezing temperatures across the equator, such an explanation
clearly begs the question of their extinction in tropical America" (P. S. Martin and H. E. Wright,
Jr., editors, Pleistocene Extinction, "Bestiary for Pleistocene Biologists," by P. S. Martin and J. E.
Guilday, New Haven: Yale, 1967, p.23).
Giant tortoises, victims of this same mammal destruction, were found throughout the warmer parts
of the world. No paleoclimatologist was prepared to say that in glacial times freezing temperatures
extended through the Caribbean.
It is no wonder paleontologists put the Ice Age theory of extinction into cold storage. It simply
could not explain catastrophe in the tropics.
Equally perplexing was the mysterious extinction of horses in North America. About a decade ago,
eminent paleontologist G. G. Simpson was discussing this problem. It was a real head-scratcher.
When horses were reintroduced into the western hemisphere a few hundred years ago by the
(Pg. 5)
Spaniards, they increased marvelously. If the present climate and terrain is so favorable, what
caused their total extinction in the time just after the Ice Age?
To George Gaylord Simpson, it was one of the most mysterious episodes of animal history."

Wiped Off the Face of the Earth

What signed the horses' death warrant - killing them in droves? For Dr. Simpson, there was no
answer:
"There has been no lack of speculation and a dozen possible explanations have been suggested, but
all of these lack evidence and none is really satisfactory."
After explaining why he, in particular, rejected the Ice Age as the Grim Reaper of horses, Simpson
dejectedly summarized by saying:
"This seems at present one of the situations in which we must be humble and honest and admit that
we simply do not know the answer."
"It must be remembered too that extinction of the horses in the New World is only part of a larger
problem. Many other animals became extinct here at about the same time" (George Gaylord
Simpson, Horses, New York: Doubleday, 1961, pp. 198, 200).
Why did the horse cash in - so violently and quickly? Why did the candle go out on so
many hardy species of mammal life around the world? What caused the mass destruction in
Alaska? How did mammal genocide across the vast stretches of Siberia occur? What caused the last
gasp, the death rattle of land-living creatures in every continent the world over?

Was Man the Killer?

As paleontologists discussed the problem, a new gleam came to many an eye. They saw that the
remains of man - camp fires, burnt bones, arrow-heads - are sometimes associated with animal
remains.
The more they thought about it, the greater became their excitement. "Could man be responsible for
the decimation and extinction of mammal life?" they asked.
It was an intriguing idea.
Extinction occurred almost exclusively on land. It sometimes occurred with definite evidence of
the presence of man. Further, the explanation seemed to be the ONLY ONE left.
Paleontologists published a book, Pleistocene Extinctions, The Search for a Cause, in 1967. The
book was based largely on papers read during the Proceedings of the VII Congress of the In-
ternational Association for Quaternary Research.
From the reports, it was quite evident that the new "overkill" idea was too impotent to be the
answer to the mammal massacre. Although a number of paleontologists accepted the idea, they had
to acknowledge the weakness of the theory
The following statement shows why any such human "overkill" idea is in-adequate:
"We may speculate but we cannot determine how moose, elk, and caribou managed to survive
while horse, ground sloth, and mastodon did not."
"One must acknowledge that within historic time the Bushmen and other primitive hunters at a
Paleolithic level of technology have not exterminated their game resources, certainly not in any
way comparable to the devastation of the late-Pleistocene."
(Pg. 6)
These and other VALID OBJECTIONS to the hypothesis of overkill remain (P. S. Martin,
"Prehistoric Overkill," in Pleistocene Extinctions, The Search for a Cause, P. S. Martin and H. E.
Wright, Jr., editors, New Haven: Yale, 1967, p. 115).
Further, anthropologist Arthur Jelinek in his article "Man's Role in Extinction of Pleistocene
Faunas" for the above-mentioned book, had this to say:
"Throughout the New World one major puzzle exists with regard to linking man with the
extinction. This is the absence of direct evidence of human activity associated with the remains of
extinct animals" (ibid., p. 198).
More staggering were the masses of bone in Siberia and Alaska. Surely, these could not be
explained as the "overkill" effects of man.

The Problem of Siberia

Russian scientist N. K. Vereshchagin was blunt. He simply disagreed that man could be responsible
for the massive piles of animal bones in Siberia.
"The accumulations of mammoth bones and carcasses of mammoth, rhinoceros, and bison found
in frozen ground in Idigirka, Kolyma, and Novosibirsk islands bear no trace of hunting or activity
of primitive man" (ibid., "Primitive Hunters and Pleistocene Extinction in the Soviet Union" p.
338).
That man hunted animals is not in dispute. That he may have "overkilled" in local areas is, of
course, likely. Some fossils would bear this out.
But to accuse man as solely responsible for killing ALL the animals whose fossils are found round
the world is impossible. Even where animal fossils and evidence of man are found together, man is
sometimes one of the fossils! The Death Reaper claimed both man and beast.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You mean present tense?

Both present and past. The overall amount of land has not changed drastically over the last 200 million years, from Pangea to now. The only part that has changed is where the continents are.

"About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. "
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School

Thats the brief definition. Youre off by millions of years.

I am pretty sure that when I say "right now" I mean "right now".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Verb: he said "is" not was. I said he was off by millions of years. Fraudian slip, I guess. I was being picky.

I think that you misunderstood his post. What do you think that he was trying to say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

PART 2 --

A Worldwide Catastrophe?

The same thought of violent catastrophe struck Alfred Russel Wallace in the latter 1800's.
Nonscientists today generally do not know very much about Wallace. He, in fact, developed the
idea of biological evolution simultaneously with Darwin. Had Darwin not been persuaded to
publish his ideas when he did, Wallace would have beat him to the punch and published first. As it
turned out, both of them read their papers at the same meeting to avert any possible bad feelings.
Wallace, like Darwin, was a shrewd observer and student of zoology and paleontology. He likewise
was struck by the decimation of mammal life in prehistoric times.
In 1876, Wallace wrote, "We live in a zoologically impoverished world, from which all the
hugest, and fiercest, and strangest forms have recently disappeared…yet it is surely a marvelous
fact, and one that has hardly been sufficiently dwelt upon, this sudden dying out of so many large
Mammalia, not in one place only but over half the land surface of the globe" (Alfred Russel
Wallace, Geographical Distribution of Animals, New York: Hafner, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 150).
Were Wallace alive today, he would probably change the latter portion of his statement to
read, "... over all the land surface of the globe." The effect was worldwide.
Wallace's immediate conclusion was that, "There must have been some physical cause for this great
change; and it must have been a cause capable of acting almost simultaneously over large portions
of the earth's surface"

What Was the Cause?

Darwin, Wallace and other scientists of that day put forth theories to explain this worldwide
decimation of animal life. But no theory was accepted by all scientists. ALL the theories had weak
points; no one idea accounted for all the phenomena.
Especially puzzling were the fossils of extinct animals in the deep Alaskan muck beds. Equally
perplexing was the Siberian record. The evidence at face value told a story of violent catastrophe.
The record demanded area-wide, continent-wide, indeed WORLDWIDE - and simultaneous ca-
tastrophe.
This baffled the original workers; it still baffles scientists today. Any ideas put forth today are
generally rehashes of theories thought of long ago.
"The mysteries of extinction are so many and so baffling," wrote two archaeologists, "that it is
small wonder no book in English has been written on the subject. Since 1906, when Henry Fairfield
Osborn summed the matter up in his paper of fifty-odd pages, 'The Causes of Extinction of
Mammalia," Eiseley [famed anthropologist] credits only two theories with contributing anything
new to the discussion" (Kenneth Macgowan and Joseph Hester, Early Man in the New World, New
York: Doubleday, 1962, p.202).

Were Ice Ages Responsible?

Earlier workers postulated that Ice Ages were responsible for the mass killings. Not long ago, many
paleontologists became rather cool to this idea. And for good reasons. The death-by-refrigeration
idea simply didn't hold water. It was put into deep freeze storage for the following reasons, neatly
summed up in a book already quoted.
"Horses, camels, sloths, antelopes, all found slim pickings in their former habitat. But what was to
prevent these animals from simply following the retreating ice to find just the type of vegetation
and just the climate they desired? If Newport is cold in the winter, go to Florida. If Washington
becomes hot in the summer, go to Maine" (Frank C. Hibben, The Lost Americans, New York:
Apollo Editions, 1961, p. 176).

This was a good question. And it couldn't be answered.
A typical problem was the glyptodont. Paleontologists regarded him as strictly tropical in
adaptation. But here was the rub. Glaciation could not account for his extinction, unless:
"Unless one is willing to postulate freezing temperatures across the equator, such an explanation
clearly begs the question of their extinction in tropical America" (P. S. Martin and H. E. Wright,
Jr., editors, Pleistocene Extinction, "Bestiary for Pleistocene Biologists," by P. S. Martin and J. E.
Guilday, New Haven: Yale, 1967, p.23).
Giant tortoises, victims of this same mammal destruction, were found throughout the warmer parts
of the world. No paleoclimatologist was prepared to say that in glacial times freezing temperatures
extended through the Caribbean.
It is no wonder paleontologists put the Ice Age theory of extinction into cold storage. It simply
could not explain catastrophe in the tropics.
Equally perplexing was the mysterious extinction of horses in North America. About a decade ago,
eminent paleontologist G. G. Simpson was discussing this problem. It was a real head-scratcher.
When horses were reintroduced into the western hemisphere a few hundred years ago by the
(Pg. 5)
Spaniards, they increased marvelously. If the present climate and terrain is so favorable, what
caused their total extinction in the time just after the Ice Age?
To George Gaylord Simpson, it was one of the most mysterious episodes of animal history."

Wiped Off the Face of the Earth

What signed the horses' death warrant - killing them in droves? For Dr. Simpson, there was no
answer:
"There has been no lack of speculation and a dozen possible explanations have been suggested, but
all of these lack evidence and none is really satisfactory."
After explaining why he, in particular, rejected the Ice Age as the Grim Reaper of horses, Simpson
dejectedly summarized by saying:
"This seems at present one of the situations in which we must be humble and honest and admit that
we simply do not know the answer."
"It must be remembered too that extinction of the horses in the New World is only part of a larger
problem. Many other animals became extinct here at about the same time" (George Gaylord
Simpson, Horses, New York: Doubleday, 1961, pp. 198, 200).
Why did the horse cash in - so violently and quickly? Why did the candle go out on so
many hardy species of mammal life around the world? What caused the mass destruction in
Alaska? How did mammal genocide across the vast stretches of Siberia occur? What caused the last
gasp, the death rattle of land-living creatures in every continent the world over?

Was Man the Killer?

As paleontologists discussed the problem, a new gleam came to many an eye. They saw that the
remains of man - camp fires, burnt bones, arrow-heads - are sometimes associated with animal
remains.
The more they thought about it, the greater became their excitement. "Could man be responsible for
the decimation and extinction of mammal life?" they asked.
It was an intriguing idea.
Extinction occurred almost exclusively on land. It sometimes occurred with definite evidence of
the presence of man. Further, the explanation seemed to be the ONLY ONE left.
Paleontologists published a book, Pleistocene Extinctions, The Search for a Cause, in 1967. The
book was based largely on papers read during the Proceedings of the VII Congress of the In-
ternational Association for Quaternary Research.
From the reports, it was quite evident that the new "overkill" idea was too impotent to be the
answer to the mammal massacre. Although a number of paleontologists accepted the idea, they had
to acknowledge the weakness of the theory
The following statement shows why any such human "overkill" idea is in-adequate:
"We may speculate but we cannot determine how moose, elk, and caribou managed to survive
while horse, ground sloth, and mastodon did not."
"One must acknowledge that within historic time the Bushmen and other primitive hunters at a
Paleolithic level of technology have not exterminated their game resources, certainly not in any
way comparable to the devastation of the late-Pleistocene."
(Pg. 6)
These and other VALID OBJECTIONS to the hypothesis of overkill remain (P. S. Martin,
"Prehistoric Overkill," in Pleistocene Extinctions, The Search for a Cause, P. S. Martin and H. E.
Wright, Jr., editors, New Haven: Yale, 1967, p. 115).
Further, anthropologist Arthur Jelinek in his article "Man's Role in Extinction of Pleistocene
Faunas" for the above-mentioned book, had this to say:
"Throughout the New World one major puzzle exists with regard to linking man with the
extinction. This is the absence of direct evidence of human activity associated with the remains of
extinct animals" (ibid., p. 198).
More staggering were the masses of bone in Siberia and Alaska. Surely, these could not be
explained as the "overkill" effects of man.

The Problem of Siberia

Russian scientist N. K. Vereshchagin was blunt. He simply disagreed that man could be responsible
for the massive piles of animal bones in Siberia.
"The accumulations of mammoth bones and carcasses of mammoth, rhinoceros, and bison found
in frozen ground in Idigirka, Kolyma, and Novosibirsk islands bear no trace of hunting or activity
of primitive man" (ibid., "Primitive Hunters and Pleistocene Extinction in the Soviet Union" p.
338).
That man hunted animals is not in dispute. That he may have "overkilled" in local areas is, of
course, likely. Some fossils would bear this out.
But to accuse man as solely responsible for killing ALL the animals whose fossils are found round
the world is impossible. Even where animal fossils and evidence of man are found together, man is
sometimes one of the fossils! The Death Reaper claimed both man and beast.

Instead of quoting amateurs that are almost certain to get almost everything wrong why don't you see if you can support your claims with the work of actual scientists? This is such a mish mash of claims that I have no idea of where to start.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am always amazed by creationists that claim science based sites are biased and then they rely on sites that actually have in writing that workers cannot use the scientific method.

It exposes the lie behind their cries of "bias" in science. It's not bias they're concerned about, it's a respected institution like science reaching conclusions that they cannot ever accept.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Both present and past. The overall amount of land has not changed drastically over the last 200 million years, from Pangea to now. The only part that has changed is where the continents are.

"About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. "
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School



I am pretty sure that when I say "right now" I mean "right now".

Right now could mean present tense. It could be today. It could be literally ahorita, at this very moment. English is silly.

The word today has that effect too. Shrugs. What are you correcting me on?

I dont like science so I spit out what I learned the past three months in college. After that, my hands are up on fractions and terms. Just get the context and point my point and we'd do fine.

I dont see how noah's arch relates to the flood (regardless how we talk about it) to reality. Unless you have an idea of the connection?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It exposes the lie behind their cries of "bias" in science. It's not bias they're concerned about, it's a respected institution like science reaching conclusions that they cannot ever accept.

And, their conclusions many times are biased!

What, exactly, "exposes the lie"?

All I see is that science doesn't have the ability to "test for intelligent, invisible life, i.e., God", so they reach the conclusion it doesn't exist.

Yet, paranormal events occur everyday, but those with closed minds ignore them! Do you (or other skeptics) ever visit the paranormal board here on RF?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right now could mean present tense. It could be today. It could be literally ahorita, at this very moment. English is silly.

The word today has that effect too. Shrugs. What are you correcting me on?

I dont like science so I spit out what I learned the past three months in college. After that, my hands are up on fractions and terms. Just get the context and point my point and we'd do fine.

I dont see how noah's arch relates to the flood (regardless how we talk about it) to reality. Unless you have an idea of the connection?

Really? You see no connection between the flood myth and one of the major plot elements of the myth.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Right now could mean present tense. I could be today. It could be literally ahorita, at this very moment. English is silly.

Yesterday, today, last month, last year, right this very moment . . . in all of those cases 70% of the Earth is covered in water.

What are you correcting me on?

Earlier, you said:

"My professor quoted scientists who suggests that the world continents were once together (do to their shape and history). It made sense since our planet is made up of more water than land."

I was merely pointing out that 70% of the Earth is covererd in water right now, yet the continents are not all stuck together. I was assuming you were talking about coverage and not total amount. If we are talking about total amount, then the planet is mostly made of rock and that was true during the time of Pangea as well.

I dont like science so I spit out what I learned the past three months in college. After that, my hands are up on fractions a d terms. Just get the context and point of what I say and wed do fine.

Then I would stick to the math forums and stay away from making comments on science.

I dont see how noah's arch relates to the flood (regardless how we talk about it) in reality. Unless you have an idea of the connection?

I don't know how the middle of the underside of Noah's foot relates to a flood either.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Really? You see no connection between the flood myth and one of the major plot elements of the myth.

Unless you find can find it just as I can look up plate techtonics, I dont see the connection.

Do you see the story of noah's arch life outside the bible?

I dont see a connection

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yesterday, today, last month, last year, right this very moment . . . in all of those cases 70% of the Earth is covered in water.



Earlier, you said:

"My professor quoted scientists who suggests that the world continents were once together (do to their shape and history). It made sense since our planet is made up of more water than land."

I was merely pointing out that 70% of the Earth is covererd in water right now, yet the continents are not all stuck together. I was assuming you were talking about coverage and not total amount. If we are talking about total amount, then the planet is mostly made of rock and that was true during the time of Pangea as well.



Then I would stick to the math forums and stay away from making comments on science.



I don't know how the middle of the underside of Noah's foot relates to a flood either.

Okay. Being corrected I followed you there. I had no problems. I stoped short at the sarcasm. Can you give me a connection between the flood and noah's arch?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless you find can find it just as I can look up plate techtonics, I dont see the connection.

Do you see the story of noah's arch life outside the bible?

I dont see a connection

What "flood"? You seem to be very confused.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What "flood"? You seem to be very confused.

I wasnt originally talking to you. The comment was compared to noah's flood. He corrected me on science and you took if off from there. As always done on RF. The problem with me is Im a single-track woman. If Im talking about subject A, I stick with that. It was about the nature of the flood in relations to noahs arch. That and Im not young, I forget. Dont feel like searching. If Thermos remembers it, you can pick it up there.