Archaeologica.org

Doctor X wrote:

ed wrote:I have no idea who the scary chinese guy is. Oddly, it appears to come with different captions. I am not sure how that is done.

I grant Ye Members of the Great Unwashed have not read the Right Books . . . but ye could at least see the Right Movies. . . .

--J.D.

Is a part-time masseur for the University of Hawaii football team. He often helps injured players

IMDB



The spell is broken, Doc.

archaeologist wrote:
so taking this into account, please honestly answer the question i posed above. if the water buried evidence up to and maybe over 200 feet; how deep will we have to dig to get the evidence you want? [since you don't accept the other evidence presented]

Okay, so the premise is that the Flood caused the sea levels to rise to cover all the land - including, of course, coastal regions. It then retreated but not to pre-Flood levels, leaving coastal regions still submerged.

Now the further complication is how the land surface looked at the time of, and after, the Flood. I understand many creationists aregue that mountain ranges, for example, only rose after the Flood (thus getting around the fact that otherwise the water's rose 30,000ft above current sea levels )

Notwithstanding that, we can determine the rate at which soils have increased within historical, post-Flood periods. Obviously this varies form place to place, but it should be very easy to calcultae. For example, if some Roman remains dating to 50AD are buried under 2ft of soil, then a depth of 4ft should bring us to the ground that was exposed around 2,000BC

But then we need to ask oursleves the question: what would constitute evidence of flood deposits? Presumably these would be similar across the globe? But in fact we find places with hundreds of thousands of feet of sedimentary rock - that some Creationists claim was deposited by the Flood - whilst elsewhere we find a few feet of recent soil a top igneous rocks which presumably formed the original, pre-Flood, bedrock. Certainly there are many places with no sedimentary rocks or potential Flood deposits.

Meanwhile, as mentioned before, in the Antarctic we have ice cores to a depth af 3,200m (about 10,500ft) and still no sign of flood deposits ....

In the UK we have coals mines that go down 5,000ft Are these coal seams pre-Flood, Flood or post-Flood deposits?

My guess is that it doesn't matter how deep we dig - we will never find anything that irrefutatbly provides evidence for a global flood.

How tall is Everest?

Note the date of its earliest description.

Now calculate how long it would take to "grow" from this "flood" to the description.

You would think someone would notice it, and the Himalayas, growing in their backyard. . . .

I suppose if you believe in the stupidity of 2,728 psi applied every second for 40 days and 40 nights, you can believe even this stupidity.

--J.D.

But in fact we find places with hundreds of thousands

where did you get that figure? i haven't read anywhere that man has reached that depth in any of his activities.

as mentioned before, in the Antarctic we have ice cores to a depth af 3,200m

yes, but where did the ice come from? and what does it cover?

here is what schoch has to say on pg. 165 in 'Voicesof the Rocks':

"In reality,however, Earth is not rigid, but somewhat plastic and ,malleable. The solid earth would deform as the axis shifted, yet dramatic changes-- nearly impossible to predict intheir particulars-- would certainly rsult in the event of a large scale axis shift.

Yet according to Strain's calculations, even a much smaller shift has a marked effect on the distributin of land and sea across the surfaceof the globe. If the axis shifted only one degree from its north polar current position of 90' n. lat. to 89' n. lat. and 70' w. long. --a movve of about 70 miles-- the change n the geoid would raise sealevels in some areas and drain it in others...Some spots would gain more than 1,200 feet, mirroring an equivalent loss in others."

so what i am saying is, i doubt you would be able to consistantly find any evidence and you are back to square one and left with faith.

My guess is that it doesn't matter how deep we dig - we will never find anything that irrefutatbly provides evidence for a global flood.

what if Hapgood was right, once? schoch spends a lot of time discussing his theory and speaks highly of the man. so if there was a pole shift, which could have been described in the verse i posted earlier, the geaography of the pre-flood world and the modern world would be vastly different. which would account for animals being found outside their modern natural habitats.

we have the possibility that not all the waters disappeared, we have the possibility of a shift in geography, we have the possibility of a shift in poles and so on. all of which would contribute to the lack of evidence in the form in which many would want.

Now the further complication is how the land surface looked at the time of, and after, the Flood. I understand many creationists aregue that mountain ranges, for example, only rose after the Flood

this is just it, we do not know exactly how the world looked during pre-flood times. Dr. Rehwinkel provides an extensive look at that topic in his book 'The Flood' .plus, i quoted schoch's observation in an earlier post.

these are all factors to take into account when demanding evidence plus when you ask for a creationist to provide such facts, it would help to know what you had in mind as to what you are looking for. i mean, woolery found his evidence yet was vilified by skeptics who are harder to please than a hooker.

as i also said earlier, it is easier to sit back and criticize than to defend your position, as once evidence is dismissed, for whatever reason, it is never considered again or allowed to be considered again, even if correct. And if that is the only evidence on hand, then the skeptic thinks he/she has won and concludes that they can live the way they want to because the Bible has been proven to be false, when in reality, that is not the case.

So much for the claim of doing "research."

--J.D.

So, in a nutshell, to support a wackey unproven contention, we hypothesize other wacky contentions?

As I said, keep these kooks away from our children!!

we hypothesize other wacky contentions?

What better way?

ed wrote:So, in a nutshell, to support a wackey unproven contention, we hypothesize other wacky contentions?

As I said, keep these kooks away from our children!!

you're hot on the trail.

look up a guy called William of Ockham (aka Guillermi de Ockham). 14th century fransiscan friar.

otherwise known to his buddies as "wild bill" ockham, or sometimes just "billy bob".

he was right on top of your insight that "to support a wackey unproven contention, we hypothesize other wacky contentions"?

as a result, he created a contention of his own, known as "occam's razor"


in his words "numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitae"

now - as it has been some years since i read latin daily, i'll leave it to you to research wild bill if it interests you.

my personal transmutation of the statement above is

don't complicate things uneccessarily.


john

john wrote:

ed wrote:So, in a nutshell, to support a wackey unproven contention, we hypothesize other wacky contentions?

As I said, keep these kooks away from our children!!

you're hot on the trail.

look up a guy called William of Ockham (aka Guillermi de Ockham). 14th century fransiscan friar.

otherwise known to his buddies as "wild bill" ockham, or sometimes just "billy bob".

he was right on top of your insight that "to support a wackey unproven contention, we hypothesize other wacky contentions"?

as a result, he created a contention of his own, known as "occam's razor"


in his words "numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitae"

now - as it has been some years since i read latin daily, i'll leave it to you to research wild bill if it interests you.

my personal transmutation of the statement above is

don't complicate things uneccessarily.


john

Sir: I AM William.

That should be about enough proof for Arch.

I really wonder how he would refute my acknowledged divinity given his rather flexible rules of logic.

So, in a nutshell, to support a wackey unproven contention, we hypothesize other wacky contentions?

again let me ask the question: What evidence are you looking for? If it is produced would you accept it as such?

where do you expect to find the proof you seek? at what depth do you think you should stop digging?

here are 4 questions now i would like a straight answer from all of you. essan has done so, so he is excused. so in a nutshell state your answers without personal attacks or other nonesense.

What four questions?

What evidence are you looking for? If it is produced would you accept it as such?

Quote:
where do you expect to find the proof you seek? at what depth do you think you should stop digging

those four questions in the previous post.

Lemon curry?

--J.D.

What evidence are you looking for?
If it is produced would you accept it as such?


where do you expect to find the proof you seek?
at what depth do you think you should stop digging?

These are your four questions?

yes. since you are not satisfied with the evidence i do bring, it would help to know what everyone expects and wants (serious answers only).

thenit would help to know how far down to dig, so the proper level is reached to verify that the evidence is from the right time period and that credibility can be established.

if you don't accept what i bring, then you have to give some idea of what to look for. so i look forward to some serious, honest, in a nutshell answers which can shed light on this problem of lack of evidence you all claim to exist.