Archaeologica.org

Have fun gathering the evidence.

i won't be trying, too unrealistic for me. but nice try....NEXT!!!

Hapgood and Rehwinkle would not survive the peer review process, either

given the state of the peer review system i doubt if Newton would be accepted so that isn't saying much.

Minimalist wrote:Okay...to review:

Heh! Heh! PWND Minimalist!!!

--J.D.

Oh . . . what the hell . . . I am in a good mood . . .

archaeologist wrote:1.There is a sufficient amount of water available to be able to cover the mountain tops.

well given modern standards, modern influences like nuclear fallout, volcanoes, and smoke stacks, . . .

Utterly irrelevant.

. . . it is a pretty safe bet that that calculation would at best be only a guesstimate.

Shall I identify that fallacy? Does not follow. The calculations were given for a smaller amount of water assuming the authors only knew of Mt. Horeb. You lose.

. . . also we must consider how much water is under the crust, last word i heard, no one knew how much water was down there. . . .

You have not checked enough. Answer: not enough.

SuperSekrit Hint: water cannot "hide." If it goes too deep . . . it gets a bit too hot for it!

2. That such an amount of water could be delivered via rainstorm within the prescribed 40 days and 40 nights

given the amount of rainfall that takes place during a monsoon storm, even for a short time, that is a possibility.

BWA!HAHA!HA!HA! WRONG AGAIN!

V[sub]F[/sub] = 1.4367645 X 10[sup]18[/sup] m[sup]3[/sup] of water[/list]

as demonstrated previously.

3. That in that time, Noah was able to visit Australia,

this is assuming that the pre-flood geography was the same as the post-flood result. no one knows.

Actually, they do. That you choose to remain ignorant of geology is your error.

4. You would need DNA evidence which shows that every living creature can be traced back to the flood survivors and that such DNA was approximately 4,600 years old

i believe scientists have traced the dog species back far enough to concude that is true.

The remains of beaties date earlier than that! You lose again!

5. You would need evidence from a global flood layer

i doubt we could get a consistant read on the global flood layer, due to construction, earthquakes, volcanoes and other sources that alter the ground we walk.

Yet we can for meteor impacts? We have evidence for ancient Tsunamis--History Channel for t3h w1n!!!11

You lose again.

6. You would need to show how the animals removed from the aforementioned continents made their way back once Noah had finished saving them and sacrificing them.

so you are saying that the bones discussed by both Hapgood and Rehwenkel womn't suffice?

No.

In the rain.

--J.D.

That is:

1,436,764,500,000,000,000 Liters

dat ain't no monsoon, son! Dat a water hammer!!

--J.D.

PWND?

I provided the separated Flood Myths before you did--you also "mix" them a bit if you follow the identification.

I win this thread!

--J.D.

What does PWND stand for?

Now the Highest Recorded Rainfall in India's--or any city's--history is:

The highest-ever rainfall recorded in a single day in India shut down the financial hub of Mumbai, snapped communication lines, closed airports and forced thousands of people to sleep in their offices or walk home during the night, officials said Wednesday.

Troops were deployed after the sudden rains -- measuring up to 94.4 centimeters (37.1 inches) in one day in some areas of Mumbai -- stranded tens of thousands of people.

India's Highest Recorded Rainfall

94.4 centimeters cubes is a mere 0.0944 liter. A Global Rainfall of that would take 1,521,996,300,000 days or:

41,698,528,558 YEARS to meet the volume required by the flood.

In otherwords the "rain" was 38,049,907,500 times greater than the greatest recorded monsoon!! Any idea how big that is?

That is a rainfall of 35,919,112,500 Liters/Day.

Let us compare:

35,919,112,500 versus 0.0944 Liters.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

--J.D.

Minimalist wrote:What does PWND stand for?

You really walk into this, don't you, Baldrick?

--Mr. Edmund Blackadder

Definition

--J.D.

i wonder when the children are going to be sent to bed for a very long time so the adults can discuss. (I am not a child)

archaeologist wrote:i wonder when the children are going to be sent to bed for a very long time so the adults can discuss. (I am not a child)

No, most children have a better mastery of language and communication skills--and emotional continence--than you.

--J.D.

when is someone going to put a leash on doctor x????

....i have a cunning plan............

-baldrick-


now, on thread again.

geology 101

there are three types of the hard stuff variously known as rock, or stone.

1.) igneous (projectile vomited in liquid form from the molten core of mamma earth), then, cooling into what we call stone; displays certain crystalline characteristics.

2.) metamorphic. stone of various sorts which has either been remelted and puked again, or has been subjected to extreme pressure and heat. Also displays type-characteristics.

i do not believe the two above are very good candidates for the evidence of a global flood.

and 3.) drumroll, open envelope, smile at camera - SEDIMENTARY. the thing about sedimentary rock is that it was laid down in particulate form, in accordance with the prevailing weather conditions, wind or wave, and then solidified into what we call stone by the usual geological processes.

thus, it would seem that a particular layer of sedimentary rock would be the gold standard for proof of a global flood.

so, arch, unless you can make an argument for igneous or metamorphic geological strata being proof of your precious flood, it seems you are stuck with sedimentary evidence.

which is waaaay easier, because all you hafta do

is demonstrate a worldwide, uniform, sedimentary layer laid down by the great flood within the last 12k years (your previously stated date of the "creation"). i won't even harass you about the date of said event. your choice.

simple, yes?


john

archaeologist wrote:when is someone going to put a leash on doctor x????

As soon as they put in your pacifier. . . .



--J.D.

archaeologist wrote:when is someone going to put a leash on doctor x????

i choose YOU to put the bell on the cat.


j