Archaeologica.org

archaeologist wrote:so any takers??

We are waiting for you to answer the questions put to you.

"Sauce for the goose," so to write.

--J.D.

archaeologist wrote:so any takers??

I'm still waiting for you to start climbing mountains.


Don't worry.....I'm not holding my breath.

if you read my response you would have seen my answer to that. i won't be wasting any time climbing mtns. for unrealistic evidence.

there is evidence for the flood, more than enough for creationists not enough for skeptics yet i will admit that with the flood story, you are left to use faith and i doubt that i would ever be able to produce enough evidence to please all the naysayers.

at some point you just have to make a decision, to believe it or not, based upon the evidence provided and the biblical text. yet to lean solely upon your own human understanding you end up in disbelief because it doesn't make sense.

as has been proven by the countles calculations and geological presentations posted here in this thread.

archaeologist wrote:i am tired of taking the lead and being criticised so i decided to post a series of articles for you to present your honest and serious opposition remarks. this one is a test and if it takes up too much space i will edit future ones.

feel free to honestly, scientifically, logically, concisely, and so on to present your rebuttals:

Fossils. The very name brings to mind images of untold ages past. . . dinosaurs roaming ancient swamps. . . slow but steady progression as simple sea life was transformed into today's complex variety. Is this an accurate reconstruction of the past of the past or is a worldwide flood the correct explanation of the fossil record?

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. Fossils are the preserved evidence of past life. They are found in every part of the world, including the tops of the highest mountains. They may be as simple as a seashell which has left a permanent impression in sandstone or as grandiose as a giant plesiosaur whose bones have turned to rock after rapid burial. The fossils themselves tell us neither their age nor how they became encased in the rock layers. Rather, they must be interpreted within some view of earth history. Many people have been led to believe that the existence of fossils proves that millions of years have passed. In reality, fossils can form quite rapidly. Heat and pressure from rapid burial can accelerate the fossilization process. Geologic conditions following a worldwide flood would have exceeded anything imaginable today and must have led to the rapid fossilization of the plants and animals on a massive scale.

Fossilization can happen rapidly under the right conditions, but it is a rare event today. Yet there are mass burial sites throughout the world that are tightly packed with millions of fossils. Apparently, billions of organisms were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, completely buried, and rapidly fossilized. These massive and extensive fossil graveyards would be the predictable result of a worldwide flood, but would of a worldwide flood, but would hardly fit the slow accumulation model which continues to be taught as the primary explanation of the fossil record. Something dramatically different must have happened in the past to have caused the wide spread fossilization which we find all over our planet. Noah's flood would have been this event.

Geologists and paleontologists operating from a Christian worldview acknowledge the possibility that a worldwide catastrophe buried unimaginable amounts of plants and animals. This was the disaster documented in the first book of the Bible. It lasted at least one year and had reverberations which lasted for centuries. Sea creatures would have been buried first (the salinity and temperature of the oceans would have changed during the catastrophe, wiping out massive numbers of these sea creatures). Even after the flood, plant and animal extinction would have been common as many types of creatures failed to adapt to dramatically changing conditions.

Although any order of burial in a flood would be possible, the general tendency would be for sea life to be buried in the lower rock layers and land animals to be buried in different rock layers corresponding to their ecological niche. This tendency is generally found.

Creation geologists (and there are many of them) believe that the majority of the geologic record is a result of geologic activity during and subsequent to the year-long worldwide flood. This flood would have been an incredible complex event.

Geologist and paleontologists operating from an evolutionary world view acknowledge local catastrophes, but do not allow consideration of a worldwide flood. This would wipe out the "slow change over eons of time" interpretation of the fossils which is needed to continue believing in evolution.

Only one interpretation of the evidence can be correct and only one interpretation of the evidence agrees with what the Bible claims is the history of our planet.

arch -

what you are engaging in - and what pisses people off - is your practise of rhetorical argument.

simple example.

someone says the sky is blue.

you reply, no it isn't, its green, positively.

so the someone says "prove it".

and then you say "what part of purple don't you understand".

its an incredibly useful technique for lawyers (who have made billions of dollars from it) but it does not follow the rules of evidence.

i have yet to see you present one iota of evidence which supports your argument that the noahlogical record displaces the geological record.

the rules of evidence support the concept that there would be - for sake of argument - inconsistencies between the noahlogic and the geologic theories, but the basis of the evidence would be a single field of knowledge. i don't give a shit about relativistic arguments about the "speed" of evolution. both arguments occupy the same timefield, which can be described as "from the beginning to now".

you reject that out of hand, right out of the gate. your argument is that the two rely on two mutually contradictory and antagonistic sets of evidence.

my point is that we all live on the same planet, like it or not, so we all enjoy the same base set of planetary evidence.

denial is not an option.

so again the question comes up, where's your evidence?

rhetoric doesn't hack it.

just a single point of evidence regarding your argument above - your noahlogical equivalent to the geological timescale includes "all time as we know it". Geology, i believe, used to divvy it up from the earliest times, "proterozoic", to the latest times, "cenozoic", and placed humans at the very smallest tag end of cenozoic times. Your timescale posits the creation of the earth 12k years ago - and - most importantly, the existence of the human species from day one.

so let us take these two timescales as one - there is a beginning and the end (i.e., the present) - using the argument that we have two different methods of measuring "beginning to end". Fair enough.

using the noahlogical timescale, human remains should exist in appropriate percentage, with all the other animal and plant remains, from "beginning to end".

using the geological timescale, human remains only are found in the last second of the 11th hour.

unless you invoke Maxwell's demon, and provide the evidence that all human remains, from beginning to end, were somehow segregated into a gigantic bone-dump separate from all other known finds (which, by the way we haven't found yet) then we have a problem, houston.

so, demonstrate to me any human remains are found with dinosaurs in the cretaceous formations of the dakotas, or the oligocene "white river" formation in wyoming, or the paleozoic "bass" formation at the bottom of the grand canyon (was collecting bass formation jellyfish when i was nine years old), or the same even in the miocene formations in the avawatz mountains of southern california - i was seven years old then - and found plenty of camel, antelope, peccary (both bones and anciently preserved tracks), or contemporary remains with the well preserved dinosaur prints we dug up near kanab, utah (one sits on my desk as we speak).

then i'll listen.

over to you.

john

for unrealistic evidence.

Unrealistic?

You're the one who says that the waters covered the mountains. Since that is the kind of thing that could only have happened once, it would seem that you or your ID sympaticos should be merrily trekking upward to find evidence of a high water mark at the top of Everest.

Failing that, the DNA should all point back to Noah....shouldn't it?


I agree with you that you won't come up with such evidence....because it does not exist.

archaeologist wrote:if you read my response you would have seen my answer to that.

Unfortunately, it was not an answer. It was a fallacious ignorance of the argument. It was not argumentum ad rem, so to write.

there is evidence for the flood, . . .

Yet you cannot provide it--any of it. Furthermore, if have to choose which "flood" you wish us to believe. Was it seven beasties or merely two?

You then have to account for the problems with the theory--as demonstrated above. Your blathering about a "monsoon" was rather painfully crushed above. YOU now have to explain how that much water could have arrived in the required time without flattening the Earth, ark, and Unhappy Passengers.

Period.

If your faith hath blinded you further, the Earth--even if hollow--cannot contain the required water--so much for your "fountains of the deep."

Contrary to your claims, that much water would leave an impression [Stop that.--Ed.]. As further explained, you would have to explain how mountain ranges, valleys, et cetera GREW without anyone . . . you know . . . noticing! Leave aside the painful fact that geology utters destroys that attempted apology.

Imagine Nicole Kidman . . . let us pause for a moment . . . nice . . . right, imagine Nicole Kidman is playing Lady Macbeth in a play in Sidney. Let us say you are attending that play right at this moment. Indeed, she seems quite concerned with "who would have thought he had so much blood in him!"

Neat.

Now I claim she is actually playing strip poker with me NOW.

"Prove me wrong!" I blather.

Well . . . do you not think I would be required to explain to you why she also happens to be running about a Scottish Castle in Australia?

This is the sad situation you are in--no not watching Macbeth--magnificent play--"Out! Out brief candle!" and all that! You are stuck with a claim that generates testable theory. The tests demonstrate you are wrong.

You can dance in circles all you want . . . well, not now, do not disturb your audience members . . . but it will not change that.

Thus:

more than enough for creationists not enough for skeptics

Bullshit is sufficent for fools, but not scientists, no. Shall I identify your fallacy for you again?

yet i will admit that with the flood story, you are left to use faith and i doubt that i would ever be able to produce enough evidence to please all the naysayers.

You Have Not Produced ONE Piece of Evidence!

Granted, you are in a worse position than I am . . . it is possible Nicole Kidman is playing strip poker with me--it does not break any "Laws of Physics, Captain!" It may break some laws of decorum and indicate that Poor Nicole has suffered a severe degredation in taste, but that is another matter.

at some point you just have to make a decision, to believe it or not, based upon the evidence provided and the biblical text.

No, son. That fallacy is tertium non datur--false dichotomy. You have the power to learn. The power to educate yourself.

For that, let me give you an epithalamium's worth of wisdom:

Years ago I had the pleasure of attending a course on sholarship with a rather well-known and respected expert in the field. I would wager you may have even used one of his works. Right, the course began with something like 40 people [The number grows each time he retells the story.--Ed.] Shut up! Right, something like 40 people all packed in. Some had their guilded-edged Bibles. There was a contingent of Orthodox Jews.

Within a week, we were down to about 15. I like to think the statement, "Well, of course there is no tradition of monotheism in the Old Testament!" wiped-out 20 right then and there!

Interesting person to talk to. During a discussion over coffee--he had Turkish cigarettes as well--I stated that he probably, over the years, has been confronted with quite a number of teary-eyed coeds who just had fifteen-odd years of faith demolished.

He responded that it is an all too common occurance.

So, I asked him what does he tell them?

I ask them do they have faith because of scripture or in spite of it.

Consider those words well.

IF your faith depends upon the inerrancy of texts, then I contend you have a very weak basis for your faith. If I could prove to you that the entire Bible is a hoax perpetrated by . . . I do not know . . . Haliburton? That it was actually written in 1972 on Official Dukes of Hazard Stationary . . . if I could do that to you would you behave differently?

In otherwords, would you start killing people? Would you steal? Would you become like the Dear Leader to your north?

If you would, then you need some serious introspection.

If you would not, then why are you so afraid of biblical scholarship?

Doubt is a nasty thing. But only through doubt and investigation to deny or confirm doubt has mankind progressed . . . okay, that and sex . . . but even then there is some doubt.

For if you tie your faith to text, you sink with text.

Text demands you sacrifice your first born.

Text indicates that you cannot be saved for you were not "born from above."

Text denounces itself--"lying pen of scribes" if you know your texts. Do you? Given what I have seen, I fear you do not.

Oh, you may have read snippets, listened to sermons, read bits through the eyes of apologists. However, I wager you have not read the text in their extant versions. I wager you have not seen what the witnesses say. You do not know why English translators are quietly dropping the phrase "born again." You do not know why an encounter in Jn has been quietly removed from the text. You do not know why Aaron is a savior and damned at the same time. You do not know why scholars have quietly admitted that it was once believe that El gave YHWH Israel--El theophoric, my friend?

Do you even know what a "theophoric" is?

Of course the choice entirely remains yours.

The consequences of that choice are also entirely yours. Thus, if you continue to choose ignorance, if you continue to flee from what scholars have known for over a hundred years, if you continue to pretend that progress has stopped and one can determine reality by a declaration, then you will never be taken seriously.

You arguments will be dismissed as Duesberg's have been dismissed. You will be cast aside as those who think 9/11 was engineered by Mossad. You may find kinship and solace in like-minded chosen ignorants--much as Holocaust Deniers attend the same tiny seminars to pretend their racism is reason.

Consider well the lesson of Fred Leuchter--detailed in the documentary Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred Leuchter, Jr. by the award-winning Eroll Morris.

Poor Fred . . . a victim of hubris . . . thought he was a scientist, committed documented pseudoscience in Auschwitz--ignoring evidence to the contrary presented to him--read a bit familiar, my son?--then produces a report at the trial of a well-known and reviled NeoNazi.

Destroyed his career for obvious reasons.

In the end, he sought solace amongst the NeoNazis, the Holocaust Deniers, because they supported him.

I suggest you do not wish to become like Leuchter--walled off amongst the ignorant.

You have been given numerous references to salvage your ignorance of scholarship and the texts--not to mention archaeology. They have been quite cheap frankly. I have friends in South Korea. Shall I determine if these books are carried in the libary?

You do not have to believe a Friedman, for example. But you do have to rebut him if you wish to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are like Leuchter, trying to defend foolishness, clutching to the obscene.

Do you wish to really believe the deity you adore demands child sacrifice? Destroys those who do not sacrifice men and women to him? You have to if you argue for inerrancy.

For this reference is FREE. It is--how timely--a Presidential Address to the Society of Biblical Literature inspired by the religious abomination of 9/11--a paradigm of all forms of religioiusly inspired violence. The Society of Biblical Literature is hardly a cabal of EvilAtheistSkepticsOhMy.

Disagree with them . . . well, you need to show data son. For, as one physicist quipped, "In God We Trust! All else must show data!"

Collins JJ, "The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence," JBL 120 (2003): 3-21.

--J.D.

I believe Bob Malone belongs to the ICR, the Institute of Creation Research.
They say they don't do science. You can't belong to it if you don't accept the Bible (by which they mean the King James version) literally. Like the AIG, they are clear that "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." That's where they start.

I believe Bob Malone belongs to the ICR, the Institute of Creation Research

it is quite possible thatis so but i got that article from a different website.

They say they don't do science

i don't know about that but it would be a shame if they didn't.

Like the AIG, they are clear that "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

problem is, if they hold to a 4004 b.c. date for creation, they have contradicted the scriptural record. i am not even sure they can hold to a young earth creation due to the gap between Gen. 1:1 & 2. it is possible that the details were done quite recent but there is no mention of when creation happened thus all thinking of dates is pure speculation.

For if you tie your faith to text, you sink with text.


remember that statement, doc.


cerberos waits on the other side..............



john

"Cerebus"

--J.D.

DougWeller wrote:(by which they mean the King James version)

Which sort of encompasses the ridiculous willful ignorance of such people who claim to be "literalists."

How can one "literally" interpret a text if they do not have a the actual text? The KJV is based on low-class Byzantian witnesses. The best textual witnesses were not even discovered for hundreds of years later.

These people, like archaeologist here, act out of fear--fear of uncertainty.

Cannot help stupid.

--J.D.

Failing that, the DNA should all point back to Noah....shouldn't it?

how do we get samples to compare the modern DNA? i think that is another reason why you are being unrealistic in the evidence you want to see.

archaeologist wrote:how do we get samples to compare the modern DNA?

You do not understand genetics as well.

--J.D.

archaeologist wrote:i am tired of taking the lead and being criticised so i decided to post a series of articles for you to present your honest and serious opposition remarks. this one is a test and if it takes up too much space i will edit future ones.

feel free to honestly, scientifically, logically, concisely, and so on to present your rebuttals:

So, the Creationist argument, is that fossils are the remains of creatures that perished in the flood?

Now, given that most of England is covered by hundreds of feet of chalk and limestone - both comprised of the remains of dead sea creatures.

So we have 2 scenarios:

1) All of these creatures existed at the same time, and all died over a matter of weeks during the Flood.

2) These creatures lived over a period of millions of years and their remains accumulated slowsly over that long period of time.

The we have coal deposits - the remains of plants. And the same problem - how did coals deposuits hundreds of feet deep form?

To create the known fossil record - including all the coals, oil, shale, limestone and chalk around the world, there must have been billions of times more creatures alive before the Flood than after it. There just wouldn;t have been any room to move in the ocean!

The only Creationist argument that might get around this is that all of these rocks, and all the fossils, were actually created by God when he made the world.

btw the depth at which we'd expect to find our global flood depoist would vary accrding to the local rate at which soil builds up. But if we say Roman remains (2,000 years old) currently lie under 2ft of surface soil, then we'd expect the Flood deposits (4,000 years old) to be around 4-5ft below the surface ....

During the Deluge year, the waters which covered the (perhaps one mile-max elevation) pre-Deluge continents were much warmer than today's ocean, so chalk and limestone formation happened fast, in huge volumes, as the "fountains of the deep" shot lava into the ocean through the rift zones, superheating the Deluge water locally, as sedimentary depostion occurred en masse, entombing billions of creatures, over 99% of which were simple, relatively immobile, sea creatures.

Almost all of the sedimentry strata (sans the deep pre-Deluge formations, upon which the Deluge strata lie unconformably) were deposited during the Deluge, and became hard rock soon after, as the continents thickened, and mountains uplifted, at the close of the Deluge, and the Deluge waters slid off the continents into the then deepening ocean basins.