| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:20 pm Post subject: Gensis: Accurate account? |
 |
|
All,
one of the most contreversial biblical books in the endless debate on the
origin of life and evolution is Genesis however many do not understand it
in the porper way, including creationist (6dayquikie guys and gals
) the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.
Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth
Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries
in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun,
and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an
earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a
‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that
dominates the night.’—Genesis 1:14-18. The first part of Genesis
indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before
the first Genesis “day".
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
firstjois
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2003 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
| Bet you all were hoping this was a bank statement posted here in error. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Whitedog
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:39:07 -0400, "firstjois"
<firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Bet you all were hoping this was a bank statement posted here in error.
[/quote]
Lol, one has to wonder whether a mis-spelling of "Genesis" and the
word "accurate" ought to appear in a subject line unless it was a
joke?
-----------------------------------
|"No pop no style, I strictly roots"|
----------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Doug Weller
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:44 pm Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:26:32 -0400, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Ted Holden
wrote:
[SNIP]
[quote]
In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice
within a short space:
[/quote]
And that is because there are two slightly different stories, written by
two authors, combined into one. No other significance to the double, there
are a lot of them in Genesis.
[SNIP]
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen>s Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug>s Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Libertarius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] wrote:
[quote]All,
one of the most contreversial biblical books in the endless debate on the
origin of life and evolution is Genesis however many do not understand it
in the porper way, including creationist (6dayquikie guys and gals
) the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.
[/quote]
===>That statement is self-contradictory!
[quote]Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth.
[/quote]
===>Of course it is.
It was written by HUMANS, with a primitive HUMAN view
of the "universe", which, at that time, consisted of a flat earth,
with a solid dome on top, above which were held the "waters
above", and upon which were affixed the Sun, Moon, and those
tiny little lights.
[quote]it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth
Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries
in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun,
and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them.
[/quote]
===>But those facts were NO KNOWN by the author of that story!
[quote]But not to an
earthly observer.
[/quote]
===>And the author of the story WAS an "earthly observer" not some
deity.
[quote]So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a
‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that
dominates the night.’—Genesis 1:14-18. The first part of Genesis
indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before
the first Genesis “day".
[/quote]
===>The fallacy is calling it the "Word of God". -- L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Libertarius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
Ted Holden wrote:
[quote]Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] wrote:
one of the most contreversial biblical books in the endless debate on the
origin of life and evolution is Genesis however many do not understand it
in the porper way, including creationist (6dayquikie guys and gals
) the Genesis account was not written to show the how of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.
Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth
Genesis day. There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries
in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun,
and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an
earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a
greater light that rules the day and the moon a lesser light that
dominates the night.Genesis 1:14-18. The first part of Genesis
indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before
the first Genesis day".
Very good. There are any number of things in the OT which indicate that it
was written by humans, to the best of their understandings at the time.
It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood
is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional
flood. That, however, does not jive with the facts of the historical
record. The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger,
solar-system-wide calamity.
[/quote]
===>You are kidding!
[quote]
In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice
within a short space:
[/quote]
===>The account is a conflation of TWO FLOOD STORIES!
Your speculations are quite amusing, though!
Libertarius
==========
[quote]
Gen. 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth
forty days and forty nights;...
Gen. 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the
flood were upon the earth."
These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event
within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these
seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:
"...Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and
the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."
Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one
day. That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood.
The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn>t use
articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".
It turns out, that the bible claims that Methuselah died in the year of the
flood. It may not say so directly, but the ages given in Genesis 5 along
with the note that the flood began in the 600>th year of Noah>s life
(Genesis 7:11) add up that way:
Gen. 5:25 -
"And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years and begat Lamech.
And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two
years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were
nine hundred sixty and nine years.
i.e. he lived 969 - 187 = 782 years after Lamech>s birth
And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years and begat a son. And he
called his name Noah...
182 + 600 = 782 also...
Thus we have Methusaleh dying in the year of the flood; seven days prior to
the flood...
Louis Ginzburg>s seven-volume "Legends of the Jews", the largest body of
Midrashim ever translated into German and English to my knowledge, expands
upon the laconic tales of the OT.
From Ginzburg>s Legends of the Jews, Vol V, page 175:
...however, Lekah, Gen. 7.4) BR 3.6 (in the week of mourning for Methuselah,
God caused the primordial light to shine).... God did not wish Methuselah
to die at the same time as the sinners...
The reference is, again, to Gen. 7.4, which reads:
"For yet seven days, and I shall cause it to rain upon the earth forty days
and forty nights..."
The note that "God did not wish Methusaleh to die at the same time as the
sinners" indicates that Methusaleh died at pretty nearly precisely the
beginning of the week prior to the flood. The week of "God causing the
primordial lights to shine" was the week of intense light before the flood.
What the old books are actually telling us is that there was a stellar
blowout of some sort either close to or within our own system at the time
of the flood. The blowout was followed by seven days of intense light and
radiation, and then the flood itself. Moreover, the signs of the impending
disaster were obvious enough for at least one guy, Noah, to take
extraordinary precautions.
The ancient (but historical) world knew a number of seven-day light
festivals, Hanukkah, the Roman Saturnalia etc. Velikovsky claimed that all
were ultimately derived from the memory of the seven days prior to the
flood.
If this entire deal is a made-up story, then here is a case of the
storyteller (isaiah) making extra work for himself with no possible
benefit, the detail of the seven days of light being supposedly known
amongst the population, and never included in the OT story directly.
Greek and Roman authors, particularly Hesiod and ovid, Chinese authors and
others, note that small groups of men and animals survived the flood on
high places and on anything which could float for a year. I do not see an
essential contradiction between this and the biblical account. Noah>s
descendants were probably unaware of anybody else surviving and wrote the
story the way they did.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o>_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
pete
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 2:48 am Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
Ted Holden wrote:
[quote]The note that "God did not wish Methusaleh to die
at the same time as the sinners" indicates that Methusaleh
died at pretty nearly precisely the
beginning of the week prior to the flood.
[/quote]
What note ?
--
pete |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Sienkiewicz
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:23 am Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
Ted Holden <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<Q_WdnVaR5esjjdeiXTWJkw@fcc.net>...
[quote]Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] wrote:
one of the most contreversial biblical books in the endless debate on the
origin of life and evolution is Genesis however many do not understand it
in the porper way, including creationist (6dayquikie guys and gals
) the Genesis account was not written to show the how of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.
Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth
Genesis day. There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries
in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun,
and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an
earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a
greater light that rules the day and the moon a lesser light that
dominates the night.Genesis 1:14-18. The first part of Genesis
indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before
the first Genesis day".
Very good. There are any number of things in the OT which indicate that it
was written by humans, to the best of their understandings at the time.
[/quote]
Wow, Ted, THIS is profound!
[quote]It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood
is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional
flood.
[/quote]
Well, no, Ted, it>s not the "dogma of established science" so much as
the CONCLUSION of established science.
Watch carefully, Ted, and you>ll see why.
[quote]That, however, does not jive with the facts of the historical
record.
[/quote]
The word is "jiBe," Ted, and the fact is that it is the Flood that
does not jibe with any evidence, be it historical, geological or even
scientific in a general sense.
[quote]The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger,
solar-system-wide calamity.
[/quote]
Oh, my!
I>m sure you will waste no time in providing some evidence for this?
Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?
[quote]In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice
within a short space:
Gen. 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth
forty days and forty nights;...
Gen. 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the
flood were upon the earth."
These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event
within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these
seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:
"...Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and
the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."
Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one
day.
[/quote]
No, Ted, most interpret this as LEGEND and nothing more.
Only those who cling to anything but actual science would presume
"interpret" it any other way.
[quote]That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood.
The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn>t use
articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".
[/quote]
And why is that, Ted?
< snip more bizarre exegesis and the silly little .sig >
Ted, here>s the deal: All of the nonsensical "speculation" that you
bore us with fails to deal with one very basic issue: The Flood, as
described in Genesis, never happened. You see, that>s the problem
with the "explanation" that you provide. It ASSUMES THE CONCLUSION
and then tries to find a reason for it, despite the fact that the
conclusion is known by the best evidence to be false.
Now I realize, Ted, that this is way over your head; but there>s
always the chance that you understand it.
So, if you want, we can debate it - right here.
Care to give it a go? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ted Holden
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:31 am Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
David Sienkiewicz wrote:
[quote]Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?
[/quote]
http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o>_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Sienkiewicz
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:59 am Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
"Ted Holden" <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message news:GD6dnVGNUZjHS9eiXTWJjA@fcc.net...
[quote]David Sienkiewicz wrote:
[/quote]
< unmarked snip by Ted here >
[quote]
Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?
http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html
[/quote]
Ah, Ted, as you know, anyone can write an article, anyone can make
claims and anyone can put up a web site.
I am not interested in being referred to YOUR web site as if that ends
the matter. It does not.
I challenged you to debate the issue.
Are you game? Or will you run...again?
< more unmarked snippage by Ted here >
< snip of my own - Ted>s web site advertising and pretentious .sig > |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ted Holden
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:18 am Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
David Sienkiewicz wrote:
[quote]Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?
http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html
Ah, Ted, as you know, anyone can write an article, anyone can make
claims and anyone can put up a web site.
I am not interested in being referred to YOUR web site as if that ends
the matter. It does not.
I challenged you to debate the issue.
[/quote]
The basic problem: it>s simply not close to obvious that you know anything
at all about this sort of topic or would be any more capable of holding up
your own end of such a debate than PeeWee Johnson would be of holding up
his end of a fight with Joe Louis.
Charles Ginenthal is a sort of an expert on the topic. The claim that there
is no hard evidence for one or more global floods is basically ignorant;
there>s mountains of such evidence.
It has always seemed obvious to me in fact that the continental shelves are
basically just the pre-flood ocean boundaries. They appear in formation to
be similar to what we see on our own continents:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860098.html
There is simply more water on the Earth now than there ever was before the
time of Noah. The areas we live in now would have been viewed as plateaus
before the (Noachian) flood and sparsely inhabited if inhabited at all.
Much of human settlement from prior to that event has to be below the waves
at present and in fact scientists are presently finding cities beneath the
waves:
http://www.lightwatcher.com/old_lightbytes/underwatercity.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_1697000/1697565.stm
A city 2000' beneath the waves off Cuba amounts to evidence of a global
flood, and of the fact that the waters of that flood haven>t gone anywhere
since then but are still right out there off the coasts of Virginia, the
Carolinas, Georgia, Florida etc. etc.
Also citable as evidence of either global floods or something similar and
just as bad are the muck deposits which cover much of Canada, Alaska,
andSiberia, and the condition in which we find the bones of pleistocene
animals and forest remains in that muck. The muck deposits are over a mile
deep in places if memory serves and appear to be the remains of a former
world age which has simply beeen turned over in the ground, as if by the
hand of a giant farmer using a giant plow.
Vine Deloria ("Red Earth, White Lies") describes the evidence of the mammoth
extinctions in North America:
##########################################################################
In even the most prejudiced murder trial there is one essential element:
there has to have been a killing. Fancy legal terminology generally
requires a body the corpus delictus as the TV detec- tive shows are fond of
telling us. It would seem reasonable, if one was to promulgate a theory of
blitzkrieg slaughter as have Martin and Diamond, to identiiy where the
bodies are buried and then take the reader on a gut-wrenching tour through
a graveyard of waste and butchery. We are deprived of this vicarious thrill
because the evidence of the destruction of the megafiuna suggests a
scenario well outside the orthodox interpretation of benign natural
processes. Therefore mere mention of the reality of the situation is
anathema to most scholars. So let us see what the actual situation is.
The first explorers of the northern shores of Siberia and its offshore
northern islands and of the interior of Alaska, and some of its northern
islands, were stunned to discover an astro- nomical number of bones of
prehistoric animals piled indis- criminately in hills and buried in the
ground. The graveyards of these animals were classified as "antediluvian"
(prior to Noah>s flood) by the majority of scientists and laypeople alike
who still believed the stories of the Old Testament. Near these grave-
yards, incidentally, but located in riverbanks on the northern shore of
Siberia, are found the famous Siberian mammoths whose flesh was supposedly
edible when thawed.
Reading an extensive set of quotations is always tedious to readers but I
hope you will bear with me in this chapter be- cause it is only in the
repetition of the reports of the discoveries of these areas that the entire
picture of the demise of the mam- moths and other creatures really becomes
clear. These Siberian remains are not the thousands of mammoth bones which
Jared Diamond thinks are searched frantically by archaeologists seek- ing
signs of human butchering. It is doubtful that any archaeol- ogists or
paleontologists have made extensive studies of the skeletons in these
locations or we would certainly have a far different view of megafauna
extinction than is presently ac- ceptable to orthodox scholars.
Russian expeditions to Siberia and the northern islands of the Arctic Ocean
began in the latter half of the eighteenth cen- tury, and with the
discovery of these large mounds of animal bones, most prominently the tusks
of mammoths and other herbivores, franchises were given to enterprising
people who could harvest the ivory for the world market. Liakoff seems to
have been the first iniportant ivory trader and explorer in the late
eighteenth century. After his death the Russian govern- ment gave a monopo~
to a businessman in Yakutsk who sent his agent, Sannikofi, to explore the
islands and locate additional sources of ivory. Sannikoff>s discoveries of
more islands and his reports on the animal remains found there are the best
firsthand accounts of the Siberian animal graveyards.
Hedenstrom explored the area in 1809 and reported back on the richness of
the ivory tusks. Sannikoff discovered the island of Kotelnoi, which is
apparently the richest single location, in 1811. Finally, the czar decided
to send an official expedition and from 1820 to 1823, Admiral Ferdinand
Wrangell, then a young naval lieutenant, did a reasonably complete survey
of the area. Since these expeditions and explorations were inspired by
commercial interests and not scientific curiosity; the reports are entirely
objective with no ideological or doctrinal bias to slant the interpretation
of the finds.
Around the turn of the century interest in the Siberian is- lands seems to
have increased, whether as a result of the few Christian fundamentalists
who were not reconciled to evolu- tion frantically searching for tangible
proof of Noah>s flood, or as part of the leisure activities of the English
gendemen of the time, we can>t be sure. The definitive article on the
Siberian prehistoric animal remains was written by the Reverend D. Gath
Whitley and published by the Philosophical Society of Great Britain under
the title "The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean." It drew on older
sources, primarily reports of expedi- tions of the ivory traders, and
captured the spectacular nature of the discoveries well.
Liakoff discovered, on an island that now bears his name, rather substantial
cliffs composed primarily of frozen sand and hundreds of elephant tusks.
Later, when the Russian govern- ment sent a surveyor, Chwoinoff, to the
island he reported that, with the exception of son~e high mountains, the
island seemed to be composed of ice and sand and bones and tusks of ele-
phants (or mammoths) which were simply cemented together by the
cold.Whitley reported:
Sannikoff explored Kotelnoi, and found that this large
island was full of the bones and teeth of elephants, rhi-
noceroses, and musk-oxen. Having explored the coasts,
Sannikoff determined, as there was nothing but bar-
renness along the shore, to cross the island. He drove in
reindeer sledges up the Czarina River, over the hills,
and down the Sannikoff River, and completed the cir-
cuit of the island.All over the hills in the interior of the
island Sannikoff found the bones and tusks of ele-
phants, rhinoceroses, buffaloes, and horses in such vast
numbers, that he concluded that these animals must
have lived in the island in enormous herds, when the
climate was milder.5
Hedenstrom explored Liakoff>s island in 1809 and discov- ered that". .. the
quantity of fossil ivory . . . was so enormous, that, although the ivory
diggers had been engaged in collecting ivory from it for forty years, the
supply seemed to be quite undiminished. On an expanse of sand little more
than half a mile in extent, Hedenstrom saw ten tusks of mammoths stick- ing
up, and as the ivory hunters had left these tusks because there were still
other places where the remains of mammoths were still more abundant, the
enormous quantities of elephants' tusks and bones in the island may be
imagined?' Indeed, a number of explorers reported that after each ocean
storm the beaches were littered with bones and tusks which had been ly- ing
on the sea bottom and brought to shore by wave action.
The elephant or mammoth bones and tusks were the most spectacular finds
primarily because they were so plentiful and consequently they attracted
public attention the most. The is- lands contained an incredible mixture of
bones of many extinct and some living species of mammals. Mixed with the
animal bones were trees in all kinds of conditions. Whitley quoted some of
the Russian explorers as reporting "it is only in the lower strata of the
New Siberian wood-hills that the trunks have that position which they would
assume in swimming or sinking undisturbed. On the summit of the hills they
lie flung upon another in the wildest disorder, forced upright in spite of
gravitation, and with their tops broken off or crushed, as if they had been
thrown with great violence from the south on a bank, and there heaped up?'7
A few conclusions can be drawn from the reports of the Russian ivory
traders. First, it appeared that several reasonably large islands were
built primarily of animal bones, heaped in massive hills and held together
by frozen sand. To indicate the scope of the debris, we should note that
all of these islands are found on modern maps of the area, indicating that
we are not talking about little tracts of land of limited area. Second, the
sea floor north of Siberia and surrounding the islands was covered with so
many additional bones that it was worthwhile for the ivory traders to check
the beaches after every storm to gather up tusks and other bones.
Third, and very important for estimating the scope of the disaster, the
ivory was of outstanding quality, so much so that the area provided most of
the world>s ivory for over a century. Estimates of the number of tusks
taken from the islands range in the neighborhood of 100,000 pairs taken
between the 1770s and the 1900s. Whitley noted that Sannikoff himself had
brought away 10,000 pounds of fossil ivory from New Siberia Island alone in
1809.9- In reality; however, only about a quarter of the ivory was of
commercial grade, so the true figure must approach half a million pairs of
tusks.
Fourth, an amazing variety of animals, many extinct, were mixed with the
mammoth and rhinoceros bones, although these two animals have become
symbolic of the whole menagerie. Fifth, trees, plants, and other floral
materials were in- discriminately mixed with the animal remains, sometimes
lead- ing the Russians to suppose that the islands represented a sunken
isthmus or broad stretch of land where these animals and the companion
plants lived in a warmer climate. The chaotic na- ture of stratification of
the remains soon abused that notion.
Finally, it is important to note that none of the bones of any of the
species had carving or butchering marks made by human beings. N.
K.Vereshchagin wrote: "The accumulations of mam- moth bones and carcasses
of mammoth, rhinoceros, and bison found in frozen ground in Indigirka,
Kolyma, and Novosibirsk lands bear no trace of hunting or activity of
primitive man. Here large herbivorous animals perished and became extinct
because of climatic and geomorphic changes, especially changes in the
regime of winter snow and increase in depth of snow cover."9 The "climatic
and geomorphic changes" must have been very sudden indeed and exceedingly
violent, consid- ering the fact that these bones are always described as
"heaps" of material deposited as if they had been thrown into a pile by an
incredibly strong force.
The testimony regarding the richness of the animal remains in the Arctic
north of the continental masses is not restricted to Russian sources.
Stephen Taber, writing in his report "Perenni- ally Frozen Ground in
Alaska: Its Origins and History," had this to say about the Siberian
islands:
Pfizenmayer [citation omittedj states that in the New Siberia island
collectors have "found inexhaustible sup- plies of mammoth bones and tusks
as well as bones and horns of rhinoceros and other diluvial mammals"; and
Dr. Bunge, during expeditions in the summers of 1882-1884, "gathered almost
two thousand five hun- dred first class mammoth tusks on the new Siberian
is- lands of Lyakhov; Kotelnyi, and Fadeyev;" although many collectors had
previously obtained ivory from the islands since their discovery in 1770 by
Lyakhov.~~
It would seem obvious to anyone seriously pursuing the question of the
demise of the mammoth and the other mega- herbivores that a good place to
locate the bodies to determine the cause of their demise would be the
islands north of the Siberian peninsula. Yet we hear not a word about them
in sci- entific articles and books concerning the overkill hypothesis.
When we inquire if the Alaskan area has similar deposits, we learn that the
situation is the same. Early gold miners in Alaska discovered that in many
cases they had to strip off a strange de- posit popularly called "muck" in
order to get to the gold-bearing gravels.The muck was simply a frozen
conglomerate of trees and plants, sand and gravels, some volcanic ash, and
thousands if not milhons of bits of broken bones representing a wide
variety of late Pleistocene and modern animals and plants.
Two scholars describe the scenes of destruction and chaos which the muck
represents. Frank Hibben, in an article survey- ing the evidence of early
man in Alaska, said that while the for- mation of muck was not clear,". . .
there is ample evidence that at least portions of this material were
deposited under cata- strophic conditions. Mammal remains are for the most
part dis- membered and disarticulated, even though some fragments yet
retain in this frozen state, portions of llgaments, skin, hair, and flesh.
Twisted and torn trees are piled in splintered masses con- centrated in
what must be regarded as ephemeral canyons or arroyo cuts."'1
Stephen Taber>s report echoes the same conditions. He says: "Fossil bones
are astonishingly abundant in frozen ground of Alaska, but articulated
bones are scarce, and complete skeletons, except for rodents that died in
their burrows, are almost un- known."'2 Many laypeople will be confused by
this technical language and fail to grasp what Taber is saying, allowing
him to imply a benign orthodox interpretation when the situation re- quires
that a clearer picture be drawn.
When a scholar says "articulation" of bones he means an arrangement of bones
that a person observing them would identify as a complete skeleton and from
which an experienced observer could identify the species.To say that
articulated bones are scarce, then, means that the bones are scattered and
mixed so badly that expert examination is needed to idemify even the bone
itself, let alone the species from which it comes. Remem- ber this problem
of articulation, for we shall meet it again in another context. Taber
concludes with the observation that "the dispersal of the bones is as
striking as their abundance and indicates general destruction of soft parts
prior to burial."13 In other words,Alaskan muck is a gigantic pile of bones
represent- ing a bewildering number of species, a good number of them the
megafauna I have been discussing.
We find the missing megafauna of the late Pleistocene in the Siberian
islands, in the islands north ofAlaska, and in the muck in the Alaskan
interior. Obviously we have here victims of an immense catastrophe which
swept continents and left the de- bris in the far northern latitudes piled
in jumbled masses that now form decent-sized islands. Most anthropologists
and ar- chaeologists avoid discussing these deposits because the ortho- dox
uniformitarian interpretation of the natural processes precludes sudden
unpredictable actions.
Paul Martin, in private correspondence with me in June 1993, stated flatly
that the mammoths could not have been de- stroyed by any such force or
event.14 The sole basis he gave for that conclusion was radiocarbon dating
of mammoth remains in the Siberian and Alaskan muck. I will have more to
say about the reliability of radiocarbon dating below but if we were to
accept his argument, then we would have to create a scenario where
Paleo-Indians kill all these animals without leaving a trace of a spear
point or hatchet blade, drag the carcasses out to sea some 150 miles north
ofAlaska, and dispose of the evidence of their misdeeds. Here friendly
wolves would not be much help.
Although Martin maintains that his thesis explains the disap- pearance of
the megafauna, his argument really centers on the loss of three species:
mammoths, mastodons, and ground sloths, with an occasional reference to
horses and camels that makes it appear as if the important species have
been covered. But overkill avoids asking about the possibly half-million
mammoth skeletons lying frozen in the Arctic regions because that would
completely negate the theory.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o>_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rich Travsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:52 am Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
Ted Holden wrote:
[quote]
Rich Travsky wrote:
Did your telepathic doggies tell you all this? Did you write
with Saturn over head in the sky to cancel out gravity?
*snicker*
Check out:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609805339/102-3622954-3917732?v=glance
Apparently, everybody else>s dog on this planet (except yours) has this
capability to some extent or other.
Having the only retarded dog in the neighborhood isn>t anything to "snicker"
over. I>d be ashamed of it myself.
[/quote]
oooh! the unexplained powers of animals! Golly, that>s SOOOOO convincing!
Not. Go back to Saturn. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Ings
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 4:58 pm Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:20:14 GMT, <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
wrote:
[quote]the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.
Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present.
[/quote]
It>s still wrong about the order of events, no matter how desperately
you try to rationalize them.
The order in which life appears in the book of the history of life
written in the rocks of the earth differs from the order given in
Genesis 1.
Genesis 1
Day 3
Trees bearing fruit and flowering plants
Day 5
Swimming creatures and birds
Day 6
Beasts of the field and man
Now science has determined that the earth>s ocean had life 3 billion
years ago, but sticking to the concept of "swimming and swarming"
creatures, let>s say 600 million years ago.
The first land plants did not show up until 160 million years later.
Anything you could call a tree didn>t exist until Devonian times,
another 40 million years after that. There were no flowering or fruit
bearing trees until Jurassic times, 250 million years later still,
about the time the first flying creatures appeared.
"Beasts of the field" in the form of amphibians, reptiles and
dinosaurs appeared long before birds.
## An honest god is the noblest work of man.... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Geoff Offermann
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
"Ted Holden" <medved@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:Sx-cnX454cfrcteiXTWJiQ@fcc.net...
[quote]David Sienkiewicz wrote:
Ted, if the Flood EVER happened, why is it that there is simply no
hard evidence for it?
http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/mfloods.html
Ah, Ted, as you know, anyone can write an article, anyone can make
claims and anyone can put up a web site.
I am not interested in being referred to YOUR web site as if that ends
the matter. It does not.
I challenged you to debate the issue.
The basic problem: it>s simply not close to obvious that you know
anything
at all about this sort of topic or would be any more capable of holding up
your own end of such a debate than PeeWee Johnson would be of holding up
his end of a fight with Joe Louis.
[/quote]
You>re not nearly as intimidating as you think you are.
[quote]Charles Ginenthal is a sort of an expert on the topic. The claim that
there
is no hard evidence for one or more global floods is basically ignorant;
there>s mountains of such evidence.
[/quote]
Oh, like the erosion of the Sphinx? Puhleeze...why are there no records
of a global flood in Egyptian records that go back to at least 3000 BCE?
In fact, the Egyptians, who are quite content with local annual floods,
have no flood myth.
[quote]It has always seemed obvious to me in fact that the continental shelves
are
basically just the pre-flood ocean boundaries. They appear in formation
to
be similar to what we see on our own continents:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860098.html
There is simply more water on the Earth now than there ever was before the
time of Noah. The areas we live in now would have been viewed as plateaus
before the (Noachian) flood and sparsely inhabited if inhabited at all.
Much of human settlement from prior to that event has to be below the
waves
at present and in fact scientists are presently finding cities beneath the
waves:
http://www.lightwatcher.com/old_lightbytes/underwatercity.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_1697000/1697565.stm
A city 2000' beneath the waves off Cuba amounts to evidence of a global
flood, and of the fact that the waters of that flood haven>t gone anywhere
since then but are still right out there off the coasts of Virginia, the
Carolinas, Georgia, Florida etc. etc.
[/quote]
If the continental shelves were the shoreline, you would find thousands of
cities. But you don>t.
The structures off Cuba are similar to the structures in Bimini (see Bimini
Road)
and others in Australia. The process for these naturally occurring
structures
is known.
[quote]Also citable as evidence of either global floods or something similar and
just as bad are the muck deposits which cover much of Canada, Alaska,
andSiberia, and the condition in which we find the bones of pleistocene
animals and forest remains in that muck. The muck deposits are over a
mile
deep in places if memory serves and appear to be the remains of a former
world age which has simply beeen turned over in the ground, as if by the
hand of a giant farmer using a giant plow.
Vine Deloria ("Red Earth, White Lies") describes the evidence of the
mammoth
extinctions in North America:
##########################################################################
In even the most prejudiced murder trial there is one essential element:
there has to have been a killing. Fancy legal terminology generally
requires a body the corpus delictus as the TV detec- tive shows are fond
of
telling us. It would seem reasonable, if one was to promulgate a theory of
blitzkrieg slaughter as have Martin and Diamond, to identiiy where the
bodies are buried and then take the reader on a gut-wrenching tour through
a graveyard of waste and butchery. We are deprived of this vicarious
thrill
because the evidence of the destruction of the megafiuna suggests a
scenario well outside the orthodox interpretation of benign natural
processes. Therefore mere mention of the reality of the situation is
anathema to most scholars. So let us see what the actual situation is.
The first explorers of the northern shores of Siberia and its offshore
northern islands and of the interior of Alaska, and some of its northern
islands, were stunned to discover an astro- nomical number of bones of
prehistoric animals piled indis- criminately in hills and buried in the
ground. The graveyards of these animals were classified as "antediluvian"
(prior to Noah>s flood) by the majority of scientists and laypeople alike
who still believed the stories of the Old Testament. Near these grave-
yards, incidentally, but located in riverbanks on the northern shore of
Siberia, are found the famous Siberian mammoths whose flesh was supposedly
edible when thawed.
Reading an extensive set of quotations is always tedious to readers but I
hope you will bear with me in this chapter be- cause it is only in the
repetition of the reports of the discoveries of these areas that the
entire
picture of the demise of the mam- moths and other creatures really becomes
clear. These Siberian remains are not the thousands of mammoth bones which
Jared Diamond thinks are searched frantically by archaeologists seek- ing
signs of human butchering. It is doubtful that any archaeol- ogists or
paleontologists have made extensive studies of the skeletons in these
locations or we would certainly have a far different view of megafauna
extinction than is presently ac- ceptable to orthodox scholars.
Russian expeditions to Siberia and the northern islands of the Arctic
Ocean
began in the latter half of the eighteenth cen- tury, and with the
discovery of these large mounds of animal bones, most prominently the
tusks
of mammoths and other herbivores, franchises were given to enterprising
people who could harvest the ivory for the world market. Liakoff seems to
have been the first iniportant ivory trader and explorer in the late
eighteenth century. After his death the Russian govern- ment gave a
monopo~
to a businessman in Yakutsk who sent his agent, Sannikofi, to explore the
islands and locate additional sources of ivory. Sannikoff>s discoveries of
more islands and his reports on the animal remains found there are the
best
firsthand accounts of the Siberian animal graveyards.
Hedenstrom explored the area in 1809 and reported back on the richness of
the ivory tusks. Sannikoff discovered the island of Kotelnoi, which is
apparently the richest single location, in 1811. Finally, the czar decided
to send an official expedition and from 1820 to 1823, Admiral Ferdinand
Wrangell, then a young naval lieutenant, did a reasonably complete survey
of the area. Since these expeditions and explorations were inspired by
commercial interests and not scientific curiosity; the reports are
entirely
objective with no ideological or doctrinal bias to slant the
interpretation
of the finds.
Around the turn of the century interest in the Siberian is- lands seems to
have increased, whether as a result of the few Christian fundamentalists
who were not reconciled to evolu- tion frantically searching for tangible
proof of Noah>s flood, or as part of the leisure activities of the English
gendemen of the time, we can>t be sure. The definitive article on the
Siberian prehistoric animal remains was written by the Reverend D. Gath
Whitley and published by the Philosophical Society of Great Britain under
the title "The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean." It drew on older
sources, primarily reports of expedi- tions of the ivory traders, and
captured the spectacular nature of the discoveries well.
Liakoff discovered, on an island that now bears his name, rather
substantial
cliffs composed primarily of frozen sand and hundreds of elephant tusks.
Later, when the Russian govern- ment sent a surveyor, Chwoinoff, to the
island he reported that, with the exception of son~e high mountains, the
island seemed to be composed of ice and sand and bones and tusks of ele-
phants (or mammoths) which were simply cemented together by the
cold.Whitley reported:
Sannikoff explored Kotelnoi, and found that this large
island was full of the bones and teeth of elephants, rhi-
noceroses, and musk-oxen. Having explored the coasts,
Sannikoff determined, as there was nothing but bar-
renness along the shore, to cross the island. He drove in
reindeer sledges up the Czarina River, over the hills,
and down the Sannikoff River, and completed the cir-
cuit of the island.All over the hills in the interior of the
island Sannikoff found the bones and tusks of ele-
phants, rhinoceroses, buffaloes, and horses in such vast
numbers, that he concluded that these animals must
have lived in the island in enormous herds, when the
climate was milder.5
Hedenstrom explored Liakoff>s island in 1809 and discov- ered that". ..
the
quantity of fossil ivory . . . was so enormous, that, although the ivory
diggers had been engaged in collecting ivory from it for forty years, the
supply seemed to be quite undiminished. On an expanse of sand little more
than half a mile in extent, Hedenstrom saw ten tusks of mammoths stick-
ing
up, and as the ivory hunters had left these tusks because there were still
other places where the remains of mammoths were still more abundant, the
enormous quantities of elephants' tusks and bones in the island may be
imagined?' Indeed, a number of explorers reported that after each ocean
storm the beaches were littered with bones and tusks which had been ly-
ing
on the sea bottom and brought to shore by wave action.
The elephant or mammoth bones and tusks were the most spectacular finds
primarily because they were so plentiful and consequently they attracted
public attention the most. The is- lands contained an incredible mixture
of
bones of many extinct and some living species of mammals. Mixed with the
animal bones were trees in all kinds of conditions. Whitley quoted some of
the Russian explorers as reporting "it is only in the lower strata of the
New Siberian wood-hills that the trunks have that position which they
would
assume in swimming or sinking undisturbed. On the summit of the hills they
lie flung upon another in the wildest disorder, forced upright in spite of
gravitation, and with their tops broken off or crushed, as if they had
been
thrown with great violence from the south on a bank, and there heaped
up?'7
A few conclusions can be drawn from the reports of the Russian ivory
traders. First, it appeared that several reasonably large islands were
built primarily of animal bones, heaped in massive hills and held together
by frozen sand. To indicate the scope of the debris, we should note that
all of these islands are found on modern maps of the area, indicating that
we are not talking about little tracts of land of limited area. Second,
the
sea floor north of Siberia and surrounding the islands was covered with so
many additional bones that it was worthwhile for the ivory traders to
check
the beaches after every storm to gather up tusks and other bones.
Third, and very important for estimating the scope of the disaster, the
ivory was of outstanding quality, so much so that the area provided most
of
the world>s ivory for over a century. Estimates of the number of tusks
taken from the islands range in the neighborhood of 100,000 pairs taken
between the 1770s and the 1900s. Whitley noted that Sannikoff himself had
brought away 10,000 pounds of fossil ivory from New Siberia Island alone
in
1809.9- In reality; however, only about a quarter of the ivory was of
commercial grade, so the true figure must approach half a million pairs of
tusks.
Fourth, an amazing variety of animals, many extinct, were mixed with the
mammoth and rhinoceros bones, although these two animals have become
symbolic of the whole menagerie. Fifth, trees, plants, and other floral
materials were in- discriminately mixed with the animal remains, sometimes
lead- ing the Russians to suppose that the islands represented a sunken
isthmus or broad stretch of land where these animals and the companion
plants lived in a warmer climate. The chaotic na- ture of stratification
of
the remains soon abused that notion.
Finally, it is important to note that none of the bones of any of the
species had carving or butchering marks made by human beings. N.
K.Vereshchagin wrote: "The accumulations of mam- moth bones and carcasses
of mammoth, rhinoceros, and bison found in frozen ground in Indigirka,
Kolyma, and Novosibirsk lands bear no trace of hunting or activity of
primitive man. Here large herbivorous animals perished and became extinct
because of climatic and geomorphic changes, especially changes in the
regime of winter snow and increase in depth of snow cover."9 The "climatic
and geomorphic changes" must have been very sudden indeed and exceedingly
violent, consid- ering the fact that these bones are always described as
"heaps" of material deposited as if they had been thrown into a pile by an
incredibly strong force.
The testimony regarding the richness of the animal remains in the Arctic
north of the continental masses is not restricted to Russian sources.
Stephen Taber, writing in his report "Perenni- ally Frozen Ground in
Alaska: Its Origins and History," had this to say about the Siberian
islands:
Pfizenmayer [citation omittedj states that in the New Siberia island
collectors have "found inexhaustible sup- plies of mammoth bones and tusks
as well as bones and horns of rhinoceros and other diluvial mammals"; and
Dr. Bunge, during expeditions in the summers of 1882-1884, "gathered
almost
two thousand five hun- dred first class mammoth tusks on the new Siberian
is- lands of Lyakhov; Kotelnyi, and Fadeyev;" although many collectors had
previously obtained ivory from the islands since their discovery in 1770
by
Lyakhov.~~
It would seem obvious to anyone seriously pursuing the question of the
demise of the mammoth and the other mega- herbivores that a good place to
locate the bodies to determine the cause of their demise would be the
islands north of the Siberian peninsula. Yet we hear not a word about them
in sci- entific articles and books concerning the overkill hypothesis.
When we inquire if the Alaskan area has similar deposits, we learn that
the
situation is the same. Early gold miners in Alaska discovered that in many
cases they had to strip off a strange de- posit popularly called "muck" in
order to get to the gold-bearing gravels.The muck was simply a frozen
conglomerate of trees and plants, sand and gravels, some volcanic ash, and
thousands if not milhons of bits of broken bones representing a wide
variety of late Pleistocene and modern animals and plants.
Two scholars describe the scenes of destruction and chaos which the muck
represents. Frank Hibben, in an article survey- ing the evidence of early
man in Alaska, said that while the for- mation of muck was not clear,". .
..
there is ample evidence that at least portions of this material were
deposited under cata- strophic conditions. Mammal remains are for the most
part dis- membered and disarticulated, even though some fragments yet
retain in this frozen state, portions of llgaments, skin, hair, and flesh.
Twisted and torn trees are piled in splintered masses con- centrated in
what must be regarded as ephemeral canyons or arroyo cuts."'1
Stephen Taber>s report echoes the same conditions. He says: "Fossil bones
are astonishingly abundant in frozen ground of Alaska, but articulated
bones are scarce, and complete skeletons, except for rodents that died in
their burrows, are almost un- known."'2 Many laypeople will be confused by
this technical language and fail to grasp what Taber is saying, allowing
him to imply a benign orthodox interpretation when the situation re-
quires
that a clearer picture be drawn.
When a scholar says "articulation" of bones he means an arrangement of
bones
that a person observing them would identify as a complete skeleton and
from
which an experienced observer could identify the species.To say that
articulated bones are scarce, then, means that the bones are scattered and
mixed so badly that expert examination is needed to idemify even the bone
itself, let alone the species from which it comes. Remem- ber this problem
of articulation, for we shall meet it again in another context. Taber
concludes with the observation that "the dispersal of the bones is as
striking as their abundance and indicates general destruction of soft
parts
prior to burial."13 In other words,Alaskan muck is a gigantic pile of
bones
represent- ing a bewildering number of species, a good number of them the
megafauna I have been discussing.
We find the missing megafauna of the late Pleistocene in the Siberian
islands, in the islands north ofAlaska, and in the muck in the Alaskan
interior. Obviously we have here victims of an immense catastrophe which
swept continents and left the de- bris in the far northern latitudes piled
in jumbled masses that now form decent-sized islands. Most anthropologists
and ar- chaeologists avoid discussing these deposits because the ortho-
dox
uniformitarian interpretation of the natural processes precludes sudden
unpredictable actions.
Paul Martin, in private correspondence with me in June 1993, stated flatly
that the mammoths could not have been de- stroyed by any such force or
event.14 The sole basis he gave for that conclusion was radiocarbon dating
of mammoth remains in the Siberian and Alaskan muck. I will have more to
say about the reliability of radiocarbon dating below but if we were to
accept his argument, then we would have to create a scenario where
Paleo-Indians kill all these animals without leaving a trace of a spear
point or hatchet blade, drag the carcasses out to sea some 150 miles north
ofAlaska, and dispose of the evidence of their misdeeds. Here friendly
wolves would not be much help.
Although Martin maintains that his thesis explains the disap- pearance of
the megafauna, his argument really centers on the loss of three species:
mammoths, mastodons, and ground sloths, with an occasional reference to
horses and camels that makes it appear as if the important species have
been covered. But overkill avoids asking about the possibly half-million
mammoth skeletons lying frozen in the Arctic regions because that would
completely negate the theory.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o>_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Vogel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Gensis: Accurate account? |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:4kimkv4tr9srph50kklckf64hftkfk5f8h@4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:20:14 GMT, <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]
wrote:
the Genesis account was not written to show the "how" of creation.
Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way.
Gensis is writen from the standpoint of people on earth. it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present.
It>s still wrong about the order of events, no matter how desperately
you try to rationalize them.
The order in which life appears in the book of the history of life
written in the rocks of the earth differs from the order given in
Genesis 1.
Genesis 1
Day 3
Trees bearing fruit and flowering plants
Day 5
Swimming creatures and birds
Day 6
Beasts of the field and man
Now science has determined that the earth>s ocean had life 3 billion
years ago, but sticking to the concept of "swimming and swarming"
creatures, let>s say 600 million years ago.
The first land plants did not show up until 160 million years later.
Anything you could call a tree didn>t exist until Devonian times,
another 40 million years after that. There were no flowering or fruit
bearing trees until Jurassic times, 250 million years later still,
about the time the first flying creatures appeared.
"Beasts of the field" in the form of amphibians, reptiles and
dinosaurs appeared long before birds.
## An honest god is the noblest work of man....
[/quote]
Can you supply some scientific articles for your assertions? I>m not at all
calling your integrity or honesty into question, but am interested in how
you arrived at these conclusions.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
