Evolution? How?

I am not forgetting or disavowing it. At the time the supposed Biblical flood occurred (anywhere between 2900 and 2400 BC depending on whose interpretation you choose) all of the worlds mountains were about the same height, give or take a little for erosion or mountain building.

Since my timeline is in the billions of years and not in the thousands of years as yours I know that over my period of time many mountains have been created and destroyed. Over your time period all of today's mountains were in existence.

So no, there is not a contradiction.

HOWEVER, if we go by your assumptions then today's mountains must have far taller at Noah's time then today. After all you claim that 9,000 feet of sediment occurred around Boulder. Therefore we must assume this sediment came from the existing mountains. That would mean all the 16er's would have been much taller.

What I wonder is, if Creationists say Mt. Everest was covered by the ocean and Mt. Everest is the world's tallest mountain, where did the sediment come from? Did the sediment flow uphill during the 40 days of rain and create a mountain?

I find it funny that every time a Creationist comes across sedimentary rock they scream The Flood, The Flood!

Real

While researching this Flood business I found that most Bible chronologies place the Flood between 2300 and 2400 BC. Funny that there is no break in historical records that show a total eradication of the human race at that time period.

So, assuming the entire human race was wiped out by your loving God in, say 2400 B.C how long do you suppose it would take Noah's descendants to repopulate the world, including the Americas?

xingu, Egyptian history goes back further than 2,400 BC. Even the history of Malta goes back more than 1,000 years before that!

Early Dynastic Period
1st Dynasty (2920 - 2770 BC)
2nd Dynasty (2770 - 2650 BC)

Old Kingdom
3rd Dynasty (2650 - 2575 BC)
4th Dynasty (2575 - 2467 BC)
5th Dynasty (2465 - 2323 BC)
6th Dynasty (2323 - 2152 BC)

If Jewish society is 6000 years old, and Chinese society is 4000 years old, what did the Jews eat on Saturday nights for 2000 years?

Well GGGGOOOOOLLLLEEEEEEEE, how can that be. All of humanity, with the exception of an old man and his family, was destroyed. The entire earth was void of life. All vegetation was dead. The only animals in the world were those that came off the ark.

It must be a miracle!

And in only 4400 years humans have evolved to include dark skin, light skin and epicanthic eye folds. Unless of course Noah's family included people from all of the races we now see on earth.

Wilso, That's another one of those 5,000 year old evolutionary miracles from the bible. DANG!

If the number (8) were to double every 80 years, in 2400 years, the earth would contain. 8,589,934,592 folks. Is that enough?

I find it interesting that 'written' history, which is inaccurately dated, can go back no more than 5000 or so years. But hey; I'm just an ignorant yokel from New Jersey. You all know how dumb we folks can be.

Your number eight doubling every 80 years does not take into account war, famine, flood (of the garden as opposed to the fantastical variety), pandemic disease and the thousand natural shocks to which the flesh is heir. For that to be operative, Noah and his wife, plus his two "good" sons and their wives, and his one unruly child and his wife would all be obliged to produce four offspring who survived infancy and childhood to reach sexual maturity. Were the genders equally distributed, at the end of that time, you would once again have only four reproductive pairs--unless of course, you're also going to use the hysterical biblical contentions about individuals living centuries and remaining reproductively fertile over such time spans. You're going to have to account for the genetic diseases of inbreeding. You're going to have to account for the care and feeding of this burgeoning population despite all life having been extinguished with the exception of a single reproductive pair from each species carried on the floating sewage pool known as the Ark. I understand a wistful desire that all this were so, but it defies logic to the point of laughable absurdity.

As for the age of written history, rather than point out that your dating is suspect, i would simply explode your facile and feeble attempt to suggest by inference that no human evidence older than Bishop Ussher's silly exegesis exists by pointing to the Sphinx. An excellent summary on "re-dating" the age of the Sphinx (with a complete bibliography) more than adequately makes a fool of Bishop Ussher. In addition, note in the text the references to human "cities" (walled settlements) at Catal Huyuk in Anatolia and at Jericho in Palestine, dating to the seventh and ninth millenia before the current era respectively.

In the original version of Notre Dame de Paris by Victor Hugo, the second "tome" begins with a description of monumental architecture as writing, considering a menhir a single word, a pyramid a sentence, and the great cathedrals as full pages of text. On such a basis, the archaeological evidence of the Sphinx, Catal Huyuk and Jericho are written historical evidence which stretch back millenial before Ussher's paltry biblical date for the beginning of the world.

You are sufficiently intelligent to understand everything i've just written, Neo, your silly self-deprecation notwithstanding. Believe what you will about your God, i've never objected to your holding such beliefs. Do have the courtesy, however, not to piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

Interesting how this visitors site for Mt Everest:

http://www.visit-himalaya.com/himalayas/mount-everest.html

also makes the claim that Mt Everest has a great deal of sedimentary rock and was at one point in history undersea.

(Naturally this site, since it is written from a uniformitarian perspective, interprets into this history a multi million year period in between then and now. )

But again I ask, how did those poor, dumb, backward, illiterate Hebrews just get lucky enough to claim that EVERYTHING had been under the sea, and evidence from the world's tallest mountain verifies it?

The backward, and long illiterate Hebrews attempted to foist off on the credulous the claim that everything was once under water all at the same time. There is no evidence for that. Your attempts to use slim pickings of selected scientific evidence to claim that this was so are pathetic, and are not supported by the data as you claim.

How did they get so lucky as to guess that it was all undersea AT ALL? That in itself would seem like quite a limb to go out on. Especially for a backward, illiterate , don't you think?

They did not "guess" that anything was "undersea." They merely borrowed someone else's flood myth. As i've already noted, and you have failed to note, the Aryans of the region north of the middle east, the Medes and the Farsi, once lived in the region of what is now the Caucasus Mountains. At the time of the retreat of the Wurms glaciation, the two bodies of water which are now the Black and Caspian Seas were united for several centuries. As Wilso has pointed out, the view of a tribal people is such that if a significant portion of their surroundings were inundated, they would consider this a world-wide flood. The Hebrews simply borrowed the flood myth.

Your thesis is paltry: it assumes that all land which is now above sea level was at some or the other under sea level, but you have no evidence for such an assertion; it assumes that the flood myth originates with the Hebrews, and the evidence is quite to the contrary; it assumes that the flood myth of the Hebrews dates to a time before the Babylonian captivity, and prior to that time, they were indeed illiterate, from any historical evidence which can be relied upon as not having been tampered with by religious zealots such as you seem to be.

The Hebrews did not "guess" anything, they simply borrowed somebody else's story, because it was obviously so much better than the fairy tales they were themselves then attempting to retail. What is ludicrous and pathetic is that you are attempting, millenia later, to peddle the same fairy tales, in spite of mountain ranges of evidence (both literally and figuratively) that make a fool of anyone making such assertions.

It seems rather unlikely that a group of people who obviously survived a LOCAL flood on dry ground (such as the postulated Black-Caspian event that you propose ) would conclude that it was a world wide flood, since they themselves survived it WITHOUT resorting to an ark. The concocction of a world wide flood myth in the wake of an event such as this is so unlikely as to be laughable.

It would be difficult to find an area of the world where there is not evidence that it has been undersea. Do you know of one?

Why don't you simplify matters by presenting some affirmative evidence of a worldwide flood?

I see. Somebody ELSE guessed that even gigantic mountains such as the Himalayas and the Rockies would show evidence of being undersea.

Well, if sedimentary rock on Everest, the world's tallest mountain and sedimentary rock over 1 mile tall in the area of the Rockies do not seem to support the thesis in your mind, what would?

What if these sedimentary strata showed evidence of multitudes of fossils of various descriptions, fully formed creatures trapped in the sediment and buried?

Fossil formation would likely have taken place quickly. If a creature had lain on the top of sediment for years ( as postulated by uniformitarians; and as the "slow formation of sedimentary strata" theses generally state) wouldn't it be a bit unusual for the creature to lay there all that time and not be scavenged or decomposed? Can you imagine it lying there perfectly preserved from scavengers or decomposition for even a few months? The idea is so far fetched that I cannot believe you would take it seriously.

Your silliness knows no bounds. The someone else had no notion that such mountain ranges even existed. You are either too dense to understand, or you willfully continue to ignore the statement made more than once by more than one member that a tribal people observing a local event would very likely consider such an event "world-wide" because of the narrow character of their view of the world. Very much like the ignorant and narrow view of people who take what is written in the bible as literal truth.