Evolution? How?

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.

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 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. . .
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.
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.

I'm not about to say that the Sphinx survived the food of Noah, but Schwaller's suggestion "that the cause of erosion on the Sphinx was water rather than wind-borne sand" is most interesting.

I never suggested the earth's population would actually double every 80 years, I simply used figures suggested by the post of our astute colleague, xingu.

Nor would I presume to challenge your seemingly endless library of academic documents, rather the conclusions you draw from them. I believe you are so distracted by the lofty qualifications of those writers, you can't discern the treasure hidden in the dirt level simplicity of the scriptures.

The redating site was edifying. One phrase in the document deserves note: "Assuming a linear rate of weathering. . . " That says a lot. I also noticed that Schloch's work was not universally accepted.

I'm not about to say that the Sphinx survived the food of Noah, but Schwaller's suggestion "that the cause of erosion on the Sphinx was water rather than wind-borne sand" is most interesting.

Besides, I was referring to written history.

Oh; and, with all this hot weather, It's time for some rain, don't you think?

Another fact that supports evolution are the diversity of marine microoragnisms . Scientists are just beginning research in this area, and are finding diversity of 20,000 cells in each drop of water, but have only gotten samples from about 30 locations of the world. .

I never suggested the earth's population would actually double every 80 years, I simply used figures suggested by the post of our astute colleague, xingu.

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.

Leonardo, came up with the actual sequence of how we get fossils onto mountain tops. ALL mountains, so deposited had reached their present lofts by post fossil depositional TECTONICS. We know that the Himalayas were hit head on by India , the resultant crash cause the sediments of the proto Himalayan basin to be squeezed and pushed skyward.

Its really an easy concept, no "high tech" once the data is in.
We know how long ago these continental collisions happened because internal "atomic clocks" that live in elements like Hafnium, reset their 'mother /daughter" balances and reatrat the clock. (can see a lot about isotope chem in A Dickin's book "Radioactive Isotope Chemistry" 1995)
These, combined with magnetostratitigraphy and seismic and heat flow data, all point to a path that India took as it broke from the Laurasian subcontinent (proto Africa) and then slammed into Asias belly These data suggest (evidence) that the Himalayas began rising about 25 million years ago.

real life wrote:

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.

Yes, i've noted a tendancy on your part to laugh at things which you do not understand or are unwilling to acknowledge. The Black Sea/Caspian event is not a postulate, it is a description of the geological evidence in the region. Were the Aryan tribes of the region residents of the Caucasus Mountains, they would have found themselves isolated on islands which were previously simply mountain peaks, and would have been surrounded by water for as far as they could see.

You attempt to ridicule the reasonable statements of others in order to support your wildly hilarious and extravagent contention that the fairy tales in the bible are revealed truth. You only beggar your own credibility in the process.

How DARE I.... question ANYTHING.......EVER !! Especially if you say it ! Eeek!

Just because I doubt the validity of claiming that a group of people who have SURVIVED a flood would make up a story about themselves NOT SURVIVING a flood, yep I'm a baaaaaaaad guy.

Just because I doubt the validity of claiming that a group of people who have SURVIVED a flood would make up a story about themselves NOT SURVIVING a flood, yep I'm a baaaaaaaad guy.

Quote:

I never suggested the earth's population would actually double every 80 years, I simply used figures suggested by the post of our astute colleague, xingu.

If your not suggesting it then why did you post;

I find it interesting that 'written' history, which is inaccurately dated, can go back no more than 5000 or so years.

xingu wrote:

I take it then, by your belief, all history that is older then 4000 B.C. must be inaccurate because the earth didn't exist before 4000 B.C.

neo said

Quote:

I'm not about to say that the Sphinx survived the food of Noah, but Schwaller's suggestion "that the cause of erosion on the Sphinx was water rather than wind-borne sand" is most interesting.

.The guy is fixated with Water erosion rather than wind. If you read some of his summaries, hes postulating torrent erosion as wed see frm rain flowing down the side of sphinx. His thesis is that sphinx is older than credited because the local climate was wetter about 9 to 10K BP. No "collateral" flood damage because we know that there were mudflats and terrestrial sediment pools that contain pollen from land plants that are about 10 K years old. Anything you may propose, has an answer is some realistic science base. Even Schwaller wouldnt make his claims (As if there were a "flood) when all 10K environmental data strongly shows the terrestrial plants and animals of that time, lots of swamps and hummocks but no floods, sorry.
Youre entire problem here is based upon having a short focus on one item while ignoring the surrounding evidence. Real life is like that also. At least you can be reasoned with.

Quote:

How DARE I.... question ANYTHING.......EVER !! Especially if you say it ! Eeek!

Just because I doubt the validity of claiming that a group of people who have SURVIVED a flood would make up a story about themselves NOT SURVIVING a flood, yep I'm a baaaaaaaad guy.

You've dumbed the word down. He didnt say "question" he said "ridicule". The difference being when you ridicule something you really don't care if there's an answer or if it's given you will continue believing what you want.

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

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.

Yes, i've noted a tendancy on your part to laugh at things which you do not understand or are unwilling to acknowledge. The Black Sea/Caspian event is not a postulate, it is a description of the geological evidence in the region. Were the Aryan tribes of the region residents of the Caucasus Mountains, they would have found themselves isolated on islands which were previously simply mountain peaks, and would have been surrounded by water for as far as they could see.

You attempt to ridicule the reasonable statements of others in order to support your wildly hilarious and extravagent contention that the fairy tales in the bible are revealed truth. You only beggar your own credibility in the process.

Yeah I know.

How DARE I.... question ANYTHING.......EVER !! Especially if you say it ! Eeek!

Just because I doubt the validity of claiming that a group of people who have SURVIVED a flood would make up a story about themselves NOT SURVIVING a flood, yep I'm a baaaaaaaad guy.