Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events

Works for me.An alternative link to the same thing is Forbidden.Most of it is just proving that some real historical figures and events are mentioned in the Bible. The last page or so is about the Exodus, correlating inscriptions (most from "Wadi Sidri") with the Biblical Exodus account. The correlations seem remarkable, but there's no citations, so I can't evaluate them.

Yes, but it is not evidence that they were under water at the same time or in the recent past. In fact, since the transformation from sediment to sedimentary rock takes time, it is evidence that they were under water long before Man came on the scene.When we consider the rest of the evidence, it is blindingly obvious that there was no global flood. That's why the great Christian geologists of the late eigthteenth and early nineteenths century reluctantly abandoned the idea of a global flood; even before Darwin, even before radioisotope dating, the evidence was unmistakably clear. And they were too honest to lie to themselves and the world by claiming otherwise.

You can start with Evolution, Scientific Creation, Uniformitarian Geology, and Flood Geology and its references. Mostly talks about limestone, but that's enough to refute the notion of catastropic deposition of all sedimentary rocks.

It's easy to throw out links, and make tens of claims, but refuting them takes time and effort. Nonetheless, over the years they've all been refuted, and it wouldn't take much effort on your part to find those refutations. Start at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution ControversyIf you want to discuss something, write it up and we'll discuss it.Overall, your links are both just lists of unsupported claims, distortions and -- yes -- outright lies.E.g.:

quote:

---

It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds.

---

This is a distortion because there was no formal training in geology in those days, and therefore nobody had the formal training to be a "professional scientific geologist" (such a Lyell; see Sir Charles Lyell). Of course, lack of formal training or professional accreditation should not be taken as evidence that a person does not know what he/she is talking about. After all, the author of that passage is Henry Morris, a hydraulic engineer and not a "professional scientific geologist"! If we believe that passage, we must accept that the author of the article is not competent to write the article!!But he also lies, in leaving out such well known and highly qualified geologists such as Hugh Miller, who wrote in 1857:

quote:

---

No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the older geologic systems, -- Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary.

---

And Adam SedgwickWoodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge and President of the Geological Society of London and, for many years, a major proponent of the diluvial (Noah's flood) theory of deposition, who addressed the Geological Society thusly in 1831:

quote:

---

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. ... We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood ...

---

More, and discussion, at A Flood Geologist RecantsYour other link, ICR | The Institute for Creation Research\, is refuted at Sea-floor Spreading and the Age of the Earth, and catastrophic plate tectonics as discussed here at great length in Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (for TC and Sylas) and Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading. The basic problems with CPT is that there's really no evidence for it, it requires assuming wildly unrealistic values for the physical properties of molten rock, and it would release enought heat to destroy life on Earth several times over. Lots of references in the links above.

Bare links are forbidden by the forum guidelines to which you agreed when you signed up. You don't like it, go somewhere else. Remains to be seen. I bet I know a lot more about the creationist's "evidence" than you do. ICR and AIG sure don't have evidence, all they have is their own prejudices.

Landover is a parody.