The Flood- one explanation

Uplift millions of years ago? Mere assertion. Plate tectonics- I am sure you are well aware that a Creationist was the first to mention continental drift and that "conventional" geologists didn't catch on until some 80 years later.The lake would have dried up by now if it were millions of years old.Do the docks face the lake? How do you know the lake predates the city?[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-16-2003]

John Paul,I see on your profile that you say that you're an electronics engineer.Would you please explain, if that is the case, why your knowledge of basic physics is flat out absurd.And I am not being impolite here, just 'calling 'em as I see 'em.'I mean, you haven't addressed my earlier disparaging comments about your physical model for the Earth and the effects of it's rotation.
Do you stick by your hypothesis?[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-16-2003]

If you would like to back this up I will open another thread for it, just let me know.

The frog and I had a little side discussion at the one-liner topic.Anyhow, references seem to be in pretty slim supply, so far in this topic. Through 43 messages, there were 2(!!!) links to outside information. And one of those was William Scott linking to his own book.In particular, I'd like to see some references backing Rei's statements of message 40, and to Crashfrog's statements of message 45. Things about the salts of the lake.Not that others haven't also been throwing out unsupported statements.Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-16-2003]

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
http://www.dosecc.org/html/body_lake_titicaca.html
http://www.inkas.com/tours/titikaka/titicaca_history.html
Nothing found for Pages History Hstry_Lktiticaca1
Bartleby.com:
Just a moment...
Page not found | Andean SummitsAnything not covered?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-17-2003]

Pelligrini was the first to mention continental drift.

Hey, thanks, I didn't know anyone was looking into it before Wegner.What is the kind of creationist that he was? Do you have any writings of his on the topic?Was he a young-earther? He was far enough back that the current estimates for the earth's age would be considered to be "young" by our standards (millions instead of billions of years).Was he a creationist in that he thought God created all life? A significant percentage of scientist today do too. But we wouldn't call them "creationists" in the present way that is used.Also:

quote:

---

The belief that continents have not always been fixed in their present positions was suspected long before the 20th century; this notion was first suggested as early as 1596 by the Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus. Ortelius suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa . . . by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]."

---

from:http://pubs.usgs.gov/...s/text/historical.html#anchor9449934but I would think that someone of that time would certainly be a creationist (somewhat in the modern sense).(An aside)
One way to view what a creationist is could be:
Someone who disagrees with the consensus scientific position on the age of the earth and / or the formation of life forms. (I guess you would end up tossing in physics, geology, etc).This is at least the way it is today.Since all scientists once thought the earth was much younger (even 6,000 years) and that life was created directly by God as it is today then the consensus position wasn't in conflict.It was these "creationists" that did the careful work which showed that the consensus had to be changed. It was wrong.What do you think the word means, John Paul?

quote:

---

Uplift millions of years ago? Mere assertion.

---

The plates are currently uplifting, like it our not. Do you think surveying is pseudoscience as well?

quote:

---

Plate tectonics- I am sure you are well aware that a Creationist was the first to mention continental drift and that "conventional" geologists didn't catch on until some 80 years later.

---

And who might you be referring to? Certainly not Alfred Wegener. Here's a page about the history: http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html; if you're talking about the first person who suggested it (instead of postulating a theory), note that it was 1596, and thus long predating the ToE itself.

quote:

---

The lake would have dried up by now if it were millions of years old.

---

5 major rivers feed the lake. If you knew anything about Tiahuanaco (instead of just citing from your book, you'd know that the city was initially founded on the Tiahuanaco river (one of the 5)

quote:

---

Do the docks face the lake?

---

Yes. The water is just 100 feet lower than them. This corresponds to how fast the lake is receeding today.

quote:

---

How do you know the lake predates the city?

---

Because it was founded in about 1000 BC.. Its peak time (which we see as today's ruins - including the docks) wasn't until 200 AD.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-17-2003]

Here ya go Eta:THE TILT OF THE EARTH'S AXIS Also Dr. Paul Back was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship from South Africa in 1951 and graduated from Oxford University in 1955 with a Doctorate of Philosophy in Engineering Science. He cites Victor Pearce's research in his book. Do you think he knows something of physics?

Ideas about evolution has been around for millenia. Those ideas were debated by the likes of Aristotle and dismissed by him and the likes of Socrates. IOW scientists from that point on knew of tghe idea of evolution. That means that being a Creationist wasn't the only option.Pelligrini wrote the book "Creation and its mysteries revealed"As for Creationist there are several versions I am sure. Some are YEC some are OEC. If you say the evidence shows life is the result of a Special Creation, ie life-forms were created separately, then you are a Creationist.

Funny that. I know of some scientists that place Tiahunaco back well before 1000bc.Some of the docks and piers in this area are so large that hundreds of ships could dock comfortably - and nothing oceanic near these docks except an ancient coastline made of chalky fossils. Lake Titicaca, languishing miles away, is nearly 100 feet lower than the ruined docks. What tremendous geological upheaval has occurred in the last thousand years that could have tumbled these huge stones while raising the entire altiplano region 2 miles into the sky? None that anyone knows about - but 12,000 years ago might have been a different story.It is only a guess that Titicaca was the intention of the docks because no one believes that this was actually a port city on the Pacific. They can't grasp the thought so they try to find a solution that eases their minds.No I am not against plate tectonics. I just view it differently than uniformitarians.

Hi All,I see JP found this forum. JP is full of claims and stories, but he does not understand much about modern science (though he has claimed to be a scientist elsewhere). I suspect he has been listening too much to Art Bell and other conspiracy theorists. He thinks Velikovsky was a genius and Nostradamus a prophet. It's usually best to just ignore his pseudoscientific ramblings.CheersJoe Meert

I can't believe this.You've got a city built on a lake. It's a harbor city, with docks that face the lake.You really believe that the most reasonable explanation of that is that the docks really were built to service an ocean countless miles down and away?Me, I'll go for the simplest explanation: the reason the city has docks that face the lake is because the docks were meant to be used from the lake.

Evidently he knows very little physics, or if he did it was long since forgotten.

This suggests that almost everyone before about 1900+ was a creationist. In fact, doesn't that make Darwin a creationist?