|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is your best arguments against a world wide flood. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2552 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In message 20, booboocruise wrote:
"Actually, The whale's skeleton was unearthed atopSanhorn Mountain in the North Sea (an area not known to be affected by shifting plates to the point of 3000 feet of uplift)." A mountain in the North Sea? If it is **in** the North Sea,than how could its top be 3,000 ft above sea level? :-) :-) Watch those prepositions. From the excerpts of Dr. Sullivan's 1829 "geologylectures" that various web pages provide, it is very difficult, even impossible, to verify the different aspects of what Dr. Sullivan stated about whale skeleton. To understand this problem, a person need only look at "Christian Evidences" at: http://www.grmi.org/...l/Richard_Riss/evidences2/12noah.html There, in relationship to this whale skeleton, it is stated: "...a skeleton of a whale lay on top of the mountainSanhorn on the coast of the northern sea. . . . [The mountain] is three thousand feet high and there is no cause that could have conveyed the whale to that elevation except a deluge rising to that height." The phrase "northern sea" is rather ambigous, at least interms of its modern usage. It is only an assumption that the "northern sea" is the "North Sea". Also, I have to wonder what has been deleted from thecited part of the lecture as a person finds "..." bewteen the mention of the "northern sea" and "[The mountain]". Anyway, there is one online relief map of Europe at: City Colleges of Chicago - Maintenance There is only one area along the coast of the North Seawhere a person can elevations of around 3,000 ft is near the coast. It is at the southwwest end of Norway. If you stretch the definition of "near" a couple of places along the east coast of England and Scotland might qualify as well. There is a map of mountains in Norway with elevationsof 1,000 m or more at at: Institutt for informatikk (UiB)
Institutt for informatikk (UiB) Institutt for informatikk (UiB) None of them are actually on the coast of the North Seaalthough several can be found on the coast of the Norwegian Sea. Now the question becomes does the "northern sea" actually refer to the "Norwegian Sea"? In terms of the Norwegian Sea, one possible mountain is"Sandhornet", which is 994 m high and located on the island Sandhornya, Nordland It can be found at: Institutt for informatikk (UiB)
Institutt for informatikk (UiB) "Sanhorn" is very close to Sandhornet in spelling andin elevation 994 m (3260 ft). Sandhoret is located on island on the coast of the Nowegian Sea. The problem about whether a whale was found on this mountain and where on this mountain a whale was actually found remains. Where is detailed documentation about thecontext and discovery of this whale skeleton published, if any place? A big problem here is that the lecture notes provideabsolutely nothing in the way of any sort of data or published citations that document a whale having been found on "mountian Sanhorn". Nothing is said about the who found the whale, in what strata the whale was found, and any of the other details about the circumstances of this find. Also, a person is left not knowing whether Sulliman's information about this find comes from his own observations, observations published in a journal, information published in a newspaper article, or from third-hand or second-hand sources. As a result, it is impossible to either determine or judge anything about the credibility and accuracy of the source of his information about where the whale skeleton was found. (I would be very curious is Mr. Bobocruise canspecifically tell us exactly who "unearthed" this whale skeleton, the exact date it was found, who found it, how it was found, the type of strata from which it was recovered, and other details of this discovery and excavation of this whale skeleton.) Yours, Bill BirkelandHouston, TX [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Actually, The whale's skeleton was unearthed atop Sanhorn Mountain in the North Sea (an area not known to be affected by shifting plates to the point of 3000 feet of uplift)."
--I agree with Bill's thoughts on the lack of data regarding the finding of a whale at the ambiguous location you cite. My question is--what was the source of uplift? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
Bill, you are focusing on the wrong part of the argument (where was the mountain)?
Sorry, it was a miscommunication of where the mountain was that boasted a whale and where the mountain was that had the other flood-evidence (i.e. corral).The mountain that really had a whale (((SANHORN MOUNTAIN))) is in Michigan. THe mountain with the researchers' findings of other such evidence is in the mountain range Timor (I'm not familiar yet with that area, but I know now that Sanhorn , not Sandhornet, is in Michigan, along glacial deposits where ONLY a deluge "flood" could have caused the location of the whale's skeleton). If you want more, get a hold of Dr. Comninellis' book "Creative Defense: Evidence AGAINST Evolution" If you want to know more about the flood evidence (including a mere mention of Sanhorn and the whale) then go to yahoo.com, type in Sanhorn Mountain, and click on "God created the universe." In Christ, Booboo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The official gazetteer for the US returns no hits for "sanhorn."
U.S. Board on Geographic Names | U.S. Geological Survey Try again? Timor is an island between Indonesia and Australia. [This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Bill, you are focusing on the wrong part of the argument (where was the mountain)? But that is the argument. If your assertation is that only a worldwide flood could have left a whale carcass on a mountain, then the location, history, and very existence of the mountain and whale in question is very germaine to the argument. Otherwise, that's like saying "I know of a book on planet Zorg that says the flood never happened. How do you explain that?" It's a non-argument because if we can't access the evidence how do we know it really says what you say it says? before we're able to address your whale on a mountain argument, we have to see the data. Anyway we've given you a general explanation for aquatic remains on mountains: tectonic uplift. It's incumbent on you now to explain how this explain how tectonic uplift doesn't apply to this particular mountain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7597 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:So you don't have a clue where Sanhorn is, do you? There is no Sanhorn in Michigan - there is a Sanborn, but it ain't no mountain and it ain't near the Northern Sea. However I did as you suggested and went to yahoo.com and found only "Did God Create the Universe?" - just a weency bit different from "God created the universe" don't you think? Really, if you're so bad at quoting others that you can't even get that right, you'd be better off coming up with some ideas of your own (unlikely as it seems), rather than making a hash of recycling others'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2552 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
Inmessage 33, booboocruise wrote:
"------------------------ Re: She sells seashells ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill, you are focusing on the wrong part of the argument (where was the mountain)?" The exact location of the whale skeleton is an verypart of determining whether the whale skeleton is anomalous or not. Without an exact location it is completely impossible for any interpretation of its significance to be made at all and to know whether or not it nothing more the vivid imagination of whoever or whatever Dr. Sullivan used as a source for his geology lectures. Without an exact location and specific data on on who found it, how it was excavated, and from what type of strata it was excavated, Mr. booboocruise has **neither** argument **nor** any evidence. Without this information the story about the whale found on the mountain is just an entertaining but scientifically useless story. The location is **not** the "wrong part" of the argument, but one of many **essential** facts, which Mr. booboocruise seems incapable of supplying, that are needed to make a fish story into something that might resemble a scientific argument for his ideas. The importance of location and context in understandinghow whales get where they are found can be found in "A Whale of a Tale" by Darby South at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html All sorts of claims were made about the catastropheburial of whale standing on its tail until someone looked at this fossil in the context of its location and the strata enclosing it. +++++++++++++ Inmessage 33, booboocruise wrote: "Sorry, it was a miscommunication of where themountain was that boasted a whale and where the mountain was that had the other flood-evidence (i.e. corral). The mountain that really had a whale (((SANHORN MOUNTAIN))) is in Michigan. How can the mountain with the whale be located inMichigan given what Dr. Sullivan stated as cited by Christian Evidences" at: http://www.grmi.org/...al/Richard_Riss/evidences2/12noah.htm ? This web page cites Byron C. Nelson (1968:85) as stating "...a skeleton of a whale lay on top of the mountainSanhorn on the coast of the northern sea. . . . [The mountain] is three thousand feet high and there is no cause that could have conveyed the whale to that elevation except a deluge rising to that height." the references is: Nelson, Byron C., 1968, The Deluge Story in Stone: AHistory of the Flood Theory of Geology" by, 1968, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Publishers. 1. As far as I know, neither Lake Michigan, LakeHuron, nor Lake Superior are known by anyone as the "northern sea". This includes Yale professors in New England. 2. Also, the highest point of Michigan is Mt. Arvonwith an elevation of 1,979 ft. According to simple mathmatics, this is 1,021 ft **below** the elevation for Mt. Sanhorn given by Dr. Sullivan. How can the mountain on which the whale was found be 1,021 ft above the highest point in Michigan, if it is located in Michigan? This doesn't make any sense to me at all. More information on the highest pount in Michigan. File Not Foundhttp://www.adamroddy.com/States/MI.html Page not found | Highpointers Club http://members.tripod.com/~dlwick/hiptmi.htm This does not sound like a miscommunication, ratherit sounds like Mr. booboocruise doesn't know, like everybody else, exactly where this mountain with a whale on it is located. If nobody really knows where this mountain is located, it is simply impossible, as I noted above, to evaluate its significance to any degree. +++++++++++++++++Inmessage 33, booboocruise wrote: "THe mountain with the researchers' findings of othersuch evidence is in the mountain range Timor (I'm not familiar yet with that area," Citing an unknown researcher who has found "othersuch evidence" in an unnamed mountain range in Timor certainly proves nothing. It is like me telling you that since an unknown person saw pink unicorns in some part of Timor on an unspecified date proves that pink unicorns exists. +++++++++Inmessage 33, booboocruise wrote: "but I know now that Sanhorn , not Sandhornet, is inMichigan, along glacial deposits where ONLY a deluge "flood" could have caused the location of the whale's skeleton). If you want more, get a hold of Dr. C omninellis' book "Creative Defense: Evidence AGAINST Evolution"" If Mt. Sanhorn is 3,000 ft tall, it is physicallyimpossible for it to be located in Michigan. If Mr. booboocruise believes it is located in Michigan, he is just as lost as everyone else is as to the real location of the Mt. Sanhorn. For all that Mr. Sullivan tells us about its location, it could be in somewhere either in Middle Earth or some continent of Earthsea. Regardless, it certainly is not in Michigan. If nobody knows where this mountain is located, it and its alleged whale skeleton are useless as proof of anything. It is impossible to make any interpretations of how it got there unless we know "where" happens to be. The article "Whale of Tale" shows the importance of knowing the location and geologic context of fossil whales. Again this article can be found at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html YE creationists were wrong about the "whale buriedwhile standing on it tail". A person has to wonder if YE creationists have their facts wrong about the Mt. Sanhorn whale also. Given that nobody knows where it was found, it is impossible to determine what the real truth about the Mt. Sanhorn whale is at this time. Yours, Bill BirkelandHouston, Texas [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:--Lets try this again, what caused the uplift of this particular mountain? To give you another hint--do you think that it is located in a mountain range rings any bells? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
You're getting off the subject.
Also, I've noticed that you often quote from Talkorigins.Do you have ANY idea how bias they are? No, I mentioned "God created the Universe" not "did God create the universe" YOU ARE THE ONE who made the mistake--look further. Besides, what does the first four letters have to do with it anyway? Anyway, talkorigins is VERY bias (i typed up a letter and sent it to them, showing a few minor details they messed up on, like the law of increasing entropy). THEY didnt even acknowledge me. (THE NEVER CALLED, THEY NEVER EMAILED ME, AND THEY DIDNT EVEN POST IT IN THE FAQ's section).Don't quote EVERYTHING from one site just because you like their opinion on the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
booboo, where is this mountain you brought to the party?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Anyway, talkorigins is VERY bias (i typed up a letter and sent it to them, showing a few minor details they messed up on, like the law of increasing entropy). THEY didnt even acknowledge me. (THE NEVER CALLED, THEY NEVER EMAILED ME, AND THEY DIDNT EVEN POST IT IN THE FAQ's section). If your email was anything like what you've posted so far (incomplete or non-existant evidence, fallcious reasoning, straw-man arguments) they probably just ignored it, and for good reason. In particular, the "law of increasing entropy" (i think you mean the second law of thermodynamics) has nothing to do with evolution, which you would know if you were familiar with the actual statement of the law and now what Kent Hovind thinks it says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Are you trying to tell me that BBC lost a whole mountain while never losing a debate? Amazing! And my late wife used to accuse me of not being able to find things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7597 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:Not really. The subject is "your best arguments against a world wide flood." You mentioned this mountain and went on to indicate that you had some knowledge of the geology of the region in which it is located. The accuracy of this information - the mountain and its location - is very germane to the issue. We are merely trying to discover - in the spirit of assessing your argument - whether you have a clue what you are talking about or not when you raise the issue of a whale allegedly found on Sanhorn. You appear not to. You seem generally a bit sloppy about these things and I am trying to encourage you to be more accurate, in the hope that your arguments will improve. Take our little exchange about yahoo. You mentioned "God created the Universe" - you can see that I acknowledged that from my phrasing and the fact that I quoted your exact words twice. My point, which seems to have eluded you, is that you will not find your phrase "God created the universe" if you search for Sanhorn on yahoo.com, you will only find the phrase I quoted. You see, if thats the kind of carelessness with references which you show when simply telling someone how to find a website, why would anyone assume you take any greater care with any of your other quotes or examples or issues. It is in the interest of your own case that you should be sedulous with facts, references and logic. Why such emphasis on a trivial mistake? Well, simple really. I would like to encourage you to take more care, to be more original and to deliver more thoughtful arguments. It makes for better debate all round. So back to the issue with two questions ... 1: Where exactly is this mountain on which the whale was found?2: From what sources do you derive assertion that this location is in "an area not known to be affected by shifting plates to the point of 3000 feet of uplift" ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Okay, since we are in fact talking about whale skeletons or remnants in Michigan and not the North Sea (you threw me there for a minute), the situation is becoming somewhat clearer.
There HAVE been bits of whale found in odd places in Michigan. Remains of a finback whale (Balaenoptera), a sperm whale (Physeter), and a right whale (Balaena). The first specimen was found back in the 1860's, and other bits have been found since. However, the remnants are really just pieces (a vertebra in one place, a couple of ribs in another, another rib somewhere else). In addition, whale teeth occasionally turn up on Michigan's beaches. Of course, no actual skeleton was found - just a very few random bones. Carbon 14 dating of samples by C.R. Harington produced ages that show relatively recent deposition: the sperm whale was less than 190 years old, the finback whale was 790 - 650 years old, and the right whale was dated as being between 810 and 690 years old. I'd say this tends to show the "fossil whales" in Michigan, despite creationist claims to the contrary, are relatively recent. How they got there, of course, is another story - and one that has not been effectively answered (there are a bunch of theories, including human transport, Champlain Sea, post-glacial flooding, etc). Reference (since evolutionists never cite references, according to boobooo, please ignore the following): Harington, C.R., "Marine Mammals of the Champlain Sea, and the Problem of Whales in Michigan", in: Gadd, N.R., ed., 1988, "The Late Quaternary Development of the Champlain Sea Basin", Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 35, p. 225-240. Holman, J. A. (1995) "Ancient Life of the Great Lakes Basin" University of Michigan Press
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It's certainly too late to edit the above, but I would like to add a sentence that I neglected: none (repeat NOT ONE) of these anomalous finds was correlated with ANY other marine deposits. No shells, no fish bones, no nothing. Which of course, is why they're so interesting and enigmatic - but not diagnostic of anything resembling a global flood.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024