What is your best arguments against a world wide flood.

In message 20, booboocruise wrote:"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)."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 "geology
lectures" 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.htmlThere, in relationship to this whale skeleton, it is stated:"...a skeleton of a whale lay on top of the mountain
Sanhorn 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 in
terms 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 the
cited 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 - MaintenanceThere is only one area along the coast of the North Sea
where 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 elevations
of 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 Sea
although 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 and
in 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 the
context and discovery of this whale skeleton
published, if any place?A big problem here is that the lecture notes provide
absolutely 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 can
specifically 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 Birkeland
Houston, TX[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-23-2003]

"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?------------------

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

The official gazetteer for the US returns no hits for "sanhorn."
U.S. Board on Geographic Names | U.S. Geological SurveyTry again?Timor is an island between Indonesia and Australia.[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-23-2003]

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.

quote:

---

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."

---

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'.

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 very
part 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 understanding
how 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.htmlAll sorts of claims were made about the catastrophe
burial 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 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.How can the mountain with the whale be located in
Michigan 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 mountain
Sanhorn 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: A
History of the Flood Theory of Geology" by, 1968,
Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Publishers.1. As far as I know, neither Lake Michigan, Lake
Huron, 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. Arvon
with 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 Found
http://www.adamroddy.com/States/MI.html
Page not found | Highpointers Club
http://members.tripod.com/~dlwick/hiptmi.htmThis does not sound like a miscommunication, rather
it 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 other
such evidence is in the mountain range Timor (I'm not
familiar yet with that area,"Citing an unknown researcher who has found "other
such 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 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. C
omninellis' book "Creative Defense: Evidence
AGAINST Evolution""If Mt. Sanhorn is 3,000 ft tall, it is physically
impossible 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.htmlYE creationists were wrong about the "whale buried
while 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 Birkeland
Houston, Texas[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-23-2003]

quote:

---

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).

---

--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?------------------

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.

booboo, where is this mountain you brought to the party?

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.

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.

quote:

---

You're getting off the subject.

---

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" ?

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

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.