"Noah's Flood" Does it belong to science or religion?

Jump to Last Post 1-46 of 46 discussions (191 posts)

66
aka-djposted 15 years ago
A worldwide flood (like described by Noah's flood) is said to be part of many cultures folklore.
Creationist proponents belive geological evidence "supports " such an event. Atheists (and others) do not. What do you think?
reply report
1. 60
  Paul Wingertposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Noah and the ark was stolen from an earlier Sumerian flood story about the flooding of the city of Shurrapak around 2200 BC. The story appears in The Epic of Gilgamesh which was later adapted and modified by exiled Jews in around 550 BC.
  reply report
61
TravelMonkeyposted 15 years ago
I believe in science, always have done and always will do. the flood may have actually happened and religions have adapted the story in their own way.
reply report
77
BDazzlerposted 15 years ago
Science and Religion ... there was a time when people like Newton, Pascal and Keppler didn't differintiate between the two.

When you find fossils of sea creatures in the desert, it's pretty clear that it was covered with water at some point in time ... so ... science or religion?

Both. Science should not and cannot prove religion. Often, religious instiutions will draw conclusions from scripture, that are not actually there (such as the earth is the center of the universe) and then when people like Galleo think otherwise, rather than pursuing truth the religious insitution opposes the science.

All information, whether scripture or data, needs to be interpreted. And this is where bias comes in. The theistic bias will interpret data with the assumption that theism is true. An atheisitc bias will interpret data on the assumption that there is no God.

The bias cannot be removed, so it would be best to simply acknowlege your own bias and interpret the data as you will. My Christian bias doesn't make me wrong. It certainly didn't hurt Pascal or Newton.

Religion asnwers the one question science cannot ... the ultimate "Why"... Science can tell you there was a flood. But Genesis 6 tells you why there was a flood.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, actually, science tells you there was not a flood. Which is why any discussion about Noah belongs firmly in the religion/myth forum
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My point is that you (or whomever you trust) concluded from their data that there was no flood. And you cannot prove to me (any more than I can prove to you) that their conclusion was not from their own bias.
  
  The data may be indisputable, but conclusions? Why should I trust Dr. Smith with his Phd who says there was not a flood any more than I trust Dr. Jones with his Phd who says there was?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Well, this is because millions of Phds who use an overwhelmingly acceptable way of measuring these things, outweigh the three Phds who argue that it is wrong because it disagrees with the bible.
  
  Plus one has to use a certain degree of common sense.
  
  Is the story of Noah's Ark to be taken literally? Does it make sense that the Grand Canyon was formed in five minutes during the flood?
  
  No, of course not. And there is no scientific evidence to support it whatsoever.
  
  Now, if you want to believe it because your book says it is so, that is entirely your business.
  
  Just do not confuse it with science.
  
  Myths have no place in a science discussion, other than from a purely psychological point of view.
  reply report
  73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  mmmm.... They can someone explain to me how the Ark ended up located and found and encased in a mountainside if there was not a flood? How does science explain this?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  What?
  
  Not really sure why you believers are so defensive of your faith that you will lie to support it.
  
  This scientific evidence of Noah's Ark is where exactly?
  
  And really - you should keep this superstitious mumbo-jumbo in the ancient myth/holier than thou I know what you need to do to be saved forum. Not the science forum.
  
  The Grand Canyon was formed in five minutes ? DO you have a video?
  reply report
  73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The location of the Ark is supposed to be lodged in Mt.Ararat ,Turkey's highest Mountain Peak which borders Iran and Armenia if you log onto www.noahsarksearch.com there is an abundance of information that science cannot explain. I don't know where you had gotten that the Grand Canyon was formed in 5 minutes, but I believe that Noah did build an Ark, just like yourself and your scientific views, I myself believe in religion and am also entitled to my opinions without discrediting anyone who does not believe.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Science is not about beliefs, it is about measurable data. There is a wealth of information about geological processes that make the idea of a world-wide flood impossible.
  
  Although, I see the religionists prefer to attack science in the science forum and inundate it with a few bronze-age myths
  
  And - if the world is only a few thousand years old, just exactly how long do you "believe," the Grand Canyon took to form?
  
  A few hundred years or five minutes?
  
  It is rather interesting that religionists cannot see that there are other reasons for believing something other than blind faith......
  
  An Ark
  
  With 2 of every animal
  
  A few thousand years ago
  
  Including the dinosaurs
  
  Your childish beliefs are based on nothing but faith.
  
  Which has no place in a scientific discussion.
  
  Therefore this discussion belongs in the "I cant believe I was not created by a god, therefore I will believe any scrap of information that comes along that might support that stupid belief, and if there is any room for a question in the scientific view I will pounce on that as proof all science is wrong."
  
  And you a nurse.......
  reply report
  73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because I am a nurse does not mean I cannot have faith as there are many of us who are in the medical field who believe in God and not all of us are non-believers. The question was "Noah's Ark science or religion?" I believe it was place in the correct category as it has been on heck of a discusion would you not agree? Mark a lot has happened to me in my own life which has led me to hold on to my faith, as it certainly was not an amoeba that saved my life, nor was it science it was God who I believe in. I am not badgering you or your beliefs so if it makes you feel better to badger others and get your point across it is your choice. People should not laugh at what others believe, I have never in anyway disrespected others beliefs ,values or lifestyles so I am in the 1% do respect my opinions, without trying to pick everyone's opinions apart to make yourself feel better.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What has this got to do with anything?
  
  The question was whether or not a discussion about Noah's Ark belonged in the religion or science forum.
  
  It belongs firmly in the religion forum because all the scientific evidence points to no flood. You were the one who bought up the "scientific evidence," that means you believe in a flood.
  
  And yes, I will continue to laugh at your beliefs when you say you believe a flood based on no evidence
  
  With 2 of every animal on it
  
  A few thousand years ago
  
  And Noah built this Ark by hand
  
  In a few weeks
  
  Sorry, it is funny.
  
  Not even slightly scientific. You believe whatever you choose to believe if it helps you through the day. Just do not try and base it on science.......
  reply report
  73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The question was Noah's Flood Science or Religion? I based my opinions on religion not Science and simply gave back up web addresses to support my comment. Noah did not build the Ark in a few weeks, as it took him longer then that but there has not been any scientific evidence to disprove that the ark had not been built and that there was a great flood. Enough said I now rest my opinion with a smile. ::::::::::::
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But there is scientific evidence that there was not a flood. I can give it to you if you like. Will that change your beliefs?
  reply report
  73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No As I base my beliefs on my experiences and what I have been through and God has been good to me, however I will be more then happy to check out the links, I am certain that I will have questions. Please send them.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Of course
  
  These are nice an easy to digest:
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon
  http://geology.com/
  
  Now tell me what experience you have had that leads you to believe there was a flood and an Ark with 2 of every animal on it a few thousand years ago........
  report
  73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mark,
  I have found this under theism and people have still questioned the possibilty that there are miracles and a God, as nobody seems to rule out the possibility of a higher power.
  
  In closing, I should note that MacKay and Polkinghorne do not wish to restrict God to this sort of "subtle" action. Both authors write about miracles, but that is outside the scope of this FAQ. The point of both authors, for this FAQ, is that "random" events (whether described by physics, evolutionary biology, or any other science) are in no way an obstacle to God's providential action; quite the opposite, they are one way in which God could exert providential care.
  I will continue to read and in regards to your question I had been raped and I had been beaten and I saw Jesus, I really saw Jesus I cannot disclaim him as a warmth came over me, a comfort that cannot be explained a love that was not from the earth it was God. I do believe that Noah existed and it isn't a fable as I believe God can get angry and destroy and replenish it is something deep in me that I cannot explain, but I do know he is real and just like scientists try to claim how the earth was created. We all have our thoughts but Mark I do know their is a God and it stirs my inner being and my eyes shine when I speak of him, I used to be like so many I stopped believing, but I will not ever do that again as he saved my life and he was their. Tell me why would someone lie about Noah we did not have movie stars back then and nobody was seeking fame or fortune, they did no have any idea that the Bible would be read for generations. I realize it has been re-written and God said nobody shall add to nor remove from the book, so my question is what would be the divine purpose of creating a character that did not exist or the happening could not occur? Science tries to rule it out because they do not want people to believe, but look in the mirror someone had to create you in your mother's womb, and it isn't science, children are blessings and miracles when they are born it is a miracle. I understand chromosomes etc, but something had to create all of the things that come together to make you who you are, something had to know what you were going to look like and something had to breathe breathe into you. I understand the theories, but what created all of it? The say gases, big boom, what created all of that? Sometimes there isn't any scientific explanation this is why some of us choose to believe and others choose not to, everyone has a choice and I love to explore and learn, but I will not ever deter from my faith.
  report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I suspect you may exagerate your ratios to make your point, but surely you don't beleive that a simple majority makes something true? How many scientists get to vote on something to make it true? If we elect more theists to the science academy, can we change the truth to be more to my liking than yours? [Of course not]
  
  (And at this point, just FYI, I am willing to accept the posiblity that the biblical flood was a huge local phemomenon.)
  
  I don't know if the Grand Canyon was formed in five minutes, or 100 years, but even if there was no global flood, my observions of the way erosion works in my back yard make me think it was formed quickly (like a few hundred years), not slowly (like millions). And if I had the background and time, that might be an interesting set of experiments in its own right. And I wouldn't have to trust anybody but me. My gut level guess is that it was probably a glacier over a few hundred years. Not the flood ,necessarily, but the "really, really, really long time" theory is, at the very least, counter-intuitive to me.
  
  However, I don't have time to figure out everything for myself. So, I have to trust somebody. And who and why I trust someone is primarily psycological.
  
  Here's the thing, before I was a comptuer science major, I was in chemistry. I saw (and truth be told particpated in) making up lab data to save time and get a better grade, because we knew what data was acceptable, and what wasn't. We knew from previous class particpants what the professor graded high and low. In short, we cheated science to get personal rewards. And I saw it happen at the higher levels too. So, I know from personal observation that people who claim to be scientists will lie.
  
  So, I believe that "reputable" scientists will fake data and conclusions to hang on to their funding. So, I don't trust professional scientists any more than I trust professional holy men. That doesn't mean all scientists are frauds any more than it means all clergy are frauds.
  
  It does mean that we have to trust someone or something, but calling it "science" and using "group think" to force scientific conclusions is no better than calling it "religion" and using "group think" to force relgious conclusions.
  
  I've seen "scientists" lie. I've seen preachers lie. I don't see the difference. Just different bias.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Of course I do not believe a majority makes something true. But, I am prepared to accept the majority scientific view.
  
  Using your own observations. you have decided that the Grand Canyon was formed in a few hundred years now.
  
  Interesting. The Grand Canyon has been measured as approximately 1 mile deep in certain places, is 277 miles long, and up to 18 miles wide.
  
  Yet rather than accept any lying scientists view, you have chosen to decide that it could be formed in a few hundred years, based on your observations in your back yard.
  
  Despite the fact that we have been watching, measuring and recording geology in action for a "few hundred years," and this leads us to believe it is a very slooooow process.
  
  That must be some back yard.
  
  As usual, you are twisting the facts and claiming that all scientists are lying.
  
  It must be all of them otherwise, we would have some scientific evidence of the flood.
  
  Although, I do note that you are quite happy to use scientific advances when it suits you.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not at all ... I'm not claiming all scientists are lying. I'm saying I have to trust something. And what I choose to trust is based on my experience. My own bias.
  
  Honestly, I haven't looked that closely at the grand canyon issue. I was only saying that at first glance, "accepted science" is counter intutive to me, and that I don't know what the biases are of specific people who make specific claims.
  
  I'm not saying they all lie. I'm saying that we all have a bias. I simply admit my bias. And I am admitting that my bias impacts which scientists I believe.
  
  Science never exists in a vaccum If the Nazi's had gotten ahold of Einstien before he published, or if Max Plank had not "blessed" him. we would still be quite happy with Netwonian physics and never know any better. The majority of physisits said Thomas Edison was faking his sound recording.
  
  If next week, some new piece of data, plus a political and funding upheaval suddenly makes the majority say there was a flood. That won't make it true either.
  
  I'm just saying in the interest of honesty, we all need to admit our bias. I have admited mine.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have no bias. I am skeptical of all information that comes across my path.
  
  But all scientist must be lying because the accepted scientific view is that the earth is millions of years old, the Grand Canyon formed over millions of years and there was no such world wide flood.
  
  As for your bias. Of course you are biased. You believe in the bible, therefore everything else must be a lie. Therefore you trust that bias, therefore your book is right.
  
  It has no place on a science discussion forum because there is nothing measurable or testable in it.
  
  But you go ahead and use your own observations of your back yard as your measuring stick.
  
  Proof !
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You, no bias? Of course not!
  
  On the science forum, BTW, I agree data should be posted, links to articles etc.
  
  Links like these two are more appropriate to the science forum:
  
  http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop … mp;t=10675
  
  What? Did Bedazzler, the famed Theist actually post a link to Richard Dawkins? HA Hell hath frozen over!
  http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199706/0525.html
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, I am not biased. I have spoken out almost as aggressively against some of the so-called science around. You want to try making genetically engineered mosquitoes that do not transmit malaria and feed sheep's brains to cows? More fool you.
  
  Sorry. No bias here.
  
  But, like all people who believe based on faith alone, you do not seem to be able to see that some people come to decisions in other ways.
  
  Take your observations in your back yard for example. That led you to "believe," that a 1 mile deep, 18 mile wide Canyon could be formed in a "few hundred years."
  
  How does this belong in a science discussion?
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My ponit was that it was the one thing that I have that I could messure if I wanted to. Thus it does belong in a science. And that I would have to extrapolate from there.
  
  The more "scientific" way to have said it would have been... "Based on local observations of erosion, I assert that X Y and Z are true and that I will experiment P D Q to prove/disprove it.
  
  But because of the money I have had to spend and the dirt I have had to replace, I had an intutiive feel, that had I been so inclined would have lead me to experiment.
  
  I have not peformed that experiment, nor do I intend to.
  
  Please note that I did post links to valid scientific discussions, including one on Richard Dawkin's site, which do belong in a science forum and are each indpenendnet of my personal bias and provide, as best as I can find, honest differeing view points, which do belong in the science forum.
  
  Your bias is against anything you personally consider "irrational".
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. You could have measured it but didn't.
  
  Thus it does not belong in a science discussion.
  
  Yet - still you drew a conclusion that contradicts known science. Where they did measure things.
  
  I am still keen to learn as to what made you "believe," that the 1 mile deep 18 mile wide canyon was formed in a few hundred years......
  
  And yes, I will read more of that discussion as I get the time. Thanks.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry for the confusion, my point was my bias. I threw out a random theory .. I said (or meant to say) it could have been hundreds, or thousands or millions ...and that since I had not personally meaured it, I coudn't know. (I'm multi-tasking here, so I may be mis-firing a few things) I stared out hundreds because that was the "low end of the hypothsis" .
  
  I did not intend to present it as proof of my theory. I presented it as proof of my bias. I'm not a young-earther, BTW. The only thing I'm pretty sure about is that everybody is wrong. Including me.
  
  I do think that links like the ones above, show that the flood can be a valid discussion in a science forum.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree. The discussion you linked to is not a scientific discussion. It is a bunch of people using faith and belief to argue against science.
  
  The "low end," would be more like 5 million years. And there is some disagreement as to the exact age of the Grand Canyon, but no scientist is arguing a "few hundred years."
  report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I thought the atheists were doing a pretty decent job of using science on the first link.
  
  What about the second link? The one on the geological record? I didn't see a lot of bible on that.
  
  I have already admited, I used "few hudred years" as a made up number as an exageration ot make a point (the same way you said only three scientists agree on the flood. ) And the point I was making was one you've already agreed on.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The one on the second link is scientific evidence that the young earth creationists view that there is "no evidence of meteors in the fossil record," is a fallacy based on nothing.
  
  Most of the discussions on this issue involve scientists proving that there is no scientific basis for claiming a young earth. Or a flood. Or Noah's Ark existed.
  
  Not sure how that counts as a scientific discussion.....
  report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  " is a fallacy based on nothing" ... see, this is why say you're biased just like the rest of us. (As I admit my own bias, I make no moral or ethical judgement against being bias'd per-se)
  
  You have atomatically disregard "young earthers" who have credentials because they disagree with the majority of the other scientists. Yet, you've also already agreed that majority aren't always right.
  
  If you use "majority rules" as a measure of why you believe science, then based on this "evidence" between 84% and 92% of the world believes in some kind of God, gods, or goddess..
  
  http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
  
  Yet, you have your own non-belief based on your own personal bias of your own personal concept of rationality.
  
  This is why any debate of this type is meaningless. You instantly disregard any credentialed "young earth" creationist on "majority rules" basis. Yet, you gladly disgreard the majority opinion on theism when it suits your experience and philosophy.
  
  You're just as biased as I am, just the other direction. And that's OK.
  
  I agree with Popppa Blue ... people, you, me everybody, will usually make up thier mind based on emotions, culture, experience etc. (i.e. bias) and then use whatever evidence they can find to defend it and throw out descenting opinions.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, what it actually said was:
  
  According to modern young-earth creationist theory, the vast majority of the
  geologic column was deposited during the one year, global flood. Henry
  Morris wrote last year,
  
  "Therefore, it is now becoming a cause for concern that a
  growing number of young-earth creationists are seemingly about to
  repeat the mistakes and compromises of the past, arguing that the
  Biblical Flood cannot really explain the geological record after
  all. Some are concluding thjat the Tertiary formations are to be
  attributed to a number of post-Flood geological catastrophes, and
  some are even alleging that the Flood can only account for the
  Paleozoic rocks, or maybe not even all of these. Some are also
  suggesting that at least a portion of the fossiliferous
  Proterozoic rocks, were laid down by episodic events of some kind
  before the Flood.
  "If such equivocations continue, the Flood itself will
  eventually be used only to account for the marine strata of the
  Cambrian and Ordovician 'periods.' Sooner or later difficulties
  will be found even in these, and the Flood will once again (as so
  often in the past) be explained away as only a tranquil flood or
  a local flood. Some (e.g. Davis Young, Glen Morton) have already
  gone this whole route, starting out not too many years ago as
  full-fledged Flood geologists but then allowing supposed
  geological difficulties gradually to relegate the Flood to only a
  trivial part , if any, of the geologic column."~Henry M. Morris,
  "The Geologic Column and the Flood of Genesis", Creation Research
  Society Quarterly 33:1(June, 1996), p. 50
  
  There are reasons for Young's and my rejection of the Global Flood. If the
  geologic column was deposited in one year, there should not be very much
  evidence for meteors found in the fossil record. Sunderland writes:
  
  "A geological fact which is perhaps the greatest problem for
  those who choose to believe that the geologic column was deposited
  uniformly over millions of years is the lack of meteoric evidence
  in all but the surface rocks. This is another well-guarded trade
  secret that has not leaked out, but knowledgeable geologists will
  admit it if questioned directly on the subject. In a personal
  correspondence with the author, a former president of The
  Geological Society of Britain wrote, 'I do not know of any record
  of metoeritic material back in the stratigraphical column unless
  you accept Alvarez et al's evidence of iridium levels at the
  Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary.' Many scientists, of course, dispute
  the contention that the presence of a high amount of iridium at
  several isloated locations indicates necessarily that it came from
  a meteor. But even if it is accepted as evidence of a meteor, that
  leaves billions of years of geologic deposits without evidences of
  meteors. When we examine the moon and Mars it is obvious that they
  were subjected to much meteoric bombardment. If the sedimentary
  rocks were deposited uniformly over a billion years, why do they
  not contain evidence of meteor strikes including huge craters below
  the surface? That question deserves a serious answer, but
  believers in uniformitarianism are notably silent on the matter.
  There have been some suggestions that several basins like Hudson
  Bay were the sites of giant meteor strikes, but, if strikes
  actually occurred there, it must have been before the sedimentary
  rocks were deposited since the evidence is not distinct."~Luther D.
  Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (Santee, California: Master Books,
  1988), p. 157-158
  
  Sunderland writing in 1988 clearly shows his lack of research on the topic
  upon which he is writing. And I can't help it if the president of that
  geological society didn't know the literature. (Having dealt with such
  organizations, being president means you are willing to volunteer, not that
  you actually know anything)
  
  There is plenty of evidence for buried meteor craters. In 1979 R. A. F.
  Grieve and P. B. Robertson listed the known meteorite craters at that time..
  (Grieve, R.A.F. and P.B. Robertson. 1979. "The Terrestrial Cratering
  Record" Icarus, Vol.38, No.2 (May 1979), pp.212-229) Since then many
  other craters have been found. Here is the list.
  
  Precambrian ...Vredefort, South Africa.........1.97 billion years
  Precambrian .....Sudbury, Ontario, Canada......1.84 billion years
  Precambrian......Janisjarvi, Russia............0.70 billion years
  Cambrian ........Kelly West, N.T., Australia... 550 million years
  Cambrian.........Holleford, Ontario, Canada... .550 million years
  Cambrian ........Kjardla, Estonia...............500 million years
  Ordovician.......Saaksjarvi, Finland............490 million years
  Ordovician.......Carswell, Saskatchewan, Canada.485 million years
  Ordovician.......Brent, Ontario, Canada.........450 million years
  Silurian.........Lac Couture, Quebec, Canada....420 million years
  Silurian.........Lac La Moinerie, Quebec, Canada400 million years
  Devonian.........Siljan, Sweden.................365 million years
  Devonian.........Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada.....360 million years
  Devonian.........Flynn Creek, Tennessee, USA....360 million years
  Carboniferous....Crooked Creek, Missouri, USA...320 million years
  Carboniferous....Middlesboro, Kentucky, USA.....300 million years
  Carboniferous....Serpent Mound, Ohio, USA.......300 million years
  Permian..........Kursk, Russia..................250 million years
  Permian..........Dellen, Sweden.................230 million years
  Permian..........St. Martin, Manitoba, Canada...225 million years
  Triassic.........Manicouagan, Quebec, Canada....210 million years
  Triassic.........Redwing Creek,North Dakota,USA.200 million years
  Jurassic.........Vepriaj, Lithuania.............160 million years
  Jurassic.........Rochechouart, France...........160 million years
  Jurassic.........Strangways, N.T., Australia....150 million years
  Cretaceous.......Sierra Madre, Texas, USA.......100 million years
  Cretaceous.......Rotmistrovka, Ukraine...........70 million years
  Cretaceous.......Chicxulub, Yucatan, Mexico......65 million years
  Paleocene........Kara, Russia....................57 million years
  Oligocene........Mistastin, Labrador, Canada.....38 million years
  Oligocene........Wanapitei L., Ontario, Canada...38 million years
  Miocene..........Haughton Dome, N.W.T., Canada...15 million years
  Miocene..........Karla, Russia...................10 million years
  Pliocene...New Quebec Crater, New Quebec, Canada..5 m.y.
  Pliocene.........Aouelloul, Mauritania............3.1 m.y.
  Pleistocene......Bosumtwi, Ghana..................1.3 m.y.
  Pleistocene......Lonar, India.....................0.05 m.y.
  
  One can date when the meteor struck the rock by observing the rocks at the
  rim of the crater. If the normal order of rock layers is,from top to bottom:
  
  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
  CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
  
  then a crater in the record will look like:
  
  .......CC..........CCC
  ......CBBB........BBBCC.
  .....CBBAAA......AABBCCC
  AAAAAAAAAAA......AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
  BBBBBBBBBBBB....BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
  CCCCCCCCCCCCC..CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
  
  At the crater edges the rocks, which were excavated, are rubblized and lie
  in an inverted order on top of the normal order. This can be seen at the
  365 myr Siljan Crater in Sweden. Tiny tektites (debris formed when a meteor
  hit the earth) are found in rocks of the same age throughout Europe (P.
  Claeys, "Microtektite-like Impact Glass associated with the
  Fransnia-Famennian Boundary Mass Extinction," Earth Planetary Sci. Lett.
  122:3-4 April 1994, p 303-315).
  
  during the flood year (because the Siljan crater is formed in
  Devonian-Cambrian strata) and the debris was spread out over Europe. But
  then every other crater in the list above represents a meteor impact. They
  too must have all struck in the middle of the flood. That single year must
  have created all the known meteor craters. Could that be the cause of the
  flood? No. The ark would not have been able to survive the massive waves
  caused by such a bombardment. And young earthers want to use the lack of
  meteorites as evidence that the rocks were deposited rapidly.
  
  Several buried meteor craters produce oil. Because of this cores have been
  taken to try to examine ancient meteor impacts. The Redwing Creek crater of
  North Dakota (mentioned above) has been a prolific oil producer. The meteor
  rubblized the rock and created a porous rubble which contains oil. There are
  two other recognized impact features in the Williston Basin of North Dakota
  and Southern Canada. These are the Viewfield Crater (Saskatchewan 1.5 mile
  diameter buried 2200 feet below sealevel and produces oil) and the Hartney
  Crater (Manitoba 18 mile diameter). All of these are Jurassic-Triassic in
  age. (SeeH. B. Sawatzky, "Astroblemes in Williston Basin," Bull. Amer.
  Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, April 1975, p. 694-710)
  
  The Lyles Ranch field in South Texas is producing oil from the Eocene
  Carrizo rocks which were rubblized by an impact. The impact was post Eocene
  which would have been late in the Flood. (See Donn Levie Jr., "Lyles Ranch
  Field, South Texas Production from an Astrobleme?" Bull. Amer. Assoc.
  Petroleum Geologists, Sept. 1985, p 1426)
  
  Over the past few years, near Ames, Oklahoma an Ordovician meteor crater (20
  mi diameter) has produced oil. (See B.N. Carpenter and Rick Carlson, "The
  Ames Astrobleme" Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, Sept. 1993, p. 1572)
  
  One of the most recent astroblemes to be discovered in the geologic column
  comes from Chad, Africa.vincent and Beauvilain write:
  
  "The minimum diameter of Gweni-Fada astrobleme is 14 km. It lies
  entirely within lower Paleozoic sandstones. Its main
  characteristics are its asymmetry and the size of the central
  uplift. The peripheral depression has a crescent form. The
  central zone forms a disrupted structural dome whose summit is
  higher than the ramparts and displaced toward the south. Several
  sets of characteristic planar deformation features are present in
  the quartz grains of the central zone. Gweni-Fada is the fourth
  largest impact crater in Africa.""P. M. Vincent, and A.
  Beauvilain, "The Circular Structure of Gweni-Fada, Ennedi: A New
  Meteorite Impact Crater in Northern Chad," Compt. Rend. Ser. 2,
  Sect. A. v. 323(1996):12:987-997
  
  Another is found recently just outside Washington DC. An 85 km wide,
  1.5-2.0 km deep ring was found buried under Eocene strata in Chesapeake Bay.
  (see Pag et al, "Meteoroid Mayhem in Ole Virginny," Geology, 22:691-694,
  August 1994)
  
  This is not all, there are several cases of actual meteorites found in the
  fossil record First there are some examples of meteorites actually buried in
  the geologic column. There is an interesting meteor found at Brunflo, Sweden.
  
  "The Brunflo chondrite was found in the Rodbrottet quarry near
  Brunflo, central Sweden (Lat. 63o 5' N, long. 14o 53' E). The
  meteorite (ca. 11 cm x 9.5 cm) occurs in a polished slab of
  Middle Ordovician limestone which, based on its content of
  conodonts, belongs to the Aserian Seyerstad Limestone. The
  meteorite fell in the Japetus Ocean, close to its eastern
  coastline. The original minerals, except chromite, are replaced
  by secondary minerals, mainly calcite. Remarkably, even minute
  details of textures and structures are preserved in some areas.
  The various types of chondrules and their frequencies could
  therefore be studied. They are similar to present falls of
  ordinary chondrites of petrologic types 3 and 4."~P. Thorslund,
  F. E. Wickman and J. O. Nystrom, "The Ordovician Chondrite from
  Brunflo, Central Sweden, I, General Description and Primary
  Minerals," Lithos, 17(1984), p. 87.
  
  Thorslund et al write of other buried meteors found in the geologic record:
  "The following meteorites appear to be known. Sardis, an
  extremely weathered octahedrite, probably fell in Middle Miocene
  according to Henderson and Cooke (1942). Another iron, in all
  liklihood also an octahedrite, was found during the drilling of
  an oil well in Texas (Lovering, 1959). The sediments in which
  the iron was found were probably Eocene. The specimen has
  unfortunately been lost. Yudin (1971) described fragments of
  ferruginous bauxite which contain what evidently are remnants of
  barred chondrules."~P. Thorslund, F. E. Wickman and J. O.
  Nystrom, "The Ordovician Chondrite from Brunflo, Central Sweden,
  I, General Description and Primary Minerals," Lithos, 17(1984),
  p. 87.
  
  There is even one example from the fossil record of a meteorite embedded in
  the body of a Nautiloid. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Earth Science, (p.
  66) states:
  
  "A meteorite embedded in the shell of a straight shelled nautiloid
  (Mollusca) in a 463-million-year-old Ordovician limestone. It seems likely
  that the meteorite was the cause of death."
  
  They show the picture.
  
  Several evidences for micrometeorites are found in the geologic column, in
  addition to that mentioned above in Europe. Wei writes:
  
  "Upper Eocene microspherules (microtektites and
  microkrystites) have been found in deep-sea sediments from the
  western N. Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, equatorial
  Pacific, and eastern equatorial Indian Ocean. Recent studies
  proposed that there are 3 or 4 microspherule layers: the North
  American microtektite and microkrystite couplet in chron C15, and
  one (or 2) significantly older layers(s) in chron C16 in DSDP
  sites 216, 292 and 612. Based on calcareous nannofossil
  biochronologic and morphometric data, it is suggested that the
  microspherules in the latter sites correlate with the North
  American microtektite-microkrystite couplet. Results as well as
  previously published data are all compatible with the model of
  one couplet of microtektites-microkrystites. the inference of 3
  or 4 microspherule layers in the upper Eocene is shown to be an
  artifact of interpretation."~W. Wei, "How Many Impact-Generated
  Microspherule Layers in the Upper Eocene?" Palaeogeogr.
  Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoeco., 114:1, pp 101-110.
  March, 1995.
  
  Tektites formed by the Chixulub impact, the meteor which killed the
  dinosaurs, are found all over the Gulf of Mexico region. (see Jan Smit et
  al, "Tektite-bearing, deep-water clastic unit at the Cretaceous-Tertiary
  Boundary in Northeastern Mexico." Geolgoy, 20:99-103, Feb 1992) The
  Chixulub crater is buried 3000 feet deep in the sedimentary column.
  
  One can measure the rate of influx of meteoric dust to the earth (which is
  much slower than the very outdated 1957 work often cited by Creationists).
  water deposited 'flood sediments') was deposited. James Barnett in his
  masters thesis, "Sedimentation Rate of Salt Determied by Micrometeorite
  Analysis, Western Michigan University, 1983, found a rather normal level of
  micrometeorites in salt as would be expected from observed, present day
  rates of influx 1 x 10^4 tons of meteor dust per year. The A-1 salt of the
  Michigan basin (a Silurian deposit) was accumulated at rates of 10 to 400
  centimeters per thousand years. The salt is as much as 152 meters thick
  meaning that the A-1 salt would take from 38,000 to 1.5 million years to be
  deposited.
  
  Young earth creationists need to account for such data within their model.
  They should cease their erroneous claim that there is no evidence of meteors
  in the fossil record.
  
  Which means that the claim that there is no evidence in the fossil record of meteorites -
  
  is a fallacy based on nothing.
  
  Because there is evidence in the fossil record.
  
  Not seeing any bias here. Just a simple statement of facts.
  
  Erroneous. Wrong. Mistaken. Incorrect. Lies. A fallacy based on nothing.
  
  However you want to sugar coat it.
  
  Semantics. As usual
  
  No. I disregard them because they have no scientific evidence to back up their claims. This has nothing to do with a few "young earthers with credentials" disagreeing. It has everything to do with evidence.
  
  I never said, The majority believes. I said -
  
  Which just goes to show that, as usual, semantics is the believers last resort
  
  I think I have already dealt with this.
  
  I do not disregard their opinion because it does not agree with the "majority." I disregard it because it does not have any scientific validity, and it makes no sense.
  
  You cannot grasp that an understanding based on empirical evidence is more valid than a faith based belief in a bronze-age superstition. Because you are biased. And you have already decided. And your belief is more important to you than facts, or measurable data, or evidence.
  
  Fine. That has no place in a scientific discussion. And once again, to support your rather silly beliefs, you are mis-quoting some one. What Poppa Blues actually said was this:
  
  No mention of emotions or culture.
  
  He is right - data can be interpreted in many ways.
  
  Now interpret all the geological data we have collected to show there was a world wide flood and Noah's Ark contained 2 of every animal
  
  This discussion belongs in the religion forum.
  
  No science here.
  report
  87
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not strictly correct, Mark. There is evidence that there was an inundation of the Mediterranean. In those days, people weren't aware the rest of the world even existed, so a flood in the Mediterranean was, to them, equivalent to a 'world wide" event. That explains why the flood "myth" is so widespread in that region.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So there was not a world-wide flood. And the scientific evidence supports this.
  
  Thank you.
  
  And for the rest of the believers -
  
  I understand that scientific evidence for you is just another "belief."
  
  And you think there are two equally valid scientific viewpoints here.
  
  And that I "choose" to believe one because of my pre-existing beliefs. Not because of any evidences.
  
  That, ultimately, is what makes your religion so very, very, funny.
  
  This is a subject that belongs in the religion forum.
  
  Not here.
  
  I think I am done with this one. Not sure I see the point in explaining science once again.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  One more time for the "unbelievers".
  Do please read this page. It is no more than two minutes work.
  http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html
  reply report
  87
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I've just read it. Essentially, it claims that rock formations which geologists say can only form over long periods of time, can in fact be formed by a volcanic eruption in a matter of hours. Obviously this is an important finding which has implications for geology and the dating of fossils etc.
  
  The flood is mentioned in one sentence but has only tenuous relevance to the rest of the article. The types of flows created by a volcanic eruption are not the same as those created by a flood due to rain. So I don't see this article as providing any evidence of The Flood.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The great flood of Genesis 7:11 seems to be both rain and eruption:
  
  Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
  
  "The fountains of the great deep" may well have been some sort of eruption.
  (BTW, they moved this over to religion)
  reply report
  87
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but that's not what it says. A fountain, in English at least, is not fire or ash. If you can quote a Biblical scholar who was worked on the text in the original language, I would have far more respect for this interpretation.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  According to Strong's the Hebrew word translated "fountain" is "Ma`yan" (Strongs #4599)
  
  It is most frequently translated as "spring" in a couple of places "fountain" and in one or two other places "well"
  
  Basically we have a word picture of water coming down from the sky and up from the earth.
  reply report
  87
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So, definitely water. That's not a volcanic eruption then, and completely different from the phenomenon described in the article cited.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't really!
  
  Wow! This thread has really taken off. However, only a few zealous contributors are posting.
  Here is " evidince" that is "irrefutable", because it is DOCUMENTED.
  
  http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html
  
  No doubt, each camp will view this evidence throught thier own (pre-suppositions) bias.
  Let the evidence speak for itself
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Haven't you been following this thread? Mark is completely objective and unbiased, and anybody who disagrees with him or thinks he's biased is just using semantic tricks! Come on!
  reply report
0
Poppa Bluesposted 15 years ago
Well I'd be surprised to learn that geological evidence of a worldwide flood existed, I'd never heard that before. Geology is a pretty exact science with methods for dating geological features fairly routine. This makes it relatively easy to determine if land was once under water and when it occurred. Ultimately, people choose to believe what they want and then go about finding the evidence to substantiate that belief. Often data can be interpreted in different ways and one will choose to interpret data in accordance with a predetermined notion. This is why there are so many interpretations of the same events in history, in theology, and even in eye witness accounts of crimes.
reply report
1. 77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And that is my ultimate point.
  reply report
77
BDazzlerposted 15 years ago
Here's a link I found with a quick google search. I don't know who these scientists are, or what their bias is.

Also, I don't know the bias of the publication. I glanced at the home page quickly and it does not appear to be an "answers in Genesis" type of site, but I only took abut five seconds to look, I was scanning for words like Bible etc. I admit I could have missed it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 150931.htm

How valid is this evidence? I don't know. But the bias of both the publisher and the team will certainly be called into question by the people who have an opinoin on the world wide flood.
reply report
59
Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago
Wow, this is some quality science we have going on here.

So far we have.

It was actually a local flood because people who wrote the bible (God) didn't know there was more to the earth than just the Med.

It was actually a volcanic eruption.

Or a volcanic eruption with a flood at the same time.

Rocks can be formed very quickly in volcanic eruptions. But not the rocks in the Grand Canyon.

It was actually a fountain, or a spring, or a well, or water flowing from up and down. With or without the volcanoes. At least that is what the ancient Jewish text says.

A 600-year-old man.

Very scientific discussion.........
reply report
1. 66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for that very "scientific" response.
  reply report
66
aka-djposted 15 years ago
The Point! What is the point?
A regular river does NOT carve out a Grand Canyon, in any million(s) of years. Mt St Helens eruption, and catstrophic mud flow, created a (mini) grand canyon, in a VERY short time. Days, not millenia. I would have thought that this stands as "empirical" evidence AGAINST accepted (evolutionary) theory of l o n g periods of time producing our world, as we know it today.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That is because you do not understand the scientific method or the VAST differences between the two, even though I left links on the other thread you started.
  
  You do not understand the word empirical, or evidence.
  
  You do not understand evolutionary biology.
  
  Sorry dude, your beliefs are based on garbage and patently untrue.
  
  Once you can accept this, perhaps you will allow yourself to understand some science.
  
  In the meantime, this discussion belongs in the myths/superstitions forum.
  
  One up in case you missed it.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Where are all your faces?
  Or were you really p***** off when you wrote this?
  I see you are about as "hardcore" as anyone can get.
  I guess atheism allows for no mercy or grace or tolerance. Just stand up for your motto of fighting (ALL) b/s, where ever you find it.
  There is an alternate view to all things in life, GOOD LUCK to you in eradicating all opposing points of view.
  (No offence intended)
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Points of view have no place here unless they can be substantiated in some scientific way.
  
  You asked a question:
  
  "Noah's Flood" Does it belong to science or religion?
  
  And I have attempted to answer that question as best I can. There is zero science to back up a claim of a flood. The site you linked to has been proven false. And the person who wrote that site is a well-known liar who is not, does not and has never used scientific methods. He makes spurious claims based on his belief in an out-dated 2,000 year old religious book that has been so "translated and interpreted," it cannot possibly bear any relation to the original.
  
  Yes, I understand that you believe there was a flood. But that is because you do not understand anything about science, geology, evolutionary biology or the meaning of the words "empirical evidence."
  
  You believe there was a flood and are prepared to ignore the scientific evidence that there was no such thing.
  
  Fine, I realize no evidence or measurable proof is going to change your "point of view." Yet another persuasive argument against your religion and god. Thank you.
  
  Your beliefs are baseless garbage and have no place in a science discussion forum. There is no scientific discussion to be had.
  
  Your "point of view" is worthless in a science forum.
  
  It belongs in the ridiculous fantasy forum.
  
  One up in case you missed it
  
  That better?
  reply report
2. 87
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Getting back to the point, please, aka-dj - we are talking about two completely different things here, water and volcanic flows. I am still struggling to understand what one has to do with the other, and therefore what relevance the cited article has to Noah's flood. I think if you answered that question, you would stop getting sarcastic responses.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Quite simple, really. The connection is that (if -for the sceptics) when the flood waters began to recede after the 40 days were up, these waters would have rushed (catastrophically) down hill. Thereby, carrying debris, animals, trees etc and carving out many of the geological features we see today. Albeit that erosion, deposition etc has affected all this since then, over several thousands of yares, not millions.
  This would also account for (immeasurable) volumes af dead/dying animals and plants (of the pre-flood era) to be buried under all that (stuff), producing the crude oil deposits deep underground. Not to mention all the fossils, which , incidentally, don't always fall into (expected) strata. Not rocket science, really.
  Hope you get my point more clearly now.
  reply report
  87
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, not really. What you're proposing above is a huge jump of logic from what the article actually says.
  
  People on BOTH sides of the argument would get a lot more respect if they didn't exaggerate - this is a good example.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have to say I am a little surprised. Considering we use modelling for SO MANY other "sciences"! Meteorologist use computer models to understand weather patterns. Aviation uses wind tunnels to test areodynamics. Fornsics uses labs to test blood spatter, gun ballistics etc.
  So how is this any different?
  I accept the fact that arguments go to and fro between people with a different interpretaion of the facts, but that's it.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Did you read any of the links I added that demonstrate why this "model," is flawed and pre-programmed to provide a specific set of results based on false data?
  
  Nothing to do with interpretation.
  
  Still, if it helps you believe your book, all power to you.......
  
  This belongs in the ridiculous beliefs forum, not the science forum.
  
  No science here
  reply report
  87
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wind tunnels are used to test aerodynamics because wind tunnels can be set up to mimic the real movement of wind fairly accurately. Computer models have weather information input so they can mimic weather patterns. Labs test blood spatter using blood.
  
  You can't say a volcanic eruption mimics a flood (which was the first thing you said this article proved). If you are talking about using it to mimic (model) the laying down of sediments then I'd be with you - but that's a different subject.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Though I mentioned the carving out of the riverbed by the mudflow, the other point that you are making is also there.
  So, what you are saying is that you are "with me" on one point, but not the other?
  reply report
  87
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe it would be easier if you directly quote the sections of the article which you feel directly support the existence of the flood.
  
  As for the "other point" - which, I remind you, was not the subject of this thread - my view at present is that the evidence points to the evolutionists being right. However, it's not good scientific practice to ignore evidence that doesn't suit your case - so I'm always willing to consider other viewpoints.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry.
  I thought (assumed) that it was obvious, re, catastrophic event. Huge volumes of water and debris, rushing downhill, carving out gorges, in their wake.
  Mt St Helens produced that kind of event. Hence the association with a(the) flood, of Noah's day.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Seriously dj, take it one forum up...
  
  Obvious. Assumed. Huge volumes of water
  
  Flood? What flood? Noah? Oh the 600 year old guy?
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Would you change your views if Noah's ark was unearthed/found?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If there was more evidence that this was the way it happened, and there was a reasonable theory that explained away all the evidence that evolution happens and geological changes take millions of years, and genetic shift does not occur, and another explanation for why the universe appears millions of years old and reasonable theories for why all the other evidence exists, and why the dinosaurs were here before us, etc, etc, etc - Yes. Of course.
  
  One single, solitary, vague piece of "evidence" would not do it.
  
  And you would have to explain away all the other proof in some reasonable fashion.
  
  I would suggest god coming down and admitting it was a huge joke just to mess with us and demonstrating how he did it . That would probably work.
  
  In the meantime, this belongs one up
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's a good answer. I would take the same aproach (if I were you). That (sort of) puts you into the same 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% mentioned earlier.
  Be careful what you wish for though, you just might get it. (As the saying goes). I'm just pointing you back to the "horse" from earlier.
  As for the one up, that's getting old. As I said, better conversations here
  report
  87
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Huge volumes of water - yes, localised on the slopes of one mountain. How does this support evidence that there was a worldwide flood?
  reply report
66
aka-djposted 15 years ago
"Science Rules"
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Absolutely. Except when it comes to answering the question, "Why?".............
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So, I know the "why", and science is irrelevant, (to the why, I mean).
  There is room for the both of us after all.
  Oh. BTW, whilst I'm in the "christmassy" mood, "happy winter solstice to you and yours".
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  Thanks. Right back at you. I come from a long line of Druids.....
  reply report
61
TravelMonkeyposted 15 years ago
Just to let you guys know, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread.
reply report
77
BDazzlerposted 15 years ago
Well, if this link isn't all sciency I don't know what is.

We got a guy who was an agnostic with a buncha letters after his name. And a super computer and data and measurements and Los Almos Lab and plate technoics and volcanos and water and earth and all kinda big sciency words like geophysics. I mean, man they got EVERYTHING.

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/geophysicsofgod.html

But seriously folks, there is a guy who actually is using real data and real computer modeling who takes it seriously. The article originally appeared in US News and World Report.

His credentials:
B.S. Electrical Engineering, Texas Tech University - 1968
M.S. Electrical Engineering, Princeton University - 1970
M.S. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1981
Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1983

I.e. smarter than me, and maybe even smarter than Mark (well, probably just almost as smart as Mark) but it is clear that he is serious and he's taken seriously.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Well, he certainly takes it seriously, but as to using "real data" and "real computer modeling," Mr. Baumgardner has been relegated to the pseudoscience category long since.
  
  Only 5% of the scientific community "believe" in the idea of Young Earth Creationism, and fully 40% of those few agree that evolution took millions of years, but god had a hand in the process.
  
  Although, I imagine if 5% of the scientific community are determined to prove that the rest of the scientist are wrong, that is a fair few people. Using long words and writing a computer program do not make it science.
  
  I see your 3 degrees and raise you 50,000
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey we're up from three people to 5% ... progress!! Yay!!!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Yay! We can be back in the middle ages before you know it. Flat earth, center of the universe, we are all worthless sinners and god did it all in 6 days.......
  
  Lots more burning at the stake for suggesting things that do not agree with the WORD. Yay !!!!!!!!
  
  No more computer conversations, no more cars, no more Teflon, no more.... wait a minute that sound great. Except for the burning at the stake.........
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I've been thinking about that, I've decided that when we burn you at the stake, we're going to use hand rolled dominican cigars instead of wood, because I like you, and your wife won't let you smoke cigars the way you like.
  
  I hope you won't be offended if some people may take the opinions of a guy with advanced degrees from Princeton and UCLA at little more serously than they take the opinions of a guy who writes articles on food, cameras and motorcycles, no matter how well he writes those articles.
  
  And since we've already concluded that "majority rules" is a very flexible matter, the 50,000 other degrees only matter to a certain degree.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I only mentioned the degrees because you did.
  
  What worth a degree? This depends on a number of factors, not least of which is the fact that just about anyone can get several degrees if they choose to do so. What actually matters in this discussion is the scientific validity of the research. Or lack of in this case.
  
  What matters is a lone voice in the scientific community attempting to do what this person is attempting to do.
  
  And people such as aka-dj will hold on to anything if it somehow justifies his pre-existing beliefs.
  
  I write on many subjects other than food, cameras and motorcycles. Just not here.
  
  I also hold English "A" levels in geography, geology and economics. Which would equate to roughly 2 years at an American college, although not quite degree level. Got bored and joined the real world instead of becoming an academic.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hell...even people with a gazillion degrees are stupid if they don't know how to use them. Anyone can recite the periodic table of elements or tell you how to split atoms. I think the world needs more people who can do something with it then those who can teach you what it means.
  
  Degrees aren't worth more than what it cost to get one.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I've always had intense questions about the third degree!
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Which brings me back to my original point ... we all have a bias and that bias determines which people we give credence to. It is never consistent and never logical, however much we wish it was. I'm still with Poppa Blue.
  
  I mentioned food, cameras and motorcycles because those were my favorite hubs of yours. Especially the English Chips .. Yumm!!!
  
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But this is rather unfair.
  
  By saying that I have made my decision based solely on my personal biases you are completely dismissing my education, common sense and any efforts I may have made to determine what is correct.
  
  As far as you are concerned, the years I spent studying in school were a complete waste of time, I am unable to look at evidence and make a rational decision and the only reason I choose to dismiss certain theories in favor of others is because of a bias based on pre existing beliefs.
  
  I must admit, I hear this a lot from believers in god.
  
  They make all their decisions based solely on faith and are unable to comprehend that some one may use other ways of coming to conclusions and therefore dismiss that process as the same as their decision making process.
  
  This is, to say the least, mildly insulting. There are mountains (sic) of evidence and testable theories that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is millions of years old. I myself have studied some of these and spent several years testing and measuring these facts.
  
  But - you dismiss this as "bias," and some how think that blind faith in a religious book that has been proven to be inaccurate, inconsistent and is still subject to ongoing arguments as to the correct way of interpreting it, in some way outweighs my own personal observations and the collective intelligence of millions of geologists, geographers, biologists and assorted other scientists.
  
  Which is why this discussion belongs in the irrational belief forum. Not the science forum.
  
  Glad you like the chips
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  From your own mouth we have an admission. How is the process you use to come to a conclusion any different to mine (ours)?
  I don't have "degrees", but was taught the same stuff you were,(ie millions of years, evolution etc). I was never fully satisfied with the (conclusions of) evolutionary theory. It was later that I followed through with my own research, to reach my own conclusions.
  It is an "alternative" and to me, a reasonable, plausible one.
  Why do you keep calling faith "irrational"?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Why irrational?
  
  You are unable to supply one single solitary piece of evidence.
  
  There is none.
  
  Yet you believe it.
  
  That is as good a definition of irrational as I have heard.
  
  I understand that you do not understand the difference between a decision based on faith and a decision based on empirical evidence because you are basing your decision on no facts and are therefore unable to see that I based my decision on research and empirical evidence.
  
  But, as far as you are concerned, this is the same decision making process, because otherwise you would have to accept that your beliefs are based on nothing whatsoever. Which means you also think I am incapable of reaching a rational decision.
  
  This discussion belongs in the irrational beliefs forum, not the science forum.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I still want to discuss this details of this in the future, my time, however is becoming more limted. But, I don't want the year to end with the insult on the table.
  
  First please pardon any unintended insult ... If I may clarify....
  
  I don't take financial advice from poor people.
  I don't take relationship advice form single people ...
  I don't take spiritual advice from non-spirtitual people
  etc.
  Each person has a point of view and a reason for those points of view.
  
  You have many points of view that I truly respect. Science and religion just don't happen to be among them. This is not intended to be insulting. Many people respect me, but they would be foolish to take decorating advice from me. I am not in any way insulted by that.
  
  If this is still insulting, then please accept my appology.
  
  In any case, Mark, may you have Peace and Goodwill as the winter begins to fade and the new year approaches.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, none taken You do not respect my opinion on science or religion, because I do not know anything about these subjects. Nothing offensive there..........
  
  Although, I am not sure what points of view of mine you would respect, because most of them tend to be about science and religion
  
  Who do you take your scientific advice from exactly. The local pastor? Or are you still maintaining that watching your back yard is enough to convince you that the earth is young ?
  
  Or does god tell you the scientific facts you need straight into your head?
  
  I still maintain that any discussion about Noah's Ark belongs in the irrational beliefs for people unable to accept that their bible is an inaccurate book of fairy tales section - one forum up as you seem unable to find it .
  
  No offense
  
  Pax
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
There was a guy named Immanuel Velikovski who wrote a book - 'Worlds In Collision'. His theory was that Mars was a comet that nearly collided with earth causing it to flip over with massive upheaval, and that is what caused the 'Great Flood'.
reply report
77
BDazzlerposted 15 years ago
Don't want everybody to think I've bowed out of the conversatin. Lots of catching up to do ... but I'm having to focus on some non-hubpage stuff and my hubpage time is getting more limited.

Anyway ... will get back in in a few days (more or less)!
reply report
57
Edwin Clarkposted 15 years ago
Wouldn't it be funny if someday humanity gets wiped out save for a few survivors who starts a new generation of the human race digs up The Lords of the Ring Trilogy and turns it into a religion

I know this is a science forum, but bear with me.

Lets look at some of the similarities:
Bible talks about resurrection, so does Lord of the Rings.
Bible talks about a returning king, so does Lord of the Rings.
Bible talks about the end of the world as we know it, so does Lord of the Rings.
Bible talks about magic and miracles, so does Lord of the Rings.

My point is you can't really trust a book that was written by people thousands of years ago who believe in hocus pocus. Way back then people didn't know any better, so its understandable.

Just like today, are we going to believe everything J.R.R Tolkien wrote about just within this century? Of course not. Because we know better.

Not to rain on religious folks parade, but science should not be mixed with religion.
Don't believe me, start praying for our glaciers to stop melting
reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 15 years ago
I didn't read the whole thread but just from looking at the question, if it wasn't for science how would you know if it were true or not? Faith??? Come on!

Anyways, I know I have brought this up in other threads but the story of Noah wasn't the first and every civilization had their own story of the great flood.

It seems every part of the world at one time had encountered or had been devistated by a great flood, sh*t, Katrena was enough to to write another great flood story that will eventually become myth if it weren't for science.

Anyways, there is evidence, lots of evidence that says the ocean level was as high as some mountians and they know this because they have found sea shells and other things that only live or belong in the sea.

But this occured way before Noah, before the Eqyptians, before Mesopotamia before Symaria before heck before people.
reply report
1. 66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's what I heard. So, what about the possibility that it was all just one (and the same) flood? Just told for generations of each following culture, and ending up as slightly (or not so slightly) different versions, etc.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  aka-dj - This is a science forum. And you completely missed Sandra's point.
  
  One up for the irrational beliefs
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How did I miss her point?
  Yes I got that the last time you pointed it out. You gave me your answer before.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The evidence that there were oceans where there are now mountains is millions of years old. See plate tectonics:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
  
  This was not a flood
  
  And happened eons before man was on the earth. So, when you say:
  
  That tells me you completely missed the point of what Sandra said.
  
  How you jump from a few flood myths that are poorly recorded and very, very local, and millions of year old evidence that continental drift occurred causing evidence that where there were once oceans where there is now dry land as a possibility that there was a world wide flood a few thousand years ago is beyond me.
  
  As Sandra said, without the available science of today, Hurricane Katrina would probably have resulted in a flood myth.
  
  This discussion belongs in the silly beliefs section.
  
  One up in case you missed it
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Aaaahhh, you mean, "religion"?
  Hey, I did that, but we get better discussion here.
  
  I still think it's "ambiguous?" enough to fall into either or both.
  All shall be revealed (one day).
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The only reason you think it ambiguous is because of your silly beliefs.
  
  Once you have seen the light, you will be fine.......
  reply report
66
aka-djposted 15 years ago
Just watched (part thereof) a documentary on "the theory of everything", based on the work of Steven Hawking. Have you seen it?
Talk about "ambiguous" overlapping of science/quantum mechanics ! ! !
He has managed to reduce EVERYTHING, to a thing called the "singularity", but this one last thing still eludes him. The "how, and the why"?
Keep watching!!
PS, How's that? I managed to get this into the right topic!
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  I haven't but I will. Looking forward to his conclusions though.
  
  Will you accept whatever he comes up with? ")
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I will wait and see, a) what he DOES come up with, and b) IF it's more than a "maybe or hypothetical). After that, I am open to learn, and adjust.
  I have a sneeking suspicion that the answer will be "metaphysical". Mathematics and theory have got him about as far as he can go (for now).
  
  Will you? (IE supposing he says something like, "I can only surmise it was a Higher being")
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Of course.
  
  The chances of that being 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
  
  No scientist is going to say, "well, I can't think of anything, therefore it must have been a god."
  
  Although I notice you are hedging your bets.
  
  "As long as it agrees with what I already believe,"
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Look who's hedging thier bets!
  
  That "1" represents more than ZERO. So there is a (super minute chance?????) God IS IN that minute chance!!! Add a few more zero's, doesn't change it much!
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  That's supposed to be MY line?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That was your line........
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are SO funny! I really DID smile at that one!!!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Differences aside, what is the point without a little fun?
  reply report
61
Fyxz Van Lightposted 15 years ago
It depends on which religion you are with..
As for me, I believe in Noah's flood.
reply report
0
Leta Sposted 15 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a scientific theory that the earth tilted its axis at one point, causing world wide flooding--which may very well have led to the story or myth of Noah and the flood?

I think I viewed some documentary like that on the Discovery channel.

There is always some truth in myths/legends/stories that have been passed down.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Depends on your definition of "scientific theory" I guess
  
  Is there always some truth in all myths? Interesting scientific theory you put forward there
  
  I especially loved the way you backed it up with proof
  
  Perhaps you should write a book.
  
  Hard to argue with that sort of evidence.............
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  MK!
  
  Actually, I'll first have you know that I have written three books, so don't put it past me. And, I'm actually just beginning.
  
  And speaking as a double M.A. in art and literature with a 3.9 average overall, I think writing something connecting the great myths or 'stories' of the world to scientific thought would make a great Ph.d. thesis. One I could definitely have published (what, after I have edited quite a few?). In part, my thesis would be that science and other ways of knowing, such as mysticism, literature and mythos are not mutually exclusive.
  
  Read much Joseph Campbell? Spinoza?
  
  I really appreciated your help on the question I asked about hub traffic here on hubpages, but face it, sir, about some of this stuff, you assume the worst.
  
  It's OK. I really did appreciate your help earlier and plan to use your advice with my hubs.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Well, it was rather a sweeping statement.......
  
  In the meantime, I await the thesis. No I have never read either of those authors. But I do have much experience that tells me many things that look dissimilar on the surface are actually closely related.
  
  As to every myth being based in truth, I am sure that is the case. As some one else mentioned - in an older time with no mass communication and a belief that the world ended where the sun set, I am sure Hurricane Katrina would have resulted in a "The day the whole world flooded," myth.
  
  Hardly the basis for a scientific theory that there actually was a world wide flood. Especially when the evidence we have points against it.
  
  My pleasure - any time.
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
reply report
1. 0
  Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting!
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
I always like the theory. Pole shift explains things like Mamoths frozen alive, that is hard to explain otherwise. Theory is we are due for another pole shift in Dec. 2012.
reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
Myth was Homer's, 'The Iliad'. Science was any archeology that may have shown evidence of such an event was real. A good documentary
is: "In Search of the Trojan War", 1985 by Michael Wood.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, but where did Homer get it from? ..........
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
"Ah, but where did Homer get it from? .........."
According to '"In Search of the Trojan War", 1985 by Michael Wood.',
there are these poet performers who still exist today who have 'The Illiad' memorized word for word and perform it. Don't rememember, it has been a long time, but Wood may have suggested that Homer got it from such, proceeding even him. In any event such a war would probably have become lore.
reply report
77
BDazzlerposted 15 years ago
Good! My goal is certainly not to insult. As a point of clarification, it is not that you don't know anything. It's just that people who clearly know more than either of us have other opinions.

You are an absolute expert on the hub pages environment. Your comments to other hubbers on how to use the system, and how to benefit from it have been excellent.Your hub on getting a page one ranking on google, for example was brilliant. The fact that you share your experiences on hub pages about what works, what doesn't and are transparent about your earnings is extremely helpful.

You are also an expert on "the finer things" of life, better yet you seem to be able to advise people how to do it on a reasonable budget. I would not hesitate to take your advice on which wine to serve and under what conditions, for example.

I also respect tour willingness to help new hubbers find their way around the system, To be able to write persuasively, successfully targeting a culture that is not your own is quite a respectable accomplishment.

Love my pastor, but he's not my scientific adviser And frankly, I don't trust most "professional" holy men. .. Well, my degree is in Science and Math with a Major in Computer Information Systems and minor in Chemistry, including a heavy emphasis on Chemical Engineering. I've written AI and physics simulations for a few major corporations, In the 1994 I had a software engineering book published by Wiley and Sons (ISBN: 0-471-58371-5) that was still on Microsoft's recommended reading list in 2005. I made recommendations to that same publisher in through the 1990's regarding the accuracy and quality of various software engineering book proposals. I've testified as an expert witness in software engineering in Federal Court.

Additionally I have been cited in ground breaking simulation academic work such as "Object-Oriented Analysis of Biological Neural Networks using OMT" by Reinhold Huber and Roland Schwaiger.

So, using my own experience and education, I'm able to distinguish the plausibility of the validity of the computer simulation created by Dr Baumgardner and pseudo-science. The paragraph in the report that says "By the numbers. Terra proves that this is true--or, more precisely, that it could be true, provided one accepts certain assumptions. Run Terra one way, and you can watch Noah's flood take place before your eyes, mathematically calculated by a supercomputer. Run Terra another way, and you get the standard geological story of 4.6 billion years." is certainly plausible. To write off a simulation developed at Los Almos as "pseudo-science" because it supports a conclusion you don't agree with is not logical.

In addition to my own technical background and that of my friends and colleagues in the software engineering field, I also get scientific advice from a close friend of mine with a PhD in molecular biology and another with an advanced engineering degree (Master's level) who's also been an instructor in various science classes at both the secondary and university level. We worked together on a publication for Finite Element Analysis. Usually the three of us will debate or discuss various topics over coffee or via email depending on our schedules, which then leads to various readings and research. I also have another friend with a Phd in computer science with a specialty in using it for ancient language translation,

Naw, but one time God did tell me what page of which physics book to look at when I was stumped on a particularly complex problem with angular momentum during an automobile crash simulation. I said, without expecting an answer "God, what the #$#43 am I doing wrong?" Danged if He didn't answer me. Wigged me out a bit, because it was before I actually believed God would speak to me.

None taken! And, I am maintaining that that someone, more scientifically qualified than either of us, at the Los Almos Lab, has disagreed with your position and has sponsored a scientific debate on this very topic. To be fair, Dr. Graham Mark, someone also more qualified than either of us, does agree with your position (http://www.globalflood.org/letters/Mark200195.html)

You may be satisfied with the conclusions you've drawn based on your own reading and research, clearly, some other people would have liked to discuss it here. And there has been some valid scientific research done on the topic, so there is a case to be made for placing the discussion here.

Using ridicule and mockery to silence those who disagree with you, may be fun (you seem to enjoy it!) But,it is certainly not "scientific" by any definition. And since your stated goals are to use ridicule and mockery to silence those who disagree with you..

That's an agenda. Which implies a bias. Your stated goal is to make people who offend you (or your personal sense of rationality, or whatever sense you use to define acceptability ) feel uncomfortable for the stated purpose of discouraging their opinions. You use your high intellegence and superior writing skill to out-maneuver your intellectual and philosophical opponents. And you're very, very good at it. While I don't respect all of your views, specifically on science and religion, I have the utmost respect for your skills and intelligence.

Challenging both religious and scientific pre-conceptions is key to any advancement in understanding. Young earther's are challenging the established assumptions. Even if they are incorrect (which I neither grant, nor deny) the challenge itself can be valuable, if for no other reason than it calls for a re-examination of certain key assumptions.

Shalom!
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, well, some might take it as mildly insulting to be told that their opinion on certain subjects is worthless. but not me.
  
  Well, good to know that you do respect something of my opinions. You might be interested to know that I myself consider my hubpages and writing accomplishments to have taken considerably less effort on my part than my knowledge of religion, geology and geography.
  
  I also consider myself to be much, much more knowledgeable about religion and geology, have studied them in-depth for far more time than I have studied the hubpages environment, and would consider my knowledge on these subjects to far outweigh my knowledge on hubpages.
  
  But you dismiss them because you have already made your decisions and are not open to anything that disagrees with your "knowledge." Not because you do not respect my knowledge.
  
  What a shame, because you are missing out on my real skills. Oh well.......
  
  Well, I respect the opinions of the people who did write it off as pseudo science. And while I am impressed with your scientific credentials, I have no way of checking them, and question your motivation in this matter.
  
  Interesting. I do this all the time. When I have something buried in my subconcious that I cannot reach, I relax, stop worrying about it and let it go - and as if by magic, the answer comes. I learned to do this through the study and practice of Aikido. In fact, if I have an area of expertise that transcends all my other abilities, Aikido is it. Of course, this is not really magic, and I do not feel the need to subscribe this to an intervention by a supreme god. But I can see why you would need to.
  
  Not really. The subject has already been settled, and hanging on to out-dated church doggma and falsifying data to back up that dogma does not really count as a base for opening the discussion.
  
  And the question originally posed was -
  
  "Noah's Flood" Does it belong to science or religion?
  
  Which I would say we have conclusively proven to belong in the irrational beliefs section.
  
  Well, quoting me out of context like that is not really fair. I understand that it helps your argument, by making me look bad, but I believe I was referring to the religious spammers who come on to hubpages, drop a bunch of religious preaching and then disappear.
  
  They are not here to discuss, merely to push their particular brand of hypocritical rubbish. I also treat the non religious spammers the same way. As you have just said earlier, you respect my ability and willingness to help others here. One of those ways I do this is to discourage spammers, religious or otherwise. I have even been attacked outside of hubpages for getting rid of a bunch of forex spammers.
  
  Yet you have twisted this to suit some ulterior motive that involves me getting rid of anyone who disagrees with me. Not only is this not fair of you, it suggests you have a much lower opinion of me than you claim.
  
  I appreciate that this is the christian way, but still, not really cricket old man. To be honest, I do find this mildly offensive because it insults my intelligence. Not only that, but it calls into question your motivations and the truth of everything else you are saying.
  
  There is a big difference between challenging scientific facts because you have new facts, but it is fair to say this is not the case here. A very tiny percentage of religious scientists are attempting to prove that their religious doctrine is still valid after being dis-proven.
  
  Young earthers are not trying to challenge the established "assumptions," - they are trying to re-introduce previously accepted religious doctrine.
  
  And using the word assumption is another example of twisting words to suit. I know it is the christian way, but I do actually find this offensive also. Politics and semantics. I know, I know, the bible is a political book, but I would have thought some one of your obvious intelligence would not feel the need to stoop to this......
  
  There is not an "assumption" that the earth and universe are old. There are a number of scientific theories, (and I use the word "theory' in the scientific sense) from a wide range of scientific disciplines, backed up with vast amounts of evidence to prove it.
  
  Any discussion on Noah's flood belongs firmly in the irrational beliefs section.
  reply report
57
naslund26posted 15 years ago
This question is just like the creation of the universe did god place an exploding ball of fury in the universe that lead to the big bang,and why did the pope say its alright to study the universe after the big bang, but also said dont contemplate it before the big bang. science or religion its every ones own call interesting question, you can ponder this till the end of time or is there an end of time.
reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
"or is there an end of time"
There would be no time without memory.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so......
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Illusion, isn't that a Hindu concept? Are you saying you have become a Hindu?
  Or is it still accepted by the scientific community that time is a physical property? According Einstein's (theory of relativity) , E=MC2?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That was a Douglas Adams quote from the Hitch hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Worth a read if you haven't done so. If you can stand the heresy
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think Hitch Hiker's Guide (and all of it's sequels etc.) is one of the funniest things I've ever read. As far as the Heresy goes, I imagine God saying something like Morgan Freeman in "Bruce Almighty" ... "I'm not much for heresy, but that did make me laugh".
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I loved the dinosaurs with the placards.
  reply report
67
needful thingsposted 15 years ago
(*thinking of the ark)

a tremendous feat in logistics... even more so if we include the dinosaurs.

Just think what happens when one of Noah's sons forgets to feed the T-Rex.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  According to the creationists, T-Rex was a small vegetarian at that time. He only became a meat eater after the sin began. Or something.......
  reply report
  92
  livelongerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think the creationists have anything against carnivorism - they like meat too much. In fact, they tend to see vegetarians as Godless heathens.
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
"Just think what happens when one of Noah's sons forgets to feed the T-Rex."
T-Wrecks.
reply report
58
JGarrickposted 15 years ago
Noah belongs in religion and history. It is written in the holy bible, Scientists today have no evidence of a great flood. But all we need is to be good and have faith in the creator, So that he does'nt destroy us soon. But one day it will happen,not by flood ,but by fire. This time.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I agree with you 50%. We should do our best to make the history books as accurate as possible. So no talking snakes and floods. Good luck with your bonfire
  reply report
0
jgrimes331posted 15 years ago
Science
reply report
59
Junksterposted 15 years ago
Like the rest of that book I think the whole thing is an impressive story from a wild imagination.

Good life lessons though, although all I got form this one was not to buy houses on flood plains!
reply report
1. 66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wild imagination and good life lessons? How do they come together? Do we "imagine" good life lessons? Who has the best "imagined life lessons"?
  reply report
73
AEvansposted 15 years ago
Noah's Flood belongs to religion as science has not disproved the the facts.
reply report
1. 67
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sure it has. Only science can prove a flood did exist-"the Black Sea" and the odd formation on top of a Turkish Mt. is just a rock not the ark.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is that a "fact"?
  reply report
  67
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. A flood caused the formation of the Black sea. Satellite images and ultrasonic sound waves of the mountain, show the odd transformation at the top- is a rock. What type of rock, has yet to be determined.
  reply report
92
livelongerposted 15 years ago
Science is the study of observable evidence.

Religion is faith in stories that have been passed on for generations.

Sometimes they overlap (like when the Shroud of Turin was exposed as a fake by carbon-dating) but usually they deal with different phenomena, mostly because religion doesn't delve into details while science does.

"Noah's Flood" is a story that has no fossil or archeological record that be verified. So if you choose to believe in the story of "Noah's Flood", that is a matter of your personal beliefs.

Science probably does not have enough conclusive evidence about an event that supposedly happened thousands of years ago enough to prove it or disprove it. Science is clear about what it can render a "verdict" on - it simply says "not enough data to form a conclusion."

You do not have to be an atheist to doubt where the story of Noah's Ark was a reality, or whether it was folklore invented by someone ages ago and passed on through the generations as a nice story. You just have to not be a religious literalist.
reply report
1. 77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are aware that the head of the lab that did the carbon dating on the shroud retracted his findings, for scentific reasons only, right?
  reply report
  73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Uh oh, here we go...
  reply report
  67
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ditto
  reply report
  92
  livelongerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm gathering from the most recent two responses that this subject has been dealt with already in the forums?
  
  At any rate, no I didn't know that. Even if, for whatever reason, the shroud could be proven to be ~2000 years old, that certainly doesn't mean that it came from Jesus, or that Jesus had supernatural powers. People embellish stories all the time.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I wrote a fairly extensive hub that (with the exception of one particularly obnoxious troll) most people found to be fair and balanced on the issue of the shroud. Regardless of it's origin, it's fascinating.
  
  One of the things that fascinates me about the shroud discussion is that I get more "it's not really from Jesus" arguments from Christians than I do from atheists. It seems they think that if it does prove to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus, then their faith would somehow be diminished.
  
  As you say, the best science can say is "it's inconclusive".
  reply report
  92
  livelongerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting - not what I would have imagined either.
  
  Absolutely. The older the claim, the harder it is to find evidence that answers questions conclusively. I personally don't have a problem saying "I don't know" about these sorts of matters, but you will definitely find people of all sorts who insist on a conclusion that is impossible to prove.
  reply report
66
aka-djposted 15 years ago
If science cannot "prove" it, nor "disprove" it, it can stay on the table (of discussion).
reply report
1. 77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And that was actually my original point. I'm always up for discussion, regardless of what has "already been proven" (one way or the other).
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So, the point stays valid. PERIOD.
  This is what I have said from the beginning. Untill creation, or the flood or the ressurrection,or whatever is not conclusivly "solved or disproven", it stays as a VIABLE option! I keep getting hammered because it does not "fit" the scientiffic model. It may NEVER fit that. Then what?
  I just got done watching a story on CI channel about a woman who killed her husband. Without going into too much detail, the evidence was "factual and forensicsally" presented. Upon reaching the verdict, the jury convicted her of manslaughter, and she got 7years. The sentence and the subsequent verdict, and punishment were appealed, and on a technicality upheld. So, she got a re-trial. This time she was acquited.
  So what's my point? Well, it's simply this, it was all about "interpretation" of the evidence! Where's the truth? No-one will ever know, because no-one but the two involved were present at the event. You can believe whatever you want, but you will NEVER know for sure.
  reply report
  67
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Okay let me get this straight.
  
  The fact that they have proved there was a great flood means what? Because that fact HAS been proven. The formation of the Dead Sea.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Has it? There are MANY here on hubpages that would dissagree with you. What is your real question?
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  RK ... I realize we've gotten off to a bad start ... and I do appologize for being a bit ... sarcastic in the past ...
  
  The "fact' is that the Dead Sea exists. One theory has not been "disproven" is that it was casued by the great flood.
  
  We draw conclusions based on facts. And all of us at one time or another will present our conclusions as fact. Which makes for intersting discussions.
  reply report
  67
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey thats cool.
  It is my understanding that they do know what caused the flood. An earthquake. Now whether is was divined by God- that theory is yet to be proved. What do you think?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That is ridiculous dj. This means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be part of any serious scientific discussion because it is not possible to prove He did not create the world.
  
  This discussion belongs in the irrational beliefs section.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm up for the FSM being part of any scientific dissussion!
  reply report
66
aka-djposted 15 years ago
I do not refute your invention. I just don't believe in him/her/it!
Maybe in a few millenia, someone will read these threads and start a new religion. I don't know.
reply report
78
Sufidreamerposted 15 years ago
I think that I am with BDazzler on this one, with his shroud angle.

I do not take the Bible literally, but there are some truths in there - Schliemann discovered Troy through directions given in the Iliad, and which were surprisingly accurate. The journey of Jason and his Argonauts had been traced to the Caucasus. Tim Severin followed the directions of the Irish monk, Brendan, and made a strong case that the guy could have discovered the Americas long before the Vikings.

Therefore, it is not an either/or question, but both. Only an opinion, but I believe that there is some underlying truth in the Bible, and science/archaeology can use that as a starting point.

Some scientists have postulated that the flooding of the Black sea was the source of the flooding story. Others that it goes back even further, to the flooding of the Mediterranean. It could have been rising sea-levels.

Who knows, but it is all very interesting.
reply report
1. 67
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I should've also noted that "religious" archaeologists concur that the area and the body of water of Noah's time was the Black Sea. They have found evidence of Noah's lost homeland. The Black Sea has no bacteria to deteriorate what lies between the water and muck. Now, so far they haven't found a city limits sign, that said, "Noah Lived Here." But, it is clear if the story is true. Science is going to have to prove it. Want information go to historychannel.com
  reply report
  78
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi RK,
  
  I remember seeing a documentary a few years ago about the Black Sea. Nothing conclusive, either way, but certainly very interesting.
  
  Many mythologies contain stories about flood events, so something happened. As to what, that is the unknown part.
  
  Word of mouth can stick around for generations. I remember reading about one of the islands caught in the Asian Tsunami. The people living there had folk stories about flood events - when the sea disappeared, they knew to travel inland, away from the coast. Not a single inhabitant died.
  reply report
  67
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I saw that one too.
  reply report
2. 77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There are some parts of the Bible that are litterally true and some figuratively true ... the fun part (and I really do mean it is fun) is the journey of discovering the difference ... the bible points to a greater reality ... the Kingdom of Heaven ... followers of the King are colonists on this reality. (They Kingdom Come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven) ... those of us who follow the King have a responsiblity to live like citizens of Heaven on Earth.
  
  The bible tells us what that looks like. Now, which is real, which is metaphor ... don't know, but I'm having a lot of fun learning, I've been wrong on both accounts. ... As I get to know people who have died and come back to life and who have been miraculously healed, I discover that all though the words that are used to describe the beliefs don't change, the meanings behind them certainly do.
  
  Issues Veratis wrote a hub, "How long is a day" : http://hubpages.com/hub/How-long-is-a-day
  In it, I comment about "Boundary Conditions" and "Initial Conditions".
  
  Since we can't conclusively know experimentally the initial state, we can only make assumtions. Change one assumption and the equations change radically.
  
  Assuming such a flood occured, since we cannot determine, experimentally the state of the world before the flood, we cannot prove such a flood occured, because all data is post flood.
  
  This is why I believe that the computer simulation I discussed previously is valid. Under valid scientific conditions, the simulation showed that it was theoretically possible that the flood occured. But, his initial conditions were radically different than were generally accepted.
  
  The general acceptance, like it or not, is a matter of "faith" ... faith in the process or faith in the data, or faith in the theory. How is that different from faith in the FSM or faith in a magical invisible superbeing? It's not.
  
  Everybody believes something, even if it's a belief in non-belief
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Only people who believe in a magical invisible super being think this way. Once you start accepting things on faith alone, you dispense with all logic, measurability and testability. And you start thinking that just because you take everything on faith - everyone else does.
  
  There is a huge difference between me believing that if I jump off the top of a ten story tall building, I will fall to the ground, and you believing in a god.
  
  But - they are the same to you.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, actually I'd give you better odds of flying off that building than there not being a God...
  
  And you can wear my tin foil hat anytime you'd like!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Next time I am in NO, I expect to see you jumping off a building to prove your faith
  
  After an appropriate quantity of JD
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Satan tried that one on Jesus ... sans JD My current goal is to develop enough faith to walk on water.
  reply report
57
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
If Noah's flood had to cover the entire globe with every animal represented on the Ark, then the story should go with Luny Tunes. If as I believe, the flood was a localized event with mostly livestock represented to get Noah's family going, then it should be religion. I say this because there can never be scientific proof for such a thing. I think we can pretty much rule out a global flood though.
reply report
1. 73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree and the entire world wasn't covered with water as some of it, was still under water and many places in the world did not recede for thousands of years. I also agree that science has not disproven this course of events.
  reply report
  0
  jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that there were always some bodies of water but the earth was flooded. And alot of the water was pulled to the polar caps and froze. If all the water from all the polar caps was to melt the earth would be flooded again.....Something to think about. But the bible says God promised he would never flood the earth Completely again...the Rainbow is a symbol of his promise. ( there was a cloud cover over the earth before the flood. thus the rainbow could never have been seen before without direct rays from the sun...it never rained before the flood either. there was always dew and moisture to sustain all plants)...Its all in the bible
  reply report
2. 0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If the flood did not cover the entire earth, then men would simply just have to go over the mountain to be safe from the flood.
  
  God made the way for all to escape, that wanted to escape. Once the door to the Ark was sealed, no one else was allowed in. They didn't believe Noah at the time, and they still don't believe it.
  reply report
  0
  jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree 100% With Sir Dent on this.
  reply report
  73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I believe it, you just went into deeper detail:)
  reply report
  0
  jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey AE- YOu have mail!!!
  reply report
  73
  AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am going there now..::::::::::
  reply report
  0
  jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ok....
  reply report
80
cindyvineposted 15 years ago
Maybe, only the known world was flooded as at that stage they didn't know about the Americas and Australia
reply report
1. 0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A hub I did not long after I joined here. It explains in a little more detail.
  reply report
57
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
No, I don't believe all men in the world were killed. This is a deep subject but to discredit science to such a severe degree is to discredit God as well. If I take the time I can show scripturally that it was not a global flood. Scientifically, it's impossible and the word for earth could just as well mean for a particular part of the land. But as far as science. Can you imagine the tidal waves present if the waters were above the height of Mount Everest? Only a steal boat could begin to withstand such turbulance (and where would all of the air taking up that space go?). There is not nearly enough water in the atmosphere to do this either. And if this amount of water came out of the earth for this event only, it would boil all life within the sea. If you pay close attention to scripture and look up some key Greek words, you will not have to be so dogmatic with the flood or some 6000 year old Earth nonsense.
reply report
1. 0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Then the Bible must be wrong when it said that men's hearts were evil continually? It must be wrong when, "Noah found grace in the eyes of God?"
  
  You have bene going around hubpages telling everyone that they were wrong about many things. You say you have proof, but all you do is direct people to look at bibletruths.com.
  
  You say you are a child of God and believe in Jesus, but yet you do not preach what Jesus aid to preach. You only preach against others who proclaim the gospel of Christ.
  
  Now who are you really? In Revelation Jesus mentions the Nicolaitines. They are those who call themselves christians, but in fact are worshipers of Baal.
  
  Science is man made. Is there any possible way that a man can think higher than God? Is there any possible way that any man can have more knowledge than God?
  
  God could have put Noah and his family along with all the animals on a stick and they would have survived if God had wanted it done that way.
  reply report
  0
  jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have to agree again with Sir Dent. There is no way you can prove scripturally your theory. and another thing...The bible has been stating many things that science had discredited and later scientist found out they were wrong...Take the case of the Exodus. There were tombs found a few years ago with Egyptian writing in it that states the same story of the Exodus as the Bible has been stating all along.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the support jj. I am out for the night.
  reply report
57
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
The ignorance of Sir Dentalot has reached proportions unfathamable. He actually has the audacity to constantly say I discredit scripture when I support it. What I discredit is evil interpretations of it. Now believing that the bible teaches a global flood isn't the worst thing someone can believe and teach. Let's see, the worst teaching is. . . . . .what is it now? Oh hell, I can't remember. Anyway, if that other thing doesn't drive away people with any sense from the scriptures, then teaching that the world was covered with impossibly high amounts of water would. Guys, the Ark couldn't have been big enough to hold every animal in the world 4500 years ago (and if you're insane enough to believe dinosaurs lived that recently and were on the boat, that's a double dose of daaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh for you). And how da false doctrine hell did all of the species get to where the Ark was. Did they. . . .swim the mighty seas? Oh, as Dentine says, God just magically picks them up and moves them without giving even one hint of this in scripture. Yeah, God can do anything He wants. But God invented the laws of science for us to discover and observe. And when mirricles took place, He says that He did them and science will not totally discredit them.

News flash: The Earth is very old and there was no global flood. And Dent, I knew this long before I ever heard of a Ray Smith. I was pleasantly surprised when I found out that we agree on these things.

There are hints in scripture that support what I'm saying. God is not on the side of ignorance. Give it up.
reply report
1. 0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How ignorant a rant one can post. It's easy to say what you want to say, but yet not one shred of evidence to support what you say.
  
  If you would look, I have never said that the earth is young. I have never said it is old either. Yopu are attempting to put words in my mouth that I never said.
  
  Since you only like to insult and rant and rave, I will not comment on an other of your posts until you bring some evidence from the Bible as you say you have. .
  reply report
79
Shil1978posted 15 years ago
The pairs of animals that Noah is supposed to have taken along with him is what baffles me. I mean could that have been possible? If so, wouldn't there be ample fossil evidence of all those animals in and around the possible site?

Some hubbers have made mention of the documentary about Noah's Flood - I've seen it too. They didn't find any fossil evidence either. But that apart, the story is just so incredulous.
reply report
57
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
That's right. All of the animals of the world would have to have fossils in the area where the Ark was probably launched. There is no one place that ever harbored every creature alive. But don't ya'll fundies get confused with the facts.

By the way, I recall one poster who says that the polar ice caps originated in a flash freeze due to the flood. Is it possible that the close to 150,000 seasonal rings going deep into those ice sheets were mirraculously transfered there as well? Or are those rings just made up by scientists to confirm their old earth story? It's one ring a year folks. The reason they couldn't find them furthur down is because the earth's seizmic pressure destroyed them furthur down. Seasonal rings don't magically appear in a flash freeze. Again, there was no global flood.
reply report
80
cindyvineposted 15 years ago
I think it was a local one. Maybe Noah's toilet overflowed. Oops, that's blasphemous. Seriously think it was only in the known world area. Read Sir Dent's hub and agree with him
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What ? That Noah lived 225 million years ago?
  reply report
57
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
Oh come on!! Noah didn't flood his toilet. That's outrageous. It was all dem dinosaurs back then crapping everywhere. god was trying to wash the dino dung from the face of the earth. Well, he accidently killed everyone in the process. See, Noah had no clue about god's intentions. He built the Ark to escape the horendous smell. Sooooo, I don't think they took no dino crappers onto the boat.
reply report
57
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
Either God didn't flood the earth a second time, or the scriptures lie. (In the the beginning the Earth was covered with water).

Every word below is irrefutably talking about the creation. None of it is talking about Noah’s flood.

Pangaea?? (Possibly)
Gen. 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so (or came to be so). And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas: and God saw that it was good.v.11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass. . . .

Global Flood?? (Uuuuuuuummmm,,,,,No!!)

Genesis:
Talking to the seas-v.10 And broke up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shall thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves by stayed?

Job 38:11 When I said, Unto here shall you come but shall not proceed farther, And here a limit is set to the pride of your billows (waves).

Jer 5:22 Fear ye not Me? Saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at My presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves therof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it? (except for Noah’s flood?)

Job 26:10
He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Pro 8:29
When He established for the sea its statutory limit, so that the waters may not pass beyond His biddin, when He delineated the foundations of the earth.

Speaking of the creation. Not Noah’s flood:

Psa 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of Thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

V.9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over, that they turn not again to cover the earth.

(With the exception of Noah’s flood because god had no clue that he would do such a thing?)
reply report
57
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
By the way, science agrees that the Earth was flooded billions of years ago before volcanoes and seizmic activity pushed the lands out of the sea.

Science laughs to scorn a global flood a few thousand years ago.
reply report
0
Beth37posted 10 years ago
So looking forward to this.

reply report
1. 54
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What's funny about the casting of Crowe is that he isn't actually the one with major anger issues.
  reply report
  0
  Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Stop winking. It's gonna be epic.
  reply report
  54
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It's gonna be terrible.
  reply report
55
Jake Carsonposted 8 years ago
that “Captain Kutchie Pelaez” of “Kutcharitaville” over

in Asheville, NC sure enough is “One Wild and Crazy Guy!” All the women

are so wild about him and his Famous Cheese Burgers and Key Lime Pies,

Hellaciously Fantastic Tender and Delicious Prime Ribs and Prime Steaks.

Drop Off the Bone Bar-B-Q Ribs, Pulled Pork and Beef Brisket.

His Drop Dead Gorgeous Wife “Anita” together in they’re Historic Key

Lime Pie Factory and Grill, where the Smiles and Ovens are always Warm

and Friendly, Inviting You to Spend A Little Time Resting and Enjoying

Your Time in They’re Little “Key West Island” near the Biltmore Estate

Close
By….Kind of Funny You Know, The World’s Greatest Key Lime Pies Aren’t
Even Baked In The Keys But At Kutcharitaville By Captain Kutchie
Pelaez and His Lovely Wife Anita In The Carolina Mountains!….Go
Figure!!!!!!!….

You’ll Soon Learn Why People Call “Captain Kutchie

Pelaez “The Most Interesting Man In The World!”…But don’t take our word

for it, follow the Long Lines to “Anita and Captain Kutchie Pelaez’s Key

West-Kutcharitaville Key Lime Pie Factory and Grill’. “The Place To Be”

since 1976!

Don’t be fooled into thinking that Jimmy Buffett

designed or had anything to do with this place. Just Ask Miss Sunshine Smith! That would be an insult.

Kutchie’s was here long before anyone ever heard of JB……Sheesh!

Donald Trump loves KUTCHARITAVILLE so much that he often has take-out

flown to him in NEW YORK CITY! WOW! He must really love those original

cheese burgers in paradise, we sure do, they have our vote for sure.

My best friend said she heard last week that Donald Trump and Stephen

Colbert together are planing on a Welcome to the USA Party for “Pope Francis”

to be held soon over in Asheville, NC at “Kutcharitaville”.

Some party that will be for sure!

Think, I’ll just get all the girls together and we can all Nude-Up and

go too “Captain Kutchie’s” and Get Drunk and Screw! Let’s Go Y’all!

Captain Kutchie’s Key Lime Pies Are World Famous For Giving Everyone

That Eats Them They’re Very First “PIEGASAM”….That’s Probably why one

must be over 18 years of age to purchase or have an adult present.

…Oh and all that Great Fall Off The Bone Bar-B-Q Slow Smoking, “Carly

Fiorino” say’s that she Can Smell They’re Butts Miles Away!….Or Maybe She

Was Just Smelling “Hillary”!…..OMG?

…The Late Great “Captain Tony Tarracino” of Key West Fame was an Old Friend of “Captain Kutchie Pelaez”. Together the two of them Sailed Many Adventures Not Known To Much Of The World! Cheese Burgers, Rum, Scotch, Cigarettes, Cigars, Treasure Maps, Pizzas, Chocolate Bars and Key Lime Pies Helped The Two Make History. If You Can Believe It Even “Mel Fisher” Was Known To Hang With Them!….

Captain Kutchie The Key Lime Pie Whisperer!…

Thank “GOD” That Noah Had Two of Kutchie’s Key Lime Pies On The Ark!….
And Don't Forget "Ernest Hemingway's" (Original Thinking Post) ! There Was Only One And "Captain Kutchie" Has It. Don't Miss It.

Hillary Sucks!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

"Noah's Flood" Does it belong to science or religion?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

"Noah's Flood" Does it belong to science or religion?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies