Subject: Fossils on Mountains, etc. Someone posted an article wondering how fish fossils g

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Subject: Fossils on Mountains, etc. Someone posted an article wondering how fish fossils got onto high mountains. At first sight, it does seem that the mountain might have once been under water. But a different story seems far closer to the truth, a story based on careful study of the way the Earth is now, combined with study of how materials behave. After all, what is science about? Many tens of millions of years ago, there were once some continental shelves, much like those of today. Sediment piled onto them, as sediment does today. Fish lived and died, and got buried in the sediment, just like today. As sediment accumulated on top, the lower sediment got heated and compressed, and was turned into rock. What next? Continental drift, with some crust plates running into each other. This sediment got squeezed between two continents, or was lifted up as an ocean plate was forced downward (both processes happen), than the fish fossils get carried with the rock to high altitudes. Thus, fish fossils in high mountains. Those who reject the hypothesis of Noah's Flood do so, not because of some grudge against the Bible, but because they think that there is no physical evidence that it has ever happened. Indeed, the notion of a worldwide flood was discredited in the early 19th century for exactly that reason -- all the supposed evidence had features inconsistent with this hypothesis. If that indicates that the Bible is in error...well, you can't have everything. And if the Bible was correct here, why was so much of the Earth's crust set up to look as if this flood never happened? Is God trying to see how strongly we are willing to believe in the Bible by carefully setting up lots of seeming evidence to the contrary? If you want to believe in a God like that, be my guest, but you must understand that there are plenty of other people who are not willing to do so. For my part, I am surprised that this fellow does not also believe that the Earth is flat and motionless. After all, in Matthew 4:8 (if I remember correctly), it states that the Devil had taken Jesus up a mountain where he could see "all the kingdoms of the world." This would not be possible unless the Earth was flat; even the kingdoms that someone living in the Middle East could have known about cannot be seen all at once, except from outer space. And the Earth has no mountains _that_ high. And why didn't the Devil just take Jesus for a ride on his magic carpet (or whatever)? They would have gotten a far better view. Aristotle had shown 300 years before that the Earth was approximately spherical, but he was a pagan idolator, and pagan idolators can never come up with any really important results, can they? That's right. Aristotle was a heathen who rejected the Bible and its God and Jesus Christ. Actually, he could never have heard of the Bible or Jesus Christ. And Aristotle's God was not that of the Bible, by any means (as Carl Sagan points out, whether or not one believes in God depends on what one means by the word "God"). Motionlessness? Well, Joshua had told the Sun, and not the Earth to stop moving, when he wanted to win one of his battles. And several of the Psalms speak of the Earth as motionless. Ask Martin Luther and John Calvin and those who compelled Galileo to recant. But there were other Middle Eastern societies who had written language and written records, and if that Joshua event had occurred, these people would have written about it at length. But they didn't. And I wonder if he also believes that the sky is a bowl above our heads (see Genesis 1), and that the stars are stuck onto it, and will one day fall off (see somewhere in Revelation). And I wonder if he believes in the demon theory of disease, and that exorcism is a good cure, because it drives out demons. I wonder if he believes that rabbits are ruminants (check out the Leviticus dietary proscriptions) and that bats are birds. As to telling a woman to shut up just because she is a woman...I hope he gets flamed to a crisp by every woman who reads this newsgroup. Though I am male, I think I can detect sexism. I think women are just as worthy human beings as men, whatever the Bible or the Koran or whatever might have to say. I sometimes wonder how men like that can be satisfied heterosexuals, with their looking down on their partners like that. I wonder if he will advocate the Biblical punishment for adultery -- death by stoning. Or advocate massacres of "sinful" or "wicked" or "heathen" or "godless" people, in the fashion of the massacres the Israelites had committed in the early Old Testament. Consider that Samuel faulted Saul at one time for not ordering the massacre of one enemy's sheep and cattle. Or consider one decision to massacre only the men and married women, and not unmarried young women...I think you can see why they made the selection...... As to the question of war and peace, I do not think that militarization is the best way to make peace. Perhaps to make time so that a true peace can be arranged. I don't think enemies always have to be enemies... But the "other side" has to cooperate if a peace arrangement is to work. And getting to the "people" is not enough; you have to get to the leaders as well, and get them to open up. In that regards, though I am somewhat cynical about _glasnost_ (which means doing all sorts of things that are normally anathema to the Soviet Government, if it is to be serious), I think the progress in recent years is encouraging. I don't think that World War III is inevitable; but avoiding it will require (among other things) the appropriate political will in Moscow as well as in Washington. I think that one-sided peace efforts are doomed (that's the main problem I have with peace movements); all sides must cooperate. It's unfortunate that some can only learn the "hard way"; but the Russians are certainly learning the limits of their military power in Afghanistan. Maybe that's what's making them so cooperative. As to the supposed divine origin of our nation's government; our Founding Fathers would have laughed their heads off at the very suggestion. The Constitution does not start out with "God has decreed that this nation will come into existence..." but "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union...". The Declaration of Independence basically states that King George III was responsible for a wide range of wrongs; the charge that he had broken the laws of "nature and nature's God" was just the beginning. Asking for "God's help" towards the end does not suggest the divine origin of anything. And the Declaration states that governments do not exist by divine decree, but that they were invented by people to make life better for people. And what more reason do you need? Why should alleged divine decrees be necessary? Interestingly, King George III's supporters believed in the Divine Right of Kings, according to which, if you fight KGIII, you are also fighting God, who had decided that members of KGIII's lineage were to rule all the territory ruled from London. According to this view, our nation owes its existence to an act of rebellion against God. The Divine Right of Kings is a convenient myth, a convenient way of getting people to obey their rulers (after all, they are just following orders given to them by the Ruler of the Universe). The myth of the alleged divine origin of the United States is remarkably similar, in fact. Though Communists reject the religion business as the "opium of the people," invented by the exploiters to keep the masses under control, some of their beliefs and activities sound suspiciously similar. Thus, they believe that a law of historical necessity is on their side, and that the good people will ultimately win and destroy all the bad people. Though it involves no Old Man With a Big White Beard Up There (or whatever), Historical Necessity yields, for the Communist, an equivalent of the Divine Right of Kings; Communist governments ought to exist by the dialectic-materialistic laws of Historical Necessity. ^ Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster \ ^ / loren@moonzappa.llnl.gov \ ^ / One may need to route through any of: \^/

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank