From: James W. Meritt
In article <16077@plains.NoDak.edu> broberg@plains.NoDak.edu (Robert Broberg)
}I asked for evidence and was told about a mastodon found frozen
}in the arctic. He said it "had" to be frozen instantly. I pointed out
}that it could have fallen through the ice. His response: "but it had
}a tropical flower in its mouth!"
From the FAQ on Velikovsky (who likes to claim the same):
The original article extracted here is cited as "Farrand, Wm. R.;
_Science_,133:729-735, March 17, 1961 (Copyright, 1961 American Association
for the Advancement of Science)" My comments are in ; the material in ()
is included in the article.
"...In contrast to scientific efforts, a number of popular and quasi-scien-
tific articles have appeared in recent years, in which fragnmentary knowledge,
folk tales, and science fiction are combined under the guise of veracity--
much to the chagrin of scientists and the confusion of the public. The most
recent of such articles is that of [Ivan] Sanderson, who comes to the
conclusion that the "frozen giants" must have become deep-frozen within only
a few hours time. Such a thesis, however, disregards the actual observations
of scientists and explorers. Adding insult to injury, Sanderson proceeds to
fashion a fantastic climatic catastrophe to explain his conclusions....
"...The cadavers are unusual only in that they have been preserved by freez-
ing; the demise of the animals, however, accords with uniformatitarian
concepts...The ratio of frozen specimens (around 39) to the probable total
population (more than 50,000) is of the order of magnitude expected
among terrestrial mammals on the basis of chance burials. Furthermore, the
occurance of whole carcasses is extremely rare (only four have been found)...
"...There is no direct evidence that any wooly mammoth froze to death.
In fact, the
healthy, robust condition of the cadavers and their full stomachs argue
against death by _slow_ freezing. [their emphasis] On the other hand, the
large size of their warm-blooded bodies is not compatable with _sudden_ freez-
ing. In addition, all the frozen specimens were rotten...only dogs showed
any appetite for [the flesh]...'the stench [of decay]...was unbearable.'
"Histological examination of the fat and flesh of the Berezovka mammoth show-
ed, "deep, penetrating chemical alteration as a result of the very slow
decay," and even the frozen ground surrounding a mammoth had the same putrid
odor, implying decay before freezing [actually, no--the ground could have
thawed after the mammoth was frozen and permitted decay, then refrozen. ERE]
Furthermore, the stories of a banquet on the flesh of the Berazovka mammoth
were, "a hundred per cent invention."
"...The only direct evidence of the mode of death indicates that at least
some of the frozen mammoths (and frozen wooly rhinoceroses as well) died of
asphyxia, either by drowning or by being buried alive by a cavein or mud-
flow...Asphyxia is indicated by the erection of the penis in the case of the
Berazovka mammoth and by the blood vessels of the head of a wooly rhinoceros
from the River Vilyui, which were still filled with red, coagulated blood.
"The specific nature of the deposits enclosing the mammoths is not known
well enough to be very helpful as an indicator of the mode of death or burial.
Most of the remains are associated with river valleys and with fluviatile
and terrestial sediments, but whether the mammoths bogged down in marshy
places or fell into 'riparian gulies' or were mired in and slowly buried by
sticky mudflows is not clear...in Siberia only mammoths and wooly rhinoceroses
have been found frozen and preserved...
"...so far no other members of the contemporary Eurasian fauna [except
mammoths and wooly rhinos]...have been found frozen and well preserved. That
only the bulky and awkward 'giants' of the fauna are so preserved points to
some pecularity in their physique as a contributing factor...the mammoth,
with his stiff-legged mode of locomotion would have difficulty on such
[Siberian] terrain and moreover would not be able to cross even small
It would be nearly impossible for him to extricate himself if he had fallen
into a snow filled gully or had been mired into boggy ground...
"The stomach contents of the frozen mammoths indicate that death occured in
the warm season...when melting and soluflication would have been at a maximum
and, accordingly, locomation would have been difficult.
"...Digby was impressed by 'countless riparian gullies' that would have been
ideal mammoth traps...Vollosovich...theorized that an animal so trapped
might fall on its side and act as a dam, being slowly buried and suffocated
by mud. The Berezovka mammoth is commonly regarded as having fallen as a
cliff slumped beneath it; its broken bones attest to such a fall...the Mam-
ontova mammoth perished in a bog...Quackenbush [wasn't he also Groucho Marx?]
believed that his specimen from Alaska perished on a floodplain and that most
of the flesh rotted away...
"...All of these theories are credible and can be accepted as possibilities.
There seems to be no need to assume the occurance of a catastrophe."
Thanks to email@example.com
} Anyone have any good proof the flood didn't occur?
From the FAQ:
} timing problems
let's look at the Biblical dates. I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years
passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the
first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the
cevenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. The chapters of
Genesis after the Flood accound give the periods in years that passed
between the births of various individuals from Noah to Abraham, giving a
period of 390 years from the Flood to the covenant with Abraham. Thus,
according to the Bible, the Flood took place 1300 years before Solomon began
construction of the first temple.
a) This is a clear, direct, falsifiable claim. These are clear,
unambiguous statements that a period of X years elapsed between
b) The event itself (a global Flood that wiped out all but 8
humans) would be pretty hard to miss or gloss over.
c) Because there were any number of literate cultures in the
near East, who recorded dynastic lists, raised monuments
giving dates and length of reigns, and sent ambassadors to each
others' courts, we can pretty reliably construct chronologies
for near Easter history, particularly for Egypt, and without
reference to (but supported by) dating methods such as carbon-14
with corrections from tree-ring sequences.
d) The upshot of which is that the building of the first temple
can be dated to 950 B.C. +- some small delta, placing the Flood
around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egytians (among others) have
written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great
Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years
before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian
inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.
e) Therefore, either we have to reject the historicity of the
Flood account; accept the historicity of the Flood account,
but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event; or
accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the
massive amount of written and archaological evidence estab-
lishing the chronology of history in the near East.
}Also, at the end
}we were offered a book "the carpenter" or somesuch by Josh McDowell
}. I know he was a topic of much debate on
}talk.religion.misc? If anyone saved any posts on this fiend (er, mislead
}Christian soul), could you please forward them to me?
From my three-parter on _Evidence_That_Demands_A_Verdict:
_Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_ is a book that presents "historical
evidences for the christian faith". It is produced by the Campus Crusade for
Christ, Inc and was prepared by a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Talbot
Since I'm a lot better with logic and the scientific method than
languages and history, I will primarily be concerned with the massive
logical flaws present, though I will include other items. The entire
text is rife with circular reasoning, attempts at incremental
confirmation, pleading to authority, and insufficient set definition, but
there are many other logical errors. Please do not assume that just because
it isn't mentioned here as an error I believe that it is correct. He also
made up his own outline format. I'm going to try to keep his organization.
Lines beginning with "}" are direct quotes taken from the book. The material
I present is either written by me, or by someone on USENET, a mailing list,
or email. Where appropriate, I asked their permission to quote. Look upon
them as "witnesses" for Josh's "verdict".
Since his title seems to indicate SOME judicial standpart, using
"verdict", I believe that this will show that it is either wrong, unconfirmed,
debateable, or biased. Thus, it "demands" no such thing. Given the wide
press this book gets, I expected better.
The total is somewhat large. I'm emailing it to you.
In article <16077@plains.NoDak.edu>, broberg@plains.NoDak.edu (Robert
|> Anyone have any good proof the flood didn't occur? ...
If you will bear with me a bit, I have to get a few things off
my chest before giving you what little help I can.
A critical question here is what your debating partner will
accept as "proof". I think that we suspect that the answer to
that is "nothing", so we have a rather difficult job in providing
proof. When I say "nothing", I mean *nothing* -- if, for example,
(to take an extreme case) one were to find a statement in the Bible
which said "the flood didn't occur", I don't think that that would
count, as for some creationists their agenda takes precedence over
what is in the Bible, too. Then there is the problem of proving a
negative (can anyone prove that there isn't an invisible monster
under my bed?). So you seem to be left in the nearly impossible
situation of proving that something doesn't exist to someone who
wouldn't accept any proofs.
But it is only "nearly impossible". The Flood story is *so*
out of touch with reality that we can do something. I think that
the posting which we have seen a while ago about corals was about as
good as I have seen -- although I cannot vouch for the facts from my
personal experience, I have not seen any reply to it in this group.
The poster was an aquarist with an interest in growing corals.
(Are you still out there, Bryan?) He said that corals were extremely
sensitive to their environment, and even a slight change in, for
example, the salinity of the water would cause them to start dying
fast. A world-wide flood which killed all of those animals and
plants which ended up as fossils would surely have wiped out the highly
sensitive corals. Then he went on to mention such things as: the
coral need a certain amount of sunlight, which would have been
blocked by the heavy rain clouds for forty days. This does not
mention the argument that we can date the corals back millions of
years (any dating argument is likely to bring the knee-jerk response
of "you are making a uniformitarian assumption", so you may want to
avoid that -- not because there aren't good rejoinders, but just to
avoid the tedium).
In a posting from some time ago, there was a list of 103
creationist "problems" with evolution. Here is one of them:
|> 32. There are many instances where quite different forms of
|> life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples
|> include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and
|> the pronuba moth, many parasites and their hosts, pollen-
|> bearing plants and the honey-bee family consisting of the
|> queen, workers, and drones. If one member of each
|> interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before
|> the animal), the other members could not have survived. Since
|> all members of the group obviously have survived, they must
|> have come into existence at essentially the same time.
(As the original poster did not claim that this represented his/her
ideas, I thought it appropriate not to include his/her name to protect
the innocent.) Obviously there is no problem for evolution here for
anyone with the slightest acquaintance with evolution, but as long as
creationists seem to think that these are significant issues, not
just something artificial brought up by evolutionists based on phony
This poses a lot of problems for Ark theoreticians. How did the
fig trees, yucca plants, and pollen-bearing plants survive over the
time period from the beginning of the Flood (when the fig gall wasps,
pronuba moths and honey-bees were floating on debris in the Flood,
as one recent posting suggested, or in the Ark) until the end of the
Flood? That is, not only getting a thorough soaking, but also
deprived of those insects. And how did these insects survive while
their food was under water -- for how long was it, a year? "Since all
members of the group obviously have survived, they must have"