> breathing fire is possible. Thus, the story of leviathans is > mythical and dinosaurs and people never met. Then how do you explain the fossilized footprints of a dinosaur AND a man found in the same stream bed? If the rock had been mud at the time of the human footprints, then it would have surely washed away the dinosaur prints from eons before. (Assuming of course, that rock could turn back to mud without the action of running water wearing it down.) I believe that there are still dinosaurs in existence. There are too many unexplained sightings and findings for there not to be. What about Loch Ness, or the "monster" that is supposed to inhabit one of the Great Lakes? What about the thing that was caught by a fishing boat in the S. Atlantic (I think) that was so huge that no one could identify it? What about coelocanthus that was supposed to be extinct, but was caught back in the 50's or early 60's alive? You know, I have to say that your belief in evolution and it's subsidiaries is just as much a belief in God is. I do still have that list of sources I compiled for you. REPLY The reports of human and dinosaur footprints in the same formation has been investigated and found to be based upon a mistaken idea of the physical evidence. This formation was produced along an ancient sea shore where dinosaurs walked in limey mud and their tracks were rapidly buried by tidal deposits and erosion from the land. The "human" prints ALL turned out to be natural erosion features, carved fakes or the prints of bipedal dinosaurs. As the "human" prints weathered, the three toes became obvious. The Journal of Geological Education, at the main library on the top floor has fine pictures and a long technical discussion of the matter. Even the Creation Research Society withdrew their material on the matter when the true nature of the tracks became apparent even to them. The true fossils associated with this formation are ALL totally extinct species and the few mammal fossils found are only of small primitive species about the size of a rodent. The Cretaceous Glen Rose formation is very thick and complex so that a simple creationist explanation is utterly without value. Smithsonian Magazine also had a major article on the subject of these tracks a few years ago. I have visited this location several years ago. Evolution is a well founded a scientific theory as any other validated theory, like atoms, germs, gravity, and electromagnetism. After all, it is just the idea that living things all come from their ancestors with modification. The many processes involved have produced millions of species over the geological periods over the last 3.5 billion years of life on earth. So far, evolution has passed EVERY scientific test, although many mechanisms associated with this process are not yet understood, due to the complexity of the natural processes involved. The only descendents of the dinosaurs determined with any certainty are the birds. The coelocanths represent a variety of lobe finned fish thought to be extinct since the Devonian Period, about 400 million years ago. This species of fish is similar to the variety which is the ancestors of the earliest amphibians, which are very fish-like in their basic structure. They found a substantial popuation around Madagascar initially about 1938. This great gap in the fossil record shows how incomplete it really is. The vast majority of all individuals never leave fossils so there are gaps of varying sizes naturally occurring in the developmental sequence over geological time. =================== I'm taking the liberty to jump in here. People like you treat science as fact. Yes, science can PROVE things and make them fact, but remember that science ALWAYS changes. Scientists will tell you this. For starters, the carbon dating systems that were used were found to be faulty, thus we found out that the Earth is not near as old as science had us believing, bringing the actual information as to the Earth's age within range of Biblical history. Genesis is not written within a time frame. What is spoken of as days at the beginning could not be literal days as we know them because the solar system was not yet set up by God. The creation was incomplete. Science has never been able to disprove anything in the Bible. A truly objective scientist will agree. Genesis does not set the creation and timframe in which things happen in a specific year to date fashion. Just read it and see. As for the flood, you state that observation will tell you that there couldn't be enough water. Observation? That's doesn't sound very scientific! Remember that the flood was a miracle of God, and if he could create the Earth I'm sure he would have had no trouble covering it with water. Actually, TO BE SCIENTIFIC here, the existence of fossils has "proven" that at one point the world was covered with water. Where do you think you get gas for your car? Answer: the decomposition of dead life buried deep in the ground due to a flooding of water which killed everything. This is proven. Man continually demeans himself by worshipping science as a god. Science continually changes because WE created it. Man always trys to use science to disprove God when in fact, it proves that the world was created with a concious order. Just look at the intricacy and complexity of life and THEN tell me it was an "accident". ------------------- The carbon dating sytem is still considered to be valid in the scientific literature. Give your reference in the technical literature supporting the claim that the system is invalid. The oldest meteorites and moon rocks both give a date of 4.55 billion years. The oldest datable rocks from earth dated at 4 billion years old. The best available age for the universe is about 15 billion years old. It takes a very long time to produce all of the complex geological structures with their fossils. The helium deposits could not have been produced by decay of radioactive elements in associated granite gravel in less than many millions of years. The different radioactive dating processes all point to great ages for geological time. The six day creation and the world wide flood have been shown to be mythical rather than historical. The earth and universe show a completely different order of events. Fossils prove that over geological time, many portions of the earth have been covered by water as the continents collide and the crust warps up and down. This was not a description of any recent geological events. The fossils are usually of totally extinct species and never any modern species before the Mesozoic Era. Oil and gas represent organic deposits formed at the bottom of shallow inland seas over millions of years. It is not associated with a hypothetical world wide flood. Many of these deposits are tens of thousands of feet deep. There is no need for intelligent design to explain the evolutionary processes. Mutation plus natural selection can produce the illusion of intelligent design. It took about 3 billion years from the earliest time to produce anything more complex than single cell life. Most species which developed became extinct. I suggest that you read a book called "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins, which refutes the argument of intelligent design. ================== GK>Any encyclopedia will present any number of facts about the earth and its history which will show that Genesis is not good science or history. The specialized literature of the geologists will show a completely different series of events compared to Genesis. Ordinary observation will demonstrate that insufficient water exists to flood the earth. Animals without ancestors is not scientific. In the Encyclopedia Brit., under Genesis. states that the universal flood and the dispersal of mankind is not historical. There is a big difference between the physical sciences and theology. The biggest difference is Faith. ---------- reply Theologians have always found science to be a disturbing influence. That is why they threatened Galileo with torture and imprisoned him for the rest of his life for daring to claim that the earth moved around the sun and even rotated on its axis. It took the Church only 360 years to admit it was wrong. ======================================<=- GK> When I took a course in philosophy of reigion at Rice University, the GK> mythical aspects of Jonah were pointed out. Whales and fish big enough GK> to consume a man are lacking. Have you heard of the great white shark's ancestor, Carcharodon megalodon? Scientists have estimated this shark to have reached lengths of up to 100 feet, based on a jaw found and now kept in a British museum (London I believe). Its smaller relative, the white shark, has been known to reach lengths of 15-20 feet (and larger), most commonly found around South Africa and Australia. These "smaller" relatives are amply large and could swallow a man whole. I saw a frozen 13 foot female specimen on display at Sea World in San Diego, and I could have easily climbed into the jaws of that shark. A great white shark 100 feet long could easily swallow a man, and some marine biologists think that megalodon may still exist today. They further think it possible that Jonah could have very likely been swallowed by a large shark. Sharks also are known to have a notoriously slow digestive system; remains have been found inside the stomachs of sharks after considerable periods of time and in a remarkable degree of preservation. As I have stated before it is no big deal for God to provide a fish that could swallow a disobedient prophet whole and after 3 days vomit him up whole. You just don't comprehend how awesome and mighty God is; you present pitiable arguments as insurmountable obstacles to why the Bible stories should not be believed, but God makes a laughing stock of your atheistic objections. He clearly states that his way is not our way, and his thoughts are far above our thoughts. ========= What specific facts do you have to demonstrate the errors in the modern scientific viewpoint? Where is the physical evidence to support your claims? You gave none in your message. If Jonah had been swallowed by a shark, he would have gone down in pieces. ======================================== If the Bible is a piece of fiction, then it must be a pretty good one. Because year after year it's the number one selling book in the world. It's survived assaults from just about every direction for almost two thousands years and we dumb believers just keep on believing. I'd rather be an idiot that believes in the Bible, than a genius that believes in some of the garbage that the rest of this world is trying to dump on us these days. reply The community of scholors recognize that the Bible is not a reliable source of history or science. Check the Encyclopedia Brit. for a discussion of modern science and history. The differences between the findings of the scholors and the Biblical tradition are obvious. There are many places where the Bible is accurate in its discussions of historical and others where it is faulty. If you find modern scholorship to be garbage, then the loss is yours. The popularity of an idea is no maeasure of its vaidity. At one time, the whole Christian community supported the earth centered astronomy of the ancients. Were they correct? Why did most Christians eventuallyt accept the modern scientific view in this area? Did they discover a previously unknown page in the Bible or did they decide that the scientists had superior evidence? As you can probably gather from my messages, I approach things from the rational scientific point of view rather than the poetic emotional approach. The social emotional approch is quite acceptable in the religious community but the scientists require something which has good predictive power and can be tested for validity. Nothing in your message says anything beyond the fact that Christianity is popular in our society. Popularity and the number of supporters has no bearing on the vaidity of an idea. Have the scientists in your community been able to logically defend a six day creation, animals without ancestors, or a world wide flood? =================== GK> The stories of Genesis are historically false, even if your GK> days are redefined to be great ages. To be historically false someone would have to have been there. Now if you were to say theoretically false... GK> Genesis has earth before sun and stars. It has trees before GK> the moon and sun. Dr. Hugh Ross deals with this in his book "The Finger Print of God" which I understand you read. No? GK> It has birds before creeping things. How does this invalidate creation? Of course, it would tend to invalidate evolution. GK> It has animals and plants without ancestors. Uh, that's what creation is. ----------------- The sum of the appearance of the physical world supports a long evolutionary history of the universe rather than a short magical history, as in Genesis. The fossil record shows a sequence of species from the single cell life of the pre-Cambrian up through the multicell forms to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals and birds. We are mammals, sharing 99% of our genetic code with our closest primate ancestors, the chimps. Animals without ancestors is mythology. --- GK> The stories of Genesis are historically false, even if your GK> days are redefined to be great ages. Genesis has earth GK> before sun and stars. Actually it doesn't. The very first book of the Bible says that `in the beginning God created the HEAVENS and the earth.." The "heavens" with it's sun and stars were therefore created before the earth. Many religions beleive that God created all within seven literal days, when in fact a day to God is as a thoussand years to us. Take for example Adam, he lived to be 930 years old, yet God told him he would die in the "day" of his eating from the tree. He DID die within God's day of 1,000 years. [2 Peter 3:8] ************************* The stories in Genesis are not reflected in the actual physical world. Why not study some standard scientific material for a discussion of this subject? It will help you understand this material far better than I can due to the vast amounts of data bearing on the subject. Any standard encyclopedia will be a good place to start and details can be pursued in the appropriate area of your library. Many of these creation/evolution questions are discussed in "Science and Earth History" by Strahler and "The Journal of Geological Education" also is a good source of educational material. If you reject modern science, then you will have lost your best tools for understanding the physical world. =================== >The stories of Genesis are historically false, even if your >days are redefined to be great ages. Genesis has earth before sun and >stars. It has trees before the moon and sun. It has birds before creeping >things. It has animals and plants without ancestors. >It has a world wide flood. None of these are scientifically or historically >valid. If you consider them myth or poetry, then no conflict exists, as >they then are judged by different standards. More and more scientists are coming to the conclusion, due to the mounting evidence, that there was a universal flood. ----------- If you do some simple arithmetic on the quantity of water involved, you will find a universal food will need three times the volume of the oceans. The atmosphere can hold one inch of water and no great source for this flood is available anywhere. If you read the professional literature of the scientific community, then you will find NO support for a world wide flood. There is no place in history for it and there is no physical evidence for it. The ice caps have 240,000 yearly layers and a flood would melt and float away the ice caps. Scientists who are Christians can have religious delusions also so ther opinions are only as good as their data. The data does not support such a flood. If you personally are not scientifically trained, then it would be easy for people to mislead you. This is apparently what has happened. ================= >I still find Christian theology having no logical validity. >It seems to based on mythical foundations, like Genesis. Then, what is your purpose for participating in an echo that is dedicated to the discussion of the Bible? Once, Christians taught that the sun went around the earth. That was agreed on by both Luther and 200 years of Popes. It was only after the scientists produced enough good data on the matter that most Christians changed their mind. NOTHING in the Bible supports a sun centered solar system, but instead supports a motionless earth with a moving sun. There are vast amounts of information discovered in the two thousand years since the Bible was completed. If the Bible was wrong in the case of astronomy, then the possibility of additional errors is likely. That possibility is the reason for my discussions on this board. =================== GK>Bible scholors consider the book of Jonah as a fictional morality tale. I feel that it really doesn't matter. If the stories contained in the bible are true or not, really doesn't matter all that much. I feel that they are there to help us along in life. It's like saying, here's someone who messed up, and here's what happened to them. Learn from this lesson. Or, here is a story of someone who did good, try to follow their ways. True or not, they are there to help us along...a good amount of them have been proven at least partially right...but what do we know of that era??? We weren't there!! Sure, people can say, oh, the dessert could never support nice green terrain. Maybe it did at one time..you never know. ============ If the Bible is not reliable, then it is just another human book containing both human truth and human error. We can learn from fictional events but should not rely on them for external truth. The history of mankind is filled with wars and other evils based upon faulty beliefs originating in religious doctrine. If you derived your moral laws from only the Bible, would you support the institution of slavery. After all, it is a system established by God, and never spoken of as evil. The historians know quite about the past events of that time and place. ================= GK>Get a geology book and a Bible. Compare the two about the order of events GK>in the earth and universe. The Bible has trees before sun and moon. It has GK>birds before creeping things. It has earth before sun. It has birds before GK>creeping things. It has a world wide flood. None of these agree with the GK>physical evidence. It also has animals and plants without ancestors. It GK>has the sun standing still and backing up in other books. It has a young GK>earth. There is more but these are the main differences. Since when does God have to play to mans rules? Besides, you are mistaken, physical evidence abounds in proof of Biblical facts. Most secular Scientist are just too eager to prove what they believe to be true that they "overlook" the evidence in favor of far-flung theory. If you want to talk about evolution, it is rediculous. There is more proof against this theory than for it. How then can man be so foolish as to teach this as FACT in our school systems???? ----------- Where does the physical evidence exist for a six day creation, animals without ancestors, or a world wide flood? Evolution is just another way of saying "descent with modification". The structure and distribution of living things and the nature of the fossil record supports evolution as a validated theory. Creationism was assumed by scientists before the middle 1800s but there was just too much evidence found against it to continue to hold that viewpoint. What evidence can you produce to deny descent with modification? Descent means biological continuity and modification means mutation plus natural selection. Both of these processes are repeatedly demonstrated in nature and in the laboratory. Try a biology book or an encyclopedia for more proofs than I have room for here. ===================== Just curious Graham, as the purpose of this echo is for the discussion of the bible and bible doctrines, your posts seems quite out of context. I understand that you profess to be an athiest, though I fail to understand how anyone with education could defend that position, however the question of why you post here seems difficult to understand. Could you elucidate? Also, what is the basis for atheism? It certainly hasn't a scientific grounding, in fact it seems rather subjective. ----------- Science says nothing directly for or against the reality and nature of deities. However, science can provide data allowing us to judge many of the stories in the Bible, like those in Genesis. It has repeatedly shown that many of the ideas of the ancient Hebrews were not scientifically valid, but instead, reflected a primative pre-scientific viewpoint. If the foundation stories like a six day creation and a world wide flood were mistaken, then possibly the theological assumptions like the reality and nature of God might also be mistaken. There seems to be nothing which supports the reality of a deity except the writings of the Hebrews. Since it has no predictive value, then logically, it is excess baggage. Other peoples have other deities. If you count all of the deities of all peoples, past and present, you get a large number, say a thousand. You disbelieve in 999 deities and I disbelieve in one more than that. I am replying privately as the moderator is opposed to a defense of modern science in this echo. ===================== EVOLUTION: HOW FIRM A FOUNDATION? Part 1 Professor Louis Bouroune, former Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, as quoted in The Advocate March, 1984 "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. It has helped nothing in the progress of science." Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard University, as quoted in the May 1977 Natural History, Vol. 86 "We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve out favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study"... "The family trees which adorn our textbooks are based on inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Professor of Anthropology Loren Eiseley, in "The Immense Journey" (Random House Publishing 1955) "With the failure of many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own: namely, the assumption that what, ,after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Albert Fleishman, Professor of Comparative Anatomy at Earlangen University as quoted in "Victoria Institute" Volume 65 "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Stephen J. Gould Natural History Vol. 93; Feb. 1984 "I regard the failure to find a clear vector of p." Arthur Koestler, in "Janus: A Summing Up" (Vintage Books, 1978) "In the meantime, the educated public lieve that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magical formula of random mutations plus natural selection, quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology." J.T.Bonner reviewing a book entitled "The General Theory of Evolution", in Science Vol.133 March 1961 "This is a book with a disturbing message; it points to some ,unseemly cracks in the foundations. One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. ...The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other group..We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statements on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." Canadian geologist, the late Sir William Dawson, in his work, "Story of the Earth and Man" wrote; "It (evolution) is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is utterly destitute of proof." Astronomer Fred Hoyle in his book "The Intelligent Universe" "...as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life could not have arisen by chance." L. Charles Bircasis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency our ability to perceive the history of life with clarity as it has interfered with our ability to see one anoth K. Hsu prot at the Geological Institute at Zurich as quoted in Geology 532,534 (1986) "We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry: The emperor has no clothes." Pierre-Paul Grasse, former President of the French Academy of Sciences, in a work entitled "Evolution of Living Organisms 202" (1977) "...the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved." Professor Lovtrup, zoophysiologist at University of Umea (Sweden)in his work "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth" (1987) "..to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned? I think the answer to this question is that current evolutionists follow Darwin's example..they refuse to accept falsifying evidence." --------------- Reply How many of these people you quote believe in animals without ancestors, as reflected in their professional writings? If they accept biological continuity over a period of billions of years, then evolution is the ONLY logical possibility. The central idea in biology is the changes in past ages which brought forth our present species, which did not exist in former ages. There is no other reason why modern birds carry the genes for teeth, which NEVER express themselves in any modern species but are present in extinct fossil species, like the Archeopteryx. Why do whale fetuses of the Whalebone whale species develop teeth which then dissolve before birth? Why does a certain species of beetle have wings under permanetly sealed outer wing covers? Why do cave creatures have functionless eyes? Why is there an apparent family tree found in the fossil record and the comparison of living things, leading back to single cell life in the pre-Cambrian age? What is the source of the vast numbers of extinct fossils in the geological formations and a complete lack of any modern species in the Paleozoic Era? Why do humans have 98% identical heredity shared with the chimps? What these experts are saying is that many of the mechanisms of evolution are presently unknown, not that the processes of evolution do not occur. If you read the professional literature, you will find universally that the FACT of evolution is accepted, however much disagreement there is about the MECHANISMS involved. =================== GK>If you study the history of the development of science, the main theme is the GK>gradual elimination of theological aspects to GK>scientific theories. Only after this elimination was it possible to develop GK>the modern systems of thought, which are totaly independent of any theology, GK>Christian or otherwise. It appears to me that what you are saying here is that the goal of science is to dispel any belief in the existence of a Creator. It may have done this for you, as for me, it has not. The Bible even trys to warn us that these things will happen (long before your "science" even existed) but so many "scientists" refuse to believe that anything exists which they cannot explain through their limited knowledge and understanding. If you would drop your "cloak" of science, and study *ALL* of the Bible with an open mind and heart (heart meaning the entirety of your being), you just might come to understand that GOD exists and "science" has been misleading us all along. Although I'm not a scientist, I am also no idiot. There is ample evidence available in numerous volumes to, at the very least, place a high degree of doubt on your claims and your position. It is only the *blindness* of those whose minds are set against GOD which prevents them from seeing and knowing HIM. You say you have read Dr. Ross' book and you agree with his "science" yet you state that he is wrong concerning GOD. How do you reconcile Einstein's last theory which involved an "expanding and decellarating universe" concept which Dr. Ross uses to show that since even science tells us that if something is slowing and expanding, which goes hand in hand with the given that it must have been going faster and used to be smaller, therefore, according to science, it had a beginning. And even science tells us that,if something has a beginning, it had to have had a beginner. I'll grant you that I do not have a great deal of knowledge concerning science, but I do know that GOD **DOES** exist and that HE **DOES** love all of us, and HE **DOES** desire for us to turn to HIM and HE **WILL** lead us into all Truth. Please read the Bible with an open mind* Just JESUS & me against the world? When do WE attack???? -------------- reply You did not have to tell me that you are not a scientist. It is obvious from your messages. If you are not trained in the subject, then your opinions on the subject would have minimal value. Scientists did not have a goal of destroying theology, that is just a byproduct of the discovery of new facts. Many of the early scientists who discovered these facts which refute theology were Christains themselves who were often disturbed by the conflict, but had the honesty to go with the evidence, even if it was contrary to the writings of the ancient Hebrews. Science says nothing one way or the other about deities, but finds theology useless in describing physical reality. I have read the Bible and found too many internal and external problems to consider it more than a purely human work containing both truth and error. I found a man two years older than his father, a fire breathing monster, animals without ancestors, the sun going around a flat motionless earth, standing still and even backing up. All this I found unworthy of belief. Which scientific ideas do you find so unbelievable and on what evidence? Modern cosmology does NOTHING to support your theology. The big bang apparent originated in random quantum fluctuation, and was in no way CAUSED in the scientific sense. No Beginner is logically required. Ross assumes Christian theology, as a matter of faith. He does not derive it from observations on physical reality by the community of scholors. Ross' science is derived from the findings of the scientific community. The two ideas are in completely different catagories, even though he wishes to make people believe they are equally based in externally validated evidence by including them in the same book. I am replying privately as the moderator is opposed to a defense of modern science in this echo. ============= GK> You are obviously not trained in scientific thought. GK> The scientific "problems" you propose do not exist. The geologist see GK> NO physical evidence of a Noah type flood. Check the professional GK> literature on that point. The Encyclopedia Brit. under GENESIS states GK> the Flood was not histoorical. There is not enough water and no GK> mechanism for disposing of it. The ark stories are just stories by GK> people of faith. Dear Graham, I found your comments interesting but lacking in research. You seem to be of the opinion that Christian evanglicals have neither access or interest in scientific data. Perhaps you feel that we have blindly avoided the facts. If you are interested in an objective, open-minded discussion on the proofs of evolution verses the proofs of creation, I think you might be suprised to find that the scientific evidence will tip the scale in favour of the latter. for instance, regarding geology if there is no physical evidence of a global flood- 1.Why is the earth's outer crust 60-70% sedimentary in composition? 2.Why do we find mass graves of animals who have been instantly buried alive? 3.Why do we find fossils of sea shells on top of some of the earth's highest mountains? As far as the ark itself, in this century alone there are overwhelming amounts of eyewitness accounts of sitings of the ark on Mt.Ararat. In the 1900's a whole platoon of the Russian army measured, blue-printed and photographed a large wooden structure, resembling the ark of the Bible, on Mt.Ararat. Their has even been satellite pictures taken of what seems to be the remnants of a rectangular object. As for the Bible itself, it stands up to the test of historical precision. Their has never been an archeological find which has disproved its accuracy. -------- reply The sedimentary origin of the outer crust is derived from events of numerous geological periods, not a single recent event. The complexity and physical structure along with the vast numbers of extinct fossil species proves they were deposited over great periods of time. Fossilization usually involves rapid burial to prevent destruction by living organisms and physical processes. The vast numbers of extinct species proves these did not have a recent origin. The processes which produce mountains involves the motion of vast crustal plates. Their collision produces uplift and old ocean beds, with fossils, can be lifted to form high mountain ranges. The top of Mt. Everest is composed of marine limestone from the collision of India with Asia. There once was a great body of water between them called the Tethys Sea. The reports of Ark findings have one thing in common, a total lack of physical evidence. The faithful have seen Arks all over the mountain and even 50 miles away on the plains. Apparently, the whole area is one vast Ark parking lot, if all of the stories are to be believed. Do some arithmetic to see how much water it would take to flood the earth to the highest mountains tops. The 5.5 miles deep value is three times more water than the total volume of all the oceans. There is no source for such a quantity in earth or sky and no way to eliminate it. The atmosphere can only hold one inch of water on the average. There geological community are in universal agreement that there was no universal flood as it is physically and historically impossible. End**************************************************************************