BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 12:14 AM

Gee, floods in more than one part of the world. What a surprise. Surely this proves that there was a worldwide flood. Also that there was a lost continent named Atlantis.

Oh wait, I see erbert already got that one.

I just think of there were a single world-wide flood event, there might be some indication of it in something. Rock formations. Fossils. Something.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: LadyJean
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 12:29 AM

The section of Kentucky where this is going on went from being Appalachia to being a suburb of Cincinnatti in 20 years. That's a lot of change for people.

It means the area is more prosperous. People have better jobs. Programs were set up in the sixties to help them prepare for those jobs. But most of the locals knowledge is practical. The big bang theory and Darwinian evolution may be science, but they are not really practical.

When the world changes as rapidly as ours does, it's natural for people to need to bellieve in something. I think this explains the rise of fundamentalism in so many religious communities today.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 12:39 AM

errmmm.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1768109.stm ????

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: kendall
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 07:47 AM

Religion has two enemies: Logic and reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 08:35 AM

There is clearly no shortage of "a belief in a God" worldwide (much to the dismay of non believers).

The biggest enemy of religion is (mans) organized religion itself. What disbelievers call a lack of "reason and logic"...in a God belief...is a minor factor (if one at all) amongst believers. This seems to be a "frequent frustration" amongst some non believers (though some claim the contrary).

It's a "God belief puzzle" that keeps on giving.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 09:26 AM

As I've said before, is religion compatible with a belief in God?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 09:50 AM

"Religion" may or may not include a belief in God, a god, or a variety of gods.

"Religion" may have nothing to do with God, a god, or many gods, but may instead have to do with moral codes and philosophical outlooks and ideas about health and proper (or wise) conduct.

Buddhism is thought of as a religion. It does not posit a god.

Taoism is a bit like a religion, but it's really a naturalistic philosophy of harmonious living and conduct. It does not posit a god.

Hinduism at the primitive level posits many gods and other spiritual beings...but at the more advanced level it posits something indefinable which cannot be described as a god at all...and it is clear at the more advanced level of Hinduism that the many gods and goddesses featured in primitive Hinduism are merely symbols or archetypes of various aspects of reality, and are not to be taken literally, but allegorically.

The North American Indian religions did not posit a god, but they did use the term "Great Spirit" to label the spirit that they felt inhabited all existence and every living thing. I don't think that's a god...it's an underlying principle.

People should look a bit deeper into all this stuff before tossing out glib assumptions which only skate around on the surface of it, but never look any further.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 10:22 AM

" ... the many gods and goddesses featured in primitive Hinduism are merely symbols or archetypes of various aspects of reality ... "

Isn't this also true of Christianity with its: God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost (and the Virgin Mary if you're a Catholic?).

By the way, what is the 'Holy Ghost' supposed to be? This puzzled me as a child: God was an old man and Jesus was younger and had a white robe, a beard and long hair ... but the HG was just a vague blur. In fact it is still is a vague blur to me as an adult. I tried looking it up but didn't understand the answer (but then perhaps the 'answer' was really just a lot of hand waving!?).

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 10:40 AM

well,has,nt this thread taken off.i wonder if it,s just because someone,s posted who happens to believe the bible..where do i start?
not that i can answer every question and challenge but i can recommend a site that probably covers most-but the hallowed "scientific community"would not entertain answers that threaten their own position!

first to don,whom i very much like despite rubbishing my beliefs.you know very well i dont believe in evolutionism and millenia of uniformitarian change-but at least you have,nt objected to me singing"too much monkey business"-as far as i know!

bill-i am sure there were no suicide bombers on the ark!
"making the evidence fit"can be laid at evolutionists doors also and is assertion proving nothing-except you know how to play to the crowd.
not sure why you are sure there were higher mountains previously but i think that is not entirely relevant.genesis does say every mountain was covered but the waters were in recession when the ark rested in the ararat region.
all that water?the text does mention the "fountains of the great deep"breaking forth.the topology of the earth was likely changed after such earth breaking catastrophe.

little hawk-i am aware of other flood stories.as you concede;they tend to confirm the event,though not the details.

mousethief-i cant be technical myself but i understand the creationist position is that most of the fossils come from the flood,formed by rapid burial,which is also an explanation of why all the intermediate fossils that darwin expected to be unearthed are still scarce.

well,ithink thats enough to get blasted for!.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 10:57 AM

every fossil is an intermediate one

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 11:06 AM

"People should look a bit deeper into all this stuff before tossing out glib assumptions which only skate around on the surface of it, but never look any further".

I suspect most know of what you post LH,(the wide scope of world religions, now and in the past), as this topic has been beaten to death by a few in the many previous threads. Most of it is repetition anyway.

My observation is most people here "mostly" tend to refer to Christianity, and related religions...which seem to make most of the news in the western world.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 11:10 AM

'Holy Ghost'
I believe RCs now call this the Holy Spirit....unless I missed something in church as a child. (But, I believe Anglicans and some other churches still use the term). Possibly because children were frightened by ghosts? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 11:13 AM

"every fossil is an intermediate one"

An interesting perspective. Maybe so. I am not sure.

Does that include both theist and atheist fossils, or only one of them?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Stu
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 11:27 AM

"which is also an explanation of why all the intermediate fossils that darwin expected to be unearthed are still scarce."

They're not scarce at all - plenty of transitional fossils if you know where to look.

This is a comma: ,

This is an apostrophe: '

This is a capital letter: I

This is an evil fantasy: Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 12:28 PM

Pete...
"..making the evidence fit"can be laid at evolutionists doors also"

No, it cannot...honest, competent scientists do not do this. All scientists like to be the ones to discover a nice 'new' bit of data and construct a theory which brings them recognition and status....but MOST of them are willing to change when MORE 'new' data is uncovered. A little reading will show you which ones do and which do not, and allow you to follow the advance of honest science.
   This is in stark contrast to the model you and other devoted 'believers' present, where 'new scientific data' is merely dismissed or re-interpreted to 'fit' the model you already believe ...based on one of many translations of arbitrarily selected ancient manuscripts.
The idea that "·.most of the fossils come from the flood,formed by rapid burial,..." is one perfect example of that. If you understand anything about science, you will realize it-just-doesn't-work-that-way. Read about The Burgess Shale, a deposit of fossils high in the Canadian Rockies which are older and stranger than anything else on Earth...THEN tell me again how they were just deposited "by the flood".

You say "...not sure why you are sure there were higher mountains previously but i think that is not entirely relevant.genesis does say every mountain was covered but the waters were in recession ..."

It is relevant because IF every mountain was covered, it indicates there was enough water to be 30,000 ft. deep all over the Earth. IF every mountain was NOT covered, then many people and animals would have had places of refuge. Ararat is 12,872 ft....Mt. Everest is 29,000 ft....more than double. Calculate how much extra water would be involved.
".. the "fountains of the great deep" breaking forth. is nothing but a flowery phrase...neither you nor anyone else can explain what that might mean...except by shrugging and saying "God can do anything he pleases.."

It's all very well to look at the vast, amazing universe and say, "There must be a Supreme Being who started all this" and decided how it would all work. No one can disprove it...but it's quite another thing to dispute known, obvious facts discovered by science because some writer of some old manuscript made some vague remark about "the "fountains of the great deep" breaking forth."
   Think about who SAYS that these old documents were 'inspired by God'!! If **I** wanted to start a religion and/or direct one, wouldn't *I* claim that my visions came directly from "on high"?

Pete... it is not my purpose to disprove your belief in God, or to suggest that there are not many important and valuable lessons to be found in the Bible. All *I* wish to do is suggest that 'faith' does NOT have to be so rigid as to deny obvious facts about how the world works...which may well be how God intended for it to work. If you are correct about God's gifts to us, one of them was 'free will' and the intelligence to use it to explore and learn and change as we learn more. I do not think a 'God' would expect his creations to blindly accept ONE version of religion written by our fallible ancestors thousands of years ago and carelessly translated by other fallible scribes who had political & cultural motives.

   There ARE many honest, believing Christians who can reconcile their faith with the amazing things science is finding everyday....

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 12:41 PM

kat... *grin*..."your bit about "I think" reminds me of a phrase my old sales manager came up with when asking us for our sales projections..."

Yep... I worked briefly in a software company where we were asked annually to 'project' what we would 'accomplish' in the next year. It was a given that the 'benchmarks' and 'targets' were little more than psychological carrot hanging in front of us donkeys....but no one ever admitted this out loud.
I see the point in "positive thinking", but I found I simply could not work in a business where artificial goals were constantly created, like 'the Emperor's new clothes' and treated as reasonable plans, when EVERYONE knew that almost all target goals slipped.

Unfortunately, in business, politics....and religion... much of the structure seems to depend on self-deception in order to have the will to struggle on in the face of the obvious impracticability of much of it. (Like the mortgage crisis happened in business)

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 02:26 PM

Bill said "How could that be when considering a fairly sudden happening? Even the end of an ice age and melting of glaciers would take many years and only raise total sea level a couple of feet." It could be successfully argued, and this based on geological study, that such an increase could easily have caused a build up of pressure and weakening of land structure between two bodies of water of differing volume, or between a large body of water and a large basin, so that the natural dam structure might breach and cause a massive flooding of the adjacent area.
Additionally, the great cataclysm that destroyed most of the Mycenean culture in ancient times, probably a huge event of volcanic origin, caused massive flooding throughout the Mediterranean, and is used by believers in the existance and destruction of Atlantis as a possible cause.
Such events, although extremely rare, could easily have embedded themselves in the oral history of many cultures, and become embroidered with unlikely detail and principle players over the thousands of years since their occurence.
So, I believe Little Hawk is right in saying there may very well have been a great flood event that is the root of the ark story. The balance of the story, with Ararat, animals by twos, God's blueprint for the ark, was invented as a means of explaining that event, and using it to support the storyteller's agenda. In that way, nothing has really changed, has it?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: kendall
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 03:00 PM

What Ark? The coffee house in Ann Arbor? I know that one is real because I performed there.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 04:00 PM

To quote, "Creationism is not only bad science, it's bad theology".

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 04:13 PM

I have no problem with Creationism as a philosophy, but since there is no actual scientific evidence for it, it does not belong in a science class. I disagree that it is bad theology, unless one is stuck on literal interpretations.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 04:16 PM

bill-i read articles on burgess shale.not quite laymans reading and i missed what your point was i,m sorry to say.
however i did find it simpler on creation.com,which also noted that[some?]scientists have done an about face,now conceding that the soft body parts were fossilized rapidly.
as you may guess i,m no scientist,but i know a few who are,and dont accept evolutionism.they seem generally more willing to debate the issues than evolutionists are on equal terms-unless you know otherwise.
thanks for mountain statistics.i take you point,though not your conclusion.
i am quite aware that many christians do accept evolutionism but have to compromise the bible to do so IMO.That of course is a theological discussion which i would presume you have little interest in

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 04:21 PM

if believing the bible is bad theology,i stand guilty as charged-not to mention not a few famous scientists in history!.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 04:31 PM

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them".

The Westminster Confession of Faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 04:33 PM

Noah's ark near main entrance

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 04:43 PM

'Evolutionism'?

Is that a new word you dreamed up, all by yourself, unaided 'GUEST, pete from seven stars link'?

Careful! Reading a book, other than 'A Simple, Literal-Minded Idiot's Guide to the Bible', could be the next step on the slippery slope to understanding the world around you ... and damnation!!!!

" ... i did find it simpler on creation.com,which also noted that[some?]scientists have done an about face,now conceding that the soft body parts were fossilized rapidly."

I trust you'll be following the above quote up with a full set of relevant references from the current paleaontological literature? When can we expect you to post them?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 06:24 PM

[b]every fossil is an intermediate one [/b]

Reminds me of a joke. To a creationist, of course, between every two fossils thought to be in evolutionary succession is an inexplicable "gap". Hence: A fossil is found that is intermediate to two fossils believed to be in an evolutionary line. Scientist headline: "Intermediary Fossil Found." Creationist headline: "Two New Gaps Found."

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 07:51 PM

as you may guess i,m no scientist,but i know a few who are
Not good enough, I'm afraid. Relatively few people are scientists-by-employment, but you can still take a scientific approach to thinking about problems. If you believe something - anything at all actually - ask yourself why. Is it based on measurements, which you can either repeat or cross check with other people who have made similar measurements, or is it based on what someone has said. If its the latter, it's no good as science, whether it is by your local guru or Richard Dawkins.

I don't believe everything can be answered by science even in principle, by the way, but the "I'm no X" line is no justification for failing to try, whether X is 'scientist', 'historian', 'artist' or anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:10 AM

I've just re-read what I wrote above and see that I followed If you believe something ... ask yourself why with I don't believe everything can be answered by science even in principle. So I suppose I am duty bound to explain why I believe that! To cut a very long story short, Hilbert, Gödel, Mandelbrot and in a slightly different way computational theory's NP-complete and even Riemann's geometry all show limitations of what is possible in mathematics. Not stuff we don't know: stuff whose unknowability is woven in the fabric of mathematics itself. And since mathematics is at the heart of science, there is by implication equivalent limits to science. However, this may not be significant. To use an analogy: think of the real world as a table and mathematics as a table-cloth. Even though the table cloth has edges it could still be big enough to cover the table. Alternatively it can fail to cover it to a greater or lesser extent. Whether the 'mathematical tablecloth' is big enough to cover the table that is the 'real world' is not something I know, and may only be knowable via an example where it does not. The chaotic behaviour of things like waterflow, though, make me suspect the table cloth is too small.

So that's why I think there are limits to science. But that does not deny the usefulness of science or the value of taking a scientific approach to life in general. Moreover, I also think that a Christian is under a specific obligation to do so. Mark says that when Christ was asked what was the greatest commandment he said "you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all you strength". Now, this is almost, but not quite, a quotation from Deuteronomy: the importance is that Christ adds in the specific instruction to use 'all your mind' which was not in the Old Testament. So it seems to me that for a Christian to deliberately decline to use whatever mental abilities they have to the best of their abilities is to deliberately avoid following what has been identified as a key part of the greatest commandment. And if that doesn't constitute sinful behaviour, I don't know what does.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 07:59 AM

Feed a cold, starve a fever, argue with no true believer.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 11:21 AM

just because i confess my limitations does not mean i do nil reading on the subject.granted much of that is from a creationist perspective-though not exclusively so.i suspect most evolutionists dont read creationist scientists much either,though i have read some sites that do; in an attempt to discredit them.
i dont know if i thought up the word or read it,but seems to be the opposite of "creationism"and therefore a valid use.

i like to think,kendal,that i,m not arguing but giving as much reason as i am able for my position,and i hope respectfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Rumncoke
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 11:26 AM

It wasn't two of everything - of the 'clean' beasts it was seven.

Read the book - two of some, but seven of others.

Not that I believe the interpretion is anything but a myth, but to argue well it is best to know what you're arguing about.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 11:32 AM

ref requested. shimrod
journal of the geological society165(1):307-318 jan2008.
i,m sure if you try,you can find something else to mock,bless you.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Stu
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 11:57 AM

"creationist scientists"

An oxymoron, surely?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Stu
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 12:20 PM

Pete - I'm not sure why you're using Gabbott et al's paper as a supporting argument for a flood. The taphonomy of the Burgess Shale (as with many lagerstatten) are often the subject of constant revisions and I cannot see how the rapid burial of these organisms in underwater debris flows is evidence for a flood.

From creation.com:

"To preserve such features, it is obvious that the creature needs to be buried quickly. Not just that, but the enclosing sediment needs to harden fairly quickly. If it stayed soft and unconsolidated for years, the fact that oxygen, moisture and bacteria could easily access the carcass means that one would very quickly have a disintegrated, stinking mess. To try to imitate how such features as scales and fins can possibly be preserved, the best experimental analogy would be to bury a fish rapidly in wet cement!"

This is ignorant, utterly wrong and a crass generalisation. Even someone with the most basic palaeontological knowledge understands that fossilisation depends on innumerable variables, and no two formations will ever be the same. Also, to suggest the detail present in all fossils is the result of rapid burial is ludicrous - ever heard of dessication?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 12:30 PM

I believe there was a flood alright, but it didn't cover the whole world. There are so many things we like to believe that just didn't happen.
The gun fight at the OK corral didn't happen there either.

Columbus was not the first white man to find America, and, he never set foot on the American continent either.

Did Davey Crockett kill a Bear when he was three? ridiculous. He wasn't born on a mountain top either.

Steven Foster was homeless when he wrote My Old Kentucky Home.

Give me ambiguity or something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 01:25 PM

OuCh! kendall, how dare you attack the sacred Davy Crockett story! Do you realize what you are doing in questioning such things??? The happiness of uncounted children depends upon having faith in Davy's ability to slay grizzly b'ars at the age of 3, not to mention his mother's uncanny ability to give birth on the topmost point of a mountain in Tenessee. These things were ordained by the elders of yore, they were further endorsed by Disney, and they should NEVER be doubted for a moment!

Repent of your sins and recant, brother! (or face eternal damnation)

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 01:42 PM

Ah, Davy Crockett. He was still "young" when he died at the Alamo at the age of c48!

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 02:03 PM

Passion Pit of Palin...Chaney's Undisclosed Location...spot on, Donuel!!

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 03:17 PM

Just as a point of interest, here's an article that summarizes the Biblical account of Noah's Ark:

Noah and the Ark

That should provide some more good argument fodder. ;-)

It's interesting that it says that Noah was instructed to take aboard seven of every "clean" animal, but only two of every "unclean" animal. ??? Which animals were considered clean? I assume that pigs and birds, for example, were considered unclean? But goats and cows were clean? What about dogs, cats, mice, snakes, etc?

So where would kangaroos or polar bears or racoons fall in that system? And how would Noah have sourced those kangaroos or polar bears or racoons, either two or seven of each? Were kangaroos, polar bears, and racoons common in Noah's part of the globe at that time? I don't think so! There is no mention of them in any writings of the ancient Israelites.

Ah, yes....much there for the literal Bible reader to ponder, isn't there? If he is willing to...

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 03:32 PM

Whoo-Wee! Here's another page explaining the traditional Bible story about Noah and the Ark, and this one's really dramatic:

Read all about it! Enjoy....


One has to wonder how it could ever be that there was just ONE man on the entire face of the globe who was pleasing to God? God must have been very, very demanding of people to be that particular. Also, the fact that Noah was pleasing to God seems to have made his entire family also pleasing to God simply by default....all his relatives. How could that be? One gets the impression that the only person who actually mattered in that kind of a social system was the ruling patriarch of the family...and if he was acceptable to God, by golly, then all his family members were too. Or were they just his possessions? His chattels?

To use a common expression, I thank God that we (in most places) do NOT live under such a dominant patriarchal order at the present time. It would be truly awful.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 03:43 PM

"...his mother's uncanny ability to give birth on the topmost point of a mountain in Tenessee." LH

That's where you are assuming too much, Little Hawk. Crocket's mother *wasn't* on the mountaintop but Davy, being ever the remarkable child, *was*. I don't understand why that concept is so hard to grasp.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 03:49 PM

Aha!!! You may be right, Ebbie. I have to give that some thought.

The other thing that people probably don't realize is that the bear Davy "kilt" when he was only three was also only three...three days old, that is! That's why he was able to kill that little bear. Even so, it shows remarkable initiative for a three-year-old to kill a bear at any age and it was touch and go for a bit there, so no reason not to put Davy up on the pedestal where he rightly belongs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 03:56 PM

"I believe there was a flood alright, but it didn't cover the whole world."- Captain Morse

Consider that this may have happened 12,000 years BC. What constituted "the World" at that time? In Western tradition at least, the World was chiefly the area of the Mediterranean, and some river valleys extending beyond into the interior, which could well have been inundated.
This web site states the case for a massive Mediterranean in-flooding in brief and clear terms.
No, I am not making an argument for Noah or the Ark or the Bible, but simply stating that many myth stories grew out of the cultural recollection of critical events.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:28 PM

LH, don't get me started, there were and are no Grizzly Bears in Tennessee.

Davey was 50 when he snuffed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: kendall
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:33 PM

And furthermore, black eyes peas are not peas at all. They are beans. So there.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:54 PM

kendall, you are definitely an apostate of the most unspeakable sort, and I shudder to think what ghastly fate awaits you in the hereafter. ;-)

LEJ - Excellent reference! That may indeed be the source of the Great Flood story that eventually got re-percolated through various ancient cultures, got picked up and adapted by the Isrealites into their own traditions, and finally written down as the story that appears in the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:57 PM

Black Eyed Susie, though, was she a pea or a bean, clean or unclean, born on top of a grizzly bear in Tenessee, or inundated in 12000BC?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 08:35 PM

So, Davy Crockett was born at the age of 48 on top of Mount Arrarat in Tennessee, having already killed a bear......

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 09:41 PM

LH, that was one of the Bible Stories for Children offered at that website! Chilling!

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Lox
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 09:46 PM

100