It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wek'-wek returned to Tu'-le-yo'-me and presently saw Sah'-te come and go north again toward Clear Lake. Wek'-wek wanted to find out where Sah'-te lived, so he went up to Clear Lake and at the head of Sulphurbank Bay he found Sah'-te's lah'-mah (roundhouse). He said to himself, "Now I've got you," and went into Sah'-te's house. But Sah'-te was not at home. Wek'-wek looked around and saw a great quantity of hoo'-yah, the shell beads or money. It was in skin sacks. He took these sacks--ten or twelve of them--and emptied the shell money out on a bear skin robe and packed it on his head back to Tu'-le-yo'-me. But he did not take it in to show his grandfather; he hid it in a small creek near by and did not say anything about it.
When Sah'-te came home he found that his beads were gone. "Who stole my beads?" he asked.
He then took his yah'-tse [the stick the people used to wear crossways in a twist of their back hair] and stood it up in the fire, and oo'-loop the flame climbed it and stood on the top. He then
took the yah'-tse with the flame at one end and said he would find out who stole his shell money. First he pointed it to the north, but nothing happened; then to the west, and nothing happened; then east; then up; then down, and still nothing happened. Then he pointed it south toward Tu'-le-yo'-me and the flame leaped from the stick and spread swiftly down the east side of Lower Lake, burning the grass and brush and making a great smoke.
In the evening Wek'-wek came out of the roundhouse at Tu'-le-yo'-me and saw the country to the north on fire. He went in and told his grandfather that something was burning on Clear Lake.
Ol'-le the Coyote-man answered, "That's nothing; the people up there are burning tules."
Ol'-le knew what Wek'-wek had done, and knew that Sah'-te had sent the fire, for Ol'-le was a magician and knew everything, but he did not tell Wek'-wek that he knew.
After a while Wek'-wek came out again and looked at the fire and saw that it was much nearer and was coming on swiftly. He was afraid, and went back and told his grandfather that the fire was too near and too hot and would soon reach them. After a little he went out again and came back and said, "Grandfather, the fire is coming fast; it is on this side of the lake and is awfully hot."
Ol'-le answered, "That's nothing; the people at Lower Lake are burning tules."
But now the roar and heat of the fire were terrible, even inside the roundhouse, and Wek'-wek thought they would soon burn. He was so badly frightened that he told his grandfather what he had done. He said, "Grandfather, I stole Sah'-te's hoo'-yah and put it in the creek, and now I'm afraid we shall burn."
Then Ol'-le took a sack and came out of the roundhouse and struck the sack against an oak tree, and fog came out. He struck the tree several times and each time more fog came out and spread around.
Then he went back in the house and got another sack and beat the tree, and more fog came, and then rain. He said to Wek'-wek, "It is going to rain for ten days and ten nights." And it did rain, and the rain covered the whole country till all the land and all the hills and all the mountains were under water--everything except the top of Oo-de'-pow-we (Mount Konokti, on the west side of Clear Lake) which was so high that its top stuck out a little.
There was no place for Wek'-wek to go and he flew about in the rain till he was all tired out. Finally he found the top of Oo-de'-pow-we and sat down on it and stayed there.
On the tenth day the rain stopped, and after that the water began to go down and each day the mountain stood up higher.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The scientific method? No one has used that for any of the guesswork involved in much geological study. When there can be no observation, there can be no claim that the scientific method was used. Scientists cannot observe long term geological events. Plenty of scientists do believe the evidence supports a global flood, and dismissing them out of hand isn't reasonable. Nor is claiming their work isn't "real science".
You brought up the scientific method, and now you complain when it's pointed out that it cannot be used for such work? Observation is key. Surely you can do better than that.
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: CryHavoc
Can you provide more data on tha impact crater?
Pics or Google cordinates or both or anything please?
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The scientific method? No one has used that for any of the guesswork involved in much geological study.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes When there can be no observation, there can be no claim that the scientific method was used. Scientists cannot observe long term geological events.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes Plenty of scientists do believe the evidence supports a global flood, and dismissing them out of hand isn't reasonable. Nor is claiming their work isn't "real science".
originally posted by: Barcs
You just proved my point. You don't get your science from scientific papers and research, and don't even understand what an "observation" is in science. Observation does not necessarily mean observing an event in real time. We can observe the fossil record to learn about the past. Hilarious that you believe the breakdown of isotopes is guesswork when it is measured and documented to be consistent with the rate that we have observed. Can you prove dating methods are unscientific or provide any evidence that you keep claiming supports a global flood?
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That isn't the case at all. You claim that I don't use certain sources, and don't understand things, but that is your opinion only, and not fact. Claiming that the opposition doesn't understand anything is a poor tactic. If that is the best you can do, then don't expect a response after this.
You just proved my point. You don't get your science from scientific papers and research, and don't even understand what an "observation" is in science. Observation does not necessarily mean observing an event in real time. We can observe the fossil record to learn about the past. Hilarious that you believe the breakdown of isotopes is guesswork when it is measured and documented to be consistent with the rate that we have observed. Can you prove dating methods are unscientific?
Sorry, AIG is not a science site nor is their research backed by experiments. If you believe they are, then link me to the science itself. You pretty much just proved my point by citing a religious biased website rather than actual scientific research. Try again. Link the peer reviewed papers that back your "facts" above. Thanks.
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Barcs
AIG is not the ones who conducted the tests. Apparently you did not read the source as the experiments were definitely conducted by qualified scientists of whom Dr. Steve Austin has over eight research papers.
There are two possible reasons that the old dates were returned. The first has to do with the reason Geocron's equipment was considered useful only for high concentrations of argon. There would always be a certain amount of argon inside the mass spectrometer left over from previous experiments. If the sample being tested is old enough to have significant argon, this leftover contamination would be statistically insignificant; so this was OK for Geocron's normal purposes. But for a sample with little or no argon, it would produce a falsely old result. This was undoubtedly a factor in Dr. Austin's results.
The second possibility is that so-called "excess argon" could have become trapped in the Mount St. Helens magma. This is where we find the bulk of the confusing complexity in Austin's paper and in those of his critics. The papers all go into great detail describing the various ways that argon-containing compounds can be incorporated into magma. These include the occlusion of xenoliths and xenocrysts, which are basically contaminants from existing old rocks that get mixed in with the magma; and phenocrysts, which are crystals of all sorts of different minerals that form inside the rock in different ways depending on how quickly the magma cools. 95% of these papers are geological jargon that will make your head spin: Page after page of chemical compositions, mineral breakdowns, charts and graphs, and all sorts of discussion of practically every last molecule found in the Mount St. Helens dacite.
By the way Peer Review is nothing but bought referees and are still under investigation for fraud. You know, the good ole boy system which bilked billions from the Al Gore global warming fiasco. Peer Reviewed by bought referees? Austin, De Young, Snelling, Humphreys and hundreds more are as reliable as secular referees in the peer review racket. You do need to read both side of scientific facts.
All the author did was report the findings of independent sources. Facts are facts regardless of who presents the facts.
I thought that was what this forum was . Isn't this forum a religious forum and isn't that what was presented?
I do not expect a bunch of secular clubbers to acknowledge that they are as wrong as wrong can be. Peer reviews are as political and faulty as their original global warming which they bilked in the billions of bucks.
Need some facts? Science is ever correcting it's secular university hog wash and that is why the U.S. is a world failure. Some where in the neighborhood of 27th internationally. There is your proof.
originally posted by: Barcs
Where's the hard evidence?
originally posted by: Sun Matrix
It's hard to find a culture without a flood story........Noah is the real deal.
originally posted by: CherubBaby
Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.
originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Flood myths are almost universal, and the one of the Miao people in China has preserved the names of all the patriarchs of Genesis PHONETICALLY for all those centuries. Yes, they got the names of Noah, his wife, and his sons all correct, sounding more than merely recognizable. I can't buy the local flood theories - I mean there were and are local floods, but the big one is preserved in the entire sedimentary layers around the world. You can interpret them as laid down during millions of years if you want, but I think rapid deposition is at least a valid an interpretation.
"And the odds become even longer that Noah's Flood is not an historical fact when one considers the hundreds of tribes from around the world that have ancestral knowledge of the global Flood. And yet, we are expected to ignore this overwhelming evidence because it contradicts current mainstream science and archaeology.
Hundreds of tribal legends and ancient accounts from Egypt, Babylon, and the Indus confirm the account of Noah's Flood from the book of Genesis. These tribes and ancient cultures obviously had no interest in copying a Hebrew account about a global Flood, therefore, all of these accounts must have been independently derived by the various people-groups' ancestors from the eight who were on the vessel that endured the global Flood. When the eight reproduced and spread out across the Middle East, and soon thereafter, much of the world (as some were demonstrably excellent mariners), the memory of the worldwide Flood was retained, and to a not-surprisingly great degree."
The Ancients Knew of the Global Flood
What is the significance of the various flood legends? The answer seems obvious: (a) we have well over 200 flood legends that tell of a great flood (and possibly more than 500); (b) many of the legends come from different ages and civilizations that could not possibly have copied any of the similar legends; (c) the legends were recorded long before any missionaries arrived to relate to them the Genesis account of Noah; and (d) almost all civilizations have some sort of flood legend. The conclusion to be drawn from such facts is that in the distant past, there was a colossal flood that forever affected the history of all civilizations.
Preserved in the myths and legends of almost every people on the face of the globe is the memory of the great catastrophe. While myths may not have any scientific value, yet they are significant in indicating the fact that an impression was left in the minds of the races of mankind that could not be erased.
Legends of the Flood
Then why does the rest of the world seem to be doing so well using the same damned science? Maybe it's because they aren't over run with young earth creationist maniacs attempting to force their unscientific world views on their respective host nations. There's YOUR proof.
originally posted by: Seede
Expected to hear from you Peter. As was writing the last post I expected that you would be jumping and gnashing your teeth. Those stupid ole creationists are all dumber than Peter. Or at least that is what Peter wants people to believe.
"Then why does the rest of the world seem to be doing so well using the same damned science?" - It's quite simple Peter. They all belong to the same choir (just as you said) and being in the same sheep fold it would appear that would make the U.S. appear more stupid then being the 28th sheep of the fold. Simply face facts Peter, really that is about all they have to sell.
The U.S. spends more time and money on how to kill off the creationists then they do on true science. You know, the polar bears are drowning thing.
Hey... if you're comfortable living inside an insular bubble where science is evil, that's your deal and your cross to bear. But if you choose to remain ignorant you must expect to be called out on it when you present evidence without even the most cursory due diligence to determine the validity of what you're citing.