[geocentrism] Re: Human fossils (or lack thereof)

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:11:58 -0800


I used "sketchy" in relation to substance, not with regard to quantity.

I did not understand your "Less_than_95_theses" post, nor even its title, so I will not be responding to it.


-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:57:34 +0000 (GMT)

Neville J
I guess I expected that.
More exactly, there are five illustrations within 47 A4 pages totalling > 29,000 words (not including the 111 references). I think "sketchy" is a bit dismissive.
Now that you've shown courage in being the first to test drive this reference, is it likely you might any time soon address my Less_than_95_theses, posted two weeks ago and thus far totally lacking comment?

Paul D

----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 29 September, 2007 11:02:48 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Human fossils (or lack thereof)


'History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth', as supplied in a link from Paul, is little more than a collection of pictures of "House on a boat" Noah's Ark drawings and some sketchy comments, which is somewhat disappointing for an article that has 111 references in its bibliography!

However, there are a number of issues that bother me about the Flood, one of which is the lack of human fossils. Whitcombe and Morris ("The Genesis Flood") estimate an antediluvian population of 1,030,000,000 and this seems to me to be a conservative estimate, given the long lifespans quoted in Genesis. So where are the human fossils?




Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

Other related posts: