middle east again...

Unregistered · 05-04-2002

You are correct, Clyde. Gould was talking about punk eek, an attempt of his to resurrect the "hopeful monster" of Goldschmidt. The movement, I believe, was discredited by Richard Dawkins in the "The Blind Watchmaker" and is not very popular among biologists. Although it is strange to note that even Dawkins admitted the necessity of some sort of lesser systemic macromutation (what used to be called saltation) Darwin asserted, however, that

Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesmally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being...

In the words of Gould's partner Steve Stanley, describing the famous Bighorn Basin where species thought to have morphed into others overlap in time with their supposed descendants

If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!"

I believe Stanley attempted to rectify this by relying upon changes in regulatory genes.

Also from Stanley

the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another

Richard Dawkins, referring to the species suddenly appearing in the Cambrian explosion

It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history

Gould again after a conference on mass extinctions:

We can tell tales of improvements for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating evidence

Niles Eldredge, cofounder of punctuated equilibrium:

We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports
that intepretation (referring to gradual adaptive change), all the while knowing that it does not

W.E Swinton

The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved

Colin Patterson, curator of the British Natural Museum of History, responding to a challenge

You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

I just thought I'd post these quotes. Don't worry Clyde, none of them are fabricated.

**fyodor** · 05-04-2002

Sorry. I forgot to register

**Clyde** · 05-04-2002

"Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesmally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... "

True, and not contradictory to punctuated equilibrium, which has not been descredited per say, some evolutionary biologists think its more significant than others.

"If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!" "

What is a chronospecies?

"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another "

haven't i already provided this site?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

Among the many many points it raises that show up your argument there is this on gould:

"Many evolution deniers quote Stephen Jay Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents as saying that transitional forms are very rare. Most non-specialists get ideas of "missing links" between higher taxa of animals when they hear about transitional forms. Gould has been very clear that these are common and yet he has been quoted many times that transitional forms are rare. What is going on here? In the context of punctuated equilibria, a transitional form is between immediately related species (say two species of squirrels, species of similar Devonian trilobites, etc.), and is not referring to a transition between human and non-human, whales and primitive land mammals, etc. Indeed the transitions Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents are arguing about would be generally be dismissed as "microevolution" by many evolution deniers. Thus antievolutionists arguing against the existence of transitions between larger taxa are very likely guilty of misquotation if they quote Gould's writings on punctuated equilibria. For more details on this see Gould's10 classic essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" where he explains his position on the fossil record as well as demonstrates young-earth creationist misrepresentations of his views."

and this in conclusion:

"When students read or hear the out-of-context quotes from such a book [That Their Words May be Used Against Them from the Institute for Creation Research], they quite often think that evolution must be a theory in crisis within the scientific community. If creationist students suddenly quote respected evolutionary scientists and expect science instructors to respond instantly (without even knowing the context of the quotes) we recommend the following two actions: (1) instructors should explain to the students that they are cognizant of the scientists being quoted (if they are) and that the evidence compels these scientists to conclude that evolution is an accurate scientific theory, and (2) instructors request that the students bring in the original sources of the quotes of the quotes so that they can read in context. Having the original source (not the quote book) will allow instructors to illustrate to students that there is an entire book or article surrounding the one quote and that the publication is not challenging the occurrence of evolution. The goal of this exercise is not for students to find evolution compelling simply because experts find the data compelling; they should examine the evidence and come to their own conclusions. However, when students quote these experts, they need to understand clearly the positions of the people they quoting and the contextual meaning of the quotes [footnote omitted]. "

I suggest you read the entire page though, since it is all relevant material.

"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history "

As THOUGH, the cambrian explosion is well documented explained, the most popular explanation at present is that during the previous era the conditions were not suitable for fossilisation, or that if there were fossils they were destroyed.

ALL of your quotes are out of context, Richard Dawkins would be having a heart attack if he knew his quotes were being taken out of context as arguments against evolution.

"We can tell tales of improvements for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating evidence "

What is this quote about? What is the context? Instead of giving single lines without a reference, provide links to whole articles, in doing so you will defeat your own points, because each one of these scientists will go to EXPLAIN what they meant.

"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports
that intepretation (referring to gradual adaptive change), all the while knowing that it does not "

Out of context again, if he really believed what you make him out to believe he clearly would not believe in evolution. He is probably again referring to the Cambrian era.

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved "

....... yes there are gaps in the fossil record (dinos-birds have the least number of fossils, but there still several bird-dino hybrid fossils), as is expected and?

"You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test"

One fossil by definition cannot possibly show gradual change. There ARE transitional fossils, i've given the links before and I will give them again below.

That post was one of the worst offenders of taking quotes out of context i have ever read, none of the people you quote actually believe what you are making out they do. In each case they will go on to explain what they mean, but of course your quotes end before they do.

Did you miss this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

and this one:

http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/...leviathan.html

They both cover the fossil record.

Taking individual phrases you can make people out to say anything you want them to say, which is why creationist use the "quote out of context" argument.

Without context individual phrases are useless:

When Richard Dawkins was interviewed by some Autralian creationists they asked him a series of questions on Camera, when they produced a tape they had edited it to make it look like Dawkins could not answer several of their questions and that evolution was shaky, he sued them and they withdrew the tape. What you are doing is no different, deliberately misrepresenting people's views by quoting them out of context.

**salvelinus** · 05-04-2002

You tell 'em, Clyde! One valid point for evolutionists, if you want to call them that, is that they use a scientific approach. That is, they don't claim to know every detail about every event and process. They construct a theory (in the scientific sense, not a synonym for "guess") that best fits the known facts. If new facts are discovered, the theory is either altered or replaced with one that fits the facts better.
Creationists are unable to do this. Since they already "know" the answer, facts must be made to fit or are discarded, denied and/or ignored.

**fyodor** · 05-04-2002

What is a chronospecies?

Your biology education is most impressive. Even more so is your ability to educate yourself. Apparently you do not have the initiative to look the term up in any one of the myriad resources you might expect would contain it?

As THOUGH, the cambrian explosion is well documented explained, the most popular explanation at present is that during the previous era the conditions were not suitable for fossilisation, or that if there were fossils they were destroyed.

Bingo. An explanation. I'll touch on this later.

Out of context again, if he really believed what you make him out to believe he clearly would not believe in evolution. He is probably again referring to the Cambrian era.

Incorrect. Here is the rest of the quote.

Each new generation, it seems, produces a few young paleontologists eager to document examples of evolutionary change in their fossils. The changes they have always looked for have, of course, been of the gradual, progressive sort. More often than not, their efforts have gone unrewarded and their fossils, rather than exhibiting the expected pattern, just seem to persist virtually unchanged. This extraordinary conservatism looked, to the paleontologist keen on finding evolutionary change, as if no evolution had occurred. Thus, studies documenting conservative persistence rather than gradual evolutionary change were considered failures, and more often than not, were not even published

I believe this does seem to contradict your statements about the immense amounts of fossil records available as proof for the fact of evolution

BTW, I just read Gould's essay Evolution as Fact and Theory again. It is a ridiculous piece. He relies upon three proofs.
#1.

First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest.

I accept that, no reservations. However, it has no validity as a proof of darwinism because Gould is assuming that microevolution implies macroevolution! Since when do rules that govern activity at one level govern activity at all levels? If I want to know how tiny mammals evolved into humans Gould's first proof is irrelevant.

#2

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

Basically Gould is saying here that if all life was created by God and its route was dictated by God, then He would, of course, have made all organisms "perfect." This does nothing to confirm the natural processes by which we evolved from a common ancestor, and it is not a substitute for evidence. Since when do philosophical/theological inquiries constitute proof? The same opinion is held by many biologists, most notably Doug Futuyama and his "tidy-minded engineer."

Gould third "proof" is rather more direct.

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals).

This is a favorite of Gould, Futuyama, and many others. Therapsida, a large order that contains lots of fossil species that have skeletal features that look like they are intermediate between the features of reptiles and mammals. Reptiles and mammals are very difficult to tell apart at the boundary; normally, if the lowerjaw has several bones, and one of these, the articular, I believe, is joined to the quadrate bone (part of the skull). If the lower jaw is constituted merely by one dentary bone that connects to the squamosal bone (also part of the skull) it is a mammal. Back to Gould, his narrow point is valid, but that does not effectively establish the reptile-mammal relation. There are many more "important" differences, notably, the reproductive system. There are myriads of "transitionals", in fact, there are so many that it is impossible to discern which are the actual ancestors(according to evolutionists). Reference Futuyama. However, lots of candidates is positive only if they can be placed in a single line of descent that could conceivably lead from reptile species to one mammal species. There are many similar fossils that are outside any possible line of descent. One cannot say "mammals in general descended from reptiles in general." That is not Darwinism. Another interesting point is that any chain of therapsids is not attached to something specific at either end (reptiles and mammals). Vital structural differences between early mammals caused some paleontologists to think that mammals had actually evolved several times, that is, that mammals are a "polyphyletic" group. That is kind of messy, considering the Darwinian argument that mammalian homologies are a "leftover" from common ancestry.

So in conclusion, Gould's three "proofs" are looking rather weak. We have an implied equivocation of laws applying to different scales, a philosophical/theological argument that no "tidy-minded engineer" would create an "imperfect" organism, and a specific example of one scenario that does not imply the truth of the more general proposition.

By saying that Darwinism can account for an event or set of events, one is saying nothing. The essence of science is asking the question "how can I prove or disprove my theory?"

**lightatdawn** · 05-04-2002

>>The changes they have always looked for have, of course, been of the gradual, progressive sort.

I'm not seeing the problem in this. Who has been claiming that this process was a rapidly occuring one?

>>I believe this does seem to contradict your statements

Really? It doesnt seem to...

>>First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory.

>>Gould is assuming that microevolution implies macroevolution!

I dont believe thats what is being assumed at all. "both the field and laboratory". Here, i believe, he would be refering to the documented number of cases in which a species has 'split' into two new and distinct species. This has been mentioned earlier on.

>>So in conclusion, Gould's three "proofs" are looking rather weak.

Only the second one looks in any way questionable as proof in this instance. The other two seem fairly sound.

**fyodor** · 05-04-2002

I dont believe thats what is being assumed at all. "both the field and laboratory". Here, i believe, he would be refering to the documented number of cases in which a species has 'split' into two new and distinct species. This has been mentioned earlier on.

The problem is that speciation is incredibly rare. This is surprising, even allowing for the length of time associated with speciation. In all the experiments done on Drosophila, I think that there MAY have been one or two(Dobzhonsky, I believe). And remember that this is the result of artificial breeding, ie, applying the experimenters own brand of natural selection. For plants, most documented cases have been polyploidy or hybridization. And also, remember that not everyone uses the BSD definition of species.

How does Gould's third proof sound "sound" to you?

**Nick** · 05-04-2002

If God is all ominipresent and all powerful then he can do anything? Therefore God could in theory choose not to know the
future of everything. For example we usually bet on dice without lop siding the dice. Not because we couldn't but because that would make the game extremly boring.

**Malcar Morab** · 05-04-2002

"I also found out some rather interesting things about Darwin, he went to Medical school for two years then dropped out, he had no degree in science at all. And he delt heavily in witchcraft"

And? Faraday was a book-binder, Newton was thought to be a sadist, your point?

My point was that Darwin was not highly educated(this sentance was made null by your above statement), nor did he totally discredit the supernatural. For a man of science to delve in witchcraft, before he came up with the evolution theory, made me wonder about the credit of his words.

I apolagise for the misquote, I will try to research my sources more thoroughly. If I make a mistake again I'm sure you will point it out.

< >> I also found out some rather interesting things about Darwin

Like, for instance, that he was a Christian? >

I believe that they have never discoverd whether this was true or not. There was a woman who supposably visited Darwin on his deathbed and some things she said about what he was wearing and what his room was like, made people believe that what she said could be true. However, there are a few other things about what she stated that were probably not true as there is no supportive evidence. The issue is a mystery.....

"there is no evidence partaking to the theory that life originated on earth due to the climet change brought about by an explosion in space"

<I just re-read this........ are you saying "there is no evidence that life originated on Earth due to a climate change brought about by an explosion in space(the big bang!???!?!?)"

Errr.... right..... and.....? That has what to do with evolution?>

Everything, or so I had thought. Has the theory of the big bang been disproved recently?

<That and the word 'explosion' has destructive conotations where as the big bang was not so much an explosion as a sudden expansion.>

I relise this, I rephrased the term "big bang" to "explosion" because It was getting redundant. Pardon my bringing the topic up.

The link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Has not been updated since 1997. Much has been discoverd since then.

<Dr Steve Jones (geneticist) replied, "Here's my example; it's come up in the last ten years. Two species of salmon in American lakes. And in the last twenty years
they've split into two forms, one big, one small, one goes to the sea, one
stays at home. That's the origin of species seen in our own lifetime." >

Here is some of that debate I found between Dr Steve Jones, Ken Ham, and three other scientists, revealing more than what most people would have thought

<Very few creation vs. evolution debates have been held in recent years compared to the 1970s and 1980s, when hundreds were conducted. Because evolutionary scientists have not fared well in these debates (and even their evolutionary colleagues admit this), if a debate is being considered, evolutionists are more agreeable to participate if the odds can be improved: especially if it's 3 evolutionists against 1 creationist! DISCOVER how many of the founders of modern science were creationists!
Men of Science, Men of God!
Dr. Henry M. Morris

That ratio was in play on March 17 when Ken Ham appeared live on Great Britain's "Newsnight" program on BBC-TV. Billed as a panel discussion, it turned out to be three evolutionary scientists debating Ken. Even with the improved "odds," the three prominent evolutionists fared quite poorly. In fact, a non-Christian, non-creationist viewer told Ken Ham on the day after the debate that he once had great respect for two of the evolutionists he knew, but that their poor showing and "arrogance" prompted him to reevaluate his opinion of them.

During the debate, the most abrasive evolutionist, Prof. Steve Jones, a geneticist at the University College of London, declared that there are a lot of "stupid people" in America who do not believe in evolution, and then quickly added that this applied to Australians as well, a clear dig at Australian guest Ken Ham! So much for British civility! He also declared that he despised people--meaning creationists--who tell "lies to children."

This same evolutionist, when asked by Ken for specific evidence for evolution, replied: "salmon speciation" in America. Ken quickly pointed out that the salmon ten years later are still salmon, and continue to produce just more salmon, and that creationists believe in speciation anyway because no new genetic information was added to the new salmon species, it would remain a salmon! So much for Prof. Jones's academic brilliance!>

Goes to show that things arn't always what they seem.

**lightatdawn** · 05-04-2002

>>So much for British civility!

Indeed. Theres no good excuse for incivility. (Although we all have our moments i suppose.)

>>I relise this, I rephrased the term "big bang" to "explosion" because It was getting redundant. Pardon my bringing the topic up.

I apologise then. It appeared (when i read it) that you were greatly misinformed about the theory.

>>because no new genetic information was added to the new salmon species, it would remain a salmon!

True, but a cougar is a cat just like the one that lies on my head to get me up in the morning so i'll feed her. I'd say theres a bit of a difference (and i'm rather glad

).

This thread has covered so many topics that i'm having trouble recalling what points were trying to be made currently (regarding evolution that is; The middle east topic has been long dead

). Seems we're all over the place right now...

**Malcar Morab** · 05-05-2002

I think that we have gone over so many points one could not count them all.

We have two choices, end this on a cival note, and discuss the original topic, (middle east right?) or we could go on talking about Evolution V. Creatism if the people who wanted to talk about the middle east don't mind? I don't want people to feel as if our talking has gotten annoying.

**dbaryl** · 05-05-2002

As the starter of this thread, I hereby grant thee my permission to keep up the good work... yadi, yadi, yada... and talk about whatever ye please...

Guess the middle east topic is long dead, so...

**Malcar Morab** · 05-05-2002

You sure? I feel a little bad about shoving you out in the rain on your topic.

Thing is I don't know much about the middle east, a little about the muslim religion

but that would probably make us wind back around to our discussion about God.

**dbaryl** · 05-05-2002

Hey, no prob... reminds me of that one time I switched the topic as the first response to a post by DA...

Good ol' DA...

**Clyde** · 05-05-2002

"Your biology education is most impressive. Even more so is your ability to educate yourself. Apparently you do not have the initiative to look the term up in any one of the myriad resources you might expect would contain it? "

And how exactly are the other posters meant to understand what it is?

"Incorrect. Here is the rest of the quote. "

Heh, and all the other of your out of context quotes? Hmm..? I guess we should just quietly forget those...

That quote is by whom? So you've managed to quote a paleontologist who it "appears" does not believe in evolution, excellent, and which university did he go to? The university of creation science? =) Funny how 99.99999% of paleontologists believe in evolution, funny that.

Arguing from quotation is completely invalid anyway, because anyone can find any quotation to suit their given argument. Once again read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

The bottom-line here is that an overwhelming majority of palentologists view the fossil record as evidence for evolution, so do the vast majority of geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, cellular biologists, etc. etc. you keep saying there is no gradual change, and I keep pointing you to sites DOCUMENTING transitional species, are you reading the links i give you or just ignoring them?

"BTW, I just read Gould's essay Evolution as Fact and Theory again. It is a ridiculous piece. He relies upon three proofs."

This should be good...

"I accept that, no reservations. However, it has no validity as a proof of darwinism because Gould is assuming that microevolution implies macroevolution! Since when do rules that govern activity at one level govern activity at all levels? If I want to know how tiny mammals evolved into humans Gould's first proof is irrelevant. "

Well, 1) Microevolution does indeed pretty much imply macroevolution, did you read my explanation of how evolution worked?

2) When people say "evolution" they can be reffering to both micro and macro (because they are exactly the same thing), in this case he is clearly reffering to micro.

3) We can SEE macro-evolution happening, if you had read my posts you would know this, but i'll repeat it again:

"Ken Ham: ... what's something that you think is absolutely convincing that evolution (reffering to macro)is true?"

Dr Jones replied: "Here's my example; it's come up in the last ten years. Two species of salmon in American lakes. And in the last twenty years
they've split into two forms, one big, one small, one goes to the sea, one stays at home. That's the origin of species seen in our own lifetime"

"Basically Gould is saying here that if all life was created by God and its route was dictated by God, then He would, of course, have made all organisms "perfect." This does nothing to confirm the natural processes by which we evolved from a common ancestor, and it is not a substitute for evidence"

Evolution predicts exactly the kind of "imperfections" we observe in organisms, hence it would seem reasonable to conclude that those imperfections can be seen as evidence for evolution (thought they also are evidence against creation).

"This is a favorite of Gould, Futuyama, and many others. Therapsida, a large order that contains lots of fossil species that have skeletal features that look like they are intermediate between the features of reptiles and mammals. Reptiles and mammals are very difficult to tell apart at the boundary; normally, if the lowerjaw has several bones, and one of these, the articular, I believe, is joined to the quadrate bone (part of the skull). If the lower jaw is constituted merely by one dentary bone that connects to the squamosal bone (also part of the skull) it is a mammal. "

LOL, the boundary!? And what exactly is "the boundary" to a creationist?? The very reason WHY you say it is "hard to tell them apart" is because at the "boundary" they have structures from both mammals and reptiles, JEEZ i wonder why that could be??

A classic example of what creationists do when they find a hybrid, they arbitrarely place it in one catagory, hell, all the biologists and paleontologists say it has structures from both species hence saying it one or the other is meaningless, but the creationists take one such structure in your case the reproductory system, and arbitrarely decide that, that particular structure is more important than all the others hence using it to justify their placement. Whats so amusing is that different creationists choose different structures!!

For a conclusive debunking of creationist nonsense regarding Therapsid and the reptile-mammal transition go here (it also explains very clearly what the fossil record shows):

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...7/therapsd.htm

"So in conclusion, Gould's three "proofs" are looking rather weak"

Hehe, i think not.

Now i keep answering your questions how about you answer some of mine?

If the bible is the literal word of God how can it be that the descriptions in genesis 1 and genesis 2 contradict each other?

If creation is true, then why are their animals with redundant features: Men have nipples, there are fish at the bottom of the sea with eyes that do not work, most of our DNA is "junk" DNA.

If creation is true, then why is it that millions of species were made extinct before man ever arrived on Earth?

If the bible is the literal word of God how exactly do you account for the fact that the amount of water listed in the bible, is not enough to cover the world's mountains yet, in the bible it says all the mountains were covered? :

http://www.angelfire.com/mb/304654home/ark.html