Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[nPeace]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

The question is the reality of God. I have no trouble with an imaginary God, a god whose only existence is a concept in the heads of individuals. Such a god is anything anyone wishes, and likes Republican if I'm a Republican and Democrat if I'm a Democrat, was prayed to by the Germans in two World Wars and by the Allies in two World Wars.

My trouble is with the claim that God is real, that is, has objective existence. The way to test a claim that something or someone has objective existence is 'Show me' (let me detect God through my senses as with any other real thing). Not only can no one do that, but no one can tell me what God actually is, a necessary and sufficient definition so that if I found a candidate who was indeed real, I could tell whether it were God or not.

Can you relieve my ignorance?

If you relieve my ignorance, certainly.
Explain what is gravity, magnetism, wind, dark energy, and dark matter. Where do they come from, and where do they go?

 

[blü 2]

If you relieve my ignorance, certainly.
Explain what is gravity, magnetism, wind, dark energy, and dark matter. Where do they come from, and where do they go?

Gravity, as understood by Einstein's theory of general relativity (1915), is due to the curvature of spacetime by objects with mass. >This may help.<

Magnetism is one of the three known natural forces acting at a distance, the others being the strong and the weak force. (Technically, gravity is not a force.) >This may help.<

Wind is the movement of air as a result of the earth's revolving and more immediately as a result of heat from the sun as it interacts with land, sea and air. But you know that.

Dark energy and dark matter are names for a problem to which we presently have no solution. The problem is that galaxies rotate faster and more compactly than our theories of gravity predict. We're exploring possible explanations. >This may help with dark matter.< >This may help with dark energy.<

As for where they come from, gravity and wind are explained as above. Electromagnetism originated (at least for purposes of our universe) in the Big Bang (I'd guess as a property of energy) and is a natural force, accounting for light, electricity, magnetism and more.

I'm not clear what you mean by 'Where do they go?' but check if the answers you want are on those links.

The difference between these and my question to you is that all of those above are found, described and (bar dark matter and dark energy) explained by physics, which is to say, by reasoning transparently from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment.

But I think that's another thing you know. I'd still be interested to hear your thoughts about the objective existence, the reality, of God.

 

[nPeace]

Gravity, as understood by Einstein's theory of general relativity (1915), is due to the curvature of spacetime by objects with mass. >This may help.<

Magnetism is one of the three known natural forces acting at a distance, the others being the strong and the weak force. (Technically, gravity is not a force.) >This may help.<

Wind is the movement of air as a result of the earth's revolving and more immediately as a result of heat from the sun as it interacts with land, sea and air. But you know that.

Dark energy and dark matter are names for a problem to which we presently have no solution. The problem is that galaxies rotate faster and more compactly than our theories of gravity predict. We're exploring possible explanations. >This may help with dark matter.< >This may help with dark energy.<

As for where they come from, gravity and wind are explained as above. Electromagnetism originated (at least for purposes of our universe) in the Big Bang (I'd guess as a property of energy) and is a natural force, accounting for light, electricity, magnetism and more.

I'm not clear what you mean by 'Where do they go?' but check if the answers you want are on those links.

The difference between these and my question to you is that all of those above are found, described and (bar dark matter and dark energy) explained by physics, which is to say, by reasoning transparently from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment.

But I think that's another thing you know. I'd still be interested to hear your thoughts about the objective existence, the reality, of God.

Great! It shouldn't be to hard for you to understand then.

When you think of gravity, think of an effects that's greater than any effect you know. (That's not God, but his effects)

When you think of magnetism, think of a force that's far greater than any force you know. (That's not God, but his holy spirit)

When you think of wind, think of any movement that you can imagine to be created by God's Holy Spirit.

When you think of Dark matter, and Dark energy, think of the greatest "problem" you can think of trying to figure out.

As regards coming and going, think of what you think is beyond those.

What's your results?

 

[blü 2]

When you think of gravity, think of an effects that's greater than any effect you know. (That's not God, but his effects)

When you think of magnetism, think of a force that's far greater than any force you know. (That's not God, but his holy spirit)

When you think of wind, think of any movement that you can imagine to be created by God's Holy Spirit.

When you think of Dark matter, and Dark energy, think of the greatest "problem" you can think of trying to figure out.

As regards coming and going, think of what you think is beyond those.

What's your results?

I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately none of it addresses the question. What have you got that will let me tell whether any real candidate is God or not?

Alternatively, why are there definitions that work for an imaginary God, but none that work for a real God, a being to whom objective existence is attributed?

 

[nPeace]

I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately none of it addresses the question. What have you got that will let me tell whether any real candidate is God or not?

Alternatively, why are there definitions that work for an imaginary God, but none that work for a real God, a being to whom objective existence is attributed?

Are you sure you understand what I am saying? I'm not sure you do.
Perhaps sharing your results with me will help. What were the results?

 

[blü 2]

Are you sure you understand what I am saying? I'm not sure you do.
Perhaps sharing your results with me will help. What were the results?

I understand what you're saying. I'm pointing out that it's compatible with an imaginary God but not with one who's real, has objective existence.

 

[Bear Wild]

If you relieve my ignorance, certainly.
Explain what is gravity, magnetism, wind, dark energy, and dark matter. Where do they come from, and where do they go?

Aspects of the natural world created in the natural world and transformed in the natural world. Why create an artificial god to explain what is such a natural part of our universe?

 

[nPeace]

I understand what you're saying. I'm pointing out that it's compatible with an imaginary God but not with one who's real, has objective existence.

If you understood my point, I don't think you would be asking that question. My God is not imaginary. It's just a case of you not believing until you see or understand.

Think of everything that has been discovered with scientific study, and apply that same logic. It would mean that everything, including Gravity, Magnetism, etc., were all imaginary, until they were discovered - Only then did they exist.

The reason for my asking you those questions, was so you could see that point. Because you don't currently see it, nor understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because you don't believe those who see, and understand, doesn't mean it isn't.

Maybe one day, you will see.
Take as an example, the archaeological discoveries.
The Bible long ago made mention of a people, which many did not believe existed, because according to them, there was no evidence outside the Bible.
When they dug and found the evidence, only then did they believe.
Before, they probably said, "Oh. Those Bible writers sure have a wild imagination."

The same thing happened in the case of many scientific discoveries.
So stop and ask yourself, who really has the advantage here?

Are the Christians really imagining, or is it just a case of persons not believing until... ?

 

[blü 2]

If you understood my point, I don't think you would be asking that question. My God is not imaginary. It's just a case of you not believing until you see or understand.

It's certainly the case that if something or someone is real then you can show them to me, even if we have to use instruments. That's what real, having objective existence, means. If they're not real, the only other thing they can be is imaginary. Here the problem is worse than usual because though the unicorn is imaginary, it has a sufficient description, so that if we found a candidate, we could tell whether it were a unicorn or not. God doesn't even have an equivalent description.

How do you define 'real'?

Think of everything that has been discovered with scientific study, and apply that same logic. It would mean that everything, including Gravity, Magnetism, etc., were all imaginary, until they were discovered - Only then did they exist.

That's correct. It was once true that the world was flat and the center of creation. That was the best opinion available. It was once true that fire was the product of phlogiston, and that light propagated in the medium of the lumeniferous ether. Now it's not true. The Higgs boson was imaginary until its reality was satisfactorily demonstrated, and after that it was real, and became real retrospectively. If we ever find out we were wrong with that identification, it will cease to be true, again retrospectively.

In science there are no absolute statements. Science works through empiricism and induction, and no conclusion of science is proof against a counterexample we may find tomorrow, or never find, no matter how persuasive the theory seems. As professor and commentator Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified.

Because you don't currently see it, nor understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Correct. The same goes of fairies, and Superman, and Elvis sharing a condo in Kamloops with Isaac Newton. But it means there's no basis for thinking it's real. No objective test can distinguish it from the imaginary. And in the case of God (as that lack of a sufficient description of a real god underlines) we don't even know what a real God is.

Take as an example, the archaeological discoveries.

The Bible long ago made mention of a people, which many did not believe existed, because according to them, there was no evidence outside the Bible.

When they dug and found the evidence, only then did they believe.

That's fair enough. The bible is unreliable as a history book. I don't mean just the Garden of Eden and Flood folk history. You're probably aware of the archaeological evidence strongly suggesting there was no Egyptian Captivity and no historical Moses (though the latter has long been suspected). In such cases things are as true as the evidence independently affirming them.

Are the Christians really imagining, or is it just a case of persons not believing until...?

It's fair comment that Christians ─ active Christians ─ have faith, and this by definition means that the facts aren't there to determine the matter, no? I always twitch at the contradiction in the line from Pisco funerals I attend, 'the sure and certain hope of the resurrection' ─ either it's sure and certain or it's hope, and it's hope.

Normally I'd say, Yes, you might be right. There might be unicorns, or there might have been in the Middle Ages. But with God, the lack of any defined real thing to be right about means I can't.

 

[Muffled]

I doubt those findings fit the Biblical time record which is vague enough so that people have very different dates for the event.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In your op you presented as fact that,
quote-

"Food...that only grow in temperate climate"
(Was found in mouth / stomach of mammoths)

ans that the earth had a "mild and pleasant climate".

Researchers have studied the 50 or so known specimens
(all but a handfull being heavily scavanged and badly
decompised before burial) and have, as researchers will,
collected and identified the plants that are associated with
them.

I have looked up some of the papers.

They identify only vegetation of the far north,
the species typical of the tundra and taiga.

I asked you to support your claim to the contrary,
regarding vegetation that only grows in temprrate
climates.

So far you have failed to do so

I wont bother to ask again, I know you cannot do
it, there is no research paper showing only (or any)
such vegetation as you claim.

Any lurker will of course see your failure.

ETA-

Large numbers of grazing animals could and
did live in the far north at one time. Just how
many is of course unknown. Buffalo, and muskoxen
are thriving and increasing in numbers today
where they are reintroduced in Alaska, Canada,
and Siberia.

Tundra and taiga can be, as is, replaced by tall
grass under some circumstances. Grass supports
grazing animals.

Think of the American praitie.

It was a vast sea of grass, but now with the
buffalo gone and fire suppressed, it will grow up
with trees and brush.

So, anyway- are you going to provide the research
paper and the species of "temperate only", or not?

A yes / no would do.

There's too much contradictory scientific information, to reach any accurate conclusion!

In fact, this review of one:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521772_Book_Review_Mammoths_and_the_Environment

....makes no sense! It says the "warm climate" destroyed the ecosystem supporting the mammal fauna. Since when?! A warm climate allows vegetation to flourish; it may kill some cold-weather species, but other edible vegetation will replace it and thrive!

Then, there's this amalgamation of conflicting ideas (I've posted before):
NOVA | Megabeasts' Sudden Death | The Extinction Debate | PBS

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="Hockeycowboy, post: 5833251, member: 58692"]There's too much contradictory scientific information, to reach any accurate conclusion!

In fact, this review of one:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521772_Book_Review_Mammoths_and_the_Environment

....makes no sense! It says the "warm climate" destroyed the ecosystem supporting the mammal fauna. Since when?! A warm climate allows vegetation to flourish; it may kill some cold-weather species, but other edible vegetation will replace it and thrive!

Then, there's this amalgamation of conflicting ideas (I've posted before):
NOVA | Megabeasts' Sudden Death | The Extinction Debate | PBS[/QUOTE]

The "megafauna"extinction is debated, yes.
All of the mass extinctions that have occurred are
matters for debate and research.
HOWEVER
That, and the "warm climate" thing are off topic. My question was about the species of plants.

There is debate about many things, but not this-

All (100%) of the scientific publications that list
the species of plants associated with the mammoths
directly contradict your claim about the species
of plants.

Could you please, this next time, just address
that, and not bring in other matters?

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="Hockeycowboy, post: 5833251, member: 58692"]There's too much contradictory scientific information, to reach any accurate conclusion!

In fact, this review of one:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521772_Book_Review_Mammoths_and_the_Environment

....makes no sense! It says the "warm climate" destroyed the ecosystem supporting the mammal fauna. Since when?! A warm climate allows vegetation to flourish; it may kill some cold-weather species, but other edible vegetation will replace it and thrive!

Then, there's this amalgamation of conflicting ideas (I've posted before):
NOVA | Megabeasts' Sudden Death | The Extinction Debate | PBS

The "megafauna"extinction is debated, yes.
All of the mass extinctions that have occurred are
matters for debate and research.
HOWEVER
That, and the "warm climate" thing are off topic. My question was about the species of plants.

There is debate about many things, but not this-

All (100%) of the scientific publications that list
the species of plants associated with the mammoths
directly contradict your claim about the species
of plants.

Could you please, this next time, just address
that, and not bring in other matters?[/QUOTE]

There's too much contradictory scientific information, to reach any accurate conclusion!

In fact, this review of one:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521772_Book_Review_Mammoths_and_the_Environment

....makes no sense! It says the "warm climate" destroyed the ecosystem supporting the mammal fauna. Since when?! A warm climate allows vegetation to flourish; it may kill some cold-weather species, but other edible vegetation will replace it and thrive!

Then, there's this amalgamation of conflicting ideas (I've posted before):
NOVA | Megabeasts' Sudden Death | The Extinction Debate | PBS

From the article you said "makes no sense"

reduction in the available
food supply for the large herbivorous
mammals such as the mammoth. These
animals were adapted to cold, dry climates
that were characterized by more open
vegetational landscapes with highly
nutritional forage. Warm climates led to an
expansion of forest environments and a
reduction in the quality and shortage of
quality forage.

(PDF) Book Review: Mammoths and the Environment. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521772_Book_Review_Mammoths_and_the_Environment [accessed Oct 25 2018].

Now, it may not be true that it was a causal
factor in the disappearance of mammoths,
but it does make sense.
Grassland is of course able to support far more animals
than forest does

Please note also that your article also directly
contradicts your description of the climate
and vegetation of that time.

.

 

[Audie]

Now, Hockeycowboy
Could you please address the fact that
no scientific will support your claim
about the type of vegetation the mammoths
were eating?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"I have looked up some of the papers.

They identify only vegetation of the far north,
the species typical of the tundra and taiga."

And this:

All (100%) of the scientific publications that list
the species of plants associated with the mammoths
directly contradict your claim about the species
of plants.

Then please post them!

Honestly, I've searched for data on it, but the only websites I've found discussing it, are ones promoting a religious view.

 

[Audie]

"I have looked up some of the papers.

They identify only vegetation of the far north,
the species typical of the tundra and taiga."

And this:



Then please post them!

Honestly, I've searched for data on it, but the only websites I've found discussing it, are ones promoting a religious view.

You know it is not reasonable to ask me to post them all
I can post more than you are likely to read, and they all
will show I am right.

You will never find one that says I am wrong.
You will find no scholarly papers saying the vegetation
was what it was not, so I feel quite safe in my statement
about 100%.

As for your search, try something like "vegetation
associated with the mammoths"

First item top of page, "scholarly articles"

Google Scholar

[PDF] csuci.edu
The carbonization of vegetation associated with" fire areas," mammoth remains and hypothesized activities of early man on the Northern Channel Islands
JE Cushing - 1993 - repository.library.csuci.edu
The carbonized vegetation associated with Pleistocene" fire areas" and mammoth and bird
fossils on the Northern Channel Islands has been attributed to wildfires and to the cooking of
mammoths by humans. This paper elaborates on the hypothesis (Cushing et al. 1986) that …
Cited by 12 Related articles [PDF] academia.eduFind This @ UNL
Palaeobotany: Ice-age steppe vegetation in east Beringia
GD Zazula, DG Froese, CE Schweger, RW Mathewes… - Nature, 2003 - nature.com
… yr bp) associated with woolly-mammoth remains found in Last Chance Creek, also in western
central Yukon; and from a 3.5-metre-thick sediment sequence (18,800–16,400 yr bp), from Bluefish
River exposure in northern Yukon. These assemblages reflect the local vegetation …
Cited by 91 Related articles All 15 versions Web of Science: 60
[PDF] utoronto.ca
[PDF] Age and environment of late Pleistocene mastodont and mammoth in southern Ontario
JH McAndrews, LJ Jackson - Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of …, 1988 - labs.eeb.utoronto.ca
… dated bone was contaminated with rootlets (J. Stipp, Bela Analytic, Inc., personal communication,
1986); the associated pollen assemblage is zone 1. PROBOSCIDEAN DISTRIBUTION AND
GEOCHRONOLOGY We have compiled reports of 75 mast- odont, 31 mammoth, and 7 …
Cited by 33 Related articles
[PDF] pnas.orgFull View
High-resolution vegetation and climate change associated with Pliocene Australopithecus afarensis
R Bonnefille, R Potts, F Chalié… - Proceedings of the …, 2004 - National Acad Sciences
… High-resolution vegetation and climate change associated with Pliocene Australopithecus
afarensis … parameters, statistically supported and repeatable from high-resolution pollen data
associated with A … match the stratigraphic placement of the lower limit of the Mammoth event at …
Cited by 167 Related articles All 15 versions Web of Science: 111 [PDF] geoscienceworld.orgFind This @ UNL
Interstadial mammoth remains and associated pollen and insect fossils, Kotzebue Sound area, northwestern

 

[Audie]

Alaska
DM Hopkins, RE Giterman, JV Matthews Jr - Geology, 1976 - pubs.geoscienceworld.org
… or masto- don) skeleton from the Baldwin Peninsula, northwestern Alaska, is associated with
plant … consists of a mosaic of shrub thickets and tussock-birch-heath vegetation on hillsides …
Mammoths are thought to have been primarily grazing animals and were cer- tainly a part of …
Cited by 19 Related articles All 4 versions Web of Science: 13


New pygmy mammoth (Mammuthus exilis) localities and radiocarbon dates from San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz islands, California
LD Agenbroad - 1998 - archives.datapages.com
… Cushing, JE, 1993, The carbonization of vegetation associated with “fire areas,” mammoth remains
and … Cushing, J., Daily, M., Noble, E., Roth, VL, and Wenner, AM, 1984, Fossil mammoths from Santa
Cruz Island, California: Quaternary Research, v. 21, p. 376-384 …
Cited by 42 Related articles


Find This @ UNL

Mapped plant-macrofossil and pollen records of late Quaternary vegetation change in eastern North America
ST Jackson, JT Overpeck, T Webb-III, SE Keattch… - Quaternary Science …, 1997 - Elsevier
Cited by 205 Related articles All 6 versions Web of Science: 146


[PDF] jstor.org

Plant remains associated with mastodon and mammoth remains in central Michigan
DF Oltz Jr, RO Kapp - American Midland Naturalist, 1963 - JSTOR
… 1961. Fossil pollen associated with a late-glacial woodland Musk Ox in Michigan. Pap … 1960.
Comparison of the present vegetation with pollen -spectra in surface samples from Brownington
Pond, Ver- mont … SKEELS, MA 1962. The mastodons and mammoths of Michigan. Pap …
Cited by 20 Related articles

 nih.gov[/URL][URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar?output=instlink&q=info:W-G9y2mmRLgJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&as_vis=1&scillfp=3983600781121280434&oi=lle']Find This @ UNL[/URL]

[SIZE=4][B][HTML] [URL='https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131013/']Sub-fossil beetle assemblages [B]associated [/B]with the “[B]mammoth [/B]fauna” in the Late Pleistocene localities of the Ural Mountains and West Siberia[/URL][/B][/SIZE]
E Zinovyev - ZooKeys, 2011 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
… Bold line - Borders of [B]vegetation[/B] types, reconstructed for the beginning of MIS 2 on the basis
of palynological data: I periglacial tundra II … Chronological position of the study sites dated by the
end of the Middle Pleninglacial period and [B]associated[/B] with the “[B]mammoth[/B] fauna” …
[URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13277920574715060571&as_sdt=5,28&sciodt=0,28&hl=en']Cited by 23[/URL] [URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:W-G9y2mmRLgJ:scholar.google.com/&scioq=vegetation+associated+with+mammoths&hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&as_vis=1']Related articles[/URL] [URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=13277920574715060571&hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&as_vis=1']All 16 versions[/URL] [URL='http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=GSSearch&SrcAuth=Scholar&DestApp=WOS_CPL&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&UT=000292620300005&SrcURL=https://scholar.google.com/&SrcDesc=Back+to+Google+Scholar&GSPage=TC']Web of Science: 5[/URL]


[URL='http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/194/4266/728.full.pdf'][PDF] sciencemag.org[/URL][URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar?output=instlink&q=info:fy2gsq7UJygJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&as_vis=1&scillfp=3876397101354268525&oi=lle']Find This @ UNL[/URL]

[SIZE=4][B][URL='http://science.sciencemag.org/content/194/4266/728.short']Cultural activity [B]associated [/B]with prehistoric [B]mammoth [/B]butchering and processing[/URL][/B][/SIZE]
GC Frison - Science, 1976 - science.sciencemag.org
… 1298 m. At present it is an arid, badlands country (yearly precipitation averages 17 cm) with sparse
[B]vegetation[/B]; it is … They are also somewhat different typologically from the Clovis projectile points
recovered in other sites where [B]mammoths[/B] have been [B]associated[/B] with human …
[URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2893515132395072895&as_sdt=5,28&sciodt=0,28&hl=en']Cited by 27[/URL] [URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:fy2gsq7UJygJ:scholar.google.com/&scioq=vegetation+associated+with+mammoths&hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&as_vis=1']Related articles[/URL] [URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2893515132395072895&hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&as_vis=1']All 5 versions[/URL] [URL='http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=GSSearch&SrcAuth=Scholar&DestApp=WOS_CPL&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&UT=A1976CJ73200023&SrcURL=https://scholar.google.com/&SrcDesc=Back+to+Google+Scholar&GSPage=TC']Web of Science: 10[/URL]

 

[Audie]

So Hockeycowboy, another q-
Would be be so terrible for your religious faith
if you found out that you are mistaken about
mammoth diet, and, that some of your sources
are not very reliable?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So Hockeycowboy, another q-
Would be be so terrible for your religious faith
if you found out that you are mistaken about
mammoth diet, and, that some of your sources
are not very reliable?

Please. This doesn't support your pov.
Perusal of your links revealed this (I'm sure you would have posted data that's most damaging to my OP, where is it?):
As per your second post, on Alaska....a " masto- don) **skeleton** from the Baldwin Peninsula, northwestern Alaska, is associated with
plant … consists of a mosaic of shrub thickets and tussock-birch-heath vegetation on hillsides …"

Does the skeleton have food in its stomach? Which is associated with the plants? The Mastodon skeleton...or Baldwin Peninsula?



Many of your links mention "pollen", so I searched and found this, apparently from someone with no religious agenda obviously:

"The stomach contents, according to an English-language account published in 1925, included several species of grass, sedges, mint, legume pods, wild poppies, and “seeds of the northern butter daisy (Ranunculus).” Somehow the butter daisy seeds morphed into flash-frozen buttercups still in bloom! This appears to be due to some phrasing in a report written by E. V. Pfizenmayer in August 1939 called “Les mammouths de Siberie,” which I have not read but which is cited frequently as the source for the buttercup claim. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, what was actually found was pollen from the buttercups, both between the teeth and in the stomach."

Source: Flash-Frozen Mammoths and Their Buttercups: Yet Another Case of Repetition and Recycling of Bad Data

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So Hockeycowboy, another q-
Would be be so terrible for your religious faith
if you found out that you are mistaken about
mammoth diet, and, that some of your sources
are not very reliable?

Furthermore, the fact of animals' being flash-frozen requiring -150 F.... Even if none in this condition were found, -100F or -75F still would be a drastic change! So, any debate there is moot.