Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_DrW]

I will grant him one thing though. He is right when he says that having advanced academic degrees in science is not all one needs to truly qualify as a "real scientist", though as scientific knowledge continues to advance and accumulate, it is becoming increasingly difficult to succeed as one without such advanced, formal training. There have, in the past, been significant breakthroughs in technology and scientific understanding made by largely self-educated and brilliant "amateurs." Though this will probably become increasingly rare, I doubt that it has yet reached the point of impossibility.

I absolutely agree. And even a "real scientist" is only being a "real scientist" when she thinks like "real scientists" do. Even the greatest scientist can say and think some absolutely crazy stuff. I read the whole speech from which subgenious's current Feynman tag line was taken. His point about "experts" is that one can become an "expert" by accumulating information without understanding it. Feynman's genius was his drive to figure out how stuff works. He is the perfect example of a person who values getting things right above being right. Subgenius is the anti-Feynman.

Subgenius as the anti-Feynman?

Works for me.

[_subgenius]

date of the flood is another topic, and one you may not be qualified to discuss.

What qualifications are required to discuss the date of the Biblical flood?

just one really....a non-myopic view of the world and life.

[_Res Ipsa]

just one really....a non-myopic view of the world and life.

And what qualifies as "a non-myopic view of the world and life?"

[_subgenius]

So that I understand what you are saying here: If you could use all the available water and use it like paint, you could paint the entire surface of the earth with a thin layer of water and thus have globally flooded the earth. Do I have that right?

No, you do not have it right.
My example was merely to illustrate yet another inaccurate assumption in your model - simply that water, by the obvious scientific evidence, does not simply behave according to your assumption.

Here we see a crucial error in not just your model but your "train of thought".
You see, i am not making the claim that science is capable of proving the flood occurred, yesterday - tomorrow - or 6,000 years ago.
So, the idea that the burden of proof is somehow mine is an inadequacy for your position and highlights one of the many issues you guys typically have.
I have taken exception, time and time again, with your claim that science has proven that the flood was and is impossible.
I can even take exception with the assertion that science increases the probability that the flood was and is impossible.
With regards to science, i have made my position clear - there is ample physical, archaeological, and anthropological evidence which allows for a reasonable conclusion of the flood.
Is it overwhelming "scientific" evidence? not in my opinion.
Are posters like Nipper blurring the lines? yes, in my opinion.
So, that being said...i stand by my criticisms that the "hypothesis" being put forth that the flood was impossible is a flawed one and not worthy of an upgrade to theory. Simply basing your hypothesis on some poorly conceptualized formulas, over-simplified views of the physical earth, and fountains of assumptions is not sufficient for the conclusions you are so eager (for some reason?) to make.

[_subgenius]

just one really....a non-myopic view of the world and life.

And what qualifies as "a non-myopic view of the world and life?"

sorry for the confusion - i meant to use the term "myopia" in the psychological sense...where a person exhibits a narrow perception and a narrow cognition.
While science is a great system for building and organizing knowledge, it is not the only system nor can it be effectively argued that it is the "best" system. And likely a "myopic" person in this sense considers science to be the best system for not only building and organizing knowledge - but also as the only system by which knowledge can be acquired.

other than that a good example is how DrW confuses science as a general concept with the physical sciences thus giving him a myopic view of science itself.

[_Res Ipsa]

sorry for the confusion - i meant to use the term "myopia" in the psychological sense...where a person exhibits a narrow perception and a narrow cognition.
While science is a great system for building and organizing knowledge, it is not the only system nor can it be effectively argued that it is the "best" system. And likely a "myopic" person in this sense considers science to be the best system for not only building and organizing knowledge - but also as the only system by which knowledge can be acquired.

other than that a good example is how DrW confuses science as a general concept with the physical sciences thus giving him a myopic view of science itself.

No apology needed.

If the question is "when did the Biblical flood occur?" what do you suggest as the best system by which this knowledge could be acquired?

I understand your beef with Dr. W. As long as you won't confuse me with him, I'll do my best not to confuse science as a concept with the physical sciences.

[_Res Ipsa]

My example was merely to illustrate yet another inaccurate assumption in your model - simply that water, by the obvious scientific evidence, does not simply behave according to your assumption.

One thing at a time please. Please restate how you think I've assumed water behaves and how your example shows how water actually behaves.

[_Res Ipsa]

<snip>

Here we see a crucial error in not just your model but your "train of thought".
You see, i am not making the claim that science is capable of proving the flood occurred, yesterday - tomorrow - or 6,000 years ago.
So, the idea that the burden of proof is somehow mine is an inadequacy for your position and highlights one of the many issues you guys typically have.
I have taken exception, time and time again, with your claim that science has proven that the flood was and is impossible.
I can even take exception with the assertion that science increases the probability that the flood was and is impossible.
With regards to science, i have made my position clear - there is ample physical, archaeological, and anthropological evidence which allows for a reasonable conclusion of the flood.
Is it overwhelming "scientific" evidence? not in my opinion.
Are posters like Nipper blurring the lines? yes, in my opinion.
So, that being said...i stand by my criticisms that the "hypothesis" being put forth that the flood was impossible is a flawed one and not worthy of an upgrade to theory. Simply basing your hypothesis on some poorly conceptualized formulas, over-simplified views of the physical earth, and fountains of assumptions is not sufficient for the conclusions you are so eager (for some reason?) to make.

I understand perfectly why you will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid making any claim that the Biblical flood actually occurred: you can't posit a plausible mechanism consistent with the totality of the evidence without invoking magic. (And, once again, I'm fine if you do that. How can one rationally argue against magic?) But instead of just admitting it requires magic, you do the classic apologist schtick: load up the shotgun with every criticism you can think of (whether they make sense or affect the result in any meaningful way) and try to create some wiggle room that allows the marks to believe that it's somehow possible.

I know I came in late, so we haven't talked about what my claim would be. It's this: based on the totality of evidence and the known laws of physics, the earth could not have been flooded in totality (all the land covered at once in a manner that would let the ark float everywhere) at any time in the last 6,000 years without the invocation of magic (violation of the known laws of physics, gravity, fluid mechanics, etc.) That being my claim, it is perfectly acceptable for me to use models to simplify the math, as long as when I do so, I simplify in a way that would contradict my claim. That is, for example, if I want to calculate the effect of adding a fixed amount of water to the surface of the earth, I can use a shape that has a smaller surface area than the actual shape of the earth, because that would increase the height of sea level on my model over what would be found on the actual earth. As long as I can demonstrate that a simplifying assumption works against my claim, the simplification is perfectly appropriate. To claim otherwise is not science -- it's denial.

[_Tobin]

Hi Brad,

I believe there are mechanisms that would flood the Earth. The only problem I have is there is no evidence that anything like that has happened in the past 6-8,000 years. If the Earth were bombarded by comets, then that would do it. However, that opens up a large number of questions. Where did the extra volume of water go and with that kind of bombardment? How did anything survive the impacts? And why is there no evidence of a world-wide flood today?

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi Brad,

I believe there are mechanisms that would flood the Earth. The only problem I have is there is no evidence that anything like that has happened in the past 6-8,000 years. If the Earth were bombarded by comets, then that would do it. However, that opens up a large number of questions. Where did the extra volume of water go and with that kind of bombardment? How did anything survive the impacts? And why is there no evidence of a world-wide flood today?

Hi Tobin. I agree with you. Your mechanism is a good one because, if I recall correctly, that's the scientific explanation for how we got all the water we have in the first place. That's why I qualified my claim by requiring the mechanism be consistent with the totality of the evidence we have.

Can I ask how you view the story of Noah and the flood? I'm not asking for any scientific proof or anything -- just how you reconcile the story and the evidence in your own mind.

Thanks.