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

[_Themis]

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

That would disqualify you. I don't waste time with yours any more. I am more interested these days discussing things with people who have an open mind to begin with.

[_Bret Ripley]

Your arrogance is holding you down while actual "modern" science floats farther up and away from you...

We interrupt this program to bring you this musical interlude from our sponsor:

Fog's rolling in off the East River bank
Like a shroud it covers Bleecker Street
Fills the alleys where men sleep
Hides the shepherd from the sheep.

Voices leaking from a sad café
Smiling faces try to understand
I saw a shadow touch a shadow's hand
On Bleecker Street ...

And now back to our regularly scheduled fog.

The need for Christians to accept the Flood of Noah's day ---

[Guest]

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.

Probably a large local flood maybe triggered by a large seismic event or the flooding of the Black Sea basin where everyone but a few people died. There are a number of cultures with this type of tradition and so it would have seem like they may have a basis in one or more disasters like that.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Tobin.

[_LittleNipper]

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.

An honest person will consider that the truth doesn't always have a "natural process" attached with it. I brought up Global Warming, only to point out that some are attempting to enforce governmental regulations to stem a process which they know humans have little control over. Clearly, as a good steward of God 's Creation, I do feel that recycling is very important. Any way to prevent waste is a step in the right direction. I do see that CFL bulbs and raising taxes on fuel and making it impossible to mine coal, is not constructive to helping people earn a living. And driving industry out of the country does not resolve issues from happening elsewhere. Also, the speed with which I see environmental fluctuations today, doesn't make me fearful but proves that millions of years are not needed to bring about changes to the environment. The Flood is a very possible reason for all the past climate changes measured by the scientific data gathered.

[_Gunnar]

An honest person will consider that the truth doesn't always have a "natural process" attached with it.

I very strongly disagree that there is anything either honest or rational about considering "that the truth doesn't always have a 'natural process' attached to it." That premise makes it too easy for charlatans of all kinds (especially religious charlatans) to get away with promoting any nonsense, no matter how nonsensical or false, whenever it conflicts with the best available evidence and sound reason, by merely invoking "magic" or claiming that God did it by some miraculous means. It amounts to a "get out of jail free card" that any charlatans can attempt to use when confronted with clear and compelling evidence of the fraudulent nature of their scams. And you must know that countless religious charlatans have successfully used that "card" to get away with their scams, both big and little. See my tagline, below. It says it all!

Besides that, in my view, nature necessarily includes everything that exists or can exist--even God or gods, if there really is such a thing. To me, insisting that something or other is somehow above or beyond nature is equivalent to an inadvertent admission that it doesn't exist.

[_Themis]

To me, insisting that something or other is somehow above or beyond nature is equivalent to an inadvertent admission that it doesn't exist.

+1

[_LittleNipper]

An honest person will consider that the truth doesn't always have a "natural process" attached with it.

I very strongly disagree that there is anything either honest or rational about considering "that the truth doesn't always have a 'natural process' attached to it." That premise makes it too easy for charlatans of all kinds (especially religious charlatans) to get away with promoting any nonsense, no matter how nonsensical or false, whenever it conflicts with the best available evidence and sound reason, by merely invoking "magic" or claiming that God did it by some miraculous means. It amounts to a "get out of jail free card" that any charlatans can attempt to use when confronted with clear and compelling evidence of the fraudulent nature of their scams. And you must know that countless religious charlatans have successfully used that "card" to get away with their scams, both big and little. See my tagline, below. It says it all!

Besides that, in my view, nature necessarily includes everything that exists or can exist--even God or gods, if there really is such a thing. To me, insisting that something or other is somehow above or beyond nature is equivalent to an inadvertent admission that it doesn't exist.

According to whom? What about dark matter and quantum physics? It seems to me that logic states that life originated from somewhere. If life cannot be proven to be spontaniously forming now, then it never happened in the past. That is the reality. So a scientist must either be able to manufacture life or be faced with the reality that life was created supernaturally. It is a total fraud of science to continue to propose that life is just a fact of a "natural process" and then not find it anywhere else in the universe or not be able to develope it. Only God can create life. And the proof is the very fact you exist.

[Guest]

According to whom? What about dark matter and quantum physics?

Nothing about dark matter and quantum physics either requires or precludes the existence of God (as far as I can tell).

It seems to me that logic states that life originated from somewhere.

Obviously! Duh!

If life cannot be proven to be spontaniously forming now, then it never happened in the past.

That does not necessarily follow. Once life formed (whether spontaneously or not) and became well established, any subsequent spontaneous formation of life would be immediately swallowed up by already established lifeforms. Thus the probability of observing and proving subsequent spontaneous generation of life in nature would necessarily be zero--even if it happened.

So a scientist must either be able to manufacture life or be faced with the reality that life was created supernaturally. It is a total fraud of science to continue to propose that life is just a fact of a "natural process" and then not find it anywhere else in the universe or not be able to develope it. Only God can create life. And the proof is the very fact you exist.

Patent nonsense! You can't claim that anything is necessarily impossible based on what scientists have not yet been able to do! Suppose that tomorrow, scientists announce and prove that they have succeeded in creating self-replicating, life-like forms, would you then admit the fact (or, at least, the probability) of evolution? I doubt it! You would merely move the goalpost and claim that this proved only that intelligent design was needed for the creation of life.

Similarly, if scientists discovered unmistakable proof of extraterrestrial life, would you then admit the reality or the possibility of evolution? Again, I doubt it. The fact that scientists have not yet done so means absolutely nothing! Tell me, LN, do you think it is at all likely that in the entire, observable universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies and countless trillions of trillions of stars, that our, tiny, insignifant little planet is the only abode of life? What a horrendous waste of real estate that would be!

Besides that, even if it is true that only a god can create life (which it is admittedly impossible at this point to rule out entirely), that does not necessarily imply that he/she/it had to use supernatural means to do it--nor does it rule out or demolish the fact of evolution, which is only concerned with how life changed and developed after its initial origin--not how it originated.

[_Gunnar]

Probably a large local flood maybe triggered by a large seismic event or the flooding of the Black Sea basin where everyone but a few people died. There are a number of cultures with this type of tradition and so it would have seem like they may have a basis in one or more disasters like that.

+1
As you obviously realize, civilizations, almost by necessity, become established near reliable sources of abundant water--precisely the locations where occasional and even disastrous local flooding is well nigh inevitable. Thus it would be extremely remarkable if ancient flood legends and traditions were not very common to most civilizations--even if there never were any actual, world-wide flood as described in Genesis and the much older Sumerian and Babylonian legends on which the Genesis account is obviously based. Nor is it surprising, given the inevitability of poetic license and human imagination, that at least some of the oral traditions of past, local flooding events would be exaggerated to world-wide inundations by the time they were finally written down after the invention of writing.

I agree that the flooding of the Black Sea, which we now know was a comparatively recent geological event, is a likely basis for the Biblical account. Another possible candidate (I think) is the flooding event that formed the Red Sea, as sea levels rose after the end of the last Ice Age. What do you think?