The Deluge

[devnull]

Yes. So is Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Paul Bunyan, and Cinderella. But we still have to get the story right.

Well, its not quite right anyway, as Im sure you are aware. I global deluge would not only water down the oceans to the point where all the saltwater fish died, but would probably make the point moot anyway by stirring up such a massage amount of silt and debris as to choke all the freshwater fish as well.

Actually, Ive skipped over a fair amount of this thread, but did anyone hazard an explanation as to how all the world's species evolved from a handful in such a short time??? Or is it a case of "gawdidit"?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Well, its not quite right anyway, as Im sure you are aware.

The story is what it is. I'm just clarifying what the story is, and what the story is not. We can't properly discuss whether the story is right or wrong or true or false unless we first understand what the story is.

I global deluge would not only water down the oceans to the point where all the saltwater fish died, but would probably make the point moot anyway by stirring up such a massage amount of silt and debris as to choke all the freshwater fish as well.

Actually, Ive skipped over a fair amount of this thread, but did anyone hazard an explanation as to how all the world's species evolved from a handful in such a short time??? Or is it a case of "gawdidit"?

Watering down salt water was brought up. Silt and debris was brought up. I'm not sure if the issue of silt choking the fish was brought up.

David has not hazarded an explanation of these and many of the other very valid questions. He hasn’t gone “gawdidit” either. He answered a couple questions of a Biblical nature, spouted a bunch of stuff about things that he seems to have at least some knowledge about, talked about how sometimes there are some scientists that sometimes get some things wrong, and has avoided the hard questions.

And if you are just catching up on this thread, I provided a summary here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5785794#post5785794

 

[I Ratant]

Finally then science and the church agree
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

seems the catholics are more progressive than you are David, what do they know that you don't ?

.
Pick the first science that begins with "A", and go thru to "Z".
That'll cover it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well it appears that David has decided to go to other threads for entertainment. Pity, that. I was really wondering how he would address my question. Since it appears he won't, I might as well explain why I think it's a good question.

If you have argued with a creationist, or variant thereof, at least once, you realize that simply presenting scientific evidence doesn't work. You can present data and data and data and it will never convince any of them. If they were all that interested in science, they wouldn't be creationists. Furthermore, much of the presentation is, "If the Earth is so young, why is it that we see...." That's great for dealing with scientists, but when you are dealing with people who think that a 900 year old man carried around two of every animal in the world so they wouldn't drown, I'm thinking that some stories about radioisotope dating aren't going to be all that persuasive. If God can work miracles, and was willing to alter everything about the entire world and kill all but eight people on it, then he can do whatever he wants to. If that means keeping them from eating each other, no problem. If that means telling marsupials to walk back to Australia, while polar bears head north, no problem.

So how, then, can they be persuaded? I honestly don't know, but I wanted to try something out.

These people aren't impressed by data or facts. They are more interested in people. Their rhetoric and arguments are filled with people references. I thought it might be interesting to see how to build an argument that was based on something that might be more interesting to a biblical literalist, and couldn't be rationalized as some clash of "our" philosophy versus "their" philosophy.

Oil companies don't ahve a religious axe to grind. They arent't trying to prove or disprove the Bible. All they care about is finding oil. They've noticed that people who use "old Earth" geology can help them find oil. People who use "young Earth" geology cannot help them find oil. It's that simple. They only hire "old Earth" geologists, because those are the only ones who can help them find oil.

Why does that matter? I could have asked, "How could oil form from a young Earth?" I've asked that. It's a legitimate question, and proper thought applied to it would result in a conclusion that the Earth is old. However, it's a less persuasive argument than the formulation that I tried this time. They just make up some sort of nonsense answer to that question. Instead, I asked about people. Why is it that these people, who we can assume only want to make money, won't hire a young Earth believer?

Well, David, if you're reading this, there's the question, complete with an explanation of the hidden agenda. (You may have already guessed it, or something close to it.) Having the agenda explained might ruin the question, but if you are inclined to do so, I would still like to hear an answer.

 

[I Ratant]

Oil companies don't ahve a religious axe to grind. They arent't trying to prove or disprove the Bible. All they care about is finding oil. They've noticed that people who use "old Earth" geology can help them find oil. People who use "young Earth" geology cannot help them find oil. It's that simple. They only hire "old Earth" geologists, because those are the only ones who can help them find oil.

...

.
I watched part of a story on Joseph Smith last night on History? or Discovery?..
It was mentioned he used a "seer stone" in his hat which he put his face into, to find gold.
The story said he was quite good at this... but didn't specify what he was good at... predicting the locations for which gold might be found, or predicting the locations where gold was found.
He did stand trial for these claims and was convicted of fraud, ISTR.
(Didn't watch the whole thing.)

 

[Simon39759]

Well; not all creationists are as far gone as the ones you mention, I dare hope. They just do not know better, have limited scientific understanding and have been mislead by their pastors (sometime willfully). There is also a heavy social pressure as; quite often, they have been told that you could not believe in Evolution (or any of the associated sciences) without rejecting God and Christianity. They are not interested in rejecting God and rejecting Christianity would mean loosing much of their social contact, sometime including their family.
Nonetheless, I truly believe, that if properly cleared of these misunderstandings, the vast majority of creationists would happily embrace the TOE, it is logical, and it is very, very well supported.

Of course, they are a few incurable case, including professional liars that make a career out of their willing delusion (I am talking about creationism, here, smartasses, not the more general theistic one).


That being said, yours is a very good argument especially when the idea of a global atheistic conspiracy is trotted out...

 

[Delvo]

Just the ground beasties, and birds.

no, I mean that genesis says everything died, if only implicitly.

But that is not what it says. It says all living things on the ground and the birds in heaven died, except for Noah and those on the ark... It says exactly what died, and specially says that Noah and those on the ark were the exceptions to those. It mentions nothing about fish or such dying, either explicitly or implicitly. The things that died are: all living things on the ground and birds, except those on the ark.

As Hokulele already pointed out before any of these above quotes were posted:

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

 

[Delvo]

David has not hazarded an explanation of these and many of the other very valid questions. He hasn’t gone “gawdidit” either. He answered a couple questions of a Biblical nature...

Then maybe I should have asked him why, if God's motivation for this whole thing was just about us humans, he also killed so many other life-forms that the story never says he had any problem with.

 

[Ladewig]

Well; not all creationists are as far gone as the ones you mention, I dare hope. They just do not know better, have limited scientific understanding and have been mislead by their pastors (sometime willfully). There is also a heavy social pressure as; quite often, they have been told that you could not believe in Evolution (or any of the associated sciences) without rejecting God and Christianity. They are not interested in rejecting God and rejecting Christianity would mean loosing much of their social contact, sometime including their family.

Agreed

Nonetheless, I truly believe, that if properly cleared of these misunderstandings, the vast majority of creationists would happily embrace the TOE, it is logical, and it is very, very well supported.

Why do you believe that? What evidence has led you to that conclusion? The last four Bible literalists who showed at at JREF (DOC, KK, AXQ, and DH) have resisted every attempt at clearing misunderstandings.

 

[Ladewig]

The thread has been abandoned, but I still feel compelled to post this response

Heres a question for you Mr. David Hensen. Is God good? I say he is not. Plagues, baby killing, pregnant mother ripping open says bad guy to me. Can you rebut that? Excuse me for getting off topiic. I'll leave the rebuttle to the experts.

Hmmph.

Well, first of all, what is good is subjective. To me God is good but he has had to do some things that I wouldn't want to have had the authority to do, even some things that, like the David of Bible times, I didn't agree with or at least wasn't very happy with.

Some of the "bad" things he had to do I understand and I would have had to do the same. The flood, for example. The Bible doesn't say this so it is my own speculation, but I believe the flood had to have taken place or mankind would have destroyed itself.

The examples you used above . . . you have to give me scriptural citations, buddy, at least go that far.

I am not questioning the need to kill tens of millions of people. I am questioning the method of killing tens of millions of people. God could have killed them all in their sleep or simply blinked His eves and winked them out of existence. Instead 5-year-olds who never developed the mental capacity to distinguish good from evil (or if you prefer Yahweh's path from the path of false gods) were forced to watch their loved ones suffer and die before slipping beneath the surface and choking on the flood water, their last hour on Earth spent in sheer terror and anguish.

I cannot worship the god that you describe.

 

[Paulhoff]

I am not questioning the need to kill tens of millions of people. I am questioning the method of killing tens of millions of people. God could have killed them all in their sleep or simply blinked His eves and winked them out of existence. Instead 5-year-olds who never developed the mental capacity to distinguish good from evil (or if you prefer Yahweh's path from the path of false gods) were forced to watch their loved ones suffer and die before slipping beneath the surface and choking on the flood water, their last hour on Earth spent in sheer terror and anguish.

I cannot worship the god that you describe.

Well, like their so-called god, that means nothing to them.

Next they will talk about the love of Jesus, and all is OK.

Paul

 

[Darth Rotor]

How did the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis survive to be mentioned again in Numbers?

On vacation at Xenuland?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So how did a WOODEN boat the size of the Titanic manage to keep from leaking in rough stormy waters?

I'm not a nautical engineer but I believe there are structural reasons why a wooden boat the size of the Titanic was never built.

A little rough water and the seams between the planks are going to have some pretty big gaps in them.....not to mention the fact that it would probably fall apart under it's own weight in rough water....

Good point. Perhaps some hard work at bailing could mitigate the usual leakage into the bilges. We don't know what sort of caulk, pitch, what have you Noah used, the blueprints do not appear to have been included in the Pentatuch so a great deal of "how did the Ark work" from a Naval Architecture PoV remains unknown.

That said, the keel for a ship that size, given the materials we assume were used, would need to be progressively thicker as it went from either end to the middle, over lapping beams/logs, or the keel would fail to achieve the stiffness required to keep the Ark together during normal harmonic motion, in even calm seas.

Far better Naval Architects than I (I am not one) have done analysis on how to build such an Ark.

Float on that bad boy for 40 days? Well, if it that or drown, OK, I'm game, but not if I don't have to.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is my last post on this topic but i would like to point something out. If this flood did happen then there woud have been dozens of dead bodies of drowned humans, angels and animals and fish. These decaying bodies would have floated on the surface for awhile and then as the decaying process completed the bones of various species of humans and animals would have become disarticulated and floated to the bottom much like salt from a shaker. Some of these bones would fossilised and the bones of these different species would have been scattered hither and yon. Has there ever been a discovery of say elephant bones, cheetah bones, kangeroo bones etc found scattered in sediments like this? I mean if a pile of human, Koala and puma bones etc were found together that would be evidence of this flood of yours. Has anything like this ever been found? I think not.

Cainkane1, why would you presume that Angels would drown? The rest, point worth making.

DR

 

[Simon39759]

Agreed



Why do you believe that? What evidence has led you to that conclusion? The last four Bible literalists who showed at at JREF (DOC, KK, AXQ, and DH) have resisted every attempt at clearing misunderstandings.

Because; only a tiny minority of Christians are in straight-jackets.
It means that they all can, to a degree, cope with reality and follow logical thinking.
Sure, if it clashes with their favorite delusion, a large number will use cognitive dissonance... But Evolution does not have to. To a large extent, it is details. Indeed, most Christian sects have abandoned Creationism.
This is the reason why I think that teaching Evo in a conciliatory, non-threatening manner, would be the most convincing. I know it is the NCSE approach and I know they have been criticized for it by some atheists but, considering the NCSE's mission statement, I think their strategy is the most efficient, to achieve their goals...

 

[Meadmaker]

Well; not all creationists are as far gone as the ones you mention, I dare hope.

Sure. Some just haven't bothered to find out anything beyond what they heard in church, or wherever they heard the information. However, those are easier to spot, and you can have a semi-scientific discussion with them. However, by the time they get to the point where they are going on to skeptics' forums to discuss creationist topics, you probably aren't going to get anywhere talking about the K-T layer and its relationship to a crater off the Yucatan coastline. (I don't know how floods can cause craters, but I'm sure there's a way. Maybe it's actually one of the fountains of the deep that opened up to pour forth water?)

ETA: A brief trip to google and, what do you know?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/crater.asp

Turns out that water was only one of Noah's problems. He also had to dodge meteoroids.

 

[Simon39759]

Sure. Some just haven't bothered to find out anything beyond what they heard in church, or wherever they heard the information. However, those are easier to spot, and you can have a semi-scientific discussion with them. However, by the time they get to the point where they are going on to skeptics' forums to discuss creationist topics, you probably aren't going to get anywhere talking about the K-T layer and its relationship to a crater off the Yucatan coastline. (I don't know how floods can cause craters, but I'm sure there's a way. Maybe it's actually one of the fountains of the deep that opened up to pour forth water?)

ETA: A brief trip to google and, what do you know?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/crater.asp

Turns out that water was only one of Noah's problems. He also had to dodge meteoroids.

I love how the Bible is the inherent and perfect word of God; that just happen to be bloody incomplete and only tell half the story...

Yes, it is possible that our sample is biased, after all, the people that care enough to go and post on a skeptical website are probably the far gone apologetists.
I often think that, if explained comprehensively and in a non-confrontational manner, many people that currently reject it would adopt the theory of evolution...

 

[I Ratant]

Good point. Perhaps some hard work at bailing could mitigate the usual leakage into the bilges. We don't know what sort of caulk, pitch, what have you Noah used, the blueprints do not appear to have been included in the Pentatuch so a great deal of "how did the Ark work" from a Naval Architecture PoV remains unknown.

That said, the keel for a ship that size, given the materials we assume were used, would need to be progressively thicker as it went from either end to the middle, over lapping beams/logs, or the keel would fail to achieve the stiffness required to keep the Ark together during normal harmonic motion, in even calm seas.

Far better Naval Architects than I (I am not one) have done analysis on how to build such an Ark.

Float on that bad boy for 40 days? Well, if it that or drown, OK, I'm game, but not if I don't have to.

DR

.
At the time of the alleged Flood, the most advanced ships of the day were used to travel to Punt from Egypt.
These were oar/sail propelled, with a large rope truss running bow to stern to keep the very flexible structure intact, as seen in this image of one of the ships.
This barque is very much smaller than the Ark is said to have been, and was the state of the art for shipbuilding for a long time before and after the putative time for the Flood.

 

[Simon39759]

And that technology was state of the art and not accessible to Hebrews that never were a very maritime people...

 

[Delvo]

I haven't seen the name "Punt" before that I know of. Is it related to "Punic" (adjective for things of Carthage)?