Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

[Tiberius]

There is a LOT LOT LOT of the Bible that we can verify is true. Both subjective and objective. There is NONE of the Bible that anyone can disprove. So there is no reason NOT to believe all of the Bible. That is not even the issue. The issue is to understand the message God has for us today in His written word. There are people that do not believe the flood story in the Bible. The real problem is they do not believe their understanding of Noah's flood. Perhaps the problem is not the Bible, perhaps the problem is they have not learned how to trust in God to help them understand the Bible and it's message for them in their lives today.

The trouble is that the bits of the Bible we can verify are not those parts that support the existence of God. The Bible states the existence of Egypt, several rivers etc. We already know that.

And the Bible's claims about God and Jesus are unfalsifiable - just like claims about leprechauns. Just because a claim can't be proved wrong doesn't make that claim likely to be correct. Just means that it is not a useful claim.

 

[Jazer]

The trouble is that the bits of the Bible we can verify are not those parts that support the existence of God.

Same for evolution. R U going to have a double standard, one for Science and one for Religion. Just give God the same consideration you give Evolution. It does take time to learn how to trust God though. For me it did not happen over night. Over the years I have learned that He is trustworthy. He really does want what is best for us. We can depend on Him to come through for us.

 

[NailsII]

There is a LOT LOT LOT of the Bible that we can verify is true. Both subjective and objective. There is NONE of the Bible that anyone can disprove. So there is no reason NOT to believe all of the Bible. That is not even the issue.

(emphasis mine)
The Jews, pagans, Hindus, Mayans and the Muslims maight just disagree with you...

 

[Jazer]

I'd be happy to see corroborating evidence that the Romans or Quirinius ever ordered a census of the Jews.

A census? Whatever it was it had to do with paying taxes.
The tax collectors were not very popular people back then.

 

[Jazer]

(emphasis mine)
The Jews, pagans, Hindus, Mayans and the Muslims maight just disagree with you...

The pagans might, but everyone else at least accepts Jesus as a great teacher.
The Mayans were converted by force by the Spanish.

 

[verysincere]

>Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

Nobody's ever told me, so I thought I'd ask. One would think the experiment which proved all the stories from around the world to be untrue might've received a little notice. Anyhow, I'd like to know the logic involved, the dates, and the individuals who performed this should-be-famous experiment.

I wonder if the poster's question was inspired by the nonsense of many many "creation science" leaders who try to find bogus contrasts in "operational science versus historical science". Accordingly, they will sometimes demand that modern geology cite experiments for various geologic events and then falsely claim that geology is merely "historical science" and not "true science."

Of course, besides the naive premise of the entire argument, I'm fascinated to wonder if the poster considered that the burden of proof would be on him/her to demonstrate and answer:

"Which Experiment proved the Flood?"

Global Flood advocates have long claimed that the obvious ascending-complexity of fossils in the geologic layers is due to "different floatation properties" (and flee-to-the-highest-hill capabilities) of various kinds of animals. And one fundamentalist educational institution claimed to conduct a series of experiments on animal carcases to "prove" their differential-carcass-buoyancy theory. Unfortunately, for no officially announced reason, the results of that famous "creation science" experiment were never published nor even summarized in a public announcement. (I wonder why???)



[I personally affirm Noah's Flood but I favor what the Hebrew Bible text actually says versus what church tradition ABOUT THE BIBLE says. Genesis describes a regional flood which wiped out all of mankind at the time--except one extended family--all of whom lived in that one region. KOL ERETZ is not difficult to translate even if Bible translation tradition must imply a planet-wide flood to avoid hysterical protests and marketing disasters.]


And as I thought about your question, I have a similar question for you:

Nobody's ever told me, so I thought I'd ask. One would think the experiment which proved all the stories from around the world to be untrue might've received a little notice.

I certainly concur that many cultures around the world have stories about floods. But many of those cultures also have stories about the world originating from the corpse of some animal or being. So does that constitute a "proof" that the world began in that way? And many cultures have stories about the world being supported on various kinds of animals (such as giant elephants in Hindu traditions.) Does that provide proof?

As a Bible-affirming (and Genesis affirming) Christ-follower, it does pain me to point out the illogical arguments of my brethren. But bogus arguments do nothing to convince anyone of the truths of the Bible. Indeed, they tend to undermine the efforts of those of us who actually publish on the harmony between the Bible and Science.

 

[Tiberius]

Same for evolution. R U going to have a double standard, one for Science and one for Religion. Just give God the same consideration you give Evolution. It does take time to learn how to trust God though. For me it did not happen over night. Over the years I have learned that He is trustworthy. He really does want what is best for us. We can depend on Him to come through for us.

What are you saying? That there are bits of evolution that are verifiable, and other bits that prove the existence of God?

There is a ton of evidence for evolution.

 

[verysincere]

R U going to have a double standard, one for Science and one for Religion. Just give God the same consideration you give Evolution.

I'm a Bible-believing disciple of Jesus Christ, so I have to speak truthfully to you: It is NOT a "double standard" unless it seems that way because you don't understand the definitions of "Science" and "Religion".

Science is by definition focused upon and restricted to the scientific method applied to NATURAL (and not supernatural) processes. (And if science were somehow redefined to include the study of theology, I think you would be among the first to howl.)

Religion has been defined in various ways but a favorite view among religious studies scholars (my own field) is "reverence for the transcendent." I prefer that definition over most because it admits that many religions are non-theistic, they have no concept of god/gods.

Now, based upon those widely accepted and acknowledged definitions, would you not have to agree that scientific claims and religious claims are very different and have contrasting foundations? Indeed, as we observe often by the examples of this and other forums, RELIGION tends to begin (and remain fixed) upon particular dogma and then seeks evidence to confirm that dogma (often struggling in the process, actually.) SCIENCE begins with the evidence and investigates it in order to arrive at scientific laws and theories, which are DESCRIPTIONS and EXPLANATIONS respectively. (And nothing is "sacred" and so Science is always ready to reconsider, refine, and follow wherever the evidence leads.)

That said, because I personally consider God the author of the both the Book of Scriptures (the Bible) and the Book of Nature (Science), I'm fine with beginning from either foundation. And I don't have to try to twist one or the other -- as if one is somehow inferior to the other -- to confirm my preconceptions. Instead, if God is the God of truth AND DOES NOT DECEIVE US BY PLANTING FALSE EVIDENCE WITHIN CREATION, I don't have to be afraid of the scientific evidence and whether it might lead me to reconsider my fallible PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible. This contrasts with many of my Christian brethren who spend a great deal of time on Internet forums ignoring, denying, and distorting the scientific evidence!

Just give God the same consideration you give Evolution.

Considering that, according to the Bible, God has chosen to withdraw himself from the close fellowship with humans which Genesis describes prior to HADAM's sin --- and even to hide his direct manifestation from mankind --- it is disingenuous to pretend that the evidentiary standards would be the same for God as for observable processes in nature. (Indeed, I would bet my bottom dollar that your theology claims that the relationship between God and humans has been disturbed by man's sin and until that is eternally "solved", humans must LIVE BY FAITH and depend upon Divine special revelation instead of LIVING PRIMARILY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE about God.)

Now what frustrates me as a Bible-believing Christian about many of these topics is that the atheists and agnostics often appear to understand these very basic doctrines far better than many of my adamant Christians brethren do!

So let me answer you one more time: Of course I have a different standard for "Science" and for "Religion". Science and theology have very different definitions, are built on very different foundations, and use very different tools and procedures. (Secondarily, different religions have very different and contrasting epistemological systems, but that is beyond the boundaries of what can easily be discussed here.)

Yes, I personally affirm the existence of God. And I have evidence for God's existence. But I would tend to call it "anecdotal evidence" (for lack of a better term) because I'm honest enough to admit that my evidence does not rise to meet the standards of the scientific method.

Indeed, this is one of the major areas where "creation science" and "Intelligent Design" advocates just don't get it. For example, if I wish to empirically demonstrate through the scientific method that God has created the universe, the best means of doing so would be by comparing a universe created and intelligently designed by God with a universe NOT created and designed by God. Unfortunately, I don't have that luxury so I have to look for other procedures.

But the bottom line is that we all agree that God is defined as SUPERNATURAL, especially in contrast to the NATURAL world which he created. And because Science is equipped only to investigate natural processes in the natural world, Science has no means of analyzing and making conclusions about God.

 

[verysincere]

The pagans might, but everyone else at least accepts Jesus as a great teacher.

No. Though I am most certainly a Bible-believing Christ-follower myself, I would never make such a statement.

It sounds like you have little or no background in world religions or religious studies in general. Putting aside for the moment however you might happen to define "the pagans", millions upon millions of people of countless religious traditions have no knowledge of Jesus, much less "at least accepts Jesus as a great teacher." (Indeed, even if you had done extensive international travel, you would have avoided repeating such a fallacy. Yes, I realize that a lot of my Christian brethren get these ideas from Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, and other ministry entrepreneurs. But I encourage you to do your own research and objectively investigate the merits of their claims.)

 

[Tiberius]

Just give God the same consideration you give Evolution.

Sure. I give evolution a great deal of consideration because it has a vast wealth of evidence to support it, it allows us to make predictions and it has produced usable results when the theory has been applied.

When God starts doing the same thing, I'll give him the same consideration.

 

[SkyWriting]

So why would anyone in their right minds ask for science to disprove something supernatural?

There is nothing wrong with asking. Everyone wants to prove everything.
In the case of the flood, rather than consider it a natural event, it seems
more to me like a miraculous event from how it reads. So it may not have
left anything for science to find. Miracles rarely do.

 

[SkyWriting]

And because Science is equipped only to investigate natural processes in the natural world, Science has no means of analyzing and making conclusions about God.

Exactly. But from what we can see, the scriptures are accurate.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure. I give evolution a great deal of consideration because it has a vast wealth of evidence to support it, it allows us to make predictions and it has produced usable results when the theory has been applied. When God starts doing the same thing, I'll give him the same consideration.

God is Spirit. It's a different realm, though Jesus did walk here for a time..........with predictable results.

 

[Paulos23]

That's to be expected. The scriptures write about your exact situation:

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Belief without evidence is not a road I will go down again.

 

[Paulos23]

There is nothing wrong with asking. Everyone wants to prove everything.
In the case of the flood, rather than consider it a natural event, it seems
more to me like a miraculous event from how it reads. So it may not have
left anything for science to find. Miracles rarely do.

Then it might as well never happened.

 

[Jazer]

you come through for you by talking things over with yourself.

If you can depend on yourself, then depend on yourself. We choose to trust in God. I find that people do not always deliver on what they say they will deliver on, even when they "pinky swear". In fact I got a sister in law that you can pretty well depend on her not doing what she said she was going to do.

 

[Jazer]

Then it might as well never happened.

Noah saved all the animals in Eden. He preserved a biodiverse hotspot. According to science and the theory of evolution there was a biodiversity hotspot ecosystem in the Middle east. The Bible calls this hotspot Eden or the Garden of Eden. It is still a very rich farming area today.

 

[Paulos23]

Noah saved all the animals in Eden. He preserved a biodiverse hotspot. According to science and the theory of evolution there was a biodiversity hotspot ecosystem in the Middle east. The Bible calls this hotspot Eden or the Garden of Eden. It is still a very rich farming area today.

That is stretching facts to fit passages in the Bible.

So it was bio-diverse, that doesn't mean it was Eden.

Flooding was common in that area, it is why it is still a rich farming area.

The biodiversity didn't need an ark to survive, it had been surviving flood after flood for a long time.

 

[dlamberth]

. According to science and the theory of evolution there was a biodiversity hotspot ecosystem in the Middle east.

References please.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Just give God the same consideration you give Evolution. It does take time to learn how to trust God though.

As we look at God's Own Creation, directedly Created and signed off by God's own hand...God's own Creation shows us that it is through evolution through which God Creates new life. My trust in my Beloved God is total.

.