Opinions on the Flood

[gluadys]

[/COLOR]

Assyrian says the geological record is littered with cataclysms and mass instinctions. Can this be proven not to be evidence of the Flood?

Yes.

 

[Driver]

Yes.

Can you explain?

 

[Driver]

There are parts of the world that have never been flooded.

Which parts?

 

[Willtor]

Which parts?

Good question. I don't have any kind of list, and maybe somebody else knows more, but in an email from my brother, at one point:

. . .

It is true that for a brief period (in geologic terms) the interior of North America was flooded from the Rockies to the Appalachians. Most of the surface strata found in the continental US was laid down at this time, and we find fossils of sea creatures in very unlikely places. But there are still large parts of the continent that were untouched by this-- most of the Canadian Shield, for example.

. . .

 

[steen]

And the east-African Plateau has never been flooded.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Is there a scientific definition of a miracle

Its the same one as for a "fact".

We know how fast nerves regenerate (as close to not at all as you care to get for humans, not with blinding <chortle> speed for any species).

We know (generally) the complex connections that are required for the brain to handle optical input.

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

In science "miracle" can only mean can only mean confirmed to be impossible except through supernatural intervention to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

That a person would be blind one day and see, understanding what he saw, the next, meets that standard.

 

[gluadys]

Can you explain?

Take mass extinctions for example. They occurred at different times for different reasons and different species were affected. None, so far as I know, were due to a flood. The K-T extinction event of 65 million years ago appears to have been caused by meteor impact and/or massive vulcanism.

The current mass extinction is due primarily to loss of habitat as a result of human activity. It will no doubt accelerate as climate change takes hold--and that too is in part due to human activity.

Between the major extinction events, there are all sorts of local and regional geological catastrophes. Many of these do involve water, (e.g. Washington scablands) but many don't. Each has to be studied on its own to determine the cause.

In short, the many cataclysms occur separately and from different causes in different times and places. They can't be put together as a single global flood.

 

[Driver]

Take mass extinctions for example. They occurred at different times for different reasons and different species were affected. None, so far as I know, were due to a flood. The K-T extinction event of 65 million years ago appears to have been caused by meteor impact and/or massive vulcanism.

Is it possible that we don't have all the scientific evidence? We hear in the news frequently "Scientists say", what does that actually mean? That "all Scientists" say? Isn't it really just a consensus of opinion? I was reading that not even all Evolutionists agree with the KT extinction event.

If there is a shadow of a doubt, shouldn't Christians yield to Scripture? How can you reconcile this passage and say there was no flood?

2 Peter 3

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:


​

Isn't this all the evidence we need?

 

[steen]

Is it possible that we don't have all the scientific evidence? We hear in the news frequently "Scientists say", what does that actually mean? That "all Scientists" say?

No. Popular media is not a reliable source of scientific information. Scientific resources are,. Stuff that props up in the media usually is premature and nhas not yet undergove the evaluation per processing by the Scientific Method.

Isn't it really just a consensus of opinion?

No, it is about the evidence.

I was reading that not even all Evolutionists agree with the KT extinction event.

And? Lots of people might not agree. It is about what the evidence eventually shows that matters.

If there is a shadow of a doubt, shouldn't Christians yield to Scripture? How can you reconcile this passage and say there was no flood?

2 Peter 3

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

​

Isn't this all the evidence we need?

Spiritually, there was a flood. Scientifically there wasn't. These are two different things.

 

[shernren]

2 Peter 3

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Remember Peter's answer to their deliberate ignorance? That a day is as a thousand years and vice versa?

 

[gluadys]

Is it possible that we don't have all the scientific evidence?

Very definitely. We never have and never will have all the scientific evidence. That is why science is not about proof. It is about making the best sense we can of the evidence we have.

It is also why one of the most important facets of the scientific method is making testable predictions. It is saying "If hypothesis A is true, we must observe event B. Or we must not observe event C."

Then if we do not observe event B, our hypothesis is put in doubt. And if we do observe event C, our hypothesis is shown to be false, and we go back to the drawing board to revise it or to start with a new hypothesis.

When I was in high school, it was still an open question scientifically whether the steady state cosmos or the big bang cosmos was a better model of reality. By the time I graduated from university the cosmic background radiation had been discovered. The steady state model had no way to explain the CBR, while the big bang model predicted the CBR. Needless to say, scientists who had been arguing over the matter now fell in line behind the big bang model. It had proved its worth through a successful prediction.

The flood model fails on both measures. What it predicts (event B) fails to appear. What it predicts will not be there (event C) does appear. The flood model is scientifically false on the basis of this evidence.

We hear in the news frequently "Scientists say", what does that actually mean? That "all Scientists" say? Isn't it really just a consensus of opinion?

The consensus is formed by the evidence. It is not just a matter of popularity. Every detail of a scientific proposal is scrutinized: the hard evidence, evidence overlooked, the methodology, the assumptions intrinsic to the methodology, other possible explanations of the results the original researcher did not take into account, the impact of other recent discoveries, etc. etc. Only a theory that remains standing after all this inquiry acquires consensus support.

I was reading that not even all Evolutionists agree with the KT extinction event.

What specifically do they disagree about? It is highly unlikely they disagree that it happened. It is probably some arcane detail that is controversial. Unfortunately, popular journalism (even popular scientific mags) seldom delve into the precise details.

They also tend to exxagerate how much disagreement there is. Consider the question of the origin of birds. Because journalists are trained to look for "both sides" of the issue, they will seek out scientists who support an alternative to dinosaurs as the ancestors of birds. But when you bring together all the journalists reports, you find that all the opposition comes from the same source, just one scientist named Albert Feduccia. IOW, there is one voice crying in the wilderness that every other paleontologist in the world is wrong. That is possible, but it is not very probable.

If there is a shadow of a doubt, shouldn't Christians yield to Scripture?

Which raises the question of whose interpretation of scripture Christians should yield to. Remember there is no such thing as uninterpreted scripture.

This question is really a subtle way of saying: shouldn't Christians yield to my interpretation of scripture?

How can you reconcile this passage and say there was no flood?

2 Peter 3

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:​

First, no one is saying there was no flood. It is that the actual flood which inspired the biblical story was not a global flood. Some people believe that even the flood in the story is not necessarily a global flood.

Isn't this all the evidence we need?

No, because scientifically it is not evidence at all. It is testimony. Testimony counts as evidence in a court of law. It does not count as scientific evidence. What is said or believed is not scientific evidence. Only the actual material facts and what can be reasonably deduced from them.

 

[Driver]

Remember Peter's answer to their deliberate ignorance? That a day is as a thousand years and vice versa?

Yes, Peter's answer to those "scoffers"? Peter is giving this answer to those scoffers, specifically, although it certainly applies to the "scoffees", as well.

 

[Mallon]

Is it possible that we don't have all the scientific evidence?

Certainly. In fact, given the nature of the fossil/rock record, we will never get the "complete" story of the past. But it only takes a single piece of evidence, such as trace fossils or sequenced fossil forests, to discount a global flood. The story may change as we gather more evidence, but we'll never go backwards.

I was reading that not even all Evolutionists agree with the KT extinction event.

All scientists accept the K-T extinction event. What is still debated is what caused the extinction (asteroid or volcanism, or both, as gluadys has said).

If there is a shadow of a doubt, shouldn't Christians yield to Scripture?

I yeild to Scripture no matter what the case. What I don't yeild to is what I consider to be a misinterpretation of its purpose.

How can you reconcile this passage and say there was no flood?

2 Peter 3

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:




​

Isn't this all the evidence we need?

New emphasis mine. I might ask how can you read the same passage and argue that God's creation is young? 2 Timothy also warns of the dangers of denying reality in order to maintain a comfy disposition:

They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry for the delay I'm up to my eyes in paint right now and pretty tired. I'll get back to you later.

 

[steen]

I know you directed this towards Steen, but I'm going to respond, anyway.

Please do. I have him on ignore.

 

[Jadis40]

Can you explain?

In answer to extinction events not being the result of the 'global' flood? Yes...

It's estimated that in the course of earth history that there's been at least 5 mass extinction events that have been extremely severe in the percentage of animal/floral species eliminated -

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction about 65 million years ago, which concides with the extinction of the last dinosaurs.

End Triassic extinction - about 199 million to 214 million years ago

Permian-Triassic extinction - about 251 million years ago.

Late Devonian extinction - about 364 million years ago.

Ordovician-Silurian extinction - about 439 million years ago.

I'll refer you to this page for more details:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html

It's also said that we're in the midst of another extinction event, which began 10,000 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event