The Flood

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Indeed --- I have another way of stating this exact same point:

• Keep looking.

And as I keep stating the more we look the more we find evidence that the flood of Noah could not have been global.

 

[Inan3]

As I said, I'm sure I didn't do everything "right", but not for lack of trying. And indeed it was toward the end of my life as a Christian that I finally got around to reading the Bible front to back. So I came to the instruction manual after years of getting bits and pieces (as most Christians do anyway) from years in church and meandering through the faith.

I will readily grant that my path may not have been optimal, but if God exists then he presumably knows the human weaknesses.

He appeared not to exist or he hid his guidance from me in my path. Since I don't think any rational conception of God allows him to hide himself from the truly seeking soul, I pretty much had to go with the other option.

That's why I don't mind debating the Bible with you or AV because I have read it. I don't buy the claims that you have to fully accept it before you understand it. Especially in light of how literalists read it anyway.

Either the Bible clearly says what it says, open to anyone who reads it, or it doesn't.

If it requires you come with some additional key, like some roman a clef, then it loses all value to teach. If you have to believe the conclusion before reading how the conclusion was arrived atI can't see how I could possibly learn anything from it.

I read the Bible at the weakest point in my spiritual path, and it provided no real assurance that it was more holy than any other writing by humans. It looked indistinguishable from the countless other writings by countless other humans I'd read.

I came to the table but found no placesetting.

(And, as I said earlier, I don't wish to de-convert another human being. I don't want to dictate anyone else's spiritual path. I'm glad to present what I have learned but anyone who takes my word for anything without checking out what I say is a bigger fool than I. And that is my main debating point against religious thought. If it's worth knowing, it's got plenty of support and can be independently verified at every turn. No apologetics, no exegesis, required.)

While I understand what you are saying and I respect why you say it, I would ask you to explain what you think Jesus was saying in the following scriptures. I am not saying this is the reason you didn't get the answers you wanted. I believe that is for other reasons but I do know and believe that is the reason that most don't understand.



Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mat 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them].

 

[thaumaturgy]

While I understand what you are saying and I respect why you say it, I would ask you to explain what you think Jesus was saying in the following scriptures. I am not saying this is the reason you didn't get the answers you wanted. I believe that is for other reasons but I do know and believe that is the reason that most don't understand.



Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mat 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them].

Good question. Years ago, when I read that I was, sad to say, shocked that Jesus, the guy who I had been introduced to as the being who wanted to bring me to him, to welcome me to heaven, would say that.
(Even moreso when I read Mark 4:12).

I have always been a rather empirical person. When I learned about David Hume in philosophy class I jumped with both feet onto a posteriori knowledge. Briefly I fought my roommate (a philosophy major) over even the existence of a priori knowledge.

So to see the Savior of mankind, whose only requirement to gain salvation was simply to accept him, say that he spoke in parables so that seeing they not see and hearing they not hear, was, well, shocking.

It was about that time that I started to wonder about what did Jesus say, when did he say it, and most importantly, who recorded his sayings and why does Jesus appear to be a fractured being, representing differing view points dependent upon the gospel, the viewer or the recipient.

Was he all things to all people or some things to some and another to others.

As a scientist but more importantly as a human surely God would know how the human mind works, or how a scientist looks at that.

The message was unclear at best, and antithetical to everything I understood about the value of "truth" at worst.

Truth, especially of such importance as eternal salvation is NEVER hidden, from anyone. It is never couched in such a way as to make it unheard or not understood.

When I pick up a text book to learn how to conduct a particularly dangerous experiment, one that could result in many people getting hurt if done wrong, I do not want to think there's some "unstated" or "veiled" comment in there that if it is not understood perfectly, will result in me being seriously injured or innocent bystanders being seriously injured.

And that is precisely what is described in statements like the above (or Mark 4:12). A recipe for innocent victims.

Mark 4:12 is even more disturbing in its curtness:

[BIBLE]Mark 4:12[/BIBLE]

Salvation can never be hidden from anyone. It must not only be freely available (as Christianity claims) but also so patently obvious that there is no room for error. None.

The savior of humanity, the only door, the only way to the father, who will come to judge the quick and the dead, cannot speak in parables for the above stated reasons.

Speaking in parables may serve to make a larger point, but it can never be done for reasons of obfuscation.

At the bottom of just about every single one of my posts it reads "editted by Thaumaturgy" (I'm not sure others see that notification). That's because I obsess over what I submit as a post and will edit and re-edit posts, sometimes running back to my computer after I've posted something to make an important change. I actively fear misrepresenting someone else's point. I actively fear providing false information. I know that I surely do both, but I attempt at all times to be as scrupulous about what I present as is possible for my flawed skills.

I like to tell my wife I'm a better catholic than she is (despite my being raised a methodist) because I can carry catholic guilt to a high art, and I like to tell my philosopher friend that I can "out-Augustine" Augustine in expressing my appreciation of my own vileness.

I am more abundantly aware of my failings than most Christians I've seen. I was more abundantly aware of how much I didn't deserve salvation than most of my co-religionists.

That has made me who I am today. It also explains why religion failed for me. And for that I have to ask "if there's a god, where was he all along?"

Surely if God knows all and sees all, then why would he ever speak in such a way that seeing I would not see and hearing I would not hear and my sins not be forgiven?

 

[Baggins]

Stating that the Mesopotamian area was flooded locally doesn't disprove the Flood.

Agreed. careful study of the geological record over 200 years ago by Christian gentlemen did that.

Noah [probably] didn't even live there, let alone build an Ark there.

In fact he probably didn't even exist.

The Ark "rested" there, not "departed from" there.

And neither did the ark. It was all, and I know you won't like this, an allegory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Indeed --- I have another way of stating this exact same point:

• Keep looking.

You shouldn't have to look very long for evidence of a global catastrophe. It should be everywhere.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You shouldn't have to look very long for evidence of a global catastrophe. It should be everywhere.

Instead everywhere we look we find evidence that this global catastrophe didn't happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed. careful study of the geological record over 200 years ago by Christian gentlemen did that.

Were these the same type of "Christian gentlemen" that led the Crusaders into battle?

In fact he probably didn't even exist.

In your mind --- probably not.

And neither did the ark. It was all, and I know you won't like this, an allegory.

Ya --- I love it when any "scientist" who just barely found the Edmond Fitzgerald when he knew where to look, when it went down, and who was on it; tells me Noah's Ark, a containment vessel from 3500 years ago, which ended up in territory that is currently off-limits to archaeologists, didn't exist because he can't find it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You shouldn't have to look very long for evidence of a global catastrophe. It should be everywhere.

Unless everywhere was cleaned up --- or you're living right on top of the evidence, and interpreting it wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Instead everywhere we look we find evidence that this global catastrophe didn't happen.

Ya --- I just dug up a rock in my backyard yesterday --- and inscribed on it: "There was no global flood."

No interpretation necessary from "higher" academia.

 

[TheBear]

You shouldn't have to look very long for evidence of a global catastrophe. It should be everywhere.

Instead everywhere we look we find evidence that this global catastrophe didn't happen.

Agreed.

There is not even a hint of evidence for a global flood. Nothing.

It looks like we've been tricked again. First by "embedded age", and now, all traces of a global flood have been completely erased.

 

[Naraoia]

Were these the same type of "Christian gentlemen" that led the Crusaders into battle?

Why would that matter in this case? I'm not sure which of Watson and Crick is/was a horrible male chauvinist, but one of them being a nasty guy with nasty opinions doesn't change the structure of DNA...

Your reference to the crusaders is an irrelevant ad hominem argument.

I recall you appealing to logic about the alleged contradictions in the Bible. If logic is so important to you then please try to avoid logical fallacies

Oh yes, and that includes the infamous "Bible says Bible's true" thing

Ya --- I love it when any "scientist" [...] tells me Noah's Ark [...] didn't exist because he can't find it.

(emphasis mine) Who said this?

 

[Split Rock]

Agreed. careful study of the geological record over 200 years ago by Christian gentlemen did that.

Were these the same type of "Christian gentlemen" that led the Crusaders into battle?

I think that the Crusades happened a few centuries earlier than 200 years ago. Maybe you should study more history.

 

[Split Rock]

Agreed.

There is not even a hint of evidence for a global flood. Nothing.

I'll answer for AVET, since he is outnumbered (as usual)

"KEEP LOOKING!!!"

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ya --- I love it when any "scientist" who just barely found the Edmond Fitzgerald when he knew where to look, when it went down, and who was on it; tells me Noah's Ark, a containment vessel from 3500 years ago, which ended up in territory that is currently off-limits to archaeologists, didn't exist because he can't find it.

Do you think the Turkish authorities, acting on commands from Satan are making them hide the obvious evidence of Noah's Ark?

Gosh. They sure are nefarious.

See, AV, what you are doing is extrapolating from the word of one or two people (there are two versions of the Noah story intermingled right there in the bible) and assuming, without any evidence that they are telling you a fact.

You know, I once heard a couple guys get up and tell us all that they had conducted cold fusion!

Only, it took real scientists doing real research to make us all realize the results were not reproducible.

Let me tell you a story from my very own life.

After my first postdoc I was invited by a university to do a postdoc with two researchers. The topic they wer dealing with was amazing and could have been really big...and I don't mean just a little big... I mean really big...in fact if it worked out even YOU or people on Guam would have known who these folks were. And by extension, you'd probably know who I was too.

I was pretty excited. I jumped at the chance. One of the researchers was pretty well known from earlier work. I was off to my new job.

I got there and was told "Our previous postdoc found this particular effect, we'd like you to reproduce it and verify it and explore how big an effect it is!"

Little did I know that some other international research organizations were finding it impossible to reproduce the effect. And within 6 months it was clear I wasn't able to reproduce it. I thought I had on one or two occasions, but I simply couldn't reproduce it consistently. In fact I could theorize many ways for it to be an error. The chances of this being a false positive were mounting with each run.

The researchers really wanted it to be true. I did too. But all we had to go on was an earlier study by a postdoc who was gone now.

Each year they grudgingly gave in and said maybe the effect wasn't as big as originally estimated but it was there! And so it went month after month.

They brought in other postdocs, they weren't able to reproduce it either. I was not renewed after my first year so I went away. Here it is almost a decade later and to my knowledge they haven't been able to reproduce the effect to anyone's satisfaction.

So, you see, when you take the word of an unknown source, or in this case a source that was known, but who was him or herself mistaken about something, and you assume they are right so you forcefit the data to fit that "right" response, well then you end up not having a really good time of it.

I know of which I speak.

This is how science is not done. Keep Looking? Yeah, sure. Just don't assume that we have to keep looking for your myths.

 

[Naraoia]

I think that the Crusades happened a few centuries earlier than 200 years ago. Maybe you should study more history.

Note that he said "the same type of gentlemen" not "the same gentlemen". A type of person can happily exist for a few centuries

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ya --- I just dug up a rock in my backyard yesterday --- and inscribed on it: "There was no global flood."

No interpretation necessary from "higher" academia.

But if you had gone to any one of the many lakes that have annually layerd deposits and dug up a varved sequence with more than 7,000 annual layers such as the ones I described and pictured in this post it would have said no global flood to anyone with the knowledge to interpret it. If you looked at the varves, overlapping tree ring sequences, coral couplets and layers in ice cores discussed in this thread it would have said no global flood to anyone with the knowledge interpret it. If you actually looked at the world's Biogeography you would realize that there is no way to interpret it in terms of global flood. If you looked at the genetic diversity in nearly all the species on earth you would realize that their is no way to interpret in terms of a global flood which should have produced a genetic bottleneck in every species that does not exist. If you looked at the data on Supervolcanoes like Toba and the Yellowstone Eruptions that have deposited ash all over the world you would know that they could not have occured since a mythical global flood 4,500 years ago without anyone even noticing them and if they were before the flood their ash layers should have been disturbed by the flood and should not lay on top of layers that are supposedly flood deposits. If you looked at the data demonstrating that there have been multiple ice ages you would realize that there is no time to fit them in to earth's history after a global flood 4,500 years ago. The list goes on and on but these few examples combined with the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood are enough to convince anyone capable of logical thought on the subject that the flood of Noah was not global.

 

[Baggins]

Were these the same type of "Christian gentlemen" that led the Crusaders into battle?

You may be unaware of Science AV, but you are not that unawre of history.

Google William Buckland. Dean of Westminster Cathedral, Leading Geologist of his period and YEC.

Until he looked at the evidence and realised that he couldn't sustain a belief in the flood of the face of that evidence, and so, to top it all, an honest man. Creationists are either dishonest or they ignore the evidence, if you engage with the evidence honestly, as Buckland did, it is imposssible to remain a YEC or to retain a belief in the biblical flood. And, as I have said we have known this for 200 years.

Your decision to deflect this point with a "joke" is noted.

In your mind --- probably not.

Again, it comes down to evidence, There is no extra biblical evidence of the existence of Noah, and the physical evidence says that the story attributed to him didn't happen.

Ya --- I love it when any "scientist" who just barely found the Edmond Fitzgerald when he knew where to look, when it went down, and who was on it; tells me Noah's Ark, a containment vessel from 3500 years ago, which ended up in territory that is currently off-limits to archaeologists, didn't exist because he can't find it.

There are more reasons than that to know that it never existed. For a start wooden boats the size of the ark are impossible to build from gopher wood, they sink. Mt Ararat is not inaccessable, creationists have been pouring over it for years claiming to have found the ark. A structure that large a little on over 4000 years old in that sort of climate would probably be visible from space.

You know it is better for you not to engage with evidence AV, it may turn you into a liar or a spinner of fantasy and sophistry. You have what you believe is a coherent set of beliefs, why you would test them to destruction by measuring them against reality is beyond me.

Better to carry on ignoring it, but it is notable that Christians like William Buckland didn't, and they remained Christians.

 

[Baggins]

Unless everywhere was cleaned up

In which case you worship a trickster god. He didn't just clean up the evidence, he replaced it with evidence that it never happened.

--- or you're living right on top of the evidence, and interpreting it wrong.

Interpretation of sedimentary facies isn't rocket science AV. It is fairly obvious, from studying a rock, how it was deposited.

A global flood deposit would stick out like a sore thumb, that is why it was realised in the infancy of geology that a global flood never happened, and why 200 years of subsequent geological research haven't altered that premis.

 

[FishFace]

Science, as I have pointed out, is circular also.

It relies upon evidence supplied by its interpretation of nature.

You're not cut out to be a philosopher, AV. I assume you're talking about the problem of induction, which is a real issue in epistemology. But it's way above the level of "is the Bible true or false." If the only way you can support your beliefs is by using a form of argument that accepts "I am telling the truth. You should trust me when I say that because I never lie" is valid, then, no matter what parallels you try and draw between your reasoning and science, you're going nowhere.

 

[FishFace]

Unless everywhere was cleaned up

In which case why did you tell us to "keep looking?"

--- or you're living right on top of the evidence, and interpreting it wrong.

In which case, the same goes.

If the interpretation is wrong, how should we be interpreting it. If the evidence has been "cleaned up" how do you know - you don't have any documentation to that effect.