Evidence

[MorkandMindy]

If a few thousand years ago someone spilt a cup of water somewhere it would not be surprising if no geological record of the event had been found

A second cup of water would not make it a geological event either, nor a third

And whether this water came from within the water cycle or came in to it from a volcano or a comet would also leave no evidence

Just because we have no evidence the flood didn’t occur doesn’t prove it didn’t

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

 

[Dark_Lite]

This is probably a poe... but anyway.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you are correct.

The problem with the flood is that the evidence that is present disproves that the flood could've happened. So... that's a problem.

 

[jayem]

But a supposed world-wide flood, as a single event, with water levels covering even the highest mountains, and nearly extincting all land animals, would be expected to leave geological evidence.

 

[Dark_Lite]

But a supposed world-wide flood, as a single event, with water levels covering even the highest mountains, and nearly extincting all land animals, would be expected to leave geological evidence.

Well, there is geological evidence. But the problem is that the geological evidence there is does not point to a global flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with the flood is that the evidence that is present disproves that the flood could've happened. So... that's a problem.

No, it's not.

Evidence can be interpreted.

And even though it can be correlated with different types of evidence from different sources, all that shows is an ability to correlate.

In addition, it's not the evidence that matters, it's the weight of the evidence --- (someone correct me if I'm wrong, please).

If you have an ice core sample, showing a 7000-year period of manufacture, alongside of a tree core sample from the same vicinity showing a 7000-year period of growth, I would still go with the weight of God's Word over the weight of those two correlated objects; even if every artifact on earth was correlated.

Let God be true, and every man a liar (including me), if that's what it has to come down to.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If a few thousand years ago someone spilt a cup of water somewhere it would not be surprising if no geological record of the event had been found

A second cup of water would not make it a geological event either, nor a third

And whether this water came from within the water cycle or came in to it from a volcano or a comet would also leave no evidence

Just because we have no evidence the flood didn’t occur doesn’t prove it didn’t

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

It doesn't prove it didn't occur, but it makes it very unlikely. So, in that regard, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (albeit indirect).

 

[MorkandMindy]

...

If you have an ice core sample, showing a 7000-year period of manufacture, alongside of a tree core sample from the same vicinity showing a 7000-year period of growth
...

Sorry to snip it, but you're in good company - it happens to the Bible too!


I remember reading C.S. Lewis who stated that even if the first trees had been made in a moment, they could still have contained rings and therefore had an apparent age.

But the rings in the trees are not even, they show evidence of some good years and some bad ones... and this pattern matches in all of the trees except in some trees the pattern is followed further out and others further in indicating older and younger trees... and in another forest the pattern is similar but different, again through all the trees

so just accidentally leaving rings that could have been interpreted as age starts to look more like a deliberate act of deception

 

[plindboe]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Not necessarily true. If I search through my pocket for money and I can't find any, that's evidence that there's no money in my pocket.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Not necessarily true.

Interesting word choice.

Just because a principle doesn't apply to a given situation, doesn't make it 'untrue'.

It makes it, 'not applicable'.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The accident / deception debate continues into all other forms of dating.

Radio carbon has a half life of 5730 years so is useful for the events within the last 26,000 years and overlaps with tree ring dating, which is used to improve the accuracy of C14 dating. There are many forms of radio isotope dating, most with fewer problems than C14 dating, which in some cases go back billions of years, and agree where they overlap, with each other.

And there are non-isotope forms of dating such as racemization of amino acids

In 1900 an estimate based on the rate the oceans are gaining salt, gave a figure of 80 to 100 million years, but these are minimum values because salt is also lost from the oceans.

In my own personal life I looked at what appeared to be annual sediment lines in the rocks along my grandmother’s long gravel drive, over a kilometre with lines averaging 2 mm thick came out at ½ million years.

For a YEC this was not a comforting thought, and I never did work out if or why God chose in so many ways to deceive so many people

 

[plindboe]

Interesting word choice.

Carefully chosen.

Just because a principle doesn't apply to a given situation, doesn't make it 'untrue'.

Didn't say it did. I said it wasn't necessarily true.

It makes it, 'not applicable'.

To the given situation where it doesn't apply, that's a given. But as a blanket statement, the principle is problematic.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

To the given situation where it doesn't apply, that's a given. But as a blanket statement, the principle is problematic.

does not apply ≠ problematic

 

[plindboe]

does not apply ≠ problematic

given situation ≠ blanket statement

Peter

 

[juvenissun]

Well, there is geological evidence. But the problem is that the geological evidence there is does not point to a global flood.

I have gone through this a while ago several times.

An unusual (geological) event creates unusual (geological) features. Features created by a global flood can not be understood by comparing them with features created by normal flood as we know them, such as erosion, deposition, etc.

For this sarcastic request of evidence, I always ask: what kind of evidence you expect to see? Do you like to see a continuous layer of flood deposit around the earth? I am sorry, nobody can ever find that even the global flood were true. If you do not know what are you looking for, then you are not going to see any evidence, even it is right in front of your eye.

To me, biological evidences are more interesting and are more difficult to argue. Of course, part of the reason is that I am not a biologist. I don't really buy the fossil interpretations given by AiG or ICR people. Noah's Flood is not simply a flood. To me, it implies some critical changes of the earth in her history. In order to know where to find what as evidences, we must first know what are the problems in our knowledge about the earth's history.

 

[laconicstudent]

For this sarcastic request of evidence, I always ask: what kind of evidence you expect to see? Do you like to see a continuous layer of flood deposit around the earth?

Yes.

I am sorry, nobody can ever find that even the global flood were true.

Why not?

If you do not know what are you looking for, then you are not going to see any evidence, even it is right in front of your eye.

You just claimed it didn't exist. Why are you contradicting yourself?

To me, biological evidences are more interesting and are more difficult to argue. Of course, part of the reason is that I am not a biologist. I don't really buy the fossil interpretations given by AiG or ICR people. Noah's Flood is not simply a flood. To me, it implies some critical changes of the earth in her history. In order to know where to find what as evidences, we must first know what are the problems in our knowledge about the earth's history.

mmm... Yes, there's also the slight problem that a global flood that submerged the landmasses would have been a mass-extinction event for aquatic life.

 

[3sigma]

If you believe that your God deliberately caused a global flood then you are telling us that you willingly worship something that indiscriminately killed every fetus, every baby, every toddler and every child in the entire world. Why would you worship something like that?

 

[MorkandMindy]

If you believe that your God deliberately caused a global flood then you are telling us that you willingly worship something that indiscriminately killed every fetus, every baby, every toddler and every child in the entire world. Why would you worship something like that?

God can not look upon imperfection, that is the very foundation of the religion I was baptised into.

In a human that attribute would be called 'perfectionism' and is a fairly unpleasant neurosis, and to be told to become more like God is likely to lead to problems in his followers, and it does. A survey of the murder rate in the US showed it correlated well with church attendance rate. Various success criteria have been shown to be inversely related to church attendance.

But if the reality is that God exists and is like that then it is something we are going to have to live with.

 

[3sigma]

But if the reality is that God exists and is like that then it is something we are going to have to live with.

You didn’t answer my question. Why would you actually worship something that indiscriminately kills babies? Why would anyone worship something like that?

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn’t answer my question. Why would you actually worship something that indiscriminately kills babies? Why would anyone worship something like that?

I don't.

The First Church of Fetal Removal isn't the name of my church.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I don't.

The First Church of Fetal Removal isn't the name of my church.

I think this could be a false dichotomy

In my limited experience Fundamentalist Christians are at least as likely to have an abortion as anyone else

Humanists favor contraception and support the right of the mother to make the final decision in the case of abortion but are not in favor of abortion, particularly late term.


29And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
30And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.(Ex 12)