Noah and the rainbow

[cubinity]

Fair enough. I really like you reasoning coupled with your humility. God bless.

 

[Jig]

It is deceptive that we can watch rings form in a tree, and see how long they take to form, and then count the number of rings in a given tree, only to conclude a date that conflicts with reality just because God thought it would be neat to build trees "mature" with rings demonstrating their life experiences.

If God was just making "mature" trees, and not trying to deceive us, there would not be rings representing seasons that never took place. jm2c.

[FONT=&quot]It is certainly not deceptive because you are still injecting your presuppositions into the mix. You are assuming that the current process we observe toady essentially stayed the same over the past several thousand years.

Also, the trees we observe to today are post-flood. We are not dealing with "created" trees here. We are dealing with tress that matured naturally. However, if the Biblical account is true then it is highly likely that the immediate post-flood climate was drastically dissimilar to our current climate.

I would suggest that this post-flood environment may have caused the process of tree growth to have been different then what we observe today - perhaps accelerating it. This would only be something to consider when dealing with tress old enough to have lived during this period, such as those with more than 4,000 growth rings.

[/FONT]

 

[cubinity]

[FONT=&quot]It is certainly not deceptive because you are still injecting your presuppositions into the mix. You are assuming that the current process we observe toady essentially stayed the same over the past several thousand years.

Also, the trees we observe to today are post-flood. We are not dealing with "created" trees here. We are dealing with tress that matured naturally. However, if the Biblical account is true then it is highly likely that the immediate post-flood climate was drastically dissimilar to our current climate.

I would suggest that this post-flood environment may have caused the process of tree growth to have been different then what we observe today - perhaps accelerating it. This would only be something to consider when dealing with tress old enough to have lived during this period, such as those with more than 4,000 growth rings.

[/FONT]

Perhaps.
Or, we could just go with the evidence as it appears.

God may not be deceptive, but it just doesn't make sense to assume the evidence isn't telling us a story that doesn't fit that evidence.
Regardless of what really happened, it just seems more useful to understand things as behaving consistently until shown otherwise, and in this case we have no "shown otherwise," as far as I know.

 

[shernren]

I did not witness the Noahic Flood. I can assume a couple of things from what is written in the Biblical text, but I can not give many specific details concerning geology or what we should find. It is certainly not repeatable. JVPITER, therefore, is also ignorant to what evidence such an event would leave behind geologically. He can only assume.

One of the few specifics is that the text says that a vast amount of creatures were drowned. I would suspect that we would find millions of dead plants and animals buried around the Earth, even on top of mountains.

We do.

But we would also expect to find millions of dead plants and animals buried around the Earth, even on top of mountains, if the Earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old and has harbored life for a significant portion of that time.

Surely you would agree with me that what matters is that we find evidence that discriminates between the two possibilities.

As for your second question, I am not saying the Noahic Flood caused the layers to form on the bottom of Lake Suigetsu.

Fair enough. But would you agree with me that, according to you, whatever process has caused the layers to form on the bottom of Lake Suigetsu must be compatible with the Noahic Flood?

JVPITER keeps saying that these so-called annual layers are still being laid down today but I can not find any evidence for this. But that's immaterial to are conversation anyway.

Isn't it always the case that evidence against our views is always much harder to look up than evidence for our views?

ScienceDirect - Engineering Geology : A new opportunity to detect paleo-earthquake events dating back to the past 10 millennia: a record from lacustrine sediment

The presence of ten very specific spikes in the varves were found to be correlated with recorded (none of your observational/historical claptrap, wrong as that may be) earthquakes going as far back as 1100 AD. So we know for sure that the layers have been deposited annually for at least the past thousand years, and there is no obvious process which would have caused them to stop being deposited annually before then.

All I am suggesting is that he must use presuppositions and philosophical assumptions to come to the conclusion that ALL these layers were laid down annually. He is assuming a process that is essentially unchanging. This may not necessarily be true.

Yes, Jig, it may not necessarily be true: but can you tell me or anyone why it must be true?

So let me recap what we've discussed up to now:

1. Do you have any clue what sort of geological evidence you would expect the Flood to leave?
Jig's answer: no, other than that we would expect to see many fossils around the world.

I need some clarification on this:

1a. Is your inability to make precise predictions due to the very nature of the event itself, or simply because of your lack of professional geological training? (The latter is nothing to be shy of - none of us here are professional geologists.)

1b. Do you have any clue what sort of geological evidence you would expect the Flood to leave, which we would not expect to see had the Flood not occurred? (I hope you will agree with me that answering this question would be extremely helpful towards discriminating between the two possibilities.)

As for my question 2, I agree that it was flawed as originally asked, but let me restate it in a way which I think is fair:

2. Do you have any clue what sort of physical processes, compatible with the occurrence of the Noahic Flood, could have left the layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu?

 

[Jig]

Perhaps.
Or, we could just go with the evidence as it appears.

This does not make sense. The evidence as it appears currently tells us virtually nothing without first making basic philosophical assumptions about it.

You have consistently side-stepped this. Everyone, regardless of philosophical persuasion, has the same exact evidence. You cannot claim the evidence supports your position. Only your interpretation of the evidence supports your position.

God may not be deceptive, but it just doesn't make sense to assume the evidence isn't telling us a story that doesn't fit that evidence.
Regardless of what really happened, it just seems more useful to understand things as behaving consistently until shown otherwise, and in this case we have no "shown otherwise," as far as I know.

The Bible DOES tell us otherwise.

 

[Jig]

But we would also expect to find millions of dead plants and animals buried around the Earth, even on top of mountains, if the Earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old and has harbored life for a significant portion of that time.

Surely you would agree with me that what matters is that we find evidence that discriminates between the two possibilities.

Absolutely. Both are interpretations that particular piece of evidence allows.

Fair enough. But would you agree with me that, according to you, whatever process has caused the layers to form on the bottom of Lake Suigetsu must be compatible with the Noahic Flood?

No. It must be compatible with Scripture.

Isn't it always the case that evidence against our views is always much harder to look up than evidence for our views?

ScienceDirect - Engineering Geology : A new opportunity to detect paleo-earthquake events dating back to the past 10 millennia: a record from lacustrine sediment

This did not answer my concern. My concern was whether or not Lake Suigetsu is presently [currently] producing annual layers. If I went to Lake Suigetsu today, would I observe this?

The presence of ten very specific spikes in the varves were found to be correlated with recorded (none of your observational/historical claptrap, wrong as that may be) earthquakes going as far back as 1100 AD. So we know for sure that the layers have been deposited annually for at least the past thousand years, and there is no obvious process which would have caused them to stop being deposited annually before then.

I have no problem with this. I am not suggesting that none of the layers were laid down in an annual cycle. It is obvious some were.

1a. Is your inability to make precise predictions due to the very nature of the event itself, or simply because of your lack of professional geological training? (The latter is nothing to be shy of - none of us here are professional geologists.)

Of course I have limited geologic training. This, however, is not a concern. We are discussing far-reaching past events. The scientific method cannot be rightly applied to such events. I believe it happened because the Word of God says it did - not because geology convinces me.

1b. Do you have any clue what sort of geological evidence you would expect the Flood to leave, which we would not expect to see had the Flood not occurred? (I hope you will agree with me that answering this question would be extremely helpful towards discriminating between the two possibilities.)

The Noahic Flood is a past event, it most likely happened anywhere between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago. As such we did not directly observe it nor can we feasibly repeat it. Scientifically it is unfalsifiable.

As for my question 2, I agree that it was flawed as originally asked, but let me restate it in a way which I think is fair:

2. Do you have any clue what sort of physical processes, compatible with the occurrence of the Noahic Flood, could have left the layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu?

I'm not sure the Flood has anything to do with these layers. They quite possible could have been laid down after this global event. I would agree that these layers were laid down systematically over a period of time. The issue is in how we should interpret this evidence and what presuppositions should we invoke.

 

[shernren]

This did not answer my concern. My concern was whether or not Lake Suigetsu is presently [currently] producing annual layers. If I went to Lake Suigetsu today, would I observe this?

The core was dug up in 1991, and unmistakable traces of two unique events (one in 1664 and one in 1450) were found at 34.0 cm and 55.5 cm respectively below the top of the core. The ratio of those lengths matches the ratio of those years almost exactly. To me, that is adequate evidence that these layers were being laid down at least as recently as 1991. But what would convince you?

I'm not sure the Flood has anything to do with these layers. They quite possible could have been laid down after this global event. I would agree that these layers were laid down systematically over a period of time. The issue is in how we should interpret this evidence and what presuppositions should we invoke.

The evidence at hand is that cores recovered from the bottom of Lake Suigetsu shows about 60,000 regular layers which can be interpreted as yearly varves. You are welcome to reject that interpretation.

However, you must agree with me that there must have been some process which produced those "varves". Furthermore, the evidence in the paper I showed you shows that at least the top thousand or so "varves" were produced by an annual process - Process Y, let's call it, a yearly process. I hope you find this claim unproblematic?

The question, of course, is how to explain the rest of those varves. If we assume that Process Y produced the entire core, then the core is at least 60,000 years old. Accordingly, we must have had some Process Z produce up to the first 59,000 varves, and then Process Y produced the last 1,000. Again, I hope you agree with me that this is the only way the evidence can be interpreted in favor of your position. (Even a speeded-up version of Process Y counts as a Process Z which is different from Process Y: there is a great difference between touching someone's cheek and slapping someone. Rate matters.)

Now, there are only five possibilities for the duration of Process Z:

1. It started and ended before the Flood, and the Flood somehow preserved the 59,000 varves it produced.

2. It started before the Flood but ended during the Flood, with the Flood leaving the 59,000 varves the way we see them today.

3. It started during the Flood and ended during the Flood.

Now, these first three options require that during the Flood, there was a hydraulic environment in which 59,000 regular layers of very fine sediment could be laid on each other with little to no disruption. I hope you'll agree with me that this is highly unlikely. (Though I suppose you could just assume that a supernatural Flood could do this, and voila!) So we are left with:

4. It started before the Flood and ended after the Flood.

But since the Flood would have been a very disruptive hydraulic environment (again, you may disagree with me), this option is equivalent to the next option:

5. It started and ended after the Flood.

And so I can refine my question:

2. Do you have any clue what kind of process could leave about 59,000 regular layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu in a few thousand years?

3. Why would that process, if it were different from an annual process, produce varves that look nearly identical to the varves produced by an annual process?

 

[cubinity]

This does not make sense. The evidence as it appears currently tells us virtually nothing without first making basic philosophical assumptions about it.

You have consistently side-stepped this. Everyone, regardless of philosophical persuasion, has the same exact evidence. You cannot claim the evidence supports your position. Only your interpretation of the evidence supports your position.



The Bible DOES tell us otherwise.

Oh. I'm a bit slow. Sorry. It took me a bit to realize that by "philosophical assumptions" you were referring to reason.
You don't like reason.
I get it.
I just don't get why you keep you using it so much if you are so against it...

 

[Jig]

2. Do you have any clue what kind of process could leave about 59,000 regular layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu in a few thousand years?

Not really. Since I did not directly observe this process I can not definitively know this. I feel like you want to force me to make an assumption on this past geologic event. However, this will not further my argument. My point has already been made and agreed upon.

3. Why would that process, if it were different from an annual process, produce varves that look nearly identical to the varves produced by an annual process?

How am I supposed to know? I'm not suggesting I fully understand this process. My point was that this physical evidence does not speak for itself. It must be filtered through presuppositions.

 

[Jig]

Oh. I'm a bit slow. Sorry. It took me a bit to realize that by "philosophical assumptions" you were referring to reason.
You don't like reason.
I get it.
I just don't get why you keep you using it so much if you are so against it...

Instead of ridiculing me please point to what part of my statement is inaccurate.

I'll re-post it here:

This does not make sense. The evidence as it appears currently tells us virtually nothing without first making basic philosophical assumptions about it.

You have consistently side-stepped this. Everyone, regardless of philosophical persuasion, has the same exact evidence. You cannot claim the evidence supports your position. Only your interpretation of the evidence supports your position.

Do you believe the physical evidence speaks for itself and does not require interpretation?

 

[cubinity]

Instead of ridiculing me please point to what part of my statement is inaccurate.

I'll re-post it here:


Do you believe the physical evidence speaks for itself and does not require interpretation?

Yeah. That was low. Sorry. It just comes out sometimes. Seriously, i'm sorry about that.

I believe that every experience is interpreted, even this one. Because we all have our biases, we are unable to achieve objectivity independantly. Thus, peer review is required. Let people from different perspectives also look at the data and give you their impression. Accept the variations, and take another look to see if you can spot those same things. Respond and repeat.

Simply rejecting someone's view as biased is the part that is uncoperative with the quest for objectivity, and that this what I am in disagreement about, particularly because if every biased perspective was rejected, then there could be no perspective at all. Thus, I feel the argument is self defeating.

 

[shernren]

Not really. Since I did not directly observe this process I can not definitively know this. I feel like you want to force me to make an assumption on this past geologic event. However, this will not further my argument. My point has already been made and agreed upon.

How am I supposed to know? I'm not suggesting I fully understand this process. My point was that this physical evidence does not speak for itself. It must be filtered through presuppositions.

So let me just confirm this: you have no idea how 59,000 layers which look identical to the thousand annual layers above them could have been produced at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu in a few thousand years.

Nevertheless, you feel entirely justified to be skeptical when we claim that the best possible explanation is that those 59,000 layers did, in fact, take 59,000 years to form.

Do I understand your position correctly?

 

[Jig]

Nevertheless, you feel entirely justified to be skeptical when we claim that the best possible explanation is that those 59,000 layers did, in fact, take 59,000 years to form.

Do I understand your position correctly?

I feel I am entirely justified to be skeptical of certain explanations that contradict God's word.

I may not have been a direct witness to the past, but God was. His objective testimony is more valuable to me than man's subjective analysis.

Is it rational to believe Jesus was both fully human and fully God? Using only human reasoning, no - this appears paradoxical and illogical. However, I believe this to be true based on God's word alone.

 

[cubinity]

I feel I am entirely justified to be skeptical of certain explanations that contradict God's word.

I may not have been a direct witness to the past, but God was. His objective testimony is more valuable to me than man's subjective analysis.

Is it rational to believe Jesus was both fully human and fully God? Using only human reasoning, no - it appears paradoxical to logic. However, I believe this to be true based on God's word alone.

I respect the rules of this forum, and thus will not go down the road of arguing the matter itself with you whether Jesus is what He is.

However, what I can argue is that there is more evidence of a history without a global flood in the geological layers than there is evidence in Scripture that Jesus is fully God.

The concept, even according to this website, that Jesus is fully God, is not accepted based on Scripture alone, but on the Creed. Thus, no, I do not see how you believe this to be true based on God's word alone. It isn't in there.

Thus, even this example fails you in this argument. Try again.

 

[Jig]

I believe that every experience is interpreted, even this one. Because we all have our biases, we are unable to achieve objectivity independantly. Thus, peer review is required.

While the peer review process does have some advantages - it is rarely objective and cannot guarantee quality or correctness.

Below is a quote:

"The common perception of non-scientists is that reviewers of new scientific research are completely impartial, objective and independent...

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet (a peer-reviewed scientific journal), admits this can be a real problem:

‘The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.’"

 

[Jig]

I respect the rules of this forum, and thus will not go down the road of arguing the matter itself with you whether Jesus is what He is.

However, what I can argue is that there is more evidence of a history without a global flood in the geological layers than there is evidence in Scripture that Jesus is fully God.

Once again we go down this road. I sometimes feel that you do not read my posts or that you have completely misunderstood them.

There is not more evidence in support of either my position or your position. Evidence alone cannot support such historical claims, it must first have an interpretation to find a voice.

This is the third time for me to say this:
You cannot claim the evidence supports your position. Only your interpretation of the evidence supports your position. If you disagree then explain why this is false.

The concept, even according to this website, that Jesus is fully God, is not accepted based on Scripture alone, but on the Creed. Thus, no, I do not see how you believe this to be true based on God's word alone. It isn't in there.

Thus, even this example fails you in this argument. Try again.

Not true. While the Nicene Creed may teach that Jesus was of both substances, it garnishes this information from Scripture. Scripture teaches that Jesus was God - clearly. Scripture also teaches that Jesus was man - clearly.

 

[cubinity]

Once again we go down this road. I sometimes feel that you do not read my posts or that you have completely misunderstood them.

There is not more evidence in support of either my position or your position. Evidence alone cannot support such historical claims, it must first have an interpretation to find a voice.

This is the third time for me to say this:
You cannot claim the evidence supports your position. Only your interpretation of the evidence supports your position. If you disagree then explain why this is false.

Oh, but this time it is you misunderstanding me.
I didn't say the evidence supported or refuted the claim.
I only pointed out that it was there.
Are you now denying that it is there at all?
That would be a real whopper!

Not true. While the Nicene Creed may teach that Jesus was of both substances, it garnishes this information from Scripture. Scripture teaches that Jesus was God - clearly. Scripture also teaches that Jesus was man - clearly.

But not "fully," which is specifically a claim of the Creed, not the Scriptures.
So...

 

[Jig]

Oh, but this time it is you misunderstanding me.
I didn't say the evidence supported or refuted the claim.
I only pointed out that it was there.
Are you now denying that it is there at all?
That would be a real whopper!

Not quite. What you said: "...there is more evidence of a history without a global flood in the geological layers..."

This goes beyond merely stating there is evidence. You have introduced an interpretation to this evidence.

But not "fully," which is specifically a claim of the Creed, not the Scriptures.
So...

I strongly disagree with you on this point. The Scriptures do not portray Jesus as partially God. In John 1 he existed as fully God before He was even a man.

 

[shernren]

I think your irrationality has just about unraveled itself for everyone to see, Jig, but let me spell it out.

I have a good scientific explanation for the presence of 60,000 layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu, namely that they were laid down over the course of about 60,000 years.

You can show me no particular scientific objection to that explanation.
You have no alternative explanation for how those layers came about.
You are unwilling to commit yourself to even the most basic of positions about the layers (i.e. whether they were laid down before, during, or after the Flood).

And yet you consider yourself justified to be skeptical of my position!

Why is that so? You say:

I feel I am entirely justified to be skeptical of certain explanations that contradict God's word.

I may not have been a direct witness to the past, but God was. His objective testimony is more valuable to me than man's subjective analysis.

Firstly, don't forget the elephant in the room: if you must insist that all the evidence I have must be interpreted, then allow me to insist that all the Scripture you have must be interpreted.

If you must insist that I interpret evidence by my own presuppositions, then allow me to insist that you interpret Scripture by your own presuppositions.

If you are allowed to be skeptical of my scientific position with no good reason and yet say you respect the evidence, then I am allowed to be skeptical of your theological position with no good reason and yet say I respect the Scriptures.

Except that I have a perfectly good reason to be skeptical of your theological position and it is this: that the tenor of your argument is entirely unlike the way Christians have argued over the centuries, and indeed in Scripture itself. It is weak and insipid and refuses to be informed by reality, and its blandness is a far cry from the vivid ability of the Apostles to say that they had seen Jesus with their own eyes.

Is it rational to believe Jesus was both fully human and fully God? Using only human reasoning, no - this appears paradoxical and illogical. However, I believe this to be true based on God's word alone.

It's funny that you chose this, because I was just going to point to how the Scriptures argue for Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Yes, it is entirely illogical and irrational. It offends the presuppositions I hold dear, namely that miracles do not happen and that dead people do not come back to life - and these are presuppositions that serve me well, not least when our family buried my late grandma. But can you imagine Christianity and the apostles stopping at "well, you are using presuppositions to interpret the data"?

Can you imagine Peter thundering away on Pentecost Day, "Quite frankly folks, I haven't seen the tomb for myself, and I don't really know what you would see if you went there, but you must know that Jesus is alive, and if you don't believe me you'll just have to accept that sometimes your presuppositions can be wrong"?

Can you imagine Paul proclaiming to the crowds on Mars Hill in Athens, "You know, everybody has to interpret the evidence, and I've just happened to interpret the evidence in such a way as to conclude that Jesus has risen from the dead, and while there are better explanations out there, this is the one I've chosen"?

Can you imagine John penning on the island of Patmos that he was receiving the revelation of "the Lord Jesus Christ, whom I've never heard or seen since that day He died, but I believe He rose again because - well, because every once in a while you can be wrong about things like Galilean carpenters staying dead once they're killed"?

Those early Christians had evidence. Not simply interpretations. They had evidence that simply could not be interpreted any other way. Believe it or not, sometimes evidence demands one and exactly one interpretation. This happens when there is only one explanation for the evidence, unlikely as it may be, and when everybody who disagrees with your explanation has no better explanation and is forced to retreat to philosophical platitudes like "well, everybody interprets evidence" with no actual engagement with reality. (Sound familiar?)

Lest you trot out the old canard about the testimony of witnesses may I remind you that nobody actually saw Jesus coming back to life. People saw an empty tomb, but they never saw the moment it was emptied. (And to this day some will maintain that the grave was robbed, or Jesus had merely fainted, or the disciples had the wrong address - evidence being reinterpreted, but with obviously mediocre interpretations.) This was a historical event unwitnessed by any human eye, and yet humans were so convinced in the utter reality of such an impossible event that they were willing to lay down their lives for it.

And that's why I believe in the resurrection, because there is no better explanation for the ensuing evidence that has been seen since then. The skeptics and atheists may question my presuppositions all they want, but they simply cannot give me a better explanation.

And that's also why I accept that the 60,000 layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu took 60,000 years to form, because there is no better explanation for the evidence. You may question my presuppositions all you want, but you simply cannot give me a better explanation either.

 

[cubinity]

I think your irrationality has just about unraveled itself for everyone to see, Jig.