Noah's Ark

[AV1611VET]

We all learn that in the 18th century the young earth and much of the Biblical Literal tradition was incapable of explaining the geology that was being investigated.

Does that mean they had enough respect for God back then not to call Him a deceiver?

What happened since then?

Did someone find a trilobite way down underneath a human, and suddenly God became either an evolutionist or a deceiver?

Or nonexistent?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Does that mean they had enough respect for God back then not to call Him a deceiver?

I don't know what the religious context of the discussions would be, obviously. And remember, it is only a small number of Christian sects that require absolute perfect literal Bible interpretation.

It has been quite common throught out the last 2 millenia for the Church itself to allow for metaphor and allegory in the Bible.

Did someone find a trilobite way down underneath a human, and suddenly God became either an evolutionist or a deceiver?

Or nonexistent?

A LOT of people of faith (honest to goodness Christians) accept evolution AND still believe in God.

 

[AV1611VET]

A LOT of people of faith (honest to goodness Christians) accept evolution AND still believe in God.

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does that mean they had enough respect for God back then not to call Him a deceiver?

What happened since then?

Did someone find a trilobite way down underneath a human, and suddenly God became either an evolutionist or a deceiver?

Or nonexistent?

The book of Genesis being allegory at best does not make God a deceiver. If anything you keep trying to make God a deceiver. That is why so many Christians reject your views and accept the findings of scientists.

As I have said before, to me it is the height of blasphemy when Christians try to tell God how he made the world

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

Sorry, that does not support your claim, unless you want to claim that Christianity opposed reality in the past.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Sorry, that does not support your claim, unless you want to claim that Christianity opposed reality in the past.

I'm still trying to figure out what AV's inferring here by this quote. Hmmmm.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Noah's flood wouldn't do that.

You should be clear on what you think that Noah's flood would do. If you can't come up with a working model then you should not complain when others refute the various ones that are out there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did they teach "Noah's Flood 101"?

You might find that in a course on mythology or comparative religion.

In science classes they do not tend to focus too much on old refuted ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still trying to figure out what AV's inferring here by this quote. Hmmmm.

I think that he was implying that Christianity and science are on different sides of the debate.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, I shouldn't be too brutal. As I said it is clear that not everyone has taken even an intro geology course and it is irrational to assume everyone should know basic geology. But it's always kind of frustrating to see someone make all these claims about geology while seeming to know so little about it.

This is your faith. I am NOT questioning or denigrating your faith, I'm questioning your version of geology. Your faith claims are not informed by geology so I should cut you some slack. I just wish you weren't trying to leverage geology in service to your beliefs. It isn't a good fit.

Your faith is yours and that's great. Enjoy it! But do be aware that when you try to use other people's areas of knowledge to justify it you might run into issues.

You are conflating geography and topography.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Agreed, but we aren't talking soteriology here. We're talking Noah's Flood and you tried to use science to explain your hypotheses about that flood.



If I were to make sweeping (and incorrect) generalizations about religion I'm guessing you'd take me to task if I didn't understand religion. It seems to me that you are doing the reverse of that. You make sweeping generalizations about science (incorrect) and expect everyone to give you a pass on the science.

You tried to trot out some science but it was clear you were outgunned on the topic, so now you are trying to run away from science. It's pretty clear what the game is here. I just wish we didn't have to play it over and over and over with YEC and various other literalists who wish to leverage science incorrectly to support their beliefs.

Why can't you just be happy with a "miracle" and leave science out of it?

I have presented common sense ideas that may have a 'scientific' aspect if you stretch them far enough, but I haven't belabored the point. I have made simple observations that anyone could make. like water seeking it's own level, and, seeking the path of least resistance. If I'm not mistaken these are fundamental laws of hydrology. I think I can legitimately apply them to the flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually yeah, they did. It's part and parcel of the history of the development of geology! Every geology student learns about the development of the science from it's origins and the debates. One of the most famous geologists of all time, Nicolas Steno was an interesting character who found his science running up against a literal biblical interpretation in the 17th century. Granted he stayed with the faith and moved on to become a Bishop in the Catholic Church but the discussion was afoot from his early work on geologic relationships.

We all learn that in the 18th century the young earth and much of the Biblical Literal tradition was incapable of explaining the geology that was being investigated.

(Now to be hyperpedantic it must be noted that Werner's "Neptunism" hypothesis and the development of all rocks from a primeval ocean was not necessarily the Noachian Flood, but the general idea was somewhat related mechanistically to what many Biblical literalists might ascribe to.)

I am an OEC.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You should be clear on what you think that Noah's flood would do. If you can't come up with a working model then you should not complain when others refute the various ones that are out there.

I've explained my working model many times (although I do amend it from time to time). It falls on deaf ears.

 

[Gene2memE]

Ok, you're an OEC.

Give me the time period you think the Flood occurred.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok, you're an OEC.

Give me the time period you think the Flood occurred.

I defer to the bible on that one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've explained my working model many times (although I do amend it from time to time). It falls on deaf ears.

I have not seen it for some time. I asked you simple questions, why didn't you answer them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have presented common sense ideas that may have a 'scientific' aspect if you stretch them far enough, but I haven't belabored the point. I have made simple observations that anyone could make. like water seeking it's own level, and, seeking the path of least resistance. If I'm not mistaken these are fundamental laws of hydrology. I think I can legitimately apply them to the flood.

"Common sense" is just the amateur's way of admitting that he is wrong.

 

[Gene2memE]

I defer to the bible on that one.

That's a non answer and a deliberate evasion.

What date - to within the century - do you think the flood occurred?

Or, I'll put it another way: what date - to within the century - do you think the flood occurred according to the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

What date - to within the century - do you think the flood occurred?

2348 BC

 

[VirOptimus]

2348 BC

24th century BC - Wikipedia

Nope, no flood.