Science-Ignorant of the Flood or simply dishonest

[TasManOfGod]

I posted this in another tread but got no reaction I dont know why

The problem science has is that they cant (or wont) accept that ALL the sedimentary layers were put down all over the world in a matter of 1 year. The other misgiving is to dispute a flood on the basis of the geophysical state of the earth today without considering the destruction caused by the aftermath of rapidly receeding water even miles deep

 

[juvenissun]

I posted this in another tread but got no reaction I dont know why

May be people do not know what kind of response you like to see.

 

[KWCrazy]

Science-Ignorant of the Flood or simply dishonest
Both.
Neither.
Science is the study of the natural world around us. It can't account for the supernatural; either to confirm or deny its existence.

The flood was a supernatural event, as was creation. Science cannot account for this via natural law. Scientists therefore look for possible answers within their field. The problem is that they have been educated to believe in naturalism; that the supernatural cannot be demonstrated and therefor cannot exist. It's a fallacy. The supernatural is the ultimate truth. The physical world is merely a temporary construct which will be destroyed in time.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Science-Ignorant of the Flood or simply dishonest
Both.
Neither.
Science is the study of the natural world around us. It can't account for the supernatural; either to confirm or deny its existence.

The flood was a supernatural event, as was creation. Science cannot account for this via natural law. Scientists therefore look for possible answers within their field. The problem is that they have been educated to believe in naturalism; that the supernatural cannot be demonstrated and therefor cannot exist. It's a fallacy. The supernatural is the ultimate truth. The physical world is merely a temporary construct which will be destroyed in time.

At one time I also thought that he Flood was a supernatural event but I got thinking about it a while and came up with some pretty plausible explanations.
I believe that scientific investigations could prove that certain events relative to a world wide flood actually happened - it is just a matter of what you set out to prove.
The big stumbling block has always been where did all that water come from and where did it go. Believers have done themselves a dis- service by shrugging their shoulders and just claiming "God did it" and leaving it at that.
But I think there is a scientifically provable answer. It involves the creation of earth with huge water filled cavities just below (well hundreds of meters below ) the surface which were subsequently filled after the flood with debris and all forms of living matter (the origins of our fossil fuels of course)
The bit that I believe science could prove is that the displacement by the flood
debris tallied with the reduction of water level bearing in mind that there would also be some global re-alignment to consider.
You see we should not be asking "Where did all the water go that was there during the flood?"
but "Where did all the dirt go that was there before the flood?"

 

[KWCrazy]

The big stumbling block has always been where did all that water come from and where did it go. Believers have done themselves a dis- service by shrugging their shoulders and just claiming "God did it" and leaving it at that.

Ever look at pictures of the earth? It's 2/3 water.
It's very possible that "the fountains of the deep" refer to water trapped underground which was released, couples with a torrential downpour. I don't know exactly how God did it, but if He could speak the universe into existence making rain fall wouldn't be difficult for Him.

 

[gluadys]

I believe that scientific investigations could prove that certain events relative to a world wide flood actually happened - it is just a matter of what you set out to prove.

From the mid-seventeenth (c. 1650 AD) to the mid-eighteenth century (c. 1750 AD), a range of British mathematicians, naturalists, and clerics from the Church of England attempted to demonstrate that belief in a global biblical deluge was perfectly compatible with extrabiblical knowledge and the latest theoretical developments in mechanistic science. They maintained that the fact that such a deluge had occurred could now be established not only on the basis of biblical authority but also on mathematical and scientific grounds. Their various theories reflected different conceptions of natural theology, the roles of science and theology, and the bearing of Scripture on the interpretation of nature.History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth​

It was the various investigations by people trying to demonstrate that a worldwide flood had occurred which convinced devout scientists and clergy alike that it did not. The last hold-out against this conclusion was the Rev. Adam Sedgwick (who was a geologist as well as a priest). He capitulated when he was convinced that surface moraines in Europe were laid down by glaciers, not flood waters. That was in 1835.

What investigations do you think geologists today might carry out which the geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries did not? Do you think the evidence has changed in the last 200 years?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Ever look at pictures of the earth? It's 2/3 water.
It's very possible that "the fountains of the deep" refer to water trapped underground which was released, couples with a torrential downpour. I don't know exactly how God did it, but if He could speak the universe into existence making rain fall wouldn't be difficult for Him.

Perhaps the answer lies in the rest of my post

 

[TasManOfGod]

From the mid-seventeenth (c. 1650 AD) to the mid-eighteenth century (c. 1750 AD), a range of British mathematicians, naturalists, and clerics from the Church of England attempted to demonstrate that belief in a global biblical deluge was perfectly compatible with extrabiblical knowledge and the latest theoretical developments in mechanistic science. They maintained that the fact that such a deluge had occurred could now be established not only on the basis of biblical authority but also on mathematical and scientific grounds. Their various theories reflected different conceptions of natural theology, the roles of science and theology, and the bearing of Scripture on the interpretation of nature.History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth​

It was the various investigations by people trying to demonstrate that a worldwide flood had occurred which convinced devout scientists and clergy alike that it did not. The last hold-out against this conclusion was the Rev. Adam Sedgwick (who was a geologist as well as a priest). He capitulated when he was convinced that surface moraines in Europe were laid down by glaciers, not flood waters. That was in 1835.

What investigations do you think geologists today might carry out which the geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries did not? Do you think the evidence has changed in the last 200 years?

Scientists usually go over their past understanding to see if the latest discoveries and knowledge has any bearing. I would say that 250 years plus of ignorance on this issue is of some concern. If such a methodology was accepted generally perhaps we would still be using blood sucking leeches in medicine

 

[juvenissun]

At one time I also thought that he Flood was a supernatural event but I got thinking about it a while and came up with some pretty plausible explanations.
I believe that scientific investigations could prove that certain events relative to a world wide flood actually happened - it is just a matter of what you set out to prove.
The big stumbling block has always been where did all that water come from and where did it go. Believers have done themselves a dis- service by shrugging their shoulders and just claiming "God did it" and leaving it at that.
But I think there is a scientifically provable answer. It involves the creation of earth with huge water filled cavities just below (well hundreds of meters below ) the surface which were subsequently filled after the flood with debris and all forms of living matter (the origins of our fossil fuels of course)
The bit that I believe science could prove is that the displacement by the flood
debris tallied with the reduction of water level bearing in mind that there would also be some global re-alignment to consider.
You see we should not be asking "Where did all the water go that was there during the flood?"
but "Where did all the dirt go that was there before the flood?"

A simple model is to imagine a cave filled with water to the ceiling. Then the ceiling collapsed and the cave becomes a flooded sinkhole (a lake). That is where the water and the dirts are.

 

[TasManOfGod]

A simple model is to imagine a cave filled with water to the ceiling. Then the ceiling collapsed and the cave becomes a flooded sinkhole (a lake). That is where the water and the dirts are.

Exactly

I believe we can add a little extra detail to this so everything becomes plausable. First the "roof" would split open under immense pressure allowing the water to gush out. Then as debris formed it would block the opening preventing any refilling. After a year of build up the mass on top of the "cave" would be too much allowing a total collapse dragging all the debris with it . In effect what has happened is that dirt that was there before the flood swapped places with water that was there after thus providing an equilibrium of sorts and explaining where the water came from and went

 

[juvenissun]

From the mid-seventeenth (c. 1650 AD) to the mid-eighteenth century (c. 1750 AD), a range of British mathematicians, naturalists, and clerics from the Church of England attempted to demonstrate that belief in a global biblical deluge was perfectly compatible with extrabiblical knowledge and the latest theoretical developments in mechanistic science. They maintained that the fact that such a deluge had occurred could now be established not only on the basis of biblical authority but also on mathematical and scientific grounds. Their various theories reflected different conceptions of natural theology, the roles of science and theology, and the bearing of Scripture on the interpretation of nature.History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth​

It was the various investigations by people trying to demonstrate that a worldwide flood had occurred which convinced devout scientists and clergy alike that it did not. The last hold-out against this conclusion was the Rev. Adam Sedgwick (who was a geologist as well as a priest). He capitulated when he was convinced that surface moraines in Europe were laid down by glaciers, not flood waters. That was in 1835.

What investigations do you think geologists today might carry out which the geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries did not? Do you think the evidence has changed in the last 200 years?

You will certainly be amazed no matter which study you care to sink into. The Lord says that knowledge will take a flight at the end time. This one certainly fits.

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly

That is an easy, but a good model. The major hurdle is to figure out why would so much water accumulated underneath. It is not hard to model that either. The problem is on the verification. A good number of geologists (Christians as well as non-Christians) ARE working on it right now.

 

[TasManOfGod]

That is an easy, but a good model. The major hurdle is to figure out why would so much water accumulated underneath. It is not hard to model that either. The problem is on the verification. A good number of geologists (Christians as well as non-Christians) ARE working on it right now.

Perhaps In God's design He incorporated some inbuilt cooling mechanism

 

[TasManOfGod]

That is an easy, but a good model. The major hurdle is to figure out why would so much water accumulated underneath. It is not hard to model that either. The problem is on the verification. A good number of geologists (Christians as well as non-Christians) ARE working on it right now.

Is there any web info on this?

 

[juvenissun]

Is there any web info on this?

No. This kind of research can not easily be searched. If I thrown one such article to you, you will not even recognize that it is talking about water underneath the crust.

Noticed that there are 100 times more atheistic geologists than Christian geologists, who work on this problem enthusiastically. They couldn't care less about Noah's Flood. But miraculously, they are working so hard to solve part of the problem.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Interestingly, nearly every 'civilization' of age seems to have a 'flood' account. Every one.

One suggestion is that every 'group' of people have had some sort of local flood. The memory of that local flood gets 'legendized' in time and grows in proportion to time. I think a simpler explanation is there was one 'big' flood which left an impression on all the survivors and that forms the basis for all the other flood stories.

However, that flood event would have had to have taken place prior to what modern people think of as ''recorded history'.

Bishop Ussher's Chronology - the one that all the YEC faction uses - has the flood around 2000 B. C. 2000 BC is roughly about the end of the first kingdom - the Old Kingdom - of Egypt. But no one in Egypt made a note of it.

The Sumerian kingdom runs back to about 3000 BC. That civilization left a 'flood legend' from prior times. (The tale of Gilgamesh from the Enuma Elish.)

Some have noted the beginnings of 'civilization' as we understand the matter began following the last Ice Age - ending about 12,000 years ago. That seems to coincide with oral tradition dating for the 'flood event'.

So. 'Science' - a misleading and over generalized term - is aware of such things. The trouble for the YEC proponents who slavishly follow the Bishop Ussher time line is the scientific accounts do not verify the calculations of Bishop Ussher. (Cue the wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth.)

This is the sticking point.

The OP asks if 'science' is merely ignorant or actively dishonest. The same questions apply to the YEC faction. However the YEC refuse to deal with any such questions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh good, Archie is back. Welcome back buddy

Interestingly, nearly every 'civilization' of age seems to have a 'flood' account. Every one.

You mean because it actually happened?

One suggestion is that every 'group' of people have had some sort of local flood. The memory of that local flood gets 'legendized' in time and grows in proportion to time. I think a simpler explanation is there was one 'big' flood which left an impression on all the survivors and that forms the basis for all the other flood stories.

Wow that's a brilliant idea, how about this one. Maybe we have the only account of the Deluge to survive as a living witness as opposed to dead religions, dead languages and scattered bloodlines. You know, the Hebrews.

However, that flood event would have had to have taken place prior to what modern people think of as ''recorded history'.

And yet there is a record in every civilization according to you. But that's ok, Darwinians are allowed to make direct contradictions of their own words, scientific evidence and the Scriptures, it's perfectly permissible.

Bishop Ussher's Chronology - the one that all the YEC faction uses - has the flood around 2000 B. C. 2000 BC is roughly about the end of the first kingdom - the Old Kingdom - of Egypt. But no one in Egypt made a note of it.

We are not a faction buddy, we represent the traditional teaching of the church, it's called a conservative view. Those who would rewrite Scripture to accommodate the modern categorical rejection of miracles are called liberal. It's the idea of being conservative with regards to changing canon as opposed to being liberal with regards to the change of same. That's why 'conservative' political and legal thinkers are what you call 'strict constructionists' with regards to the interpretation of the US Constitution. Is there a reason that Theistic Evolutionists don't understand the plain meaning of words in common use?

The Sumerian kingdom runs back to about 3000 BC. That civilization left a 'flood legend' from prior times. (The tale of Gilgamesh from the Enuma Elish.)

Ok, you mean those coniform tablets from a dead civilization, in a dead language that tells of creation coming from a pagan elemental that created even the gods? Yea I read it a few times, the Hebrew Scriptures declare that God created the heavens and the earth, not the other way around.

Some have noted the beginnings of 'civilization' as we understand the matter began following the last Ice Age - ending about 12,000 years ago. That seems to coincide with oral tradition dating for the 'flood event'.

Hang on, the Ice Age ends 12,000 years ago and it coincidentally occurs with the rise of human civilization in Egypt, the world's first civilization. I got a wild idea, maybe it wasn't an ice age, maybe it was something like....I dunno...a global flood perhaps.

So. 'Science' - a misleading and over generalized term - is aware of such things. The trouble for the YEC proponents who slavishly follow the Bishop Ussher time line is the scientific accounts do not verify the calculations of Bishop Ussher. (Cue the wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth.)

Science is an epistemology (theory of knowledge), that's why the word literally means 'knowledge'. Science the way you are using it is misleading and over generalized, the word itself has a well established meaning.

BTW, what is your interest in the exegesis of Bishop Ussher, all modern translations agree with Ussher's numbers. Do you have a better translation of the text?

This is the sticking point.

There was a point!? Missed it again...

The OP asks if 'science' is merely ignorant or actively dishonest. The same questions apply to the YEC faction. However the YEC refuse to deal with any such questions.

We are not a 'faction' buddy, we are Bible literalists. We are that segment of the church, actually a majority opinion, that takes historical narratives literally.

That was fun, thanks Archie, I was needing to practice my fish in a barrel marksmanship.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Scientists usually go over their past understanding to see if the latest discoveries and knowledge has any bearing. I would say that 250 years plus of ignorance on this issue is of some concern. If such a methodology was accepted generally perhaps we would still be using blood sucking leeches in medicine

Well, geologists have been busy for 250+ years so there has been plenty of testing of those old discoveries. Guess what, still no evidence of a global flood at any time in earth's history. This is not ignorance, this is knowledge. It is not just no positive evidence for a flood, but also positive evidence against there being a flood of such extent.

Exactly

I believe we can add a little extra detail to this so everything becomes plausable. First the "roof" would split open under immense pressure allowing the water to gush out. Then as debris formed it would block the opening preventing any refilling. After a year of build up the mass on top of the "cave" would be too much allowing a total collapse dragging all the debris with it . In effect what has happened is that dirt that was there before the flood swapped places with water that was there after thus providing an equilibrium of sorts and explaining where the water came from and went

So you have a hypothesis. Now if you were a scientist you would then suggest a way to test it. See if this hypothesis fits with observation.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Bishop Ussher's Chronology - the one that all the YEC faction uses - has the flood around 2000 B. C. 2000 BC is roughly about the end of the first kingdom - the Old Kingdom - of Egypt. But no one in Egypt made a note of it.

Strange that You would think that the first thing you would do as a torrent of water was gushing through your tent is quickly grab your chisel and start writing about it.

 

[MKJ]

I posted this in another tread but got no reaction I dont know why

They don't accept it because there is no evidence that it is true, and plenty that it is not true.