Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 19/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1 of 100 (463316)
04-15-2008 9:46 AM


Watching the debates on this forum, something has struck me.
There are various views we could take with regard to the Flood:
(1) It could only have happened by a miracle; and the evidence shows that it happened.
(2) It could only have happened by a miracle; and the evidence shows that it didn't happen.
(3) It could have happened without a miracle; and the evidence shows that it didn't happen.
(4) It could have happened without a miracle; and the evidence shows that it happened.
Now, the curious thing that strikes me is that when creationists argue for the "vapor canopy", or whatever, trying to make the Flood explicable in natural terms, they are arguing for proposition (4).
But this is no use to them.
By analogy, I am convinced that thunder and lightning happen, and that they are possible without a miracle, since they can be explained in purely natural terms. For this reason, I don't take their existence as evidence for Thor the Thunder God, because I have a naturalistic explanation for it.
In the same way, if someone could convince me that the Flood happened and that it was possible without a miracle, then I wouldn't see this as evidence for Jehovah the Genocide God, because the creationists would also have furnished me with a naturalistic explanation. I'd be able to say: "Sure, the flood happened, but we can explain it perfectly well by the vapor canopy theory, without need for any divine intervention. So that's how it happened, and the fact that the Hebrews attributed it to their god instead of the vapor canopy is of no more significance that the fact that the Norse attributed thunder and lightning to Thor."
Surely what creationists need to argue for is proposition (1): that the evidence shows that the Flood happened, and that it contravenes the laws of nature and so requires a miraculous explanation.
Discuss.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 04-15-2008 11:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2008 1:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 100 (463365)
04-15-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
04-15-2008 11:10 AM


Re: Where to put it?
I'd have stuck it in "Geology And The Great Flood" or "Is It Science?" Not Social Issues or "Bible Study".
Maybe "Is It Science?" would be best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 04-15-2008 11:10 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 04-15-2008 7:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 100 (463372)
04-15-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
04-15-2008 7:52 PM


Re: Where to put it?
Then I don't understand where you want to take the thread. If you want to discuss the use of miracles that isn't going to fit in any science thread.
Could you offer a bit of an idea of how the discussion might unfold?
I have absolutely no idea what creationists will reply to this, that's why I raised the question.
Please put it in "Is It Science?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 04-15-2008 7:52 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 100 (560873)
05-18-2010 12:02 AM


I thought I'd bump this thread.
Here we have dear old dotty old Buzsaw attributing Noah's Flood to the meteor strike which in reality we associate with the KT boundary.
Now apart from everything else that's wrong with that, here we have another case of what this thread is about. He's looking for a naturalistic explanation for something that the Bible just attributes to the will of God.
When it comes to explaining some real thing, such as the diversity of species, then creationists are quite happy to attribute it to God doing magic. But when it comes to an imaginary thing that didn't happen, such as the Flood, they go looking for materialistic explanations to shore it up.
Why?

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2010 11:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 100 (560874)
05-18-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
04-17-2008 1:20 PM


I thought that they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible.
But what I'm discussing here is not their attempts to show that the Flood occurred, but their attempts to show that the Flood could have occurred, as a natural phenomenon, without the need for divine intervention.
Why are they doing this? When it comes to things that really exist and have a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation, they insist that the naturalistic explanation is bogus and that God did it by magic. But when it comes to this miraculous flood that the Bible attributes to the will of God, they try to write God out of the picture and seek a purely naturalistic explanation.
I am puzzled as to what can be going through their heads when they do this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2008 1:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 05-18-2010 1:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 10:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 67 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-19-2010 1:40 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 100 (560996)
05-18-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2010 10:41 AM


I stand by my original assessment... They are trying to add weight to the Bible. If your standard is science, then they'll try to be sciencey. I don't think they care about a natural, godless, explanation for themselves but that they're trying to get to your standard.
But that is not what they do.
Look, if they tell me that Jesus walked on water then their whole point is that that would be a miracle.
If they then tried to shore up their account by providing naturalistic explanations like saying: "Well, maybe he had big styrofoam boots strapped to his feet, and the boots were painted blue so that no-one saw them in the water, and maybe Saint Peter distracted them at the crucial moment by shouting "hey everyone, look over there", and ..."
Well, you see my point, I hope. They try to make the miracle more plausible by making it less miraculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 12:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2010 7:12 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 100 (561119)
05-18-2010 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
05-18-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Application Of Natural Events
Dr Adequate, According to the Biblical record, often God effects his purposes via what we regard as natural events. When he wanted to punish Israel, his nation for idolitry etc, he didn't usually zap them directly himself. He raised up enemy nations for that specific purpose on occasion. Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was an example Syria and Egypt were others.
Germany was a "natural" agent in effecting the return of Israel to their homeland in order to fulfill the end time prophecies of the prophecied messianic kingdom in Israel.
Yeah, yeah. God hides.
Why does God hide?
As for the flood, the natural effect of a meteor hit the magnitude of the K T event strike would (naturally) cool the atmosphere.
Why?
We know there was this meteor event at some time. You can fault me for my reasons of rejecting the dating of the event but you can't fault me for applying the event to triggering an alleged flood by an alleged condensing of an alleged warm vapor canopy.
What I'm saying is that you can call the canopy and the flood a myth, but you can't deny that such a meteor strike would not naturally cause the warm vapor to condense and rain to earth.
Until you show your working, I have every reason to doubt it.
Incidentally, why doesn't the Bible mention the meteor strike>
According to the Biblical record which depicts a flood and warmer climate ...
The Bible says nothing about a warmer climate.
We ID creationists must apply the same observed events, fossil record, historical record, etc to argue for our premises and theses that evolutionists apply to theirs ...
Well, you should, but obviously you don't. Hence, for example, your ability to pretend that dinosaurs are the only extinct reptiles, a feat of blindness to the fossil record so total that I'm at a loss to see how you can manage it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2010 11:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 100 (561281)
05-19-2010 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
05-19-2010 12:23 PM


Re: Application Of Natural Events
No. Not correct. All that is there is debatable and remains the ongoing debate in the science arena, according to premise and thesis of interpretation of the geological/biological data observed. Both camps apply the same data in determinations.
Don't be silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2010 12:23 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2010 12:27 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024