|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for a recent flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ell, sure. It divides creationists into two classes. On the one hand, there are the creationists who take biblical chronology literally, and are wrong. On the other hand, there are the creationists who say that you might as well take Genesis 1 as a metaphor ... in which case they can join the rest of the Christians and admit that evolution happened.
And there is another class: those who try to take the account as it would have been understood by the original authors and audience. I believe these have the most scholarly basis for their claims. But such interpretive issues are questions for a Bible study thread, not a science thread. In a science thread, Coyote is right to pick one particular interpretation for a scientific test. Just realize that we are only testing the veracity of that one particular interpretation of the Bible; we are not testing the veracity of the Bible itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And there is another class: those who try to take the account as it would have been understood by the original authors and audience. Who would still end up on any particular point falling into one category or the other. It is in fact true that no-one is consistently a literalist, they'll always find out that the Bible doesn't say that the Earth literally rests on pillars no matter how often the Bible says so and despite the total lack of indication that this is a metaphor. But so long as you agree with Coyote that we should date Noah's Flood as though the Bible was true, then let's go from there. Anyone who thinks the Bible is false in this respect should stop being a creationist and accept evolution, 'cos why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And there is another class: those who try to take the account as it would have been understood by the original authors and audience. Is there any class that would support some factual world-wide flood at anytime that modern humans existed?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3736 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
As far as I know there are YECs who will argue for a recent flood, OECs who will argue for a much older flood and there are Christians and non-Christians who don't believe a worldwide flood ever happened.
This topic is about looking for evidence of the recent flood, as described by YECs. That being the case, I'm strugging to follow ICANT's arguments. Am I missing something very basic here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
You well expressed the Bay of Fundy situation.
The water rising and falling once during your mythical Flud would have left a little silt behind. A little, that is, in the spots where it was 15 cubits deep. Quite a bit, though, in the places where it was deeper. Like all the silt off the high places...... Setting aside considerations of the massive impact on land based life... My vision of the flood impact: Heavy rains for 40 days and 40 nights would cause massive erosion. All the finer sediments would be stripped off and carried to the land/ocean margins of the time, to form massive deltas. The coarser sediments such as boulders might be left behind as lag deposits. Beyond that, I don't envision much sediment deposition. As the waters rose, significant sediment WOULD NOT be brought back to be deposited at higher elevations. And what little that was deposited would tend to be eroded back off post-flood. So, post flood, I'd expect to see a lot of barren bedrock with massive delta deposits at the margins. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If there was a one year long flood would it leave any evidence in places of human habitation that existed at that given time?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Heavy rains for 40 days and 40 nights would cause massive erosion. All the finer sediments would be stripped off and carried to the land/ocean margins of the time, to form massive deltas. The coarser sediments such as boulders might be left behind as lag deposits.
I think perhaps you underestimate the fine clay sediments and their tendency to remain in suspension in moving waters, and to settle out only when the waters are calm. Beyond that, I don't envision much sediment deposition. As the waters rose, significant sediment WOULD NOT be brought back to be deposited at higher elevations. And what little that was deposited would tend to be eroded back off post-flood. So, post flood, I'd expect to see a lot of barren bedrock with massive delta deposits at the margins. What you are suggesting is that there would be evidence left in some places by a global flood that should be seen in the soils, either as erosion or deposition. I would suggest that the evidence would be more widespread than you have posited. Certainly the erosion should be visible in a lot of areas. But if the flood was worldwide, then the depositional evidence should be close to worldwide. If there was water some 29,000 feet above current sea levels, that increase and subsequent decrease would have to be accompanied by significant water movement. I don't believe that all evidence could be erased in just 4,000+ years. There should be fine sedimentary deposits close to worldwide dating to about 4,350 years ago. We have the evidence from the channeled scablands of eastern Washington of earlier floods that we can use as a guide. Those post-glacial floods would have been much smaller than Noah's flood, yet we see evidence that allows us to track the paths of those floods, and to come up with approximate dates while we don't see the same evidence for Noah's flood--much larger in size and only a third the age. There is something clearly lacking in the evidence for a recent global flood.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
But so long as you agree with Coyote that we should date Noah's Flood as though the Bible was true, then let's go from there. Anyone who thinks the Bible is false in this respect should stop being a creationist and accept evolution, 'cos why not?
I agree with Coyote that in a science thread we should pick a particular hypothesis to test. I agree with him that the hypothesis of a recent worldwide flood is a well-known biblical interpretation, and that it begs for scientific validation or disproof. And I agree with him that this interpretation roundly fails the test. I do not agree that this recent worldwide flood interpretation is required if the Bible is posited as true, or that the failure of this interpretation proves the Bible false. And I do not agree that accepting evolution requires rejecting creation. But these are questions for a Bible study thread, not for a science thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I agree with Coyote that in a science thread we should pick a particular hypothesis to test. I agree with him that the hypothesis of a recent worldwide flood is a well-known biblical interpretation, and that it begs for scientific validation or disproof. And I agree with him that this interpretation roundly fails the test. I do not agree that this recent worldwide flood interpretation is required if the Bible is posited as true, or that the failure of this interpretation proves the Bible false. And I do not agree that accepting evolution requires rejecting creation. But these are questions for a Bible study thread, not for a science thread. Good points. But the flood had to occur at some time in the past. And that time had to include humans. This would seem to eliminate the Cambrian and the K-T boundary, two time periods favored by posters here but millions of years before humans walked the earth. What it comes down to is that flood has to be at some specific time--it can't always be "not here, over there!" -- which is what we get from many creationists. That's the old shell game. So at some point creationists should figure out when the flood occurred and let us all look for the evidence at that time. Otherwise one might begin to think that it's all a myth.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
But the flood had to occur at some time in the past. And that time had to include humans.
Yes, I agree. As you probably know, many evangelical scholars think that the biblical account is describing a local or regional flood, not a worldwide flood. Some (e.g. Dick Fischer) would put this recently, in the last 10,000 years. Others (e.g. Glenn Morton) would associate it with the infilling of the Mediterranean, and push it back much further. Still others (e.g. Paul Seely) would make it semi-mythical but based on a real, local flood. This would seem to eliminate the Cambrian and the K-T boundary, two time periods favored by posters here but millions of years before humans walked the earth. What it comes down to is that flood has to be at some specific time--it can't always be "not here, over there!" -- which is what we get from many creationists. That's the old shell game. So at some point creationists should figure out when the flood occurred and let us all look for the evidence at that time. Otherwise one might begin to think that it's all a myth. But again, these various interpretations are the purview of Bible study, not science. You are right to restrict this science thread to a single, popular interpretation. Where are all of the YEC Flood Geology advocates? Why aren't they here defending their views? I would have expected them to try to present some sort of evidence for their position (e.g. Sir Leonard Wooley's flood layers at Ur).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Hi Dr Bertsche
Yes, I would love to talk to them, too. The problem here is that not even one of the YEC's here have any geology training at all. I would love to see one of the handful YEC's with geological training in the world (maybe ten?), to come and defend their positions. My only guess is that they don't want to try it on forums like this, because they know they will get slaughtered. They just want to preach to novices! I do know that Dr. John Baumgardner tried to do it once on a similar forum. The problem with him is that he has no geological training, but is an Engineer with a Ph.D. in Geophysics. Boy, did he get slaughtered! In the end he tried outright untruths (like referring to a real expert on dating methods as a "self-styled specialist"). Then he mentioned something about "no respect for the Word of God" (or something to that effect) and then he disappeared from the forum. I guess we won't get anything better than that. That's all they have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Hi kbertsche,
As you probably know, many evangelical scholars think that the biblical account is describing a local or regional flood, not a worldwide flood. Some (e.g. Dick Fischer) would put this recently, in the last 10,000 years. Others (e.g. Glenn Morton) would associate it with the infilling of the Mediterranean, and push it back much further. Still others (e.g. Paul Seely) would make it semi-mythical but based on a real, local flood. That's fine and dandy, but you can't entirely blame the YECs for taking the text to mean a global flood. I mean, if I were attempting to describe a local flood, I wouldn't choose the phrase "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.". That sounds pretty global to me. Further, the text specifically describes Mt. Ararat as being submerged. Given that Ararat is the forty-eighth highest peak in the world, that can only mean a flood of global - if not quite total - proportions. A flood that leaves all of, say, Australia under water is one heck of big local flood. It may in fact be true that the flood story is based loosely upon a real flood, but I think that anyone promoting this view is compelled to accept that the text is either a very inaccurate or largely mythic description of a real event or that it was never intended to describe a real event at all. No literalist or inerrantist interpretation makes sense of the text within the framework of a local flood.
Where are all of the YEC Flood Geology advocates? Why aren't they here defending their views? What can I say? I guess that defending the indefensible must get tiring after a while. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
We missed you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4191 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
quote: Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past? Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly. And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. You know how I asked for evidence? That was assertion.
Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly. And that was more assertion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024