Categories of Evidence Opposing Noah’s Flood - The Discussion

HelloI'm a new member of this forum and I am going to start with a policy question before I post my actual response.Let me start by saying I don't entirely buy into either camp. I actually have a different approach altogether. I think that your list of 100 is very interesting. While I think many of your 100 points are good questions for the literal creationist, some of these objections are inappropriate or easily answered from the "creationist" perspective. I read the note posted on the list by admin: "Please do not engage in discussion in this thread." If I were to address several of these questions at once and/or make suggestions at removing or altering some of your 100, would I do that here or make suggestions on the actual 100 post?

Ok... well then maybe I should give an example. A few of the "100" are inconsequential to a "creationist" because they are based on a limited (or fundamentally different) epistemology. For example:

quote:

---

98. No plausible mechanism to explain where water came from - Overhead ”vapor canopies’ and underground ”fountains’ violate the most basic principles of physics. There is no explanation of where the water came from.

​

99. No plausible mechanism to explain where water went - No remotely valid or rational explanation has been propounded to explain where such flood waters retreated to.

---

Creationists don't see a problem here because they accept the possibility of miracles (which to me is another word for something which we cannot explain due to our current understanding of science). There are several items in this list that aren't an issue with creationists so they either need to be changed (so that they do present a challenge to something a creationist does accept) or removed altogether.So would these be worthy of another thread, discussed here, or put into the original 100 list? I guess I am recommending some of the 100 be dropped or changed (and for those I would probably write the suggestion.) and to me that should go in the 100 thread since it has to do with the 100 itself... but it might evolve into a discussion which means it should go here.I guess I should also note here that I don't necessarily disbelieve the "bare bones" story of Noah... I just find it hard to reconcile some of the details of the Biblical version with certain "accepted scientific facts" that I accept as well. Which is why I think that #95 is a very good point (although I will have to say that the story does not seem to me to be written as a typical parable, but more as an explanation of how things came to be the way they are). Edited by primemover, : Changed word because of incorrect usage

quote:

---

So, god is tricking all the scientist into not believing in the flood?

​

What an asshole, no?

---

LOL. Is it God's fault that the "scientists" you speak of refuse to believe anything but their own science... what in there eyes can be proven? Newton had no way of knowing about the relativity of motion and time at high velocities and would have laughed at the notions that Einstein postulated that changed our understanding of kinematics, disproving that Newton's ideas hold true for all circumstances. So who are "scientists" to scoff at things that may very well be possible? What about wormholes? What about the re-arrangement of matter? What about dark matter?The problem here is that BOTH sides of this argument are dead set that their version of truth is absolute and complete. That is something I find hard not to dislike about BOTH sides. We probably have as many blind scientists as we do religious fanatics. Scientists 150 years ago didn't even dream of many of the things we are capable of doing now with our knowledge. Does that mean that what we do nowadays is impossible? Of course not. AND there IS logical proof of a part of existence that science ignores... but I will start that thread when I have the time. (Being a high school science teacher does not afford me much).Keep in mind that I am not really arguing for any side here... I am simply making the point that from a creationist perspective, some of the points in the list of 100 will not be relevant. I AGREE with some of the points made in the list of 100... I am a scientist after all. But I don't dismiss possibilities just because I cannot see them. I myself can come up with a possible explanation both as a scientist and as a person of faith of where the water may have come from and where it may have gone. I also realize that many scientists would scoff at my ideas just as Newton would have done of Einstein had they been colleagues (with Einstein unable to prove his ideas during Newtons time). I am NOT saying my ideas are right; only that people really need to realize that we do NOT know everything there is to know about reality and that leaves the door open for many possibilities and certainly does not close the door on faith.One more thing:

quote:

---

People of absolute faith are capable of anything. And that's why I lack respect for them.

---

While I agree with this statement, people of no faith are just as capable (if not more) of anything. People are people. There are good people and bad people in all walks of life and in all faiths and in all non-faith belief systems.

Anglagard said:

quote:

---

After all, a powerful enough deity that is determined to 'trick' scientists into believing in the basic principles of natural science could easily create and place the fossils, the unconformities, the tree rings, the ice layers, the coral layers, the rock layers, and so on with the intent to deceive.

​

It is the study of recent history, namely the last 500 years, that leads one into a position that invoking a deity to explain all natural phenomena is a recipe for failure of state to provide for the common good and ultimately its own survival.

​

It is the study of religion that leads one into a position that invoking a deity to explain all natural phenomena within the narrow parameters of self-proclaimed infallibility of the 'saved' in interpreting ancient documents is a recipe for requiring the deity to be a liar.

---

As I understand what you are saying here, I totally agree and do not believe in such a God. Back to the topic...

quote:

---

This thread is for a general discussion of the categories and is only meant as a starting point for further discussion. Further detailed examination concerning any debatable aspects of particular points belong in other threads sorted by forum according to the basis for the critique.

​

So please go ahead and suggest a PNT for any point you disagree with based upon any reason and I will likely participate, God willing.

---

Thank you very much for this clarification. As I said... I'm brand new and still learning the netiquette for this particular forum. It's also good to see that some people here want to learn from each other. . Edited by primemover, : This was meant as a general reply...