quote:
We know from both geology and biology, that since humans have existed, the planet has never been covered with water. Plain and simple: The (global) Flood never actually happened.
@Catholic Scientist, I know exactly what you mean, but there are some problems with your statement.
First, though, I admit that Noah's Flood might not literally have been a water flood; it may be symbolic for something for which there was (and may still be) no adequate vocabulary. That shouldn't stop us from investigating the possible meanings.
Problems with the claim
"We know" is an interesting generality. Generalities tend to hide truth rather than reveal. Like, "everyone knows that!" Does "everyone" really? Do we really know that there was never a worldwide flood from geology and biology? Or do you mean, instead, that we have not yet found evidence of such a thing? You see, behind your claim is an argument to ignorance (a logical fallacy).
How would geology show evidence of a worldwide flood? If it was all rain, then there would be a heck of a lot of erosion until (but not after) the land being eroded was covered with water. But if most of the water was added to Earth in the depths of the oceans (created, transported, gated a la 'Star Gate,' etc.), then geologically, there might be little or no evidence. And if little, then there is a possibility that such evidence has not yet been found. Arrogance suggests that we've found everything there is to find, so the flood never happened.
What if we find pockets of salt water in the Greenland ice sheet or Antarctic ice sheet for 28,000 BC? I guess we'd have to be lucky to core at that exact place. Would the scientists even notice? Would they report it, or would it merely be a messy detail overlooked in their neat and tidy report?
Problems with the Flood
Certainly, the Flood has many problems. Where did the water come from and go (more than 2x the amount currently on Earth)? How did freshwater fish find their way back to their streams and lakes after surviving months in salt water? How did plants survive the long inundation? How did coastal species survive (they depend on their ecosystem, near the surface)? How would glaciers fare the inundation? How did one man gather all species? After 300 years of classification, we're still discovering thousands of species a year!
Where God is Concerned
Science does great in the realm of the study of nature. It deals with elements and qualities of "continuity." Creation, however, is discontinuous in nature. Things like forgiveness, inspiration, walking on water and parting the sea are all acts discontinuous in nature. They ignore the continuity of physical law (not science). Physical law is not science; this is what science studies. Continuity gives science something to study.
Where God is concerned, all physical law is subject to suspension, revision or outright breaking. Water from a rock in the desert, manna from heaven and similar miracles break with the continuity that science studies.
So, what really happened in Genesis 6-9? We could say that it's all myth and leave it at that, but where's the fun in that?
Did God use a force that looked like water? Did He use actual water, but took care of all of the apparent problems we see from a scientific angle? Yes, the Flood story could be entirely myth and a morality tale -- a warning wrapped in symbolism. But where God is concerned, all options are on the table.
Scientific Paradigm
The bottom line is, we don't know what it means or if the Flood really happened.
What happened to good old scientific skepticism? You have to realize that skepticism can be aimed not only at the Flood, but also at the attitudes toward the Flood; i.e. skeptical of one's own skepticism. Too many conclusions are drawn in the name of skepticism and that's just poor logic and poor science. Regrettably, scientists do it all the time. The "Clovis first" dogma is only one example. Scientists have egos just like everyone else and lose sight of the fact that skepticism is the wrong paradigm.
Scientific method warns against bias. This includes preconceived notions. And yet science seems to cling to skepticism as their number one tool. Skepticism contains the very potent bias of doubt. This tool has proven useful, at times, but it's a very sloppy and imperfect tool.
What's the right tool? The right paradigm? Restraint and humility! Don't jump to conclusions. Hypothesize by all means, but skepticism -- the way most use it -- has conclusion written all over it. It's got "I've concluded this, but you can prove me wrong." And when skepticism turns ugly, it becomes completely and entirely subjective -- unsupported dismissiveness (as in arguments to ignorance), and self-indulgent ridicule (as in the treatment of scientists who dared dig below the Clovis horizon).
The Flood never happened? Perhaps it did happen, but we simply have as yet found only one piece of evidence: a species which died out at the real Flood date -- a species which matches the Genesis 6 description of "daughters of men." And if we understand God's reason for something like the Flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, then we might understand why it was necessary to wipe out one very specific species.
™ Version 4.2
