The Impossibility Of The Flood

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

Not in the argument that I provided.

---

That's because your argument isn't accurate, or at least isn't complete. It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum. They are out to prove the existence of the specific god that caused a global flood and that there is no other. That the Bible is accurate is merely a stepping stone on the way to claiming, "See?! God exists!"God gave us the Bible -> The Bible says there was a global flood -> We should find evidence of a global floodThey then affirm the consequent:There was a global flood -> The Bible was right -> The god that gave us the Bible is the one, true godPlease do not play dumb and pretend that the only thing that is being done is claiming that the Bible is correct. After all, there are lots of religious stories regarding floods. If there were a global flood during a time when people were alive, why would it be impressive to find that an oral tradition that goes back a few thousand years would have a story regarding a global flood?If god exists -> The Bible is trueAnd here comes the logical error of affirming the consequent:The Bible is true -> God exists

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

It would be nice if you responded to my argument, the argument that I actually provided, instead of making up an argument for me and the responding to that.In Message 9 I wrote:

quote:

---

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.

---

and in Message 11

quote:

---

They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.

​

Even if it is "just another mythicized version of a flood story", it would still be correct in that it happened.

​

For it to not have happened at all shows an inerrancy in the Bible and the literalists cannot have that, so they try to prove that the flood did exist.

---

Please do not be dumb and respond to arguments that I’m not making.I haven’t seen many arguments for the flood that conclude that god exists. Care to link to a few?My point is that, for one, yeah it’s obvious that an argument for the flood and concluding that god exists is illogical, and for two, people generally, when arguing for the flood, are not trying to prove that god exists but rather prove that the Bible has some accuracy to it. It would be impressive that the Bible actually got some things right. It would add veracity to the Bible, not prove that god exists.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

It would be nice if you responded to my argument, the argument that I actually provided

---

What part of "Your argument isn't accurate" do you not understand?You write: What part of "It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god" is somehow not in direct response to that? It would seem to be a blatant contradiction of your claim.

quote:

---

Please do not be dumb and respond to arguments that I’m not making.

---

I asked you very nicely not to play dumb. What part of "Your argument isn't accurate, or at least isn't complete. It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god" are you having trouble with? How does it not respond to your claim of "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"?Why do you think they are trying to prove the Bible accurate? Let us not be disingenuous and pretend that they are just playing at being Heinrich Schliemann and they will accord a finding of a global flood the same theological importance as the rediscovery of Troy.The only reason for the search of a global flood is to prove the existence of the god of the Bible. This is the same disingenuousness as those who advocate ID, insisting that they're not talking about god. Strange how when someone brings up the possibility that an intelligence other than god could be responsible for "ID," it is ridiculed.

quote:

---

I haven’t seen many arguments for the flood that conclude that god exists.

---

Are you truly that naive? Why do you think there is such a search?Are the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis not enough for you? How about Henry Morris' The Genesis Flood? The Institute for Creation Research has a museum just 20 minutes north of me. Exhibit #5 is about the flood. And then there's the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas.What on earth do you think the "wedge" strategy is about? It's about getting creationism accepted as science and one of the ways to do that is to show the Bible to be accurate, as if that somehow shows that the Christian god is real.I have asked you very nicely on multiple occasions not to play dumb.

quote:

---

It would add veracity to the Bible, not prove that god exists.

---

But why do we care? Why is it that the only people who are so insistent that there was a global flood in contradiction to all the available evidence are the ones who are insisting that the Christian god exists, that the Bible is true in every word and deed? These very same people don't seem to think that Zeus and the rest of the Olympian pantheon have any connection to reality just because we've found the Iliad to be accurate. They certainly aren't going out of their way to show the accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, even though the story of Noah is a direct ripoff of the story of Ut-Napishtim.Can you show us a single person who is insisting that the flood actually happened who isn't using it as a justification for their theological position regarding the existence and identity of god?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

The part where it took you two posts of seemingly misrepresentation before you brought it up. They are trying to prove the Bible accurate in order to add weight to their position of god existing. They are trying to prove the flood to prove the Bible accurate. But they really aren’t taking the fallacious leap from proving the flood to concluding god exists.They really aren’t Affirming the Consequent in the way that you laid it out. You’ve answered this, yourself, in Message 12: And I answered it in Message 11:

quote:

---

They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.
Even if it is "just another mythicized version of a flood story", it would still be correct in that it happened.
For it to not have happened at all shows an inerrancy in the Bible and the literalists cannot have that, so they try to prove that the flood did exist.

---

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What part of "Your argument isn't accurate" do you not understand?

---

​

The part where it took you two posts of seemingly misrepresentation before you brought it up.

---

Excuse me, but I brought it up in my very first post, Message 12: Now, why on earth do you think I'm talking about "theology" if I were just responding to a claim that a book was accurate? Yeah, that's right, because I wasn't. I was contradicting your claim that they were just talking about a book. Instead, they're trying to be able to say, "See? God exists!" But the only reason they can do so is because they're starting from a position that god leads to the Bible leads to the flood. To then go from the flood to god is to affirm the consequent. Again, there are myriad examples of flood myths. Why do they land on the god of the Bible?

quote:

---

They are trying to prove the Bible accurate in order to add weight to their position of god existing.

---

Now I'm confused. You originally said in Message 11: Now you're saying they are trying to prove god exists. Which is it?When you figure out your own argument, please let us know.

quote:

---

But they really aren’t taking the fallacious leap from proving the flood to concluding god exists.

---

You just contradicted yourself again. Which is it? Are they or are they not trying to prove the existence of god?Why on earth do you think that they're so gung-ho about justifying their preconception about a global flood? Since there are plenty of flood myths, why is it that they never mention that a global flood shows Gilgamesh to be accurate or that Greek myth is accurate? You never hear a talk about Ut-Napishtim or Deucalion and Pyrrha. Why is that, do you think?

quote:

---

You’ve answered this, yourself, in Message 12:

---

[...]

quote:

---

And I answered it in Message 11:

---

Huh? We get to work backwards in time? Your original point is actually a response to something I hadn't even said yet? No, Catholic Scientist, my Message 12 is a response to your Message 11. It is now up to you to justify your claim that "They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god."Don't play dumb.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I think it's possible that you're both right: after all, there are a lot of creationists/IDists.Here's how I see it. There are two steps in the IDist’s argument:1. Prove the Bible is accurate, so it will be permitted in science and history
2. Once it’s shown to be scientifically accurate, we can use it to prove GodI agree with you (Rrhain) that the overall goal for all IDists/creationists is to prove God, and that that goal definitely permeates the entire process. But, I agree with Catholic Scientists that at least some IDists have made the distinction between the two steps above and are trying to tackle number one without going to number two (yet).Like Dr. A. said in the OP, if they prove the Flood happened and is explicable by natural processes (as per, e.g. the “vapor canopy” model), there is no support for the miraculous story told in the Bible. So, the best that I could see coming from the Noah’s Ark apologetics is that some events in the Bible will be seen as based on a true story. They will not then convert the whole academic community to biblical literalism.The question is, do the IDists realize this? I think some do, and some don’t. For instance, Ken Ham definitely doesn’t, so Rrhain’s argument is completely right in regards to him. As for Michael Behe, I personally think would realize it (but I never read Darwin’s Black Box, so I don’t know for sure), so I would lean towards Catholic Scientist's argument in Behe's case.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Wow, I can hardly believe what I'm reading. I remember seeing Crashfrog bitch about how disingenuous you are with the misrepresentation n'stuff, but I never really saw it for myself and didn't really 'get' what he was saying.But damn, I get it now.Well, wait... Is English not your first language? Because that would make sense. They try to prove the Flud to prove the Bible. Then they use the proof of the Bible to prove God exists. They do not leap from the Flud to God's existence and Affirm the Consequent like you are saying. If I say in message 1 that my favorite color is red, and then you ask me in message 2 what my favorite color is, I will say that I already answered that in message 1.Now who's playing dumb? Or are you just trolling me? Because they are trying to prove that the Bible is accurate, like I've been saying. .|.. ^.^ ..|.

---

ABE:Bluejay seems to get it just fine:

quote:

---

Here's how I see it. There are two steps in the IDist’s argument:

​

1. Prove the Bible is accurate, so it will be permitted in science and history
2. Once it’s shown to be scientifically accurate, we can use it to prove God

​

I agree with you (Rrhain) that the overall goal for all IDists/creationists is to prove God, and that that goal definitely permeates the entire process. But, I agree with Catholic Scientists that at least some IDists have made the distinction between the two steps above and are trying to tackle number one without going to number two (yet).

---

What's your problem?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

Yeah, if Bluejay could figure it out, anyone could. Okay, serious now. I think he does get it. From Message #16: I think his argument was that this doesn't apply to most IDists, because most of them actually do think Flood = God, without realizing (or just ignoring) that they have to tackle the Flood = Bible and Bible = God steps separately. And, in the case of many IDists, I'd say Rrhain's point is a great point, which is also the same as Dr A's original point. And, therefore, I think most of them are doing exactly what Dr A said, i.e. not helping their cause at all by trying to prove the Flood through natural means.Now, I don't know the ID movement as well as I used to think I did, though, so I could be underestimating them, as you seem to be arguing. But, from the stuff I've read, I'd say your argument gives them too much credit (for the most part).I personally think, for a lot of them that do make the two-step distinction you propose, the distinction is just a formality to make their theory sound more plausible. It's like when they say they're working to prove an "intelligent designer," not God, but they fully believe (and intend to teach, if they get into the curriculum) that the designer is God, and that proving the designer means proving God, even though they say there is a difference.So, most have it in their mind that Flood = God, not Flood -> Bible -> God, if even they're trying to make it look like they're doing the stepwise, scientific thing.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Bluejay responds to me:

quote:

---

Here's how I see it. There are two steps in the IDist’s argument:

​

1. Prove the Bible is accurate, so it will be permitted in science and history

---

But we don't do that with any other piece of literature. Troy was a real place. It was sacked (multiple times).We still don't teach the Iliad in history or science class.

quote:

---

2. Once it’s shown to be scientifically accurate, we can use it to prove God

---

And that's the logical error of affirming the consequent. They assume that the Bible comes from god and then use the Bible to prove the existence of god. Because god, then the Bible. Because the Bible, then god. Circular reasoning, affirming the consequent.

quote:

---

But, I agree with Catholic Scientists that at least some IDists have made the distinction between the two steps above and are trying to tackle number one without going to number two (yet).

---

What do you mean "yet"? Why does it matter that they have an intermediate point? Why is it none of them are ever using this information to justify Greek mythology? After all, they have a flood myth, too. And if the flood is true, then we need to start teaching the Iliad in science and history class, right?No?Then the idea that they are just trying to prove the Bible to be accurate is nothing but a distraction. To pretend that there is any hint of objectivity, "Just trying to find out what's true," is naive in the extreme.

quote:

---

As for Michael Behe, I personally think would realize it

---

Behe is a religious apologist. While he has been careful about not giving too many speeches regarding the literal truth of the Bible, he has been caught saying so. He is, after all, a fellow of the Discovery Institute.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

They try to prove the Flud to prove the Bible. Then they use the proof of the Bible to prove God exists. They do not leap from the Flud to God's existence and Affirm the Consequent like you are saying.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Do you truly not understand basic logic? It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you take. If you try to reverse the implications, you are engaging in the logical error of affirming the consequent:A -> B -> CC, therefore B, therefore AThat is affirming the consequent just as much as if we were to remove B from the process and just do A -> C; C, therefore A. In fact, you're doing it twice.A square -> A rectangle -> A polygonA polygon -> A rectangle -> A squareIt doesn't matter how many intermediate steps we stick in there: A square -> a rectangle -> a quadrilateral -> a polygon -> a bounded, two-dimensional shape. If you try to reverse the process and start with the end as justification for the beginning, you are affirming the consequent. That's what "affirming the consequent" means.

quote:

---

If I say in message 1 that my favorite color is red, and then you ask me in message 2 what my favorite color is

---

Huh? Where did I ask you anything? I contradicted you.Msg 1: "Joe's favorite color is red."Msg 2: "No, Joe's favorite color is blue."Msg 3: "I responded to that in Msg 1."Huh? That's not a response. Msg 1 has nothing to do with Msg 2. Msg 2 is a response to Msg 1. For you to say that you already dealt with that is simply repeating your argument. That isn't debate. You need to show why you think Joe's favorite color is red.For the third time: Can you show me anybody who is searching for evidence of a global flood that is going to use it as justification for anything other than the god of the Bible? Someone who will admit that it is exoneration for all the other flood myths out there?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why on earth do you think that they're so gung-ho about justifying their preconception about a global flood? Since there are plenty of flood myths, why is it that they never mention that a global flood shows Gilgamesh to be accurate or that Greek myth is accurate? You never hear a talk about Ut-Napishtim or Deucalion and Pyrrha. Why is that, do you think?

---

​

Because they are trying to prove that the Bible is accurate, like I've been saying.

---

That's not an answer. Why are they trying to prove the Bible accurate? Why is it they're trying to prove the BIBLE accurate? Why aren't they trying to prove the Iliad accurate?Can you show me anybody who is searching for evidence of a global flood that is going to use it as justification for anything other than the god of the Bible? Someone who will admit that it is exoneration for all the other flood myths out there?If not, where do you find justifcation that they aren't trying to prove the existence of their preconceived notion of god?

quote:

---

.|.. ^.^ ..|.

---

Right...that's helpful. So the only way to justify your argument is to say, "Fuck you"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Bluejay responds to Catholic Scientist:

quote:

---

I personally think, for a lot of them that do make the two-step distinction you propose

---

Name one. Same argument to you as to CS: Show me a single person who is searching for evidence of a global flood who will claim that it is justification for every culture's flood myth and doesn't restrict himself to just the Bible.Besides, it doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you take. If you reverse the implication, you are engaging in the logical error of affirming the consequent. In fact, adding intermediate steps simply compounds the problem as you are affirming the consequent at every level.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rrhain, I think you've got too much of an "all-or-nothing" mindset in your argument. I don't recall having said that their idea was backed by good logic. I firmly believe that the ID movement is a committee of fools, morons, jackasses and idiots, and that just about every one of them is completely and irreconcilably stupid (at least in regards to science). But, I was never arguing for their credibility, sanity or intelligence: I was arguing that they do have a system of sorts. But, Rrhain, we're not necessarily saying the ID position is "if the Bible is accurate, God is therefore real." We're saying, "If the Bible is accurate, there might be evidence it in that we can use to argue for the existence of God." It isn't affirming the consequent because it doesn't necessarily affirm anything.And, you don't have to start with "assume the Bible comes from God" to make this argument work. You start with "a story in the Bible is supported by physical evidence" (at least, it would if they could find such evidence). Then, the credibility of the Bible goes up, and you can use it to guide archaeological digs or other fact-finding missions, the more of which prove true, the more credible the Bible becomes, and the more likely it seems that the Bible is completely inerrant.Now, don't get me wrong: I know it doesn't really work this way. I said earlier: and But, just because they have the end goal in mind, obscuring their judgment about the evidence, it doesn't mean they're not taking the necessary steps. After all, their idiocy only extends as far as the interpretation-of-evidence part: they're not stupid when it comes to laypeople, politics or even the actual processes of science. They know they can't pass off the "Flood = God" thing as science directly, at least not to scientists. So, they'll try to do it the in stepwise fashion that CS is saying.Of course, if and when they find conclusive support for the Flood, they'll naturally start saying things like "We knew this all along. Aren't you going to listen to us about all this other stuff now?" And, of course, finding evidence for the Flood would increase Christian memberships and faithfulness around the world and do wonders for missionary work, and result in lots of conflicts between differents sects as to who is right and initiate Armegeddon a lot faster than anyone was expecting. But, I digress. That was my point in the post you responded to: Admittedly, I should have used "smokescreen" or "pretense" instead of "formality," because that's what I really meant that word to mean.In short, as I said earlier, I agree with your overall point. But, I think you're making it black-and-white when there clearly are some greys, too.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Bluejay responds to me:

quote:

---

I think you've got too much of an "all-or-nothing" mindset in your argument.

---

No, it's a theory vs. practice mindset. Yes, it is theoretically possible that someone out there is treating the Bible as an historical document along with all of the other great historical documents such as the Iliad and the Bhagavad Gita and thus is searching for evidence of a global flood to place these texts within an historical context, but let's be honest: They aren't the ones claiming there was a global flood. Instead, they're making comments that the story of a flood is probably the result of the telling and retelling of a local flood and the one that seems to have originated in the western Mediterranean could have origins in a natural dam breaking.

quote:

---

I was arguing that they do have a system of sorts.

---

And I'm saying they don't. Yes, it is theoretically possible that they're interested in the historicity of the Bible and will only use it in the synthesis of their argument, not the analysis, but in practice, they don't. The argument is that god gave us the Bible, the Bible says there was a flood, therefore we must insist there was a global flood which will be proof of god. Circular argument, affirming the consequent.

quote:

---

we're not necessarily saying the ID position is "if the Bible is accurate, God is therefore real."

---

In theory, no.In practice, yes.Name me a single person who isn't arguing exactly that. No, not a person who is treating it as an intellectual exercise. I want someone who is seriously claiming that there was a global flood and that there is evidence to show it.

quote:

---

They know they can't pass off the "Flood = God" thing as science directly, at least not to scientists. So, they'll try to do it the in stepwise fashion that CS is saying.

---

But that just means they're repeating the logical error. It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you take. If you reverse the arrows of implication, you are engaging in the logical error of affirming the consequent. Implication doesn't work that way.

quote:

---

Of course, if and when they find conclusive support for the Flood, they'll naturally start saying things like "We knew this all along. Aren't you going to listen to us about all this other stuff now?"

---

Well, that would contradict your previous claim of their intentions: It turns out that they are, indeed, not taking the necessary steps. They're just trying to baffle you with bullshit by throwing in a lot of intermediary steps so that they don't have to say that "flood = god." It's the exact same reason why they started calling it "intelligent design" rather than "creationism." They wanted to be able to have their religious argument without mentioning the word "god."But just because they don't use the word "god" doesn't mean that they aren't trying to prove the existence of god through an illogical reverse implication.Name me a single person who isn't arguing that a global flood necessarily means the god of the Bible is true. Again, not someone who thinks of it as an interesting exercise. Someone who actually thinks there was a global flood and that there is evidence to show for it.You will note that I was the one who brought up the fact that there are other flood myths out there. Therefore, it would seem to be the case that I would accept that there is some actual knowledge to be learned from investigating the possibility of such a common story across multiple cultures.But if you're only going to say that this means the Bible is true and never mention any of the others, then you're not treating it as an example of cultural and historical geology. You're doing it to prove the existence of your vision of god.Theory is lovely. Let's talk about reality.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I can't actually name specific people who don't argue that, but I can cite a few ICR research papers in which they don't.Baumgardner, Vardiman, Humphreys, Snelling, Austin and Wise wrote this. Note that the conclusion isn't "God made the earth," but "the flood accounts for the evidence."Vardiman wrote the first paper listed on this page. It's the one about the vapor canopy: my browser is doing strange things that are currently preventing me from linking directly to a PDF file, so that's why I'm only linking you to the "research papers" page.Also, there are a lot of research papers on that page about the flood, vapor canopy, etc. They always write those IMPACT articles and what-not for laypersons (particularly Xians), but, in their research, they often don't say "Flood = God." They know they can't scientifically say that. But, in those articles above, they do a lot of "Flood = Bible is True" stuff.Now, Rrhain, I know that the logic is still missing: the accuracy of the Flood is not an indication of the accuracy of the Bible, etc. But, those two papers do not make the leap from Flood geology to God: they do exactly what CS is saying--the leap from Flood to "true Bible."By the way, I've never taken the time to read their actual research papers before: I only read the Xian/layperson propaganda crap. Thanks for making me do my homework.Edited by Bluejay, : dBCodes problem

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Rrhain knows this. His central point is that they're just hiding the God connection behind a number of intermediate steps. If you ask the question, "Where does the flood hypothesis come from?" you quickly get to the heart of the matter.--Percy