The flood.

[Physicist]

THE FLOOD AND SANTA CLAUS

Want me to prove to you that Santa is real? Just give me enough arbitrary assumptions, i.e. assumptions made only for the purpose of answering objections to your hypothesis, and it is a piece of cake. For example, you might say that nobody sees his workshop at the North pole. That is because it is invisible. Not enough time to deliver all those toys in one night? Make him and the reindeer move so fast that Relativity kicks in and time slows down. You get the idea.
This same approach is applied by Creation scientists (an oxymoron) in trying to reconcile the Flood tale to scientific knowledge. Lets look at your posted extract.

More evidence for a global flood is the fact that the entire human and animal population perished. In the 1500-2500 years (depending on which time scale you use) between Adam and Noah, the human population would have exploded. With people living to be 900 years old, the population would have multiplied quickly. Using a conservative formula, it is reasonable to place that world population before the Flood at five to nine BILLION! For all these people to even fit on the earth, they had to have been spread out over the entire planet. A global flood would have been necessary to kill them all.

ARBITRARY ASSUMPTION (AA) People lived 900 years.
There is no evidence to support this claim. We do know that certain mid-Eastern cultures liked to claim extraordinary long lives for past heros and Kings. I think that the Sumerians claimed their earliest kings lived 30,000 years. All the archeological evidence indicates that early humans lived nasty, difficult, and 'short' lives.

But this one assumption is not enough. More are needed

AA Women would be fertile early so as to produce an extraordinary number of children.

Even the Bible does not support this. How many children did Noah have? But in order to make this fantasy work, the Creation scientist (CS) has to have women age normally until puberty and then somehow have aging suspended. And, the CS has to assume that these large numbers of children are somehow never mentioned in the Bible.

AA There was a very large human population prior to 4000 bce.

The CS has to assume that these extra people are rather neat since the archeological ruins suggests only modest population growth and sparse world population at this time

AA There was a large drop in the population that left no archeological record

The absolute arbitrariness of this assumption is obvious

The rest of the CS claims rely similarly on AA in excess to create their imaginary geological history.

What is lacking is any basis for these AA in actual scientific observations.

 

[John]

Want me to prove to you that Santa is real? Just give me enough arbitrary assumptions, i.e. assumptions made only for the purpose of answering objections to your hypothesis, and it is a piece of cake. For example, you might say that nobody sees his workshop at the North pole. That is because it is invisible. Not enough time to deliver all those toys in one night? Make him and the reindeer move so fast that Relativity kicks in and time slows down. You get the idea.
This same approach is applied by Creation scientists (an oxymoron) in trying to reconcile the Flood tale to scientific knowledge. Lets look at your posted extract.

Good morning students and welcome to high school. Our first lesson today will be to teach you where you came from. Many of you have been taught that God created you. However, that is a religious concept and must therefore be reserved for Sunday mornings. You may keep that belief, if you wish, but we will now teach you more important things like science and reality."

"You see, Johnny and Suzy , you are really here as a result of cosmic accidents and random chance. Billions of years ago , "nothing" exploded and turned into gas molecules. These gas molecules bounced around until they became stars. These stars then changed into simple atoms. After lots of time passed, these larger atoms and molecules formed a big rock that we call earth. Parts of this rock dissolved into water and became alive. After billions more years, little critters in the water climbed onto land and started walking around. Over time, birth defects happened (which we call mutations) and these critters turned into different kinds of critters. More often than not these critters wiped out the previous critters. Finally apes turned into people. And here we are. We were not there to see any of this happen, and we can't really prove how it could have happened, but we are absolutely sure this is where you came from. You see now Johnny and Suzy, why science and reality can teach you so much more than religion."

Thanks Mr. Malone

 

[John]

ARBITRARY ASSUMPTION (AA) People lived 900 years.
There is no evidence to support this claim. We do know that certain mid-Eastern cultures liked to claim extraordinary long lives for past heros and Kings. I think that the Sumerians claimed their earliest kings lived 30,000 years. All the archeological evidence indicates that early humans lived nasty, difficult, and 'short' lives.

Yes and those cultures who supposedly lived though the flood loved to exaggerated their kings ages as well.

But this one assumption is not enough. More are needed

AA Women would be fertile early so as to produce an extraordinary number of children.

Even the Bible does not support this. How many children did Noah have? But in order to make this fantasy work, the Creation scientist (CS) has to have women age normally until puberty and then somehow have aging suspended. And, the CS has to assume that these large numbers of children are somehow never mentioned in the Bible.

8 people i believe came off the ark. Give them 4000 +\- years and i think they would be able to repopulate.

AA There was a very large human population prior to 4000 bce.

The CS has to assume that these extra people are rather neat since the archeological ruins suggests only modest population growth and sparse world population at this time

The flood would erase everything built and kill the humans not on the ark. The ruins we see today are post flood.

AA There was a large drop in the population that left no archeological record

The absolute arbitrariness of this assumption is obvious

The Bible is the record.

The rest of the CS claims rely similarly on AA in excess to create their imaginary geological history.

What is lacking is any basis for these AA in actual scientific observations.

Nope. The scientists are simply building on top of the faulty assumption that the earth is billions of years old. You will find what you want to.

 

[jasoncran]

You mean that we are just some chemical reactions and that our thoughts and feelings are just that, a chemical reaction.

 

[Physicist]

Want me to prove to you that Santa is real? Just give me enough arbitrary assumptions, i.e. assumptions made only for the purpose of answering objections to your hypothesis, and it is a piece of cake. For example, you might say that nobody sees his workshop at the North pole. That is because it is invisible. Not enough time to deliver all those toys in one night? Make him and the reindeer move so fast that Relativity kicks in and time slows down. You get the idea.
This same approach is applied by Creation scientists (an oxymoron) in trying to reconcile the Flood tale to scientific knowledge. Lets look at your posted extract.

Good morning students and welcome to high school. Our first lesson today will be to teach you where you came from. Many of you have been taught that God created you. However, that is a religious concept and must therefore be reserved for Sunday mornings. You may keep that belief, if you wish, but we will now teach you more important things like science and reality."

"You see, Johnny and Suzy , you are really here as a result of cosmic accidents and random chance. Billions of years ago , "nothing" exploded and turned into gas molecules. These gas molecules bounced around until they became stars. These stars then changed into simple atoms. After lots of time passed, these larger atoms and molecules formed a big rock that we call earth. Parts of this rock dissolved into water and became alive. After billions more years, little critters in the water climbed onto land and started walking around. Over time, birth defects happened (which we call mutations) and these critters turned into different kinds of critters. More often than not these critters wiped out the previous critters. Finally apes turned into people. And here we are. We were not there to see any of this happen, and we can't really prove how it could have happened, but we are absolutely sure this is where you came from. You see now Johnny and Suzy, why science and reality can teach you so much more than religion."

Thanks Mr. Malone

First point: Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution.

Second point: John and Sue do not have to take the teachers' words on faith. They can go to the observatory, or look at Hubble pictures, and see the formations of stars and galaxies from interstellar space. Any decent science museum will have fossils of past species that demonstrate evolution and a good biology book will explain how our DNA provides its own 'fossil' record.

Third point: The BB is a singularity in space-time, which are properties of the Universe, not the other way around. THere is no 'before' the BB just as there is no temperature below absolute zero. Hence, it is incorrect to say there was nothing and then the BB happened in some absolute space and time.

Fourth point: Humans did not evolve from apes. We ARE a species of ape, with common ancestry to the chimpanzee and gorilla. Over 95% of our DNA is identical.

 

[Caroline H]

First point: Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution.

The Catholic Church accepting Evolution does not make it compatible with Christianity And is there a source for that claim?

 

[jasoncran]

the rc also has allowed mayan mysticsm in their churches in mexico. That aint saying much. That rift is there for a reason. Not all will go that way, when the rc says one be gay and its natural shall we then accept that as well.

I'm not saying that all cathoics arent saved. But bad doctrine is bad.

 

[Physicist]

First point: Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution.

The Catholic Church accepting Evolution does not make it compatible with Christianity And is there a source for that claim?

Pope John Paul Paul II told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.â€

While you may disagree with the Catholic church on doctrinal points ( I do), it is still considered the oldest and largest Christian church.

 

[Caroline H]

First point: Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution.

The Catholic Church accepting Evolution does not make it compatible with Christianity And is there a source for that claim?

Pope John Paul Paul II told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.â€

While you may disagree with the Catholic church on doctrinal points ( I do), it is still considered the oldest and largest Christian church.

It may be considered the oldest and largest Christian church, but does that mean that whatever they decide is biblical? No. I hold to what the Bible says, not the Catholic church or their pope. If he wants to say that homosexuality is fine and normal, that does not make it so either. Some may feel that the Catholic popes can interpret Scripture the way they want or bend it to fit society's demands, but I do not agree. So when you say that the Catholic church accepts evolution that means nothing to me, sorry

 

[Physicist]

The Catholic Church accepting Evolution does not make it compatible with Christianity :
It may be considered the oldest and largest Christian church, but does that mean that whatever they decide is biblical? No. I hold to what the Bible says, not the Catholic church or their pope. If he wants to say that homosexuality is fine and normal, that does not make it so either. Some may feel that the Catholic popes can interpret Scripture the way they want or bend it to fit society's demands, but I do not agree. So when you say that the Catholic church accepts evolution that means nothing to me, sorry

Caroline,

I understand your position.I am not trying to defend Catholic beliefs. My point, as a practicing scientist, is that it is not necessary to take the stand to accept either modern science or Christianity. The vast amount of knowledge that we have gained about the natural world makes Fundamentalism untenable but not Christianity in general. I think this is a good thing because Fundamentalists have, in my opinion, too narrow a view of the Universe. Their concept of God is too small and trivial to describe the wonders that I deal with every day. They reject the serious research, that scholars, Christian scholars, have done on the origins of the Bible, and that other scholars have done in biology, geology, and astronomy.

Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. A justifiable corollary is that the unexamined Worldview is not worth having.

Best Regards,

Physicist

 

[jasoncran]

every heard of ravi zacharias? there physicist. He would counter that one. Not all fundlemanlist are so back wooded as you claim to be,

if you have the odds like this of living through a surgery or betting on a game of jai alai the odds 1 to 10^34 against would you go on with it?

 

[Caroline H]

Caroline,

I understand your position.I am not trying to defend Catholic beliefs. My point, as a practicing scientist, is that it is not necessary to take the stand to accept either modern science or Christianity. The vast amount of knowledge that we have gained about the natural world makes Fundamentalism untenable but not Christianity in general. I think this is a good thing because Fundamentalists have, in my opinion, too narrow a view of the Universe. Their concept of God is too small and trivial to describe the wonders that I deal with every day. They reject the serious research, that scholars, Christian scholars, have done on the origins of the Bible, and that other scholars have done in biology, geology, and astronomy.

Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. A justifiable corollary is that the unexamined Worldview is not worth having.

Best Regards,

Physicist

Well, I understand where you are coming from. But there are a huge number of Christian scientists who look at the same research and evidence and come to the conclusion of a young earth, and a conclusion that evolution is impossible. I believe that it's not so much a case of them (or I) having an unexamined worldview, but rather that their findings are ignored because they are labeled "Fundamentalists". Do you realize that apart from "fundamentalism" a person's faith is weak. If one doesn't hold to the fundamentals of Christianity, how can they be strong in their faith? We hear on the news a lot about "fundamental Islamists" who promote jihad. I would say that a moderate muslim doesn't promote jihad, but in being moderate they are not a good muslim because they are ignoring some teachings of their scriptures. In the same light, I would say that unless one is a fundamental Christian one is not a good Christian. This has nothing to do with whether one believes in a young earth or an old earth, because the fundamentals of Christianity are that man is sinful and needed a saviour; God provided himself as that saviour through Christ Jesus born of a virgin; Christ died and rose again; and Christ will return for His people. So, by labeling people fundamentalists just because they believe that the earth is young and do not hold to the theory of evolution, I feel that it is like throwing up a smoke screen. Instead of addressing the issues or arguments made, that person is now viewed as "naive" and is incapable of honestly examining their worldview or the facts at hand.

Blessings

 

[jasoncran]

 

[glorydaz]

Well, I understand where you are coming from. But there are a huge number of Christian scientists who look at the same research and evidence and come to the conclusion of a young earth, and a conclusion that evolution is impossible. I believe that it's not so much a case of them (or I) having an unexamined worldview, but rather that their findings are ignored because they are labeled "Fundamentalists". Do you realize that apart from "fundamentalism" a person's faith is weak. If one doesn't hold to the fundamentals of Christianity, how can they be strong in their faith? We hear on the news a lot about "fundamental Islamists" who promote jihad. I would say that a moderate muslim doesn't promote jihad, but in being moderate they are not a good muslim because they are ignoring some teachings of their scriptures. In the same light, I would say that unless one is a fundamental Christian one is not a good Christian. This has nothing to do with whether one believes in a young earth or an old earth, because the fundamentals of Christianity are that man is sinful and needed a saviour; God provided himself as that saviour through Christ Jesus born of a virgin; Christ died and rose again; and Christ will return for His people. So, by labeling people fundamentalists just because they believe that the earth is young and do not hold to the theory of evolution, I feel that it is like throwing up a smoke screen. Instead of addressing the issues or arguments made, that person is now viewed as "naive" and is incapable of honestly examining their worldview or the facts at hand.

Blessings

Good post. I'm a fundamentalist, but I don't know if the earth is young or old. A day is a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to God. Time loses it's meaning when one discusses the Creation. We can rest assured, though, that God did what is recorded in the Bible. Evolution is just plain silly....it goes, not only against common sense, but the Word. Let's face it, believing the Bible is foolishness to the natural man, so you called it right about our being labeled naive.

 

[izzy]

Wow... the flood. Where to start? Genesis raises a lot of interesting questions, many of which we cannot answer. The main points that are essential to the Christian faith, however, are that:
1. God created the universe from nothing through His Word (Christ = the Word = logos in John 1).
2. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were all present and active in creation.
3. God had no beginning, He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and holy. There is no evil in Him.
4. God created a perfect world in which humankind experienced no death until Adam and Eve sinned (this could be a problem for theistic evolution because evolution entails death and mutation through generations). Did any of the animals die, though?
5. Humanity was created in the image of God and is therefore above the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are placed as stewards over God's creation, not masters to do with it as they please.
6. God is a personal deity that desires fellowship with humanity, though that fellowship was broken by the sin of Adam and Eve and repaired only by Christ' atoning death.
7. Creation was cursed because of the sin of Adam and Eve.
8. Evil is not the opposite of good - it is a rebellion against good. God allowed for the possibility of rebellion (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

I think there might be a few more points, but that's all I can think of so far. When it comes to the flood, I think the point is that sin has devastating consequences. The sin of humanity had become so bad that "every inclination of their hearts was only evil all the time" and God justly decided to wipe them out, but in His mercy saved Noah and his family. He sent a flood that obliterated most every human from the face of the earth and removed even the traces of their existence from up until that point.

As for the technicalities of the flood, I'm not sure whether it was a global flood or a more localised flood. There seems to be evidence of a global catastrophe, but maybe it did not cover the tops of all the mountains, allowing small pockets of plants and animals to survive. I am not sure how else to explain the pockets of species found in certain parts of the world that are not found anywhere else. How could they all have come off the ark? Would they really migrate half-way around the world from the original resting point of the ark?
Another technicality. Did God put the animals to sleep on the ark? How did Noah keep order and feed them all if God did not give him a hand?

I do not doubt the account of the flood, but I do have questions about how it all happened.

 

[Physicist]

Would you stone your disobedient child?

Caroline,

I understand your position.I am not trying to defend Catholic beliefs. My point, as a practicing scientist, is that it is not necessary to take the stand to accept either modern science or Christianity. The vast amount of knowledge that we have gained about the natural world makes Fundamentalism untenable but not Christianity in general. I think this is a good thing because Fundamentalists have, in my opinion, too narrow a view of the Universe. Their concept of God is too small and trivial to describe the wonders that I deal with every day. They reject the serious research, that scholars, Christian scholars, have done on the origins of the Bible, and that other scholars have done in biology, geology, and astronomy.

Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. A justifiable corollary is that the unexamined Worldview is not worth having.

Best Regards,

Physicist

Well, I understand where you are coming from. But there are a huge number of Christian scientists who look at the same research and evidence and come to the conclusion of a young earth, and a conclusion that evolution is impossible. I believe that it's not so much a case of them (or I) having an unexamined worldview, but rather that their findings are ignored because they are labeled "Fundamentalists". Do you realize that apart from "fundamentalism" a person's faith is weak. If one doesn't hold to the fundamentals of Christianity, how can they be strong in their faith? We hear on the news a lot about "fundamental Islamists" who promote jihad. I would say that a moderate muslim doesn't promote jihad, but in being moderate they are not a good muslim because they are ignoring some teachings of their scriptures. In the same light, I would say that unless one is a fundamental Christian one is not a good Christian. This has nothing to do with whether one believes in a young earth or an old earth, because the fundamentals of Christianity are that man is sinful and needed a saviour; God provided himself as that saviour through Christ Jesus born of a virgin; Christ died and rose again; and Christ will return for His people. So, by labeling people fundamentalists just because they believe that the earth is young and do not hold to the theory of evolution, I feel that it is like throwing up a smoke screen. Instead of addressing the issues or arguments made, that person is now viewed as "naive" and is incapable of honestly examining their worldview or the facts at hand.

Blessings

In the late 19th and early 20th century, Christian followers of Samuel Rowbotham established the Zetetic Society that misinterpreted modern science and the Bible to conclude that the earth was flat. Young Earth Creationists commit the same errors in misinterpreting science and the Bible to conclude the earth is 6000 years old. Frankly, from a scientific point of view, this is as credible as the flat earth. Ice cores in Greenland, for example, go back 10,000 years. You will find no peer-reviewed science article to support such a crazy hypothesis.

You are correct that fundamentalist Muslims can find quotes in the Q'uran to justify their acts of terrorism. But however justified, they remain acts of terrorism. Similarly,one can be a moderate Christian or a fundamentalist Christian that follows the Bible literally. However, if you choose the latter course, then you are a hypocrite if you reject some of the Biblical commands in the OT. For example, Leviticus 20:9 says that children that swear at their parents should be killed. Would you do that to your kids? Other verses prescribe that a raped woman has to marry the rapist if he pays a fine to the father, that maimed individuals have to be ostracized from the congregation as do illegitimate children. Modern Christians understand that these verses worked for the primitive culture at the time they were written but don't apply today. The same standard applies to the tales in Genesis. They should be understood as poetical, not literal, stories.

 

[Caroline H]

In the late 19th and early 20th century, Christian followers of Samuel Rowbotham established the Zetetic Society that misinterpreted modern science and the Bible to conclude that the earth was flat. Young Earth Creationists commit the same errors in misinterpreting science and the Bible to conclude the earth is 6000 years old. Frankly, from a scientific point of view, this is as credible as the flat earth. Ice cores in Greenland, for example, go back 10,000 years. You will find no peer-reviewed science article to support such a crazy hypothesis.

Well, there are many scientists who believe that evolutionists are misinterpreting science to conclude that the earth is very old and that we all evolved. It is all in how you approach the subject, and honestly if your dating systems are faulty then your conclusions will be also. I wouldn't expect to find a peer-reviewed journal to discuss the young earth hypothesis with anything but contempt, considering that most any scientist who believes in it is discriminated against in his field. Just because the majority believe the earth is old doesn't mean it is true, it just means that a lot of people believe it. That doesn't bother me or make me think I'm wrong, why should it? Evolutionists always like to bring up the "flat earth" thing as if that has anything to do with creationism. Back then there were many more people than just Christians who thought the earth was flat, and technology was developing in pockets and was not wide spread to the public. Today, there is so much information available to all parts of the globe, and people have the opportunity to view the same evidence as everyone else. If a large group of scientists believe through their research that the carbon dating system is wrong, and that the geological evidence points towards a young earth with a global flood, what has that to do with the people who thought the earth was flat? They had little evidence to go by, we have mounds of evidence to go by. It is two completely different eras, and that argument simply attacks the scientists rather than the science, just like calling them "fundamentalists" does.

You are correct that fundamentalist Muslims can find quotes in the Q'uran to justify their acts of terrorism. But however justified, they remain acts of terrorism. Similarly,one can be a moderate Christian or a fundamentalist Christian that follows the Bible literally. However, if you choose the latter course, then you are a hypocrite if you reject some of the Biblical commands in the OT. For example, Leviticus 20:9 says that children that swear at their parents should be killed. Would you do that to your kids? Other verses prescribe that a raped woman has to marry the rapist if he pays a fine to the father, that maimed individuals have to be ostracized from the congregation as do illegitimate children. Modern Christians understand that these verses worked for the primitive culture at the time they were written but don't apply today. The same standard applies to the tales in Genesis. They should be understood as poetical, not literal, stories.

No, those laws were given to Israel for specific reasons, not to the world. They were civil laws, and to say that a fundamentalist is a hypocrite if he doesn't hold to the civil laws of Israel simply because they are in the Bible shows a lack of understanding of OT.

 

[Orion]

Well, there are many scientists who believe that evolutionists are misinterpreting science to conclude that the earth is very old and that we all evolved.

Are you suggesting a conspiracy theory here? :gah

So, with scientists, they interprete scientific data correctly in all fields except those which "don't agree with the YEC doctrine"? Please think about this before automatically answering with an "of course they do, because they hate god and have an agenda".

Question: How is it [IF a YEC of the earth and universe] that our galaxy is ~100,000 light years across? What do you do with a super nova reminant that is a few millions light years away?

 

[Caroline H]

Well, there are many scientists who believe that evolutionists are misinterpreting science to conclude that the earth is very old and that we all evolved.

Are you suggesting a conspiracy theory here? :gah

So, with scientists, they interprete scientific data correctly in all fields except those which "don't agree with the YEC doctrine"? Please think about this before automatically answering with an "of course they do, because they hate god and have an agenda".

Question: How is it [IF a YEC of the earth and universe] that our galaxy is ~100,000 light years across? What do you do with a super nova reminant that is a few millions light years away?

No, not a conspiracy just predisposed to see it one way and having the education system back it up. About the galaxy being 100,000 light years across, I believe that the speed of light has slowed down from what it was, and that the universe has expanded. But that is off topic

 

[Orion]

No, not a conspiracy just predisposed to see it one way and having the education system back it up. About the galaxy being 100,000 light years across, I believe that the speed of light has slowed down from what it was, and that the universe has expanded. But that is off topic [/color]

Any TRUE scientist has no agenda or predisposition. Evidence that is shown to be the same each time is what's important.

BTW, what is your evidence of "the speed of light slowing down"?