What caused the Flood?

[Professor_Tertius]

@johnZ

Tertius, the problem is conflating evolution with science. They are not the same.

Sorry, johnZ. Evolution is part of science because we observe it all around us. Nobody can honestly deny it. Now the explanation of evolutionary processes is also part of science: The Theory of Evolution. After a century and a half at falsification attempts, it stands as one of the very most supported theories in all of science. If you are going to deny The Theory of Evolution, you might as well deny the many other scientific theories which have similarly abundant (and some even less abundant) piles of evidence to support them.

Yes, people outside of the relevant fields of the academy can deny all they wish. But as many not always tactful scientists have said to denialists on countless forums: “Your denial doesn’t matter. Personal opinions from those outside of the academy don’t count. And if someone thinks they’ve found a major flaw with debunks the theory, they can do exactly what Einstein did when he published his evidence and analysis of how Newton’s physics was incomplete. That won him the highest prize in science.” (I could name the scientists if that’s important to you.)

By the way, when denialists repeat the embarrassingly lame argument that “we find seashells on the highest mountain tops around the world”, it’s not just a matter of blindly repeating a very old mantra. It indicates a serious misunderstanding of what represents a cogent argument. Think about it: Do you seriously think seashells on mountain tops is compelling evidence for a global flood?

Do you have any idea why a geologist would bury his face in his palm when he hears that?

He/she would ask you questions like these:

1. If there was a global flood so recently (and the world was young), why are the shells (and all other fossils) so consistently sequenced according to layers which fit consistently with age?

2. Why aren’t they chaotically jumbled together with all other flora and fauna? Geologist know what sort of evidence floods leave behind. Yet the most violent and biggest flood (global you say) didn’t leave that evidence everywhere. Instead, we see orderly, predictable strata wherein a sequence of life is incredibly consistently arranged. [Word to the wise: If you hope to retain any credibility and not appear naively gullible, do not copy-and-paste arguments about polystrate fossils. Both geologists and paleontologists will tell you that they don’t mean what denialist websites are telling you they mean. And the entire argument–which I confess using when I didn’t know any better–will fall apart the moment you actually track down the data. (Kent Hovind can be blamed for much of the nonsense circulated on this topic.)

3. Why is their bio-mass of those shells in their respective layers–even in one single strata–far exceeding that of even many thousands of years?

4. How could the White Cliffs of Dover been built from the “skeletal remains” of countless generations of small organisms be deposited in the single year of the flood and have produced that volume in such a short span of time? [I don’t know all of your views but I’m addressing “creation science” in general here include young earthism.]

5. Do you understand why the fossil formation filled with remains of sea life upon which Ken Ham’s Creation Museum was built totally demolishes a young earth? Tell why those seashells would have required far more time than any Young Earth Creationist would allow for? Tell us why “creation scientists” can’t identify which rock strata I can excavate to look at the debris from that “global flood” you claim.

6. Why did the prolific author of a great many “creation science” articles in various Young Earth Creationist “journals” abandon his position when the oil exploration company which employed him reassigned him to a job where he dealt with the actual geologic field data? Why did his fellow creationists who actually worked as geologists find their “flood geology” totally worthless in doing their jobs and in explaining the geologic data? I encourage you to read Glenn Morton’s various essays. They are easy to find on Google, especially “Glenn Morton’s Demon” where he explains the process of how he was able to compartmentalize his “flood geology” from his geology job and pretend that it fit. You should also read his story about what happened when he started asking his creationist colleagues the hard questions he was asking himself.

7. Why do so many denialists also tell the lie [whether they know it is a lie or not] that “scientists date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils…and that’s circular reasoning” whopper? If they made the tiniest effort to find out how real scientists actually determined the reliability of dating methods, they would be embarrassed to use that standard mantra.

8. All of those kinds of pseudo-science arguments from denialists can be demolished by anyone willing to investigate the meaning of this word in the science denialists dispute: consilience. Indeed, as I am pressed for time, that is probably the best advice I could give you. Investigate what it means and why it is important to science. It also explains why “creation science” is not science at all and it gets no respect from the academy.

I wish I had more time–because all of the oldest of the lame arguments are verbatim what I was told in the 1960’s and, unfortunately, I preached them and used them in debates with great passion. (I admit that with great embarrassment.) So I have great compassion for those who have innocently trusted the wrong people, “creation scientists” lacking even a solid knowledge of science and how it works. (Of course, many cynics I know believe that they are simply liars making a good living. Yet I can’t know all of them well enough to assess their motivations. So I leave that determination to God.) It was very hard for me to believe that the people who shared my theology and prayed using similar words and sang hymns which were much like those of my own Young Earth Creationist church could be telling me lies and sharing dishonest quote-mines, so it took me a very long time and a lot of very stressful and confusing realizations. That was before Kruger and Dunning published their famous paper, yet I illustrated the phenomenon they discovered, despite my enviable academic credentials and my appointment as the youngest professor ever in a science department at that venerable state university.

Please. Investigate why I’m urging you not to use that “shells on mountain tops are evidence of a global flood”. Most scientists aren’t going to bother with trying to help you if you let them know that you think that that is a solid argument.

[johnZ]

Sorry, johnZ

No, I don’t believe you are sorry. We do not see it all around us; that is exactly the problem. We must assume that some of the things we see are part of it, but we do not actually see it happening in a convincing compelling fashion. Large leaps are made from some of the little things we see, such as natural selection, ecological adaptation, and genetic mutations, to the grand conclusion of mice to men, and microbes to microbiologists. You are right that evolution is part of science, at least part of the theoretical aspect of certain parts of biology. But it is not science. Science is much larger. Furthermore, even though discussion of evolution happens within science, much of it goes far beyond the scientific evidence. And the speculations within it have often been countered and contradicted by scientific evidence. Nor does it explain satisfactorily the anomalies. It certainly does not stand as one of the most supported theories… that is quite the claim.

Without claiming that I have conclusive answers to your questions, I will answer with potentials that are reasonable. 1. shells and fossils could be layered according to size, location. We know that a flood does not lay down just one layer; it can lay down many layers sequentially in a relatively short period of time. Thus it is not surprising to see different fossils in different layers, just as we see different particle sizes layering during one event.
2. There are places where we have dinosaur fossils, mammmal fossils, plant fossils, and fish fossils all in the same place, and other locations or layers where we do not. We would expect places and times of complete turbulence, and other places of consecutive layering. You insinuate, but provide no reasonable counterpoint to the polystrate fossils, so there is no reason to believe what you say on that.
3. You state that biomass of the shells far exceeds that of many thousand years, but provide no evidence, no calculations, no data.
4. The cliffs of Dover? I have no idea, although I have seen them. The counter question would be, why could they not? similar to question 3 about the shells.
5. This is a nonsense question. and it basically seems to reiterate the point of question 3 and 4. I have not been to this museum, and you can answer the question for yourself, apparently.
6. Again, nonsense questions. Not pertinent to the actual points of discussion. There are so-called creationists who have become convinced that evolution works. There are former evolutionists who have become convinced that evolution does not fit the facts. This provides comfort to some on both sides, but does not help to deal with the actual issues.
7. Why do so many evolutionists tell the lie that circular reasoning does not take place? If they made the tiniest effort to truly examine the process by which they decide a particular dating method is appropriate, they would realize that circular methods are often being used.

I did not say that shells on mountain tops are “proof” of a global flood. I said they are evidence. Meaning they are consistent with water covering the land that is now on the tops of mountains. Water covering the land, is consistent with flooding. But it didn’t have to be global to produce the shells, obviously. Furthermore, if there was a global flood, it did not produce the shells, but did only possibly move them around and bury them, and possibly was associated with dramatic and violent movement of the earth’s crust, leading to unusual placement of shells which are normally found in the sea. And to say that shells are consistent with this, is not to say that shells on mountains could not be consistent with another theory. A theory that in fact says the exact same thing happened, but much, much slower.

[Patrick]

@Professor_Tertius

1. Why did God take six days to build a universe and everything in it when he could have done the creating in an instant?

The universe was created in an instant. One femtosecond from nothing to a expanding sphere of quark-gluon condensate.

[Patrick]

@Eddie

According to the back-reasoning of a good number of current cosmologists

That is a ridiculous statement.

Based on measurements with accuracy to 0.1%, all cosmologists who do these measurements for a living have concluded that one femtosecond after the universe went through rapid inflationary expansion of space, a quantum fluctuation resulted in an ever expanding and cooling quark-gluon condensate.

[Patrick]

@Eddie

You aren’t a cosmologist, and can’t speak with authority for all cosmologists.

I have known Wilson (Penzias and Wilson, Cosmic Background Discovers, Nobel Prize winner) for 35 years. Doesn’t that count?

I don’t know of much disagreement among cosmologist about the macro science maybe some on the micro details.

Yes I certainly hype science. Made a good living doing it. My research lab always produced the most state-of-art results. We were always at the “forefront of the technology”. The advances we made may “revolutionize the field.” Our results are “promising” and of significant value for investment in the future. So what’s your point?

[Mazrocon]

@Eddie

In fact, to my knowledge, there is no other Hebrew word (at least, no common one) to designate the whole earth.

I don’t know if this is a sufficient argument or not, but from what I heard the Hebrew word “tebel”, which is used about 30ish times in the Old Testament has a much narrower meaning, and always gets translated as “world”, with one exception, where it gets translated as “habitable”.

The word “tebel” is no where used in the flood account. There’s a short video on YouTube, that has John Walton talking about the Flood. He makes the point that the flood account isn’t merely demonstrating a destruction of the earth, but rather an “un-creation” of the earth, taking it back to it’s original state in Genesis 1:2 where waters covered the whole earth, and the Spirt (same word for wind) of God was brooding over the surface of the waters. The flood account describes a wind that caused the waters to recede and reveal the dry ground… Which is a similar scenario in Genesis 1 where the dry ground “hides beneath” the waters, and gets revealed… Not necessarily by wind, but this can be inferred.

-Tim

[Mazrocon]

@Eddie

Carol Hill of the American Scientific Association has written some interesting articles that argue for a local flood. She has some good points, but I always go back between the two — does the story record a local flood, but add universal language “embellishments” to create a moral and a message that’s readily applicable? Or does it record a global flood, and the language reflects it? Or is it even more obscure than that, and records something that never happened?

In any case I have difficulties accepting the global flood models endorsed by many organizations. It bothers me the amount of “extra details” that have to be added to the story, that the account never even goes into. Pretty soon, you end up having more abundant details that were added on, than what was ever stated…

-Tim

[Jan_de_Boer]

Hi Patrick
Given your connections in cosmology you should be able to make or get an expert judgment on my theory concerning the expansion of our Earth and other planets.
See: The Unknown History of Earth and Humanity, Part 2 - Scientific Evidence - The BioLogos Forum
I would greatly appreciate it if you want to look at this.
Jan

[johnZ]

@Eddie

who seems to think that not accepting it as history or chronicle threatens the reliability of the entire Bible and calls Christian truth into question. I think he has misread the story

The difference between the ancient Greek and Roman and Norse religions, compared to the Jewish and Christian faith, is that the Greek gods were determined to be a pantheon of fairy tales. If Genesis and the Flood are determined to be fairy tales, you cannot blame people for denying the christian faith, regardless of all attempts at rationalization and synthesis. In the same sense, if Jesus did not really rise from the dead, what would be the justification for depending on Jesus for life itself, and for following him?

The bible is not just one book written by one man. It is therefore not primarily about style or speculative origins, but about the real story of God relating to his creation, and to his people. Were the prophecies of the Messiah real or imaginary. Can God really bring back to life, and do we have evidence. Can God really destroy the world, and do we have evidence. Can God punish people and do we have evidence.

@Eddie

What did the author(s) of our current text intend us to understand about the Flood?" I’d say: “That it was a global event, a judgment on the entire human race.”

Sure. Easy to say, Eddie. But that is not really the significant point. The significant point is what follows: were they inventing a story to defend their personal theology, or did their theology derive from the event.

Evolution has often led to incorrect conclusions, such as conclusions about vestigial organs, or about useless dna. It even leads to misphrasing such as the example of saying that antibiotics result in microbes mutating and evolving, when actually all that antibiotics can do is select resistant organisms from the population. The circular arguments about transitional animals and transitional fossils is another part of the faith story of evolution. So as long as these things exist, then it makes very little sense to think that it can overthrow the story of Genesis.

[johnZ]

@Eddie

So a human and divine element were in cooperation –

And if the divine element is concocted, as were the Greek deities then they lose their human impact. How many people still believe in those gods?

@Eddie

You want to demonstrate that Christianity is true by historical or scientific arguments.

Not really. Christianity is true simply because people believe in it and practice it, and that is the real demonstration of it. Christ is true because he existed and scripture testifies to him. Christ is God and died for us as scripture testifies to it, not because of scientific arguments, and not even ultimately merely because scripture says it

. However, it is right to demolish scientific or philosophical arguments that attempt to discredit scripture, or to deny the resurrection, or deny God’s ability to create a flood, or God’s ability to create the universe, the earth, and us, in the way He said he did. It is right to do this with other scientific arguments and philosophical arguments. Will this demonstrate that Christianity is true? No. But it demonstrates that it is not necessarily false. The rest is faith, not blind faith, but an intelligent faith.

@Eddie

If a man appeared today and proved a hundred times that he had apparently divine power

Your inner light might be faulty. Perhaps your inner light is guided by scripture. The inner light of others says that sin is okay; what makes their inner light wrong? In other words, this man would be proved false simply by contradicting what Jesus had said, and this fact would guide your inner light, if your inner light is indeed guided by the spirit of Christ. My teaching is material (not carnal), but it is not my teaching. Even Jesus said his words were not his own but came from his Father. But faith cannot legitimately separate the material from the spiritual, as if there was no connection. As we say, we must walk the talk. Our recognition of this is what brings us to a recognition of our need for Jesus as Saviour, since we do not walk the talk the way we ought.

[johnZ]

@Eddie

You’d rather stand against the historical evidence than alter your mode of Biblical interpretation.

You are partly right. I prefer to challenge certain conclusions and assumptions. When I discover that historians or pre-historians have made errors in date-lines, then I think it is as valid to point that out, as it is for historians to contradict apparent historical references in scripture. I do not consider other sources to be automatically more historically authoritative than scripture. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, a C14 dating had found that a particular secular date-line needed to be shortened up by 400 yrs. If this is true, it provides evidence that these “high civilizations before the Flood” are not as clear as they are made out to be. Why should I be condemned for pointing this out? Scientifically, no one should object to someone else raise specific objections… it is part of the normal process. (Regardless of motivations.)

@Eddie

Don’t you think you should be reading the literature in the field of Biblical scholarship on hermeneutics, to make sure you’re familiar with all the interpretive options?

Well, prior to obtaining my degree in agronomy, I also obtained a BA in Philosophy/English, so I am not unfamiliar with genres, literary styles, etc. I even took a course in Theology from one of the translators of the NIV (book of Isaiah), while he was in the process of doing the translation. And while I obtained the first half of the degree in a Christian college, I finished this degree in a secular university.

So from a practical perspective, I am not unfamiliar with hermeneutics and literary styles, even though I would not claim to be the expert that you apparently are.

@Eddie

the inner light is all one has got.

This may seem true to you, but it is somewhat meaningless in terms of discussing things with others. Whose inner light is more true? Mine? Yours? Patricks? Scripture says to test the spirits to see whether they be true, whether they be of God. If “inner light” is merely a cloak for describing one’s opinion… where are we at? Even if you are right that inner light is all we have, it is not a basis for discussion. While I totally agree that evidence alone will not convince those predisposed to reject it, nevertheless evidence is what we have to work with. Your inner light against Patricks inner light will simply not work. Even the evidence of beauty, harmony, truth, justice, fitness, wisdom, etc., is still evidence and perceived as evidence.

@Eddie

the writings of the Bible have a human dimension (we can see the hand of the Israelite writer in the style and conceptions of the world) and a divine dimension (the Israelite writer’s human skills and ideas have been directed to a divine purpose).

Yes, this is true. But it doesn’t really solve the problem of deciding whether the truth was written in a stylistic way, or whether the style obscures the truth of what actually happened. From a pure literary perspective, it is rare that all readers agree on all the stylistic implications, ie. symbolism, of almost any classical literature. But, for novels etc., agreement is not very important, since it does not carry the weight of implication for literature such as scriptures.

@Eddie

those who have ceased to believe in a historical Garden with magic trees and a talking snake still find the notion of a primeval rupture between man and God to be a key truth of our existence

Most evolutionists would have difficulty with the rupture idea, don’t you think? Al Leo for example is suggesting not a rupture, but a new opportunity. So if the garden story is rejected, then the truth of the rupture will soon find a substitute it seems. Which also means that the primeval rupture is not really a truth, and rather makes the whole story of the garden meaningless… Or do you have another option?

[johnZ]

@Eddie

If I could somehow show “evidence” of a historical-textual kind that makes Islam more likely to be true than Christianity, are you going to support cutting off the hand of a thief? No, because your inner sense of truth, justice, love, compassion will revolt at the thought

However, many moslems do exactly that. So what about their inner sense of truth, justice, love and compassion. Point is, my inner truth is shaped by scripture, and guided by the spirit of God living within me. But my inner truth also tells me that I need more than just feelings to determine and accept whether something is true or not. Even for Christianity, many could point to times when Israelites were slaughtering their enemies, or when the middle-age church was subjugating and charging indulgences, or persecuting other christians, etc., etc. If it was only my so-called “inner truth”, how would I know if my inner truth was really true?

In fact, historically Islam did happen and is true in that sense. It’s historically true in the sense that Mohammed lived and wrote a real book (perhaps thru others). It’s historically true because they actually did form armies and convert people. That is also why it exists today. But it denies much scripture, denies Jesus’s claims, and so loses validity for a christian who depends on scripture for revelation and guidance. Because it denies scripture, we do not believe all the claims of Mohammed, especially when he claims to have received revelations from God.

@Eddie

The fact that historians have from time to time made errors does not mean that all their conclusions are not sound

Nor did I say that. In this case, I do not need to trot out evidence that these so-called high civilizations existed or didn’t exist prior to 2340. First of all, maybe they did, and were destroyed in the flood. Secondly, my point in this case is simply to insert caution into the prehistoric dating methods. When we discover that they have not agreed with a C14 method in one case then we know that either the C14 method was inaccurate, or the archeological method was deficient. One or the other.

You are making a few too many assumptions about what I think. Your assumptions about me are even greater than what I know about my own opinions. Your judgements in regard to supposed bad scholarship are also very unappetizing and disappointing. On that same judgemental basis you would also agree then that evolutionists ought not to be able to teach at Christian universities? I expected a bit better from you, Eddie.