I wouldn’t say there is none.
Each and every one of those is wrong. Those are either misunderstandings of the science, misinterpretation of techniques or lies. So I would disagree with your claim that these sites present scientific evidence. They present evidence, but not scientific evidence. Take that for what it’s worth.
Those are there because of the flood? According to the article, the bones are found in the limestone of the area. How were the limestones deposited during a flood? Are you suggesting that the limestones were deposited during a flood?
In all charity True Origins and Answers in Genesis are…well, not quite right.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I think my words may have led to a misunderstanding. The flood story may very well be allegorical. I simply don’t like a lot of the reasons I read here for it being allegorical. Certainly the Church supports a legitimate diversity of opinion on the subject. I just don’t like the fact that we often proclaim the Catholic faith as an argument against Fundamentalism. I don’t think that is the right posture. I also don’t like that some people seem willing to disregard the literal component of Scripture without relying on the sure teaching of the Church. (Finally, I think that there may indeed be a good bit of evidence in favor of a worldwide flood. For me, the jury is still out on this one.)The Resurrection and the parting of Red Sea would not be expected to leave behind physical evidence as a global flood would. The problems associated with a literal interpretation can (and have) fill up books.
Could God have flooded the Earth and then returned everything so that it looked like it never happened? Sure…He could have. But like the “God only made the earth look billions of years old” school of thought it raises the question of why. (In addition to the question “couldn’t God have created the world 20 minutes ago and only made it look much older” and we don’t want to go there.)
To my mind the story of the Flood isn’t about a flood. As I pointed out in my first point the story is there to teach multiple lessons, these don’t include boat building or treading water. A flood is just the type of event that was familiar to the target audience.
If the ancient Hebrews lived on a Pacific island it may very well have been Noah’s Tsunami.
As I asked earlier what Truth in the tale would be affected if it were allegorical?
First of all, what was once known as the Reed Sea is now known as the Red Sea. Here is how the Bible speaks of the “Reed Sea”:
You see that whatever sea (Red or Reed) the Bible was referring to when Moses parted it, it is clearly referring to a sea that not only marked the boundry of the Holy Land but also a sea necessary to the commerce of Solomon. A shallow lake does not have these properties.
And while the bodies of Adam and Eve may have been brought forth by evolution, the souls were created directly by God and joined to the body. Material evolution cannot account for a spiritual soul.
Where is the Reed sea?
I never like using the word Believe when referring to evolution. It really isn’t something that requires belief. You either accept it or not based on the evidence. IMHO, it has nothing to do with what you believe.
An uncharitable man might remark that it is amazing that Catholic Christians would criticize other Catholic Christians for beliefs on the allegorical interpretation of portions of the OT that are compatible with Church teachings
With respect, have you ever studied the Hebrew language? Are you familiar with how ancient Hebrew deals with large numbers?
Fallible humans, obviously. I’m sorry, but there is only one kind of human. It doesn’t matter if they lived in caves.
I was making a subtle reference to the significant controversy surrounding the Hebrew word yom as it relates to Genesis 1-2. People have tried to understand this as meaning a “long period of time,” when the text irrefutably portrays the “yoms” as days (“And there was evening and morning and the nth day”).
I was careful to establish the fact that I have no interest in defending those sites; a number of their claims seem unsupportable.
TPJCatholic said:
No worries mon. The only thing thinker than my head is my skin.No offense intended and I apologize if I offended you in any way.
Would you like a point by point scientific refutation of those sites? Will you be satisfied with just those sites or will you find other pseudoscience sites that need refutation?
I don’t allegorize everything and quite frankly your opinion that I am abusing scripture is not much of a concern to me. The FACT is is that there is NO geological evidence for a global flood. A flood of that magnitude that recently would leave such an incredible amount of evidence that there would be no way to avoid it.
Or one can have faith in Almighty God and see very clearly that some parts of the bible are allegorical. And when those (us) evil human geologists find no evidence of a global flood, one can understand that the story of the flood is allegorical.
Greetings, Mike,