Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you mean, Noahs Flood did not happen?
Every bit of land on earths globe was covered by water at some stage or another. That is modern geological fact.
Do you have a citation for that? I’m not a geologist and am wondering how a claim that every bit of land was simultaneously under water could be demonstrated.

But even if that was the case, you’d need a whole lot more to validate such a preposterously tall story. For instance, to raise the sea level to cover the not especially high Mount Ararat, where the ark landed, you’d need to explain how it could rain 420 feet per day all over the world for forty days and forty nights. In comparison the highest recorded local level for a much shorter period was 74 inches. Plus a load of other questions. Puh-lease.
 
As for** persons** it baffles me how anyone in their right mind can attribute us to the mindless activity of purposeless particles which haven’t the foggiest notion of what they are doing… 🤷

The only “explanation” is that we too are mindless and only imagine we can understand anything…
Your argument from bafflement means either that a very large number of people are out of their minds as you suggest, or else the very large number of people see something you don’t. Guess which explanation is more likely. :rolleyes:
 
Do you have a citation for that? I’m not a geologist and am wondering how a claim that every bit of land was simultaneously under water could be demonstrated.

But even if that was the case, you’d need a whole lot more to validate such a preposterously tall story. For instance, to raise the sea level to cover the not especially high Mount Ararat, where the ark landed, you’d need to explain how it could rain 420 feet per day all over the world. In comparison the highest recorded local level was 74 inches. Plus a load of other questions. Puh-lease.
I am just wondering how innocent you are when you change my post and then construct an argument against the newly redecorated post. :tsktsk:
My post, quite deliberately, said; ‘Every bit of land on earths globe was covered by water at some stage or another. That is modern geological fact.’
If you wish to test this idea then any introduction to geology book for any region will tell you when that particular bit of land was covered by water, whether the land rose or fell from the seashell fossils and dolomite peaks of the Alps to the fossils and limestone in the karst regions around the world and the opal fields of central Australia. All were formed at some stage under seas.
 
What do you mean, Noahs Flood did not happen?
Every bit of land on earths globe was covered by water at some stage or another. That is modern geological fact.
Not strictly fact. Some parts of a newly erupted volcano have not (yet) been covered with water. New rock at the top of Mount Etna for example.

However, the problem for Noah’s flood, as written, is that there was never any time while the human species has existed that all of the land on Earth has been underwater. Some parts have been underwater while other parts have been above water. This has been the case for a very long time indeed. Parts can change from one state to the other, but at all times there has been plenty of dry land for humans to live on.

A literal interpretation of this part of Genesis is shown to be incorrect by the geological evidence.

rossum
 
I am just wondering how innocent you are when you change my post and then construct an argument against the newly redecorated post. :tsktsk:
My post, quite deliberately, said; ‘Every bit of land on earths globe was covered by water at some stage or another. That is modern geological fact.’
Fine, but as the only other sentence in your post was “What do you mean, Noahs Flood did not happen?”, I’m really sorry for not considering the possibility you were innocently blurting out two totally unrelated thoughts and had no reason for posting them together.

I assume either you were satirizing a poor YEC argument or will explain what “Every bit of land on earths globe was covered by water at some stage or another” has to do with “What do you mean, Noahs Flood did not happen?” other than “What do you mean, Noahs Flood did not happen?”.
 
Unlike revelation, peer-reviewed papers can be corrected by new discoveries, thus adding to the sum of human knowledge.
Right on! That has been my point all along.

Do you expect science to be able to show soft tissue can last 19 or 65 million years? On what grounds?
 
Not strictly fact. Some parts of a newly erupted volcano have not (yet) been covered with water. New rock at the top of Mount Etna for example.

However, the problem for Noah’s flood, as written, is that there was never any time while the human species has existed that all of the land on Earth has been underwater. Some parts have been underwater while other parts have been above water. This has been the case for a very long time indeed. Parts can change from one state to the other, but at all times there has been plenty of dry land for humans to live on.

A literal interpretation of this part of Genesis is shown to be incorrect by the geological evidence.

rossum
Someone else having trouble reading my post. I said all of that myself, except the bit about Genesis being incorrect. Genesis recounts these facts: the earth was covered, tip to toe, with water. Everything with life in its nostrils perished. A limited number of types of life survived by design. And all of this, modern geology and paleontology confirms.
Consider, if I landed on the moon in the past sometime and, uneducated, I sat and wrote the story of the moon which stated among other things that all of the moon was covered in water once. Nobody now nor then would believe me because it is not covered in water and you cannot see how it could ever be covered in water. But then along comes planetary geologist and they describe how all parts of the moon were at some stage covered in water. So, how would I, uneducated, have known this. And nobody would believe it until the planetary geologists comes along and says the same thing!

Humans communicate ideas and messages in sometimes unique ways.
I remember an ancient story once about semi-mythical people. The story is very old going back 2000-3000 years, like the story of Noah. It goes like this; A very different type of people arrived one day in this Land in a cloud on top of a mountain. They were tall, fair and of a noble aspect. There weapons were superior to the local warriors weapons in lightness and strength. These people were called the Tuatha de Dannan.
The local people they arrived so suddenly amongst were called the Fir Bolg. Their appearance was different, they were shorter and darker in complexion. The name Fir Bolg means ‘Bag Men’.
Now considering the age of the story it is my interpretation that the local people were the native Bronze-Age people, the Fir Bolg. Anyone familiar with bronze will know that a temperature of around 1100C is need to melt bronze. This is achieved in the bronze age only by using charcoal and bellows to force the temperature higher. Hence the term for these bronze casters ‘Bag Men’ or people who use bellows, which are just large bags of air made from leather.
The Tuatha de Dannan on the other hand used weapons which were lighter and stronger. Bronze is relatively heavy because it is soft and because it is cast in moulds and there is a minimum thickness of bronze which can be cast successfully. Bronze cannot be worked hot with a hammer like iron. Red hot bronze will shatter and scatter like glass if it is hit with a hammer.
So the Tuatha de Dannan used Iron weapons and tools. Iron is produced in a different way to bronze. Bellows are unnecessary. The iron ore is melted out of crushed rock when it is burned in a furnace with layers of coal. The molten iron can be poured into general shaped moulds and later heated red hot ad hammered into shape very thin and light but also very strong.
Now as this ancient story goes, the Tuatha de Dannan arrived suddenly on day in a cloud on a mountain top. The mountain is called Sliabh An Iarainn, or the Iron Mountain. This mountain had significant iron ore deposits as well as coal seams emerging right at the surface.
So the Tuatha de Dannan were just the new Iron-Age settlers, whose appearance and bearing were different, because they were not native inhabitants but a new race of migrants. They were said in the story to have appeared in a cloud on that mountain because that was one of the single memorable traits of these people, their Iron work. The cloud they appeared in on the mountain was the smoke from their coal fired iron furnaces smelting iron and their forges working the iron into light strong tools and weapons.
The story took the significant differences between the two people and their work or craft and compiled a short ‘story of origins’ which was included in their repertoire of history. All of the history of these people they recorded by memorizing it as they had no written language their history was passed on through the generations as stories. And within the stories was the facts of their history.
 
You left out a few details, such as the vestiges of previous ancestors, the extinct species, the decaying DNA, the billions of years, the transitional forms exactly where they should be in the geological strata worldwide if current species had evolved from ancestral ones as evolution says, the anatomical features that show descent from earlier forms, the lack of any recognizably scientific definition of “kinds”, the evolutionary processes observed today, like bacteria adapting to antibiotics faster than scientists can invent new ones, the…but what’s the point of going on. You know about this stuff, but you are so entranced by your pretty picture that you can’t give it up. I can understand that. I’m a painter myself.
Antibiotic resistance is now understood to be latent in bacterial. It is a rapid adaptation that is communicated directly to other bacteria.

The fossil record show abrupt appearance, stasis and limited variation.

Transitional forms? OK:(

Right - the kinds will not be found in phylogeny. The tree of life has already fallen replaced by a bush. It is old hat and in the future genetics and epigenetics will totally rewrite ancestry.

I love my pretty picture.
 
It wasn’t evolution before. The theory is new, which is why the church had to change its unchanging revelation to allow for it when the evidence got too strong. But they didn’t want to admit that they were changing it because their authority is based on the claim to be the divinely appointed teachers and custodians of God’s unchanging revelation.
I think you are mixing apples and oranges here. The Church does not have the authority to change the Revelation of God.

As you say, it new theories, and new scientific discoveries that bring us into a different and better understanding of that Revelation which does not change.

"
Human reasoning of the observations" is science’s strong spot, if you ask me. The insistence on an unchanging revelation is a weakness because, as I keep repeating (apparently with no result except a growing personal frustration), growing knowledge will leave it behind and force the church to change in fact while pretending not to have changed. Eventually the cognitive dissonance gets too loud. Either you have a greater tolerance for inner discord than I do, or you don’t allow yourself to hear it.
I see your point, but perhaps we function from a different premise. While it is possible to understand God, ourselves, and creation better by observing, and otherwise conducting the practice of science, none of our feeble human efforts will ever hold a candle to the Revelation by God of himself to mankind. Our understanding or appreciation of that Revelation can change, but He is immutable.
Revelation distorts our reasoning because it refuses to change in response to new knowledge.
No,what changes is our PERCEPTION of the Revelation, not the Revelation itself.

But I do agree with you, reconciling God’s Revelation with what we learn through our senses can, and often does, produce cognitive dissonance.
 
Fine, but as the only other sentence in your post was “What do you mean, Noahs Flood did not happen?”, I’m really sorry for not considering the possibility you were innocently blurting out two totally unrelated thoughts and had no reason for posting them together.

I assume either you were satirizing a poor YEC argument or will explain what “Every bit of land on earths globe was covered by water at some stage or another” has to do with “What do you mean, Noahs Flood did not happen?” other than “What do you mean, Noahs Flood did not happen?”.
I don’t know what you mean. Both Noah and modern geology say all the earth was covered by water.
 
Someone else having trouble reading my post.
Your post was perfectly clear, and I had no problem reading it.
I said all of that myself, except the bit about Genesis being incorrect.
Now it is you having trouble reading posts. I said nothing about Genesis being incorrect. I said that the literal interpretation of Genesis was incorrect. There are many different interpretations of Genesis; not all of them are correct.
Genesis recounts these facts: the earth was covered, tip to toe, with water.
This is not a fact, it is false. Geology shows that at no time since the origin of man has all of the Earth been simultaneously covered with water. Parts of the Earth are covered, but there has always been dry land for men to live on.
Everything with life in its nostrils perished. A limited number of types of life survived by design.
False. We have enough DNA sequences of tetrapods to know that very few of them have a recent genetic bottleneck down to one breeding pair, or seven breeding pairs. There are a few known examples, like cheetahs, but their existence just points up the fact that there are no similar observations for thousands of other species.
And all of this, modern geology and paleontology confirms.
You are being lied to by creationist sources. Modern geology does not confirm a recent worldwide flood, it strongly disconfirms it. Modern palaeontology does not confirm a recent worldwide flood, it strongly disconfirms it.

rossum
 
I don’t know what you mean. Both Noah and modern geology say all the earth was covered by water.
Surely you jest young sir, this is where we came in.

Geology (tectonic plates and so on) says at various times some of the land is above sea level while other land is below sea level. I don’t remember ever hearing geologists saying all the land, including the mountain tops, was below sea level at the very same moment. I’d be interested in that, which is why I asked you to cite the theory if you remember. I can imagine a possible case for it in the long distant past, but long before mammals, long before humans, long before any of the mountains that are around today, including the one the supposed ark is supposed to have docked on.
 
Your argument from bafflement means either that a very large number of people are out of their minds as you suggest, or else the very large number of people see something you don’t. Guess which explanation is more likely. :rolleyes:
Numbers are not evidence of philosophical acuity - as demonstrated by the history of humanity. You are overlooking the effectiveness of propaganda…

Predictably, you have offered no evidence for what you regard as the more likely explanation…
 
In response to the above, what I’ve found amusing in participating in CAF and in combating YECism around the world, is the tendency of YECs to take every dispute internal to evolutionary biology, or every discovery that challenges an established time line, as license to say, “See, evolutionists can’t agree, so this proves the earth is only 6,000 years old and that Noah’s Flood happened after all!”
Emphasis mine.

Sharing Catholic information is an important part of the life of these forums.

Gentle Readers,

May I assure you that the Catholic Church does not have a doctrine on the creation of a young earth. Naturally, everyone is free to discuss the scientific merits of YEC.

In the spirit of Catholic communication, I will expand on my remark about a theological movement to change the Catholic Church (post 1652). The above point regarding evolutionary biology (post 1626) is an observation of some of the CAF postings.

Coincidentally, evolutionary biology also is seen in the theological movement to change the Catholic Church. This movement wishes to update Catholicism so that some of its foundation doctrines agree with the biological evolution thinking of modern scientists, modern priests, and modern educated people. This particular movement, which includes Catholics, preaches that the Church has to replace Divine Revelation with modern scientific speculations of human origin which depend on the activities of 10,000 breeding pairs. The power of Creator God, in this case, is limited so He won’t be thought of as a trickster.

In my humble opinion, in addition to the attack on Catholicism, is that the movement’s long view of evolutionary biology will result in the deterioration of human nature itself.

Personally, I believe that the evolution model is being misused by this movement to change the Catholic Church…
 
Numbers are not evidence of philosophical acuity - as demonstrated by the history of humanity. You are overlooking the effectiveness of propaganda…
No need to count votes, I’ll simply restate your hypothesis, which appears to be that a large number of people are not just out of their minds (post #1657) but have now succumbed to the propaganda machine of some secret conspiracy, while your amazing philosophical acuity allowed you to escape the evil plot.

Are you known as Bafflementman or Super Incredulous Man in Gotham City? 😃
Predictably, you have offered no evidence for what you regard as the more likely explanation…
If you want evidence, just go through the posts from our previous conversations across many threads. I’m reluctant to keep repeating it. Maybe I’ll collect it into a website which I can link you to each time you ask.
 
I am just wondering how innocent you are when you change my post and then construct an argument against the newly redecorated post. :tsktsk:
My post, quite deliberately, said; ‘Every bit of land on earths globe was covered by water at some stage or another. That is modern geological fact.’
If you wish to test this idea then any introduction to geology book for any region will tell you when that particular bit of land was covered by water, whether the land rose or fell from the seashell fossils and dolomite peaks of the Alps to the fossils and limestone in the karst regions around the world and the opal fields of central Australia. All were formed at some stage under seas.
I got what you said the first time around but my question is: what does that have to do with the story of Noah? In the story the whole earth was covered with water at once(never happened) and Noah built a boat with all the animals on board(never happened).
 
Right on! That has been my point all along.

Do you expect science to be able to show soft tissue can last 19 or 65 million years? On what grounds?
Show me once and for all the evidence by a non-creationist website, non-IDvolution website and a non-biased science study that there are now doubts in the scientific community that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago but instead died out about 10000 years ago. I’m pretty sure if there was evidence we would know about this apart from die-hard young earth religious people.
Btw, I won’t read any link that is from a creationists or similar website(the first you find when you google soft tissue and dinosaur).
I personally can only find Schweitzer’s study and she not only rejects the young earth theory but also accuses young earth creationists for pressuring her to use her study for their propaganda.
It is also suspected that the so-called soft tissue is just bacterial biofilm.
 
If you want evidence, just go through the posts from our previous conversations across many threads…
If you can’t even summarise it your claim is not credible…

How are** persons** derived from purposeless particles which haven’t the foggiest notion of what they are doing?

No responses whatsoever!
 
I got what you said the first time around but my question is: what does that have to do with the story of Noah? In the story the whole earth was covered with water at once(never happened) and Noah built a boat with all the animals on board(never happened).
You should read the last post, I think, from me about the Tuatha de Dannan and the bronze casters. I sometimes wonder if some people are really genetically unable to imagine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top