The 6000 Year Earth

[Feanor2]

The water was above our atmosphere and below outer space. Naturally the water would provide more protection without prohibiting completely the life giving sunligh.

Ummm. . . . wow. . .

 

[Verisimilitude]

Of course science doesn’t redefine the faith. My Catholic priest friends, who are biologists, celebrate Mass in the morning and then go off to their laboratories or field work or classes on evolutionary biology.

StAnastasia

Science redefined the understanding of our faith when planetary science was at odds with the expressed Catholic theology at the time of Galileo and Copernicus.

Please ask your friends to clarify something. This seems widely accepted:

Part of the problem faced here may of course lie in the debates that continue to rage in human origins theory. The theory held by those such as Stringer, Oppenheimer and Wells is the Recent Out of Africa theory (ROA model). The ROAm asserts that Africa was the original home of earlier hominids like Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, etc. And while they accept that Homo erectus left Africa and dispersed to varied parts of the globe, they contend all of these dispersals were evolutionary dead ends (i.e., Homo sapiens neanderthalis). The ROAm states only one branch of the hominid tree survived, in Africa, becoming modern humans and thus leaving the continent anywhere from 80 to 60 thousand years ago as modern humans, populating the globe, adapting as they went, and accounting for every person that exists today and that has existed since. The ROAm has fought its way, through genetics and fossil evidence, to become the most accepted in the human origins field – with some variation and inner disputes of course.
blackcommentator.com/156/156_morpheus_evolution.html

The question to your friends: Is the current understanding of human evolution predicated on only two individuals becoming human out of the larger society of non-humans or a multitude of individuals becoming human in a society of non-humans over time?

It is my understanding of animal and human evolution that it is a multitude of individuals in a group over time. It seems clear enough now that what Galileo proved by science before the Church accepted it never did contradict Church Doctrine despite the common held beliefs of an Earth-centric universe. If Adam and Eve are now considered to represent a group of individuals and not unique individuals then I need a better explaination of our theology that what I have now.

 

[StAnastasia]

Science redefined the understanding of our faith when planetary science was at odds with the expressed Catholic theology at the time of Galileo and Copernicus.

No, it didn’t. Jesus is still God incarnate after as before Galileo. The Creation is still good after as before Galileo. Jesus is still present in the Eucharist after as before Galileo.

 

[Verisimilitude]

No, it didn’t. Jesus is still God incarnate after as before Galileo. The Creation is still good after as before Galileo. Jesus is still present in the Eucharist after as before Galileo.

If it didn’t redefine it, why did Galileo recant his heliocentric teachings when accused and tried by the Church who posited a geocentric universe because of Scripture, when the Church later accepted the heliocentric model?

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this “new science” was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . .” (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. …

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

A modern somewhat similar controversy exists:

Then follows the blessing accompanied by the command to increase and fill the earth, and finally the vegetable kingdom is assigned to them for food. Considered independently, this account of the Creation would leave room for doubt as to whether the word adam, “man”, here employed was understood by the writer as designating an individual or the species. Certain indications would seem to favour the latter, e.g. the context, since the creations previously recorded refer doubtless to the production not of an individual or of a pair, but of vast numbers of individuals pertaining to the various species, and the same in case of man might further be inferred from the expression, “male and female he created them.” However, another passage (Genesis 5:15), which belongs to the same source as this first narrative and in part repeats it, supplements the information contained in the latter and affords a key to its interpretation. In this passage which contains the last reference of the so-called priestly document to Adam, we read that God

created them male and female . . . and called their name adam, in the day when they were created.
And the writer continues:

And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years and he begot sons and daughters. And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
Here evidently the adam or man of the Creation narrative is identified with a particular individual, and consequently the plural forms which might otherwise cause doubt are to be understood with reference to the first pair of human beings.
newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm

Evolution would seem to be against the individual Created human being which is what I believe the Church taught for many years; that Adam and Eve are two individuals, not representative of a group. Maybe this has become the new heliocentric/geocentric debate and you are confident the science that will support or compliment, or at least not contradict Scripture as it regards the generations counted from Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Christ with some reasonable explaination between the literal and allegorical, further redefining what is what in Scripture.

 

[StAnastasia]

If it didn’t redefine it, why did Galileo recant his heliocentric teachings when accused and tried by the Church who posited a geocentric universe because of Scripture, when the Church later accepted the heliocentric model?..Evolution would seem to be against the individual Created human being which is what I believe the Church taught for many years; that Adam and Eve are two individuals, not representative of a group.

(1) Doctrine hasn’t changed, despite the fact that we now know the earth is not the center of the universe. God is still God after Galileo.

(2) I’m not sure what you mean by evolution being “against the individual Created human being.” I work with biologists, including some who are Catholic priests, and one sister who is a physicist. They have no problem reconciling their work in evolutionary biology with their religious life.

StAnastasia

 

[heiscominginthe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by heiscominginthe
Evolution is dead, they just forgot to bury the corpse.

Tell that to the 100,000 biologists (including many Catholics) who work with evolution every day.

I guess that means that if evolution is dead, so are those who support it.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by heiscominginthe
The water was above our atmosphere and below outer space. Naturally the water would provide more protection without prohibiting completely the life giving sunligh.

Ummm. . . . wow. . .

Don’t believe me, believe the Word of God.

Genesis 1: 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

The firmament spoken of here is our atmosphere. There indeed was water above our atmosphere and below outer space. If you read Genesis, mankind did not know what rain was, for they had never seen it. The earth prior to the flood was watered by dew. That is why when Noah claimed that if men did not turn from sin, God would cause water to fall from the sky, rain, and flood the earth. The bible tells us that the windows of heaven were opened and it stated to rain.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Evolution would seem to be against the individual Created human being which is what I believe the Church taught for many years; that Adam and Eve are two individuals, not representative of a group. Maybe this has become the new heliocentric/geocentric debate and you are confident the science that will support or compliment, or at least not contradict Scripture as it regards the generations counted from Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Christ with some reasonable explaination between the literal and allegorical, further redefining what is what in Scripture.

Isn’t it amazing that the accounts in the word of God – statements, precepts, commandments, and insights – made thousands and thousands of years ago are still true and perfectly valid in this day or in any day or age?

• He describes the six individual 24-hour days of creation.
• He lays out the necessary information to date the age of the earth and the universe.
• He records for us the first 4,000 years of this world’s history.
• He describes what went wrong in the garden of Eden.
• He tells of Noah and the great global flood and the reason why.
• He tells of the terrible sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and records its destruction.
• He tells us of Abraham and Moses and the great prophets.
• He tells of Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, and the only savior of all those who call upon his name.
• He describes the spirit realm and how to interact with angels and devils.
• He gives supernatural instructions and insights into a literal multitude of issues.
• He even foretells the end of the world and a soon-coming judgement day.

 

[Verisimilitude]

(1) Doctrine hasn’t changed, despite the fact that we now know the earth is not the center of the universe. God is still God after Galileo.

Dogma did not change (more importantly Dogma was never challenged by the issue), Doctrine was thought to be challenged by the science as I noted, but is ambiguous about the movement of celestial bodies just as it is regarding evolution.

(2) I’m not sure what you mean by evolution being “against the individual Created human being.” I work with biologists, including some who are Catholic priests, and one sister who is a physicist. They have no problem reconciling their work in evolutionary biology with their religious life.

StAnastasia

I am not a literalist, but where Doctrine is specific and provable by science I have more than a reasonable expectation of it proving true. Johns Gospel Chapter 9 identifies a location long thought to be myth: the pool of Siloam only recently discovered. The Bible lists many things such as specific kings, governors, towns and customs first thought by skeptics as allegory or fiction to make a dogmatic claim, that are often confirmed by other sources as well as archeology and science.

Dogma is not always tied to or dependent on Doctrine but science could in some cases prove them wrong: Jesus rose from the dead and is with the Father; is both Dogma and Doctrine, but if the physical body/remains of Jesus Christ were discovered in a tomb tomorrow it would disprove the physical bodily resurrection. Thomas could not have put his fingers in the wounds, and Jesus would not have eaten with the Apostles before being taken into heaven.

I find it interesting and faith affirming that from the 1st century, the Church’s Dogma regarding human life is that from natural conception to natural death the human being should be nurtured and protected in the manner revealed to us by Christ. In 1973 the US Supreme Court unconstitutionally decided, partly becaue of evolutionary science claims, that the conceived and gestating fetus was not properly a living being or fully human which did not give it the human and civil rights previously afforded to the fetus by many State law, the Constitution, and common law. Since then science has proved the zygote is a full human being by complete DNA, and the advanced medical technology that has reduced the risk to the ‘life of the mother’ argument to near non-existant- legalized abortion now is not operating under the same arguments as it was because of science.

In this case (and others) I think science has proved Dogma and Doctrine correct, but now secular society is reluctant to correct itself based upon the science alone because spontaneous abortions are ‘natural’ like in the animal kingdom and moral religious arguments are still touted as reasons to end legalized abortion which must be avoided because of the mythical and misreading of the 1st Amendment sepearation of Church and State.

The age of the Earth is not Dogma or Doctrine. The Doctrine that describes the formation of the universe and creation of Man may have Dogmatic implications. Doctrine identifies certain things that could be dis/proven by science. Doctrine identifies two individuals as humanities genesis, just as it mentions a flood and a man named Abraham who lived in certain areas. Science has helped confirm the flood story and place Abraham in our modern timeline.

For most of my life I was under the impression, maybe incorrectly, that Church Dogma held Adam and Eve were two individuals, not evolved from a group of early non-human hominids into a symbolic set of First Parents that the evolutionary theory seems to suggest. I am no enemy of science and unlike the Galileo controversy where science seemed at odds with Doctrine (when it was not), evil was not produced from that debate like it seems evil is produced off the evolution debate.

 

[StAnastasia]

Doctrine identifies two individuals as humanities genesis, just as it mentions a flood and a man named Abraham who lived in certain areas. Science has helped confirm the flood story and place Abraham in our modern timeline.

Science has disproven the possibility of a global flood, which is why you never see sessions dedicated to the topic at annual national conferences of scientific societies.

And descent from one breeding pair named Adam and Eve is genetically impossible, so that’s out too.

 

[John7]

• He describes the six individual 24-hour days of creation.
• He lays out the necessary information to date the age of the earth and the universe.
• He records for us the first 4,000 years of this world’s history.
• He describes what went wrong in the garden of Eden.
• He tells of Noah and the great global flood and the reason why.
• He tells of the terrible sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and records its destruction.
• He tells us of Abraham and Moses and the great prophets.
• He tells of Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, and the only savior of all those who call upon his name.
• He describes the spirit realm and how to interact with angels and devils.
• He gives supernatural instructions and insights into a literal multitude of issues.
• He even foretells the end of the world and a soon-coming judgement day.

I believe (specially the bolded)

 

[Verisimilitude]

Science has disproven the possibility of a global flood, which is why you never see sessions dedicated to the topic at annual national conferences of scientific societies.

I didn’t indicate a global flood but others dispute its limited locality.

nwcreation.net/videos/startling_evidence_of_flood.html
trussel.com/prehist/news165.htm

The Flood could be more localized because Scripture suggests humans were not so scattered around the globe as they became after the Flood. While I agree with this:

The Deluge is referred to in several passages of Scripture as a historical fact; the writings of the Fathers consider the event in the same light, and this view of the subject is confirmed by the numerous variants under which the Flood tradition lives in the most distant nations of the earth.

The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:

The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned
Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

A localized flood seems to favor Creation, not evolution with respect to human evolution/migration from an origination out of Africa to the rest of the world as human evolution currently explains it.

And descent from one breeding pair named Adam and Eve is genetically impossible, so that’s out too.

It isn’t possible for a Virgin to have a Child either. Do you think the gene pool from only one original breeding pair is too small for genetic stability to be achieved in later generations? Does the mitochondrial Eve evolutionists track represent a group of humans and not an individual?

 

[ckempston]

I didn’t indicate a global flood but others dispute its limited locality.

nwcreation.net/videos/startling_evidence_of_flood.html
trussel.com/prehist/news165.htm

The Flood could be more localized because Scripture suggests humans were not so scattered around the globe as they became after the Flood. While I agree with this:

A localized flood seems to favor Creation, not evolution with respect to human evolution/migration from an origination out of Africa to the rest of the world as human evolution currently explains it.

It isn’t possible for a Virgin to have a Child either. Do you think the gene pool from only one original breeding pair is too small for genetic stability to be achieved in later generations? Does the mitochondrial Eve evolutionists track represent a group of humans and not an individual?

I can’t believe this discussion is still going on. This anti-scientific mindset from a Catholic, which is contrary to the “official” position of the Catholic church simply amazes me. If someone claimed to have a virgin birth and then genetic testing identified the father as the girl’s boyfriend who was living with her, would you believe the birth was indeed virgin? Nobody has denied the Virgin Birth of Christ here, but part of the reason for that is people accept the miraculous nature of this event, AND we have no direct evidence to the contrary (argument from silence, but it is valid). That’s analogous to your insistence in this biblical literalism, which the Catholic “Magesterium” does not teach.
There was not a flood that wiped out all life on the planet. Ever. We have overwhelming evidence corroborated by several different branches of science.

Here’s an answer from a CAF apologist that discusses this topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4356&highlight=noah

 

[rossum]

I didn’t indicate a global flood but others dispute its limited locality.

The same evidence that indicates that the human population was never as low as two individuals also indicates that the human population was never as low as eight individuals. The lowest scientifically based estimate I have seen is between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago, probably towards the larger end of that range. It is of course impossible to tell scientifically how many of those pairs had souls.

A localized flood seems to favor Creation, not evolution with respect to human evolution/migration from an origination out of Africa to the rest of the world as human evolution currently explains it.

How so? We know that both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals lived in Europe after H.sapiens moved out of africa.

Do you think the gene pool from only one original breeding pair is too small for genetic stability to be achieved in later generations?

It is far to small to account for the amount of genetic variation we see today. For example most humans reject skin grafts from other humans unless they are very closely related. With cheetahs you can freely graft skin from one cheetah to another because they went through a very severe population bottleneck, down to as little as one family, about 10,000 years ago. They are all still very closely related. Humans have never had such a bottleneck so we are not nearly as closely related.

Does the mitochondrial Eve evolutionists track represent a group of humans and not an individual?

She was one individual in a population. Other women in that population also have living descendants. Mitochondrial Eve is your mother’s mother’s mother’s … mother. The other women at the time have at least one “father’s” in that sequence somewhere. Similarly Y-chromosome Adam is your father’s father’s father’s … father. The other men alive at the time have at least one “mother’s” in there somewhere.

rossum

 

[Verisimilitude]

I can’t believe this discussion is still going on. This anti-scientific mindset from a Catholic, which is contrary to the “official” position of the Catholic church simply amazes me.

How do you get I am anti-science? Read Post #109. Nothing I have stated is contrary to what the Church teaches because I have reached no conclusion and debate what is debateable.

If someone claimed to have a virgin birth and then genetic testing identified the father as the girl’s boyfriend who was living with her, would you believe the birth was indeed virgin?

Not sure why you mention this.

Nobody has denied the Virgin Birth of Christ here, but part of the reason for that is people accept the miraculous nature of this event, AND we have no direct evidence to the contrary (argument from silence, but it is valid).

I didn’t say they did, what I referenced was something Catholics do not dispute and if you accept the miracle of the Virgin Birth why do you discount any possibility of a Created human?

That’s analogous to your insistence in this biblical literalism, which the Catholic “Magesterium” does not teach.

Some things are literal like the Virgin Birth, some things are not like the story of Job. I am glad you think you know what the Church teaches so next time please support your claims by some reference.

There was not a flood that wiped out all life on the planet. Ever. We have overwhelming evidence corroborated by several different branches of science.

This seems to suggest room for discussion as opposed to your statement of certainty.

The above scientific arguments do not favour a partial destruction of the human race absolutely, but only in so far as the uninterrupted existence of the various races in question gives them more time for the racial development and the historical data that have to be harmonized with the text of Genesis. Those who urge these arguments grant, therefore, implicitly that the allowance of a proper length of time will explain the facts on which their arguments are based. As there is nothing in the teaching of the Bible preventing us from assigning the Flood to a much earlier date than has usually been done, the difficulties urged on the part of science against the anthropological universality of the Flood may be easily evaded. Nor can the distribution of the nations as described in the tenth chapter of Genesis be appealed to, seeing that this section does not enumerate all races of the earth, but confines itself probably to the Caucasian.

Science, therefore, may demand an early date for the Deluge, but it does not necessitate a limitation of the Flood to certain parts of the human race. The question, whether all men perished in the Deluge, must be decided by the teaching of the Bible, and of its authoritative interpreter. As to the teachings of the Bible, the passage which deals ex professo with the Flood (Genesis 6-9), if taken by itself, may be interpreted of a partial destruction of man; it insists on the fact that all inhabitants of the “land”, not of the “earth”, died in the waters of the Deluge, and it does not explicitly tell us whether all men lived in the “land”. It may also be granted, that of the passages which refer incidentally to the flood (Wisdom 10:4; 14:6; Sirach 44:17 sqq., and Matthew 24:37 sqq., may be explained, more or less satisfactorily, of a partial destruction of the human race by the inundation of the Deluge; but no one can deny that the prima facie meaning of 1 Peter 3:20 sq., 2 Peter 2:4-9, and 2 Peter 3:5 sqq., refers to the death of all men not contained in the ark.
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

Here’s an answer from a CAF apologist that discusses this topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4356&highlight=noah

I’m not sure what you think proves your point in that link. Did you miss this part from it?:
Details of the flood (e.g. its coverage, when it took place) are questions for science, not theology. For further information on the flood I recommend the following sites…

 

[StAnastasia]

I can’t believe this discussion is still going on. This anti-scientific mindset from a Catholic, which is contrary to the “official” position of the Catholic church simply amazes me.

It’s mindboggling, isn’t it?

 

[Verisimilitude]

The same evidence that indicates that the human population was never as low as two individuals also indicates that the human population was never as low as eight individuals. The lowest scientifically based estimate I have seen is between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago, probably towards the larger end of that range. It is of course impossible to tell scientifically how many of those pairs had souls.

What evolutionary hypothosis and evidence explains the jump from zero humans to 1000 humans, and is it consistant with other living things like fish and trees? When this evolutionary burst of new species arrives on the scene (explained by your forthcoming evidence) what causes the pre-evoloved specie to die out completely soon after the new species arrive?

How so? We know that both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals lived in Europe after H.sapiens moved out of africa.

Human evolution/migration suggests a wider area than the local if the flood were to wipe out humanity. StAnastasia (Catholic) suggests the flood happened, but not that it was global and did not indicate if all of humanity was wiped out or only a portion, ckempston (reverting to something) says the flood never happened and is convinced the Church says so, and you a Buddhist are saying…what? Did the flood happen?

It is far to small to account for the amount of genetic variation we see today. For example most humans reject skin grafts from other humans unless they are very closely related. With cheetahs you can freely graft skin from one cheetah to another because they went through a very severe population bottleneck, down to as little as one family, about 10,000 years ago. They are all still very closely related. Humans have never had such a bottleneck so we are not nearly as closely related.

Ok, I think I see what you are saying here. Most every life form experienced a genetic bottleneck excpet humans, but humans share every other aspect of evolution with animals. Cheetah’s as an example can be thought to begin/re-begin with as little as a single family but humans can’t. The Flood and Noah’s account would describe such bottleneck so I can assume you discount the Flood. Such logic escapes me.

She was one individual in a population. Other women in that population also have living descendants. Mitochondrial Eve is your mother’s mother’s mother’s … mother. The other women at the time have at least one “father’s” in that sequence somewhere. Similarly Y-chromosome Adam is your father’s father’s father’s … father. The other men alive at the time have at least one “mother’s” in there somewhere.

rossum

Your answer suggests the other women in this evolved zero to 1000 group of new humans would have different mitochondria/genetics because it is needed for the wide variety of humans we have today, but yet it is indicated by the science tracking it to be a unique individual.

 

[Verisimilitude]

It’s mindboggling, isn’t it?

Do you agree with the claim:

There was not a flood that wiped out all life on the planet. Ever. We have overwhelming evidence corroborated by several different branches of science.

how about:

Humans have never had such a bottleneck so we are not nearly as closely related.

We are close enough genetically to apes or an apple to prove evolution, but not so close to other humans which proves evolution?

 

[ckempston]

How do you get I am anti-science? Read Post #109. Nothing I have stated is contrary to what the Church teaches because I have reached no conclusion and debate what is debateable.

You’ve said evolution is evil and causes people to believe abortion is OK. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Not sure why you mention this.

It was an analogy to illustrate that things that seem miraculous aren’t always so. And if we have good evidence that contradicts a certain interpretation of the claim, then we are justified in rejecting that certain interpretation, i.e. that a literal flood wiped out all of humanity, except for eight people.

I didn’t say they did, what I referenced was something Catholics do not dispute and if you accept the miracle of the Virgin Birth why do you discount any possibility of a Created human?

I don’t discount any possibility having to do with the special creation of humans. It is beyond our ability to explain at this time. Perhaps Adam and Eve had 1000 kids, and these are the first 1000 humans spoken of.

Some things are literal like the Virgin Birth, some things are not like the story of Job. I am glad you think you know what the Church teaches so next time please support your claims by some reference.

The story of Job is not literal? Of all the things that anybody could claim that were not literal, I believe this is the first time I’ve heard someone specify Job.

This seems to suggest room for discussion as opposed to your statement of certainty.

There is certainly room for discussion. Just as long as it does not include a global flood, all humans and animals being wiped out, a big bowl of water in teh sky, or the mountains being covered with water.

The above scientific arguments do not favour a partial destruction of the human race absolutely, but only in so far as the uninterrupted existence of the various races in question gives them more time for the racial development and the historical data that have to be harmonized with the text of Genesis. Those who urge these arguments grant, therefore, implicitly that the allowance of a proper length of time will explain the facts on which their arguments are based. As there is nothing in the teaching of the Bible preventing us from assigning the Flood to a much earlier date than has usually been done, the difficulties urged on the part of science against the anthropological universality of the Flood may be easily evaded. Nor can the distribution of the nations as described in the tenth chapter of Genesis be appealed to, seeing that this section does not enumerate all races of the earth, but confines itself probably to the Caucasian.

I’ve said myself that an earlier date for the flood is possible, but several other factors would also be impossible, such as mountains being covered with water, and you would also have to resolve the problem with breaking Biblical chronology. The easiest explanation is that it is a fictional story with a moral teaching. Since Jesus had no problem using fiction to make a point, I see no problem with doing the same.

Science, therefore, may demand an early date for the Deluge, but it does not necessitate a limitation of the Flood to certain parts of the human race. The question, whether all men perished in the Deluge, must be decided by the teaching of the Bible, and of its authoritative interpreter. As to the teachings of the Bible, the passage which deals ex professo with the Flood (Genesis 6-9), if taken by itself, may be interpreted of a partial destruction of man; it insists on the fact that all inhabitants of the “land”, not of the “earth”, died in the waters of the Deluge, and it does not explicitly tell us whether all men lived in the “land”. It may also be granted, that of the passages which refer incidentally to the flood (Wisdom 10:4; 14:6; Sirach 44:17 sqq., and Matthew 24:37 sqq., may be explained, more or less satisfactorily, of a partial destruction of the human race by the inundation of the Deluge; but no one can deny that the prima facie meaning of 1 Peter 3:20 sq., 2 Peter 2:4-9, and 2 Peter 3:5 sqq., refers to the death of all men not contained in the ark.
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t have covered mountains in Mesopotamia without also covering mountains just about everywhere else in the world. It didn’t happen. Period. If the Magesterium “officially” says that it did, well, all the more reason not to listen to it (but I actually don’t think it does).

I’m not sure what you think proves your point in that link. Did you miss this part from it?:
Details of the flood (e.g. its coverage, when it took place) are questions for science, not theology. For further information on the flood I recommend the following sites…

Well, it seems to be the exact opposite of what you’ve been arguing, so I’m not sure why you would point it out in support of your position.

 

[StAnastasia]

Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t have covered mountains in Mesopotamia without also covering mountains just about everywhere else in the world. It didn’t happen. Period. If the Magesterium “officially” says that it did, well, all the more reason not to listen to it (but I actually don’t think it does).

ckempston, I am a theologian, not a scientist, but the hydrological and other scientific problems that conclusively disprove a literal reading of the Hebrew global flood story include:

(1) Insufficient water to cover the entire earth to a depth of 29,51.5 feet.

(2) No post-diluvial drain for all that water!

(3) Two-mile depth of Antarctic ice recording 150,000 years of ice deposition, that cannot possibly have formed in the 4,500 years since the flood.

Of course, you could jettison modern hydrology, geology, glaciology, physics, chemistry, and biology, which would permit you to interpret literally the global flood story of one ancient nomadic desert tribe. Or you could read the story through theological lenses, as its authors no doubt intended.

StAnastasia