The biblical flood date

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:15 am

Jac3510 wrote:I don't think the logic is that difficult. Phil said a global flood could not be responsible for the stratification of fossils as observed. I posted a contrary opinion from a peer-review published PhD in geology. the argument (logically) is not that Phil is wrong because Snelling is right. that would be an argument from authority which is a type of genetic fallacy in itself. the argument is that I do not know that Phil is correct because people more educated that him on the relevant subject matter disagrees. that is not to say you or anyone else (Phil) doesn't know that Phil is right after all and that Snelling is wrong. perhaps he has the relevant expertise to critique Snelling. if so he could offer that critique. he did not if course, instead ignoring Snellings argument and going for incredulity. and you went with genetic fallacy.

as I said it is fine to disagree with Snelling. that isn't relevant to my argument. I am speaking to my own warrant for not being able to state positively with Phil that a global flood could not in principle so sort the fossils. as I said then the point is a logical one, not a philosophical one.


Perhaps you can sort out where philosphy leaves off and logic starts.

I will look at what the guy says about sorting. Or maybe not, your link is missing.

( you would not posdibly be attempting argumeng from authority..?)

Regardless of how good his argument looks to someone who doesnt know enough to see any flaws..
what is the sense of arguing for a disproved flood?

Seriously? ( to reuse my earlier word, related to semi-incredulity )

I dont get the distinction between your illogic and that of the person ypu said was illogical
about glaciers.

Other than you have way less excuse, being clearly much more capable of
reading, understanding, and logic.

Ok I did find some snelling articles. I also looked him up.

What a character.

The first article started out withbsuch garbage, I didnt care to go further.

Hard to read on this tablet, harder to quote. I will get back to it.

Im going out now anyway..

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Jac3510 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:53 am

take your time audie. I'm on vacation with the family anyway. we are at a theme park and will be out all day. I do want to offer done substantive remarks if you're interested. not pages long or anything but more than I can do from a phone and while distracted with roller coasters. :)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Jac3510 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:59 pm

Ok, a proper keyboard!

Perhaps you can sort out where philosphy leaves off and logic starts.

I'll offer some thoughts about Snelling below, but I want to spend most of my time here just because it's the only really relevant piece of my contribution to the thread. I'd just start by saying that it is a very easy thing to blur the lines between logic and philosophy, so don't feel like I'm accusing you of some terribly fundamental kind of error here. Lots of people miss the distinction (a lot of them being logicians, as a matter of fact). Anyway, the proper subject of the discipline of logic is the rules of human thought whereby one can correctly (or with warrant) deduce or infer truths from a set of propositions. What that means in practice is that logic has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the content of any given argument but always and only with form. So if A is B and B is C then A is C. We have forms like a modus ponens or modus tollens. When we form our thoughts improperly, (that is, when we relate them to one another improperly), we have fallacies such as affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent, yada, yada.

So something can be logical in the sense that it holds the proper form but still be incorrect in its conclusion. For example;

1. Jac knows all women
2. All the women Jac knows are blonde
3. Therefore, all women are blonde
4. Audie is not blonde
5. Therefore, Audie is not a woman

Silly example, but it shows on several levels that something can be correctly formulated (logical) but still be incorrect. In this example, the problem is that both the first and second premises are just not true, and therefore, we fail to get a true conclusion. And still further, a conclusion can be true even if the premises are incorrectly related (that is, if the argument is illogical). For instance:

1. Roses are red
2. Jac's youngest daughter is named Charlotte
3. Therefore, Audie is a woman

So the conclusion is true, and, in fact, both are the premises, but the conclusion doesn't follow. The conclusion is an illogical statement. My point then is that something being logical or illogical isn't a statement on its being true. It's a statement about the proper way to think.

Against all that, philosophy has to do with a thing's nature. Ask a logician, "What is that?" and you'll get a logical answer--you'll hear of genus and species and so on. Most generally, a logician will say, "It is a thing" or "it is not a thing," and for the logician, necessarily, that which is not a thing is nothing. But a philosopher will give a different answer (and that answer will depend, of course, on the nature of the thing). If you want to see how that difference works out in reality, I'd invite you to spend about twenty minutes reading a chapter from a great book titled The Unity of Philosophical Experience. I have linked to it many times on these boards, but it is appropriate again to do so here. Gilson walks through a real historical example of a great logician mistaking philosophy and logic and that sad results that followed.

To make this all apply to the present discussion, my argument with respect to the AiG reference was this:

1. Andrew Snelling believes that a global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record
2. Jac cannot refute Snelling's argument
3. Therefore, Jac can cannot say that Snelling is wrong that a global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record
4. Phil says no global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record
5. Therefore, both Phil and Snelling cannot both be correct
6. Jac cannot refute Phil's arguments that no global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record
7. Therefore, Jac does not know whether or not no global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record

Now, I hope it is very clear the difference in my being "illogical" to use your term and ACB's being illogical. (Just like I hope it is clear that I'm not offering an argument from authority--I can't be, as I'm not saying that Snelling's argument is correct or that Phil's argument is wrong. Since arguments from authority draw their conclusions from authority, and since I am drawing no conclusions from authority, I am therefore not offering any arguments from authority.) I made an argument that actually followed the premises. ACB argument did not. Strictly speaking, ACB put forward what logicians call a non-sequitur (the roses are red argument above is an example of a non-sequitur). It simply does not follow that a cold climate could make glaciers "stick" to the rocks. What I was trying to do was uncover a missing minor premise to make his argument coherent. He could not provide that minor premise, and therefore, his argument is illogical in the formal sense of the term.

So there's just no philosophy in any of my posts here at all. I wasn't objecting to ACB's argument because it violates science. I was pretty clear that you were taking it a different way than I was. The essence behind quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur is that non-sequiturs don't need to be refuted. They can just be dismissed. I was showing ACB's argument was a non-sequitur and therefore it didn't need to be refuted (though you refuted it anyway). From a strictly logical perspective, we could just dismiss it. And that further goes to my motivation to my comments that BW threatened to permaban me for (another non-sequitur in this thread, but, as you say, whatevs). And all that goes to why I was less than impressed with your genetic fallacy. I couldn't care any less than I do about whether or not you think Snelling is an idiot or a genius or wrong or right or anything else. I'm also not terribly concerned if you take the time to rip his article to shreds. None of that will challenge the argument I made to Phil. What I DO care about is you saying Snelling is wrong because Snelling wrote it. That's just a genetic fallacy. It's also another logical fallacy called "begging the question" or petitio principii, in which you assume as your premise the very thing that you are attempting to argue. Still another word for this is "circular reasoning." Here's an example you should immediately be able to spot:

1. The Bible says God exists
2. The Bible, being the Word of God, is never wrong
3. Therefore, God exists

Convinces you, right! Of course not. You would point out that the second premise assumes the very thing you are trying to prove. It begs the question. It is circular reasoning. And so it is with your dismissal of Snelling. If we ought to reject his scientific arguments for a global flood because we reject a global flood, then we're doing the same thing. He has to be shown why his arguments themselves are wrong.

I have no doubt you think you could do that. And perhaps you could! I have less doubt that I am not fit to adjudicate a debate between you and Snelling. And moreover, I have less doubt than all of THAT that if Snelling himself where here that any and everything you said scientifically against his arguments he would be able to offer more detailed scientific replies, and I strongly suspect that he would be able to do so to a point where his responses would go beyond your ability to refute, not being a PhD in geology. At best, you would have to end up retorting, "Well why don't other geologists agree with you?!?" and then you'd end up having more popular level arguments that are really a waste of time because you're just trying to get in the heads of other people. BORING!!!

Anyway, this has run FAR longer than I intended it to. The bottom line is that my objection to your objection is that you responded with an illogical statement, and illogical statements are no better coming from you than they are from ACB. I did not offer an illogical statement. I offered a true statement. Now, perhaps you are RIGHT about Snelling and the global flood and all the rest, but all of that is completely immaterial to the discussion we are actually having for the simple reason that it isn't enough to believe the correct things: you have to have the right warrant for believing the correct things. And that IS a philosophical point and goes to a field called epistemology. The question the epistemologist asks is, "When does a belief become knowledge?" You may want me to BELIEVE that Snelling is wrong. And suppose I agreed that he is wrong? Does that mean I KNOW he is wrong? Of course not. And the fact is, I neither believe nor know that Snelling is wrong (or that Phil or you are, for that matter). To steal a play from my atheist friends, I hold no beliefs on the matter.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Jac3510 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 7:12 pm

But for fun, Audie, I'll see what I can do about trying to play on your turf for a bit. I'm going to look through some material and pick a single scientific argument against deep time (or better, for a young earth) and hash it out with you. It won't be today or even this week, because this isn't my field and I'll need to do more than just read some popular young earth site and throw up talking points. I'll need to actually read enough of the stuff that I find something that I myself find persuasive and interesting and then actually work through the information being referred to. But I think I'm educated enough that I can read the research, comprehend it, and figure out what's going on. And you'll certainly be there to correct me where I make a mistake. ;) So hopefully we can have that conversation in a few weeks. And the good news is that because this isn't my area, if the argument fails, I'll have absolutely no problem admitting my failure and that you're right! It's very much of a high reward/low risk opportunity for me. :)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1437
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby crochet1949 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 8:15 pm

And THAT will be an interesting 'conversaton'.

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1437
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby crochet1949 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 8:53 pm

But - in the Meantime -- what about Genesis 6:5 - 8
"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

vs 11 The earth also was corrupt before God , and the earth was filled with violence. vs 13 .... and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."
vs 14 "Make yourself an ark ......."

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:23 am

How is it logical, or even sane to argue for a disproved theoty?

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1437
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby crochet1949 » Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:50 am

Audie -- Because the passage I quoted Is part of God's Word and God Is real and He has told us / mankind/ Through Moses that That Did happen or it would Not be part Of God's Word.

You are insinuating that someone who Believes Otherwise is insane or Possibly insane. But then people have Also been trying to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and His bodily resurrection for those same reasons. And God's Word Does tell us they Did happen and even Why.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Jac3510 » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:52 am

Audie wrote:How is it logical, or even sane to argue for a disproved theoty?

You're just begging the question. You may as well ask when I stopped beating my wife. Besides, Audie, how many times have you lectured us on how science doesn't do proof?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8840
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Kurieuo » Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:50 pm

Audie, I'm wondering, historical-wise whether you see any truthful elements in the flood myth?

Please, don't think I'm attacking here via a question. Our last exchange went a little awry, and I've done much reflecting. So I pray that you'll hear me out afresh here and we can be gentle with each other. yp**==

While not all flood stories around the world are indeed of the same great flood, there are a great deal of many similar stories including unique elements of a few being saved on some built ark or boat, drowning a lot of humanity and the land. It seems rather supported, if you look into it, that a major flood of some sort, containing elements similar to those found in the story of Noah, did happen. The emphasis being upon "of some sort", right?

Indeed, science seems to place the likely location that gave rise to many similar sounding yet unique elements of this great flood story, as happening in the Black Sea about 5000BC-ish. In addition to unrelated sunken old ships that have been found, pottery was also found 100s of kilometres in from the current coastlines, where settlements were previously predicted to be located. Such is said to be what spurned the great flood stories, I think DBowling could possibly say more than myself who has done much research specifically re: the black sea flood.

Now, then, treat the Bible, not as canon or some religious text. Rather treat it as a work by ancient Israel and for the people of Israel. Their interest, wasn't so much in the scientific accounting of how the world works and what is physically possible (a relatively recent modern interest), but rather events and interpreting through their spiritual lens which is heavily influenced by their history and monotheistic beliefs. So, for example, they tell a story of their God, the God of Israel, being the one true God and Lord of all Creation, discussing over and over again the relationship and covenants (promises) between God and humanity (Adam through to Abram/Abraham) unto Israel (Moses' covenant) and then finally the NT, also very Jewish even if a large segment reject it, presents the picture of God forming a new covenant which all humanity (Israel and Gentiles) can enter into via Israel's Christ who was prophesied in their books.

So then, if we separate out many of these ancient books, really a recording of Israel's history, prominent persons and their very spiritual beliefs -- and treat them as such... the recording of the flood for any embellishment that might be seen isn't completely false. In fact, if we limit the scope to Israel, the story is of a worldwide flood to Israel. Indeed, the limits therefore are Israel's world, their region even.

Fast-forward 100s and 1000s of years later, and their own literature is translated into English and forms a part of the Western world, a more global audience. Therefore, the worldwide flood is now re-interpreted by us, as not restricted to Israel's world (as originally intended by the writers), because our world, which is often on the other side of Israel's world, indeed the entire global Earth today represents our world; it seems to me that such is something that most definitely would not have been intended by the original author/s if asked. As such, Christians and us moderns have mythicalised the words in Genesis by applying the flood to our world, whereas it was only originally intended only for an Israel audience, their world, with a very spiritual focus and theological narrative of God's relationship with humanity.

Within that context, if we take it for simply the type of text that it is, I see that many issues against accepting it as valid go away. You know, Christ Himself is recorded as saying that, "many were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all." That's all Christ says of it, which is a very tame belief. Now, this "marrying" is a reference back to Genesis 6 which, in my opinion after much deliberation, is accurately between two lines (Seth's and Cain's) that were doing the intermarrying. Jesus never says the flood destroyed the whole world, but rather them all, meaning Noah's Sethite lineage and Cain's. Context is everything, and the scope seems apparent to me in Scripture that "all" doesn't in fact mean "ALL" in the globalist world society that we find ourselves in today.

In any case, I'm not here intending to provide an apologetic. But rather, as the flood is commonly understood, read in a "globalist's" perspective today, such is mythical and science lends no credence to. It is false! And yet, we can't stop there. Because that a great flood happened in that part of the world, is supported by modern exploration and science and other ancient literature. It affected many in the land associated with where the people of Israel arose from, and as commonly reported in literature, only a handful of people were saved on a boat-like structure that was built. So then, it seems there is much truth to the flood story originally only intended for the nation of Israel, in spite of the modern evolved globalist flood myth that Young Earth Creationism believes in today.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Sun Sep 04, 2016 6:51 pm

Jac3510 wrote:Ok, a proper keyboard!

Perhaps you can sort out where philosphy leaves off and logic starts.

I'll offer some thoughts about Snelling below, but I want to spend most of my time here just because it's the only really relevant piece of my contribution to the thread. I'd just start by saying that it is a very easy thing to blur the lines between logic and philosophy, so don't feel like I'm accusing you of some terribly fundamental kind of error here. Lots of people miss the distinction (a lot of them being logicians, as a matter of fact). Anyway, the proper subject of the discipline of logic is the rules of human thought whereby one can correctly (or with warrant) deduce or infer truths from a set of propositions. What that means in practice is that logic has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the content of any given argument but always and only with form. So if A is B and B is C then A is C. We have forms like a modus ponens or modus tollens. When we form our thoughts improperly, (that is, when we relate them to one another improperly), we have fallacies such as affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent, yada, yada.

So something can be logical in the sense that it holds the proper form but still be incorrect in its conclusion. For example;

1. Jac knows all women
2. All the women Jac knows are blonde
3. Therefore, all women are blonde
4. Audie is not blonde
5. Therefore, Audie is not a woman

Silly example, but it shows on several levels that something can be correctly formulated (logical) but still be incorrect. In this example, the problem is that both the first and second premises are just not true, and therefore, we fail to get a true conclusion. And still further, a conclusion can be true even if the premises are incorrectly related (that is, if the argument is illogical). For instance:

1. Roses are red
2. Jac's youngest daughter is named Charlotte
3. Therefore, Audie is a woman

So the conclusion is true, and, in fact, both are the premises, but the conclusion doesn't follow. The conclusion is an illogical statement. My point then is that something being logical or illogical isn't a statement on its being true. It's a statement about the proper way to think.

Against all that, philosophy has to do with a thing's nature. Ask a logician, "What is that?" and you'll get a logical answer--you'll hear of genus and species and so on. Most generally, a logician will say, "It is a thing" or "it is not a thing," and for the logician, necessarily, that which is not a thing is nothing. But a philosopher will give a different answer (and that answer will depend, of course, on the nature of the thing). If you want to see how that difference works out in reality, I'd invite you to spend about twenty minutes reading a chapter from a great book titled The Unity of Philosophical Experience. I have linked to it many times on these boards, but it is appropriate again to do so here. Gilson walks through a real historical example of a great logician mistaking philosophy and logic and that sad results that followed.

To make this all apply to the present discussion, my argument with respect to the AiG reference was this:

1. Andrew Snelling believes that a global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record
2. Jac cannot refute Snelling's argument
3. Therefore, Jac can cannot say that Snelling is wrong that a global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record
4. Phil says no global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record
5. Therefore, both Phil and Snelling cannot both be correct
6. Jac cannot refute Phil's arguments that no global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record
7. Therefore, Jac does not know whether or not no global flood can explain the stratification of the fossil record

Now, I hope it is very clear the difference in my being "illogical" to use your term and ACB's being illogical. (Just like I hope it is clear that I'm not offering an argument from authority--I can't be, as I'm not saying that Snelling's argument is correct or that Phil's argument is wrong. Since arguments from authority draw their conclusions from authority, and since I am drawing no conclusions from authority, I am therefore not offering any arguments from authority.) I made an argument that actually followed the premises. ACB argument did not. Strictly speaking, ACB put forward what logicians call a non-sequitur (the roses are red argument above is an example of a non-sequitur). It simply does not follow that a cold climate could make glaciers "stick" to the rocks. What I was trying to do was uncover a missing minor premise to make his argument coherent. He could not provide that minor premise, and therefore, his argument is illogical in the formal sense of the term.

So there's just no philosophy in any of my posts here at all. I wasn't objecting to ACB's argument because it violates science. I was pretty clear that you were taking it a different way than I was. The essence behind quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur is that non-sequiturs don't need to be refuted. They can just be dismissed. I was showing ACB's argument was a non-sequitur and therefore it didn't need to be refuted (though you refuted it anyway). From a strictly logical perspective, we could just dismiss it. And that further goes to my motivation to my comments that BW threatened to permaban me for (another non-sequitur in this thread, but, as you say, whatevs). And all that goes to why I was less than impressed with your genetic fallacy. I couldn't care any less than I do about whether or not you think Snelling is an idiot or a genius or wrong or right or anything else. I'm also not terribly concerned if you take the time to rip his article to shreds. None of that will challenge the argument I made to Phil. What I DO care about is you saying Snelling is wrong because Snelling wrote it. That's just a genetic fallacy. It's also another logical fallacy called "begging the question" or petitio principii, in which you assume as your premise the very thing that you are attempting to argue. Still another word for this is "circular reasoning." Here's an example you should immediately be able to spot:

1. The Bible says God exists
2. The Bible, being the Word of God, is never wrong
3. Therefore, God exists

Convinces you, right! Of course not. You would point out that the second premise assumes the very thing you are trying to prove. It begs the question. It is circular reasoning. And so it is with your dismissal of Snelling. If we ought to reject his scientific arguments for a global flood because we reject a global flood, then we're doing the same thing. He has to be shown why his arguments themselves are wrong.

I have no doubt you think you could do that. And perhaps you could! I have less doubt that I am not fit to adjudicate a debate between you and Snelling. And moreover, I have less doubt than all of THAT that if Snelling himself where here that any and everything you said scientifically against his arguments he would be able to offer more detailed scientific replies, and I strongly suspect that he would be able to do so to a point where his responses would go beyond your ability to refute, not being a PhD in geology. At best, you would have to end up retorting, "Well why don't other geologists agree with you?!?" and then you'd end up having more popular level arguments that are really a waste of time because you're just trying to get in the heads of other people. BORING!!!

Anyway, this has run FAR longer than I intended it to. The bottom line is that my objection to your objection is that you responded with an illogical statement, and illogical statements are no better coming from you than they are from ACB. I did not offer an illogical statement. I offered a true statement. Now, perhaps you are RIGHT about Snelling and the global flood and all the rest, but all of that is completely immaterial to the discussion we are actually having for the simple reason that it isn't enough to believe the correct things: you have to have the right warrant for believing the correct things. And that IS a philosophical point and goes to a field called epistemology. The question the epistemologist asks is, "When does a belief become knowledge?" You may want me to BELIEVE that Snelling is wrong. And suppose I agreed that he is wrong? Does that mean I KNOW he is wrong? Of course not. And the fact is, I neither believe nor know that Snelling is wrong (or that Phil or you are, for that matter). To steal a play from my atheist friends, I hold no beliefs on the matter.


Um sorry to sorta set you up to say all that, but I do know those things.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Sun Sep 04, 2016 6:57 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
Audie wrote:How is it logical, or even sane to argue for a disproved theoty?

You're just begging the question. You may as well ask when I stopped beating my wife. Besides, Audie, how many times have you lectured us on how science doesn't do proof?


Science is real good at disproving things.

I am not beggibg no question.

You might as well be saying as the prosecutor "But what about this scrap of cloth from the murder scene!!!" , after, you know, the defendant shows that he was having
tea with Queen E., in the Palace Garden at the very moment Mr Green was killed in Bangkok with a lead pipe.
(In the study, no less)

Tell the judge that your opposite number is beggin' the q!

He will doubtless say "How droll", or some functional equivalent.
Last edited by Audie on Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5578
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Philip » Sun Sep 04, 2016 6:58 pm

Reading that linked AIG article on explaining the distribution of fossils reminds me of non-theists insisting upon totally unscientific speculations of string theory and multiverses, and how a non-intelligent (dumb as rocks) organized itself with ever greater sophistication, and that it had JUST the right things available to capitalize upon its random, blind stupidity, with stupdendous, mathematically improbable results. Same with AIG's creative writings. It admits: "Thus, it is not the recognized order of the strata in the geologic record that is in dispute, but rather the millions-of-years interpretation for the deposition of the sedimentary strata and their contained fossils." And: "It is true that the complete geologic record is hardly ever, if at all, found in any one place on the earth’s surface." The problems in the article's assertions are many.

Mankind and civilization is KNOWN to have spread across an immense portion of the globe, by the time the flood is asserted to have taken place - some 5,000 - 10,000 years ago. So this idea of a strict separation of species, dinosaurs, etc., supposedly living were man did not - really, it doesn't add up. If the earth were merely thousands of years old, the species found in the fossil record should be widely mixed, and not with the great consistency that even AIG admits to - ESPECIALLY amongst land animals in areas of known human populations. Also, where there is overlap, land masses don't just distribute layers like snow falling upon a field, but there are hydraulics, erosion, wind, plate tectonics, differing elevations, ice cycles - all of that. But beyond those things, across the world, there is great consistency in the fossil distributions. The idea that this giant flood just HAPPENED to massively distort a pre-flood geographic record in such a way that is distributed the fossil record with such distinct separations isn't supported by the DATA, but it is by the SPECULATIONS of the YEC narrative cast upon that data. We're to believe catastrophe created a nicely layered fossil record. AND that it just HAPPENS that these distributions are precisely consistent with processes KNOWN to produce them, as would be expected, AND with abundant detectable evidences of those processes. Again, it's not just non-Christians and those believing in evolution that reject the assertions of a young planet - but many scientists who are also Christians, who also do NOT believe in evolution/Darwinism. And certainly, AIG is always is quick to link the two. And you add in the astronomical evidences, red shifts in the infrared spectrum of the stars, multiple technique approaches producing remarkable cross consistency of measurements of geology and astronomy. Really, AIG's assertions don't really add up - except when using unproven speculations of what the data MIGHT mean, but with no certain reasons to believe so, excepting their views upon the Scripture/time issue.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:03 pm

Jac3510 wrote:But for fun, Audie, I'll see what I can do about trying to play on your turf for a bit. I'm going to look through some material and pick a single scientific argument against deep time (or better, for a young earth) and hash it out with you. It won't be today or even this week, because this isn't my field and I'll need to do more than just read some popular young earth site and throw up talking points. I'll need to actually read enough of the stuff that I find something that I myself find persuasive and interesting and then actually work through the information being referred to. But I think I'm educated enough that I can read the research, comprehend it, and figure out what's going on. And you'll certainly be there to correct me where I make a mistake. ;) So hopefully we can have that conversation in a few weeks. And the good news is that because this isn't my area, if the argument fails, I'll have absolutely no problem admitting my failure and that you're right! It's very much of a high reward/low risk opportunity for me. :)



I would be very happy to provide my take on whst ever you find interesting, with emphasis on a non
argumentative discusdion.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5578
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Philip » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:11 pm

And K points out some very important things. The original narrative of the flood is composed for the new nation of Israel - a pre-scientific age people who had just absorbed four centuries of ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation myths of which the Genesis accounts eerily parallel - albeit with some major, important differences related to Yahweh. This changes everything about how they would have perceived the texts. Not to mention, Western/modern sequential accounts weren't necessarily how they might put something - ESPECIALLY if time or science understandings were not their points.


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests