Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: Nobody knows the actual area. One theory is that the Mesopotamian basin was the area.

Others think it was where the Caspian Sea is today.
http://www.oldearth.org/articles/flood_location.htm

Wherein I find this bit of weirdness..

1. The basin has no geological deposits which would qualify as flood deposits.5 Morton himself answers this in another of his articles. In critiquing the Mesopotamian flood scenario, Morton states that "To completely erode flood sediments takes more than 20,000 years. In the progressive creationist time frame for the flood, it could not have occurred prior to 35,000 years ago. Most likely it was about 50,000 years ago. Thus, we have twice the amount of time that Morton allows for completely eroding away any flood sediments. Given this vast amount of time, we cannot expect to find any flood sediments from Noah's Flood. -

Anything you notice about that?

Considering that I have no idea how long it takes for flood deposits to erode, no.

Recognizing you've had no geology, you can still use a little thought.
"Flood deposits" could dry to a fine film of dust that blows away in minutes,
or it could involve boulders, and potentially last more or less forever.

The flood deposits along the Tibris Euphrates valley that have been cited as
evidence for a Noah flood are layered deposits, from successive floods. The
deeper they get buried, the less they seem inclined to erode away.

There are to be found various sorts of "flood deposits" in strata many tens of millions of years old.

The 20K figure has no basis.

ALSO, as the flood deposit in question would be at the bottom of a lake, how
could it erode away?

Saying we cannot expect to find sediments from the flood is correct, but not for the reason given. Well, I guess some do expect to find them. But they never do.

For those who like a world wide flood, there is no world wide "flood" marker.

Sure it would disappear in some places, others it would be there like it was yesterday.

There is no indication that the Caspian Sea suddenly flooded at any appropriate date.

I'd imagine people have done sediment cores aplenty there, as it is an oil producing area.

The Black Sea would have shown a fairly rapid rise in level at the end of the last ice age, but not at any dramatic rate. As the Mediterranean rose, it
overtopped the high point on the channel, and water would have poured over at high tide, then steadily, months or years later.

There are buried houses from the old lake shore. But one scarcely could have needed a boat to get away from such a leisurely flood.

Audie,

Why debate something that never happened? Could I ever convince you that a flood happened that fits any biblical interpretation of Noah's flood?

I see it that the Jesus story cannot be tested, so is in no way subject to falsification.

Any version of the flood story can be put to the test. It always fails.

RickD wrote:Audie,

Just curious...

If you see the flood story as rediculous, what do you think of the story about God who took on human form, was born of a virgin, died for the sins of the world, and was resurrected on the third day?

Does that seem in any way, believable to you? Or is it just logically and scientifically rediculous?

Philip wrote:NO, [misplaced comma?] pure rationalism or naturalism can explain the the events of Noah, the ark, the animals, the eradication of all humans of the time period - WHATEVER/WHENEVER that time was. But add in an all-powerful God to that equation, and it explains HOW any of it is possible, because the everyday/cyclical things were superseded, with so many elements of Noah's story. From his advanced and great age during the building the ark, his provided ability to collect the animals of the area, the "mother of all rainstorms," ALL of that is ridiculous UNLESS there is an all powerful God for what would otherwise be an impossible fairy tale.

So, Audie and others insist there was something with unfathomable abilities, intelligence and untold power, that explains the universe. The only problem is, what they speculate on is - wait for it... IS NOT testable/ not FALSIFIABLE!

Many times Audie has finally admitted that 1) she has no idea how or why the universe formed so awesomely, on such a grand scale, and she's admitted 2) that no science can give us the answers as to whether what she believes is even possible - especially as she doesn't know what that could possibly be. And WHATEVER that Great "Mechanism" was, it functioned in amazing God-like ways.

All scientists are amazed at both how the universe began and how it continues to function with great specificity. And while non-theists are amazed at what they see, theists, especially Christians, are just as amazed. So, whatever THAT thing was, the Mechanism that caused the universe, NO science can discern what that was, or how it did this. But the fact that non-theists cannot falsify or test what they think MIGHT be possible, does not concern them - just as long as one doesn't start up with any of this silly "God talk."

And assertions of Western thinking vs. Eastern thinking (see, mysticism), or "clueless/simple" binary thinking," are anything but scientific.

So, if you are going to be so critical towards theists because they can't prove something, when neither can a non-theist, when it comes to the origins of the universe, then don't be so hypocritical with a superior, sarcastically dismissive attitude. Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - however couched in spouting speculative theories filled with scientific-sounding JARGON that, in reality, proves nothing.

Philip wrote:

I see it that the Jesus story cannot be tested, so is in no way subject to falsification.

Any version of the flood story can be put to the test. It always fails.

NO, pure rationalism or naturalism can explain the the events of Noah, the ark, the animals, the eradication of all humans of the time period - WHATEVER/WHENEVER that time was. But add in an all-powerful God to that equation, and it explains HOW any of it is possible, because the everyday/cyclical things were superseded, with so many elements of Noah's story. From his advanced and great age during the building the ark, his provided ability to collect the animals of the area, the "mother of all rainstorms," ALL of that is ridiculous UNLESS there is an all powerful God for what would otherwise be an impossible fairy tale.

and immensely powerful ETERNAL things must have existed, AS IF SUCH THINGS DID NOT/AND WERE NOT ETERNAL, then otherwise there would be no universe. So, Audie and others insist there was something with unfathomable abilities, intelligence and untold power, that explains the universe. The only problem is, what they speculate on is - wait for it... IS NOT testable/ not FALSIFIABLE!. Many times Audie has finally admitted that 1) she has no idea how or why the universe formed so awesomely, on such a grand scale, and she's admitted 2) that no science can give us the answers as to whether what she believes is even possible - especially as she doesn't know what that could possibly be. And WHATEVER that Great "Mechanism" was, it functioned in amazing God-like ways.

All scientists are amazed at both how the universe began and how it continues to function with great specificity. And while non-theists are amazed at what they see, theists, especially Christians, are just as amazed. So, whatever THAT thing was, the Mechanism that caused the universe, NO science can discern what that was, or how it did this. But the fact that non-theists cannot falsify or test what they think MIGHT be possible, does not concern them - just as long as one doesn't start up with any of this silly "God talk." And assertions of Western thinking vs. Eastern thinking (see, mysticism), or "clueless/simple" binary thinking," are anything but scientific. So, if you are going to be so critical towards theists because they can't prove something, when neither can a non-theist, when it comes to the origins of the universe, then don't be so hypocritical with a superior, sarcastically dismissive attitude. Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - however couched in spouting speculative theories filled with scientific-sounding JARGON that, in reality, proves nothing.

Ah, but Audie DOE believe in the inexplicable and non-falsifiable teachings that 1) there is no God necessary, and 2) that evermore sophisticated "randomness" or rather some incredibly intelligent..

Audie wrote:So tell me, gentle modulator, what "version' of the flood, in what geographical area and at what date you choose as Truth, and let us see what sort of evidence you can provide. "Evidence for god from science"?

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:So tell me, gentle modulator, what "version' of the flood, in what geographical area and at what date you choose as Truth, and let us see what sort of evidence you can provide. "Evidence for god from science"?

In fairness to Audie, this seems rather close to the question K (rightly) likes to put to non-theists to put some positive belief on the table so it can be analyzed. I, for one, would be very interested in a rigorous analysis of a local flood model. It's trumpted as so very scientifically reasonable. I tend to doubt it, but it would be rather interesting if you local-flood folk would actually demonstrate your claim . . .

Scientific Problems with a Universal Flood
There are a number of practical problems that conflict with the idea of a global flood.

First, a universal flood would have changed the topography of the land. For example, in the event of a worldwide flood, the Hidekkel, or Tigris, and Euphrates rivers of Genesis 2:14 would have disappeared under layers of flood-laid sedimentary rock.12 Instead, the Euphrates is mentioned again in Genesis 15:18, and the Hidekkel is alluded to in Daniel 10:4. This suggests that the rivers’ integrity was maintained.13

Second, it would require an inordinate amount of water to flood the entire Earth. One popular explanation for this problem is that prior to the flood, the world was watered by mist from a global canopy of water vapor which then condensed, causing the first rains to flood the Earth (Gen. 2:5-6). However, this explanation is incongruent with archaeological evidence that concludes ancient Mesopotamia — the land of the Tigris and Euphrates — was “an extremely arid environment that necessitated the use of irrigation for successful agriculture.”14 Furthermore, the pressure necessary for the condensation of such a large quantity of water would have been fatal for all living creatures. In fact, a closer look at the Septuagint version of the Old Testament shows that the word for fountain was used in place of the word for mist. Some modern translations have used similar words like stream and spring.15 In either case, the water is said to have risen from the Earth, which makes it more likely that these terms were referring to irrigation canals.16 A similar terminology is used in reference to the flood (Genesis 7:11), where “fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.” But when we look closely at the original Hebrew text and consider the use of the words fountains and deep in other passages, it is more likely that the fountains of the deep were also irrigation canals.17

Another supposition is that all animals and humans are derived from the survivors on Noah’s Ark. There are several problems with this idea. First of all, there is no way that the 2 million known species of animals could have fit onto the ark — not to mention the estimated 10 to 100 million species yet to be discovered. The dimensions of the Ark were 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits (Gen. 6:15). At 18 inches per cubit, the Ark would have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall. This was indeed a large ship by the standards of the time, but not nearly large enough to carry such a vast and varied cargo. Getting all of the animals to fit on the ark, along with the necessary food would not have been feasible. Some have argued that not all species were included, but only representatives of each type. Not only would this still represent an improbably great number of creatures, it would also require that the evolution of related species be drastically accelerated after the flood, in order to account for current diversity of species.

Finally, the migration of animals across mountains and oceans is quite difficult to explain. To make matters worse, there are no traces of animal ancestors along the proposed courses of migration. These are just a few of the many scientific problems with interpreting Genesis 6-9 as a truly universal flood. Efforts to find physical evidence of a global flood have failed. Even some of the most capable Christian researchers, including John Woodward, George Frederick Wright, William Buckland and Joseph Prestwich, all failed in their searches. Young states, “It is clear now that the evidence they were searching for simply does not exist.”18 -

PaulSacramento wrote:ANE writing care less about WHEN and more about WHY of an event.
Add to that the fact that any chronology in the account would be aimed at the direct audience of the account and would have references that THEY would understand.

There is not enough in the biblical account of the flood from which to surmise a definite date.

Any attempt must go OUTSIDE the bible for more information.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:ANE writing care less about WHEN and more about WHY of an event.
Add to that the fact that any chronology in the account would be aimed at the direct audience of the account and would have references that THEY would understand.

There is not enough in the biblical account of the flood from which to surmise a definite date.

Any attempt must go OUTSIDE the bible for more information.

Interesting to see someone even allow outside sources to be considered!

So anyhow, no date. What info do we have from the bible?

Outside sources show unequivocably that there was no world wide flood,
nothing resembling a reasonable argument can be made that there was.

What could one say for certain about the story other than that it is about how
God does not like sin and will punish it?

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the [j]floodgates of the sky were opened. 12 The rain [k]fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

4 In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. 5 The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

PaulSacramento wrote:We must always start at WHY a story was written.