by Witness 007 88 Replies latest watchtower bible
Witness007
I have often asked this question myself.
I think the Flood served more than one purpose - it destroyed wicked humans and forced the disobedient angels to dematerialize their human bodies. In addition, the flood also destroyed the preflood cities which contained knowledge given to humans by the fallen angels.
Until someone can point out a specific mechanism or barrier by which genetic drift can't drift far enough to become a new species, creationists have no argument.
Yes.
None of the creationists I've every encountered have had a problem with the idea that animals like the coyote and the fox or the leopard and the cheetah have descended from a common ancestor until they realize that these species have drifted to the point of true reproductive isolation and would therefore be different 'kinds' even by the biblical definition.
And therein lies the problem. Exactly why couldn't this happen?
There was also a supreme being controlling events that had a plan for the survival of the diversity of life as we know it.
This is the line that is absolutely necessary for anyone to even remotely entertain the nonsensical ideas that came before it. It is also the quote that makes everything that came before it unnecessary. In other words "obviously the bizarre and ridiculous special pleading I just spewed out makes no scientific sense. But you're forgetting one thing: God did it!" It works in any situation. Which makes me wonder why creationists even pretend to explain the flood by science.
Scientist: The amount of water falling at a volume sufficient to cover the earth in the time specified in the flood account would have generated so much heat that the oceans would have literally boiled away.
Creationist: Some speculate that their may have been larger ice caps before the flood. Their melting would have cooled the water to the degree necessary to counteract that sciencey thing you just said. Besides, "there was also a supreme being controlling events that had a plan for the survival of the diversity of life as we know it."
Scientist: Raising the water level sufficient to cover the entire earth would have caused a dramatic rise in air pressure that would have made human survival at that altitude impossible.
Creationist: We know from the historical record, the bible, that humans lived dramatically longer in the years before the flood. Some speculate, therefore, that their bodies were far more resilient and could therefore have withstood higher air pressure levels. In fact, it could be that the strain of going through such intense physical stress is what caused humans to have dramatically shorter lives after the flood. Besides, "there was also a supreme being controlling events that had a plan for the survival of the diversity of life as we know it."
I can't continue this any longer. I think my point is made. It's easy to explain any idea that you wish to propose when you A) Don't have anything but the most basic grasp of science, B) Are writing or speaking for an audience that is at the same level of scientific illiteracy as you, and C) have the ace up your sleeve that anything that is impossible was actually done by the invisible wizard in the sky.
Alright, I'll play -
First note that Morris is not really a geologist - but a civil engineer. His speculations are not based on evidence, simulations, models, etc.
If such a flood took place, it would have laid down multiple layers of mud full of the remains of plants and animals which died in the Flood. These
layers would be widespread (since the Flood was global) and give evidence of having been laid down rapidly.
Well, the funny thing with this statement is that Morris doesn't go on to describe where all this 'widespread evidence' actually is. He just states that it 'should be there', and leaves it at that. Uh.. ok! It should be there, so no-doubt it is.
In the complex of events and conditions that made up the Flood, certainly there were pockets of fresh and/or clean water at any one time. Remember, it was raining in torrents, and we can expect that the rain was fairly fresh water. Many studies have shown that waters of various temperatures, chemistries, and sediment loads do not tend to mix; they tend to remain segregated into zones. It would be unlikely for any one area to retain such zones for very long during the tumult of the Flood, but on a worldwide scale, some such segregated zones would have existed at any given time.
Morris throws out another assumption, but fine - it's not unreasonable to make some assumptions. It is unlikely that the global ocean was 100% homogenous within the initial timeframe, but as he acknoledges that with torrential rains and storms - things would get stirred up. And then the waters didn't just 'go away' after it stopped raining - they lingered on for over a year.
Such an explaination might account for the survival of a few robust and lucky species - but there are hundreds of extremely delicate and very old ecosystems in the oceans. It's quite an assumption indeed to believe these too could survive intact.
Furthermore, we don't know the tolerance levels of pre-Flood fish for sediment, salt, and temperature. Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish were even more adaptable.
Yeah, I can do that too.
"Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish could shoot lasers out of their eyes."
"Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish could [make sh*t up without a shred of supporting evidence]"
"If we don't know, anything goes."
There is also the possibility that great amounts of vegetation were dislodged from the pre-Flood continents and remained intertwined during the Flood as floating mats. Many creationists feel that the decay and abrasion of these mats are responsible for our major coal seams, but underneath these mats, the turbulence of the surface would have been lessened. Perhaps many fish found shelter and nutrition under them, as insects may have, on the mats themselves.
How creationists 'feel' doesn't change the laws of physics. Many creationists 'feel' that a man can live inside the stomach of a fish for 3 days. Evidently, creationists believe that "stomach acid" is a suitable replacement for "oxygen".
But hey, if creationists feel that the 'decay and abrasion of these mats' could have lessened the aquatic armegeddon going on in the ocean, it must be so. Creationists feelings are well established as being on-par with the pursuit of knowledge through documented study and experimentation.
There was also a supreme being controlling events that had a plan for the survival of the diversity of life as we know it.
But one would think that an intelligent being could achieve some semblance of efficiency.
When the biblical authors didn't know a better way - God didn't know a better way. If an intelligent god wanted to wipe out 99.9% of humanity (as he often does), he could have moved those he wanted to save away from civilization, and let the spanish flu loose a little early.
Likewise, if an army in biblical times needed some extra daylight - one would think an intelligent god could do so efficently. Not only are the biblical authors ignorant that the sun doesn't actually move - the earth rotates ("Sun, stand still!"), but they likely didn't understand the magnitudes of energy that would be involved to 'stop the sun'. The mass of the earth is around 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons. From calculations I found online, it would require ~6.98 x 10^33 watts of power to stop the rotation of the earth (God would have to make sure everything not bolted down didn't fly east at about 1000 mph at the equator, of course). And then, just a few hours later, he'd need to spend another ~ 6.98 x 10^33 watts of power to start it back up again.
One would think god could have just sprung for some gasoline generators and halogen lights - even with our pithy human technology and losses due to energy conversion, we could very likely light the required area in the sub-megawatt scale.
The biblical god can't even communicate in an efficient manner. Anyone who walked into a business conference room and tried to direct his team through 'visions' and 'interpreting dreams' and 'stories' would be shown the door. The biblical god, however, with what would be described as the most important message for man does just that - myths, beasts, bowls, trupets, statues... just look at today's religions, and see just how well "god" got his message across. Look at how hard JW's struggle to find explainations for a single scripture and stick with that explaination.
In a search for answers of the origin of life by an unguided natural process, science often contradicts itself and nullifies its own theories.
Again, Morris makes a blanket statement without backing it up with anything.
If science contradicts itself, scientists work to come to a better understanding. If science nullifies a theory - it replaces it with a superior theory that better fits the evidence. In no way does that detract from the usefulness of science, and in fact in so doing science gives us more.
- Lime
"I can't continue this any longer. I think my point is made. It's easy to explain any idea that you wish to propose when you A) Don't have anything but the most basic grasp of science, B) Are writing or speaking for an audience that is at the same level of scientific illiteracy as you, and C) have the ace up your sleeve that anything that is impossible was actually done by the invisible wizard in the sky."
If a supreme being created the universe and life as we know it, he can certainly engineer a cataclysmic event and ensure the survival of life as we know it. Stop with the theist = illiterate, atheist = literate take. You know that's intellectually bankrupt. What you think is immaterial to me as I get paid by a credible organization for what I contribute to society. What do you do? Deliver pizzas?
Of all the witnesses I've talked to, their answer for scientists dating on things is 'they've got it wrong' and 'man has only been on the earth 6,000 years'. They believe all that is in the bible and don't like to think 'outside the square'. They don't question anything. It's all gospel to them.
Throughout my University studies on different cultures and belief systems, it astounded me how many use the flood in their 'stories', if not tweaked and altered a little. For example, 'The dreaming' for Australian Aborginal people. They believe in creation, and have stories they pass on on how things were created. Other religions/beliefs have the flood interwoven into their stories too. Having grown up a witness and suddenly being thrown into a University education as naive as I was, I had no idea that people other than the witnesses had thoughts on the flood and creation stories. When I put this to my father, he shrugged it off as 'see, it's all from the bible and people have swayed from it and changed it over time'.
I don't know if the bible is still printed the same way, but it used to have a picture of a dinosaur in the front. So I grew up thinking that dinosaurs lived on the earth the same time as men of old. Is that thinking still the same? Do they think some survived the flood? WAS there a flood?? I have so many questions now...lol.
Strike a nerve, did I? I didn't say anything about literacy. I mentioned Scientific literacy. And no, not all theists are scientifically illiterate. Kenneth Miller is a good example of a theist (Catholic, I believe) that is also a scientist. You would do well to look him up and see what an intellectually honest theist sounds like. However, the clown that you quoted is either a liar or scientifically illiterate. If he wasn't, he would make genuine assertions and hypotheses backed up by data instead of nonsensical fantasies from imagination land.
And no, I don't deliver pizzas. I have owned a successful company for the last twenty years. I have 15 - 20 employees at any given time and I make a very comfortable living. No that that matters.
If a supreme being created the universe and life as we know it, he can certainly engineer a cataclysmic event and ensure the survival of life as we know it.
You've made your argument circular. If you don't like a particular logic or peice of physical evidence, sweep it under the rug as 'god can do anything'.
The bible is the word of god -> therefore, any logic or physical evidence that contradicts the bible must be wrong -> therefore, all evidence confirms that the bible is the word of god.
- Lime
“Likewise, if an army in biblical times needed some extra daylight - one would think an intelligent god could do so efficently. Not only are the biblical authors ignorant that the sun doesn't actually move - the earth rotates ("Sun, stand still!"), but they likely didn't understand the magnitudes of energy that would be involved to 'stop the sun'. The mass of the earth is around 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons. From calculations I found online, it would require ~6.98 x 10^33 watts of power to stop the rotation of the earth (God would have to make sure everything not bolted down didn't fly east at about 1000 mph at the equator, of course). And then, just a few hours later, he'd need to spend another ~ 6.98 x 10^33 watts of power to start it back up again.”
Accordingly the sun kept motionless, and the moon did stand still, until the nation could take vengeance on its enemies. Is it not written in the book of Ja′shar? And the sun kept standing still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set for about a whole day. 14 And no day has proved to be like that one, either before it or after it, in that Jehovah listened to the voice of a man, for Jehovah himself was fighting for Israel. Joshua 10:13-14
What was recorded in Joshua 10:13-14 was Joshua's perception of the solar system as he observed it. Joshua completed the writing in 1450 BCE. The earliest working telescopes were refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608 CE. As far as stopping the rotation of the earth, I take it you're a driver that slams on the breaks with brute force while breaking the speed limit.
I could never make sense of the flood story myself, why would god kill every living thing, all mankind on earth accept one family and some animals,
to put back what was exactly there such as evil men and woman and carnivorous killing animals.
What purpose does this justify.
Another point of interest, if the water had reached the highest mountain tops, that would have taken years to evaporate.
The suggestion that god only flooded the middle eastern part of the world and never touched the rest,
leaves one important question, why did he instruct Noah to gather all the animals in the world a male and a female ?
The flood is just another embellished story told by the ancient Israelites to bring power and reverence to THEIR god,
there many of these stories told throughout the bible. The key factor for men to tell these stories is that they in doing so are the ones
who build up their own personal stature within their culture through this suggestion of fear. Essentially the power
comes through them, spiritual seers of the divine force.
In many of these ancient cultures the one who were said to be spiritually connected to the powerful Divine one in the heavens
were indeed the most well taken care of, in material wealth and subjective power and control within their culture.
This is still the case if you examine many of todays modern seers.
