>and BTW the evidence is overwhelming that the flood was NOT GLOBAL
Here is the basic problem for ex-JWs regarding the evolution/creation debate:
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
Therein is the conflict that we have before us.....look for the next installment.
Rex
Christian Answer to Atheist Bible: the Flood
by Rex 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Rex
-
AlanF
Rex wrote:
: >and BTW the evidence is overwhelming that the flood was NOT GLOBAL
: Actually, NO it is not.
Actually, yes, it is.
A global flood would necessarily leave a number of extremely evident traces. Such traces can be found in a few areas known to have experienced massive flooding in the recent past. Perhaps the best example is the region of eastern Washington called the "channeled scablands". About 12 to 14 thousand years ago, the massive Cordilleran ice sheet from Canada blocked the mouth of the Clark Fork River near Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, and formed a huge lake in the mountains of Idaho and Montana. This lake was bigger than Lake Ontario today. When the lake got deep enough, it broke through the ice dam and all the lake water spilled out over eastern Washington and northeast Oregon, gouging out massive amounts of the lava bedrock and greatly widening the Columbia Gorge. The incredible stripping of bedrock, the massive amounts of debris left over, and a great many other features, are proof that this flooding occurred. Amazingly, it happened at least 40 times. These are now known as the Missoula Floods, after the city of Missoula, Montana, whose site was under about 300 meters of water when Lake Missoula existed.
A massive global flood would dwarf the Missoula Floods, and leave unmistakeable evidence much like what one sees in Washington and Oregon, but on a global scale. The fact that we don't see such evidence is positive proof that no such global flood occurred.
This is easy to see with a more prosaic example. Suppose I claim that a month ago I received third degree burns over my entire body. You look at me and see nothing but fresh, undamaged skin. What could you conclude about my claim? Certainly that it was false, and probably that I'm either a liar or completely delusional.
: That depends on whether you are naturalistic in your presuppositions or you allow for supernatural events. That comes down to world view.
Nonsense. A massive flood will leave massive evidence. We see no such evidence. That's all it takes to disprove a global flood.
: The naturalist world view itself is unsupported by the evidence in the sciences.
Again, nonsense. Conversely, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of supernatural intervention in the world.
: There is shockingly little evidence in the fossil record to support the claims of evolutionists for instance.
Actually there's a tremendous amount. The fossil record and the geological record show many sequences in time of the evolution of structure of plants and animals. Whether the cause of that evolution was naturalistic or supernatural is another question entirely.
: Remember the famous Scopes 'monkey trial'? The whole constructed evoutionary evidence for the prehistoric 'man' I question was a single tooth.
Nonsense. Evidence for man's evolution was presented in the scientific community long before paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn's 1922 announcement of "Nebraska Man" based solely on one worn tooth.
: That tooth was later determined to be from a pig. LOL
You're a typically ignorant creationist, obviously. The tooth was actually from an extinct peccary, which is like a pig but not a pig. The teeth of peccaries and pigs are very much like human teeth, so a worn one is difficult to identify with certainty. Osborn made a stupid blunder in making so much of one worn tooth, but even before the Scopes trial in 1925 he began withdrawing from his 1922 claim, and by 1927 the claim was completely debunked -- by none other than the paleontologist that Osborn had commissioned to be the chief defender of the blunder, one William Gregory. Naturally, many paleontologists never accepted Osborn's claims. This is a good illustration of how science tends to be self-correcting, because when stupid blunders are made, there are always people willing and able to point them out.
: As far as the water canopy theory it is even no longer used in intelligent design circles.
It never was used in those circles. It was, and still is, used in Young-Earth Creationist, Flood Geology circles. Of course, the main proponents of so-called Intelligent Design today distance themselves greatly from nonsense such as YECism and Flood Geology -- to their credit!
: The rain ncessary could have been caused by catastrophic volcanic activity along with the release of huge volumes of water from the 'deeps' and the mountain ranges we have today would not have existed in the heights we presently had.
This is standard YEC Flood Geology nonsense, and has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
AlanF
-
Rex
Hi Alan,
You are arguing from presupposition. Your position determines your argument and your conclusion. Just because you say, 'it's been debunked', does not settle the question at hand. You also make the mistake of arguing with intimidation in mind by assumption that those who no longer use certain theories and explnations are somehow superior or 'more scholarly' than those who do not.
Rex -
DannyBloem
You are arguing from presupposition. Your position determines your argument and your conclusion. Just because you say, 'it's been debunked', does not settle the question at hand. You also make the mistake of arguing with intimidation in mind by assumption that those who no longer use certain theories and explnations are somehow superior or 'more scholarly' than those who do not.
Rex, Sounds like: I do not want to listen to your arguments, because you do not share my opinion. p.s. you did not answer my questions yet. Danny
-
Leolaia
"The earth goes around the sun? You are merely arguing from a heliocentric presupposition! Your preconceived position of heliocentrism determines your argument and conclusion. Just because you say, 'Geocentrism has been debunked', does not make it so.... it does nothing to settle the question at hand. You also make the mistake of arguing your position with intimidation in mind by assuming that those who no longer believe in geocentrism are somehow superior or 'more scholarly' than those who do not. Yes, you may claim that there are so-called 'facts' that prove that the sun does not really rise and set around the earth, but you mistakenly think that presenting your evidence itself proves your position. All it takes is someone giving another interpretation of these 'facts' that seems better than yours and reasonable people will swing to the biblical geocentric position, thinking they have discovered 'new facts'. All we are left with is your prejudice against geocentrism and the 'facts' which reasonably support this biblical view."
-
tdogg
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
I think you are forgeting that the burden of proof lies on those who claim that an event did happen.
Anecdotes from ancient tablets are no proof of anything other than that somone wrote them.
-
Pole
Cool. Another flood thread. How many have we had so far?
Pole -
AlanF
Good Lord! Another mindless YEC! I suppose we'll soon start hearing about the proof that dinosaurs survived the Flood. This of course is proved by the fact that the monster Grendel in the Beowulf legend was really a T-Rex!
Rex wrote:
: You are arguing from presupposition. Your position determines your argument and your conclusion.
Nonsense. I presented extremely strong evidence against a global Noah's Flood. Do you know what evidence is? Of course not -- you're a YEC!
The evidence I presented was quite simple: massive floods produce ripped up land and such; this is proved by the Missoula floods of 12-14,000 years ago; we don't see such evidence around the world; therefore no such massive floods have occurred around the world in recent times. Even a small child can see this. I even illustrated the concept with a hypothetical claim of being massively burned.
Of course, being a braindead YEC, you don't recognize evidence when it goes against your presuppositions -- namely, that there was a global flood cuz the Bible sez so.
: Just because you say, 'it's been debunked', does not settle the question at hand.
No, it certainly does not. But why should anyone bother to present you with further evidence when you've already proved that you won't acknowledge it?
The point is that I can either present a hell of a lot more evidence against a recent global flood, or I can refer any reader to massive tomes on the subject. But why waste bandwidth on morons?
But since you seem to want to challenge knowledgeable people, you go right ahead and present any evidence your little heart desires, and let's see what happens?
But I'm fairly sure that you're going to run away at this point.
: You also make the mistake of arguing with intimidation in mind by assumption that those who no longer use certain theories and explnations are somehow superior or 'more scholarly' than those who do not.
Your English needs a lot of work, since this doesn't quite make sense. Nevertheless, there was nothing intimidating about my statement -- at least, not to someone with a bit of sense. What I said is absolutely true: the leaders of the modern "Intelligent Design" movement don't support YECism or YEC-style Flood Geology. You have an argument with that? Then present your proof.
AlanF
-
Shining One
Hi Alan,
>But since you seem to want to challenge knowledgeable people, you go right ahead and present any evidence your little heart desires, and let's see what happens?
But I'm fairly sure that you're going to run away at this point.
Are you going to 'run away' and just pretend to be above debating the fellow on the Skeptic's Nightmare links?
Rex