Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

I wish you all the best in trying to improve this evidence. As do you. There is no physical evidence for Noah's flood, and your acceptance of it as a real event comes from the Bible, not from evidence, just like TB. The difference between you and TB is only one of proportion. TB ignores much of modern science, while you ignore a lesser amount.Throughout Christian history have been those who believed they knew precisely what the Bible meant. While many Biblical authors wrote very poetically and spiritually, they did not write very precisely. Practically every Biblical passage is open to more than one valid interpretation.--Percy

Wm I have seen it before. It is very strong evidence against the YEC flood. What geo-col era does fossil grove come from? You seem to be unaware that multiple rings can form in some years? Doubt has been cast over such linked tree-ring records by non-creationists. Much of the seminal work was done by one researcher whose mainly excellent work has been questioned in terms of absolute demonstration of continuity. But multiple rings have been observed! And in our scenario the climate might have taken decades/centuries to settle down post flood. Somewhat more than 1000 years since he was created some time in day 6. Cleary in this view Adam's age is timed from his expulsion fom the garden. My saying we are 'in the last generation' is consistent with 'not knowing the day or hour'. I can't predict a year becasue I don't know precisely what the 1000 year days are syncrhonised to or even when Christ was born/died! But assuming the church age starts from Christ's death in 29AD +- 5 years in this scenario it would give 2029 AD +-5 or so years. That may be uncomfortably precise for some but it is not incompatible with 'not knowing the hour or the day'. The book of Daniel revealed the first coming also within a year and the first coming was predicted by the wise men and revealed to various others in Nazereth. That's a good point. The NIV wording leaves open the possibility that it is the events, not the timing, that are uncertain. Possibly unless it meant that the time was hidden up until a certain time durint the church era. Correct. Just like the 2-week story of Isaac and Laban. He got a 'marred' bride first and a 'spotless' one second. Have you noticed that in our scheme there is a wedding at the end of both 6 days: Adam to Eve and Christ to his Bride (see Rev 19). God rested from all His work. Fine with me. Do you really think God is not working now? 'All his work' could easily be the creative work spoken of earlier in the same verse. You interpretaiton sounds fine but is not consisten wiht the 'another day' later in the passage. This is simply inconsistent with the 'another' day coming up in that passage as I said. Ther is abnother rest day period. You call put it some arbitary future time I make it the millenium. Nevertheless, in your own owrds you agree there is 'another rest day' in addition to the creative one. There's no evidecne to support that. How can you possibly say that in the face of: (your link BTW did not work if you did indeed annote Heb 4).In plain English " God would not have spoken of ANOTHER DAY. THERE REMAINS THEN A SABBATH-REST FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD". The rest for the people of God is clearly the 'another day'! It is not the continuation of the creative rest day because it is 'another day'. Your view is not as controversial as ours but you can't pretned that your scenaio does not have problematica. Our sceanio is far more encompassing and hence of coure we have far more problematica: we are trying to explain far more data than you! Of course you have far fewer probelms. If I limit my geological theory to the local geology of my backyard I can have fewer problems again. It surprises noone that your theory can be more easily accomodated.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 02-05-2003]

Edge:
Is it necessary for you to do that yet?
TB:
Yes professional creationist geologists look at paleocurrents and 2D/3D compositional distribution to come to the conclusion that the geo-col is dominated by (i) nmarine inundation and (ii) high energy events.Except that the one-big-flood hypothesis was rejected two centuries ago, before Charles Darwin was born!You are not coming up with unique solutions. Besides we are not using the same data. For instance you ignore completely radiometric dating.We are both coming up with solutions but they are differnt and obviously not uniqiue. We do not igore radiometric dating. We fully accept the decay patterns and ascribe them to accelerated decay which is what generates catastrophic tectonics.Accelerated by a factor of 10^6-10^7! And all decay rates accelerated by almost exactly equal amounts!Despite the fact that different radioactive processes proceed by different physical mechanisms. Which makes that whole claim a load of sauropod dung.They were also drifting slowly 60 My ago.Only if you assume constant radiodecay.Since present-day continental-drift rates agree well with those over the last few million years, that is independent calibration of radioisotope-decay rates.And let us not forget about the Oklo Reactor.Besides how do you accumulate the coral reefs we see in the geological record. And the evaporites. And the fossil record.I've given you our just-so solutions before. You have equally big problems with paleocurrents, huge sorted beds, cyclothems etc. The evidecne for high energy events is overwhelming.Paleocurrents can be produced by rivers and submarine landslides.Huge sorted beds -- like?Cyclothems -- climate/deposition alternations.

Wm:
How could these stumps supposedly settle in muddy YEC flood waters and end up so neatly positioned like this?
TB:
I have seen it before. It is very strong evidence against the YEC flood. What geo-col era does fossil grove come from?Fossilized tree stumps and snags are found across the "geo-col" since the mid-Paleozoic.The oldest known tree is "Methuselah", which is 4,789 years old.You seem to be unaware that multiple rings can form in some years?However, dendrochronologists are aware of such complications -- such unusual behavior would give itself away with other ring features.Also, if trees produce large numbers of extra rings per year, then it's curious that they produce them in such precise synchrony, because otherwise, there would be serious discrepancies between one tree and another.Then it should also be remembered the tree ring record based on these trees with over laps in rings patterns of over a hundred years between trees, extends unbroken into the past for over 10,000 years.Doubt has been cast over such linked tree-ring records by non-creationists.Like who?I have no problem with tree ring dating, the potential problems are small and the science is simple.Much of the seminal work was done by one researcher whose mainly excellent work has been questioned in terms of absolute demonstration of continuity.And where has this continuity been questioned?And I'm sure that any errors in that original researcher's work have been corrected by now. There is a big community of tree-ring researchers; are they all dummies?The multiple ring per year theory has also been an YEC favorite, and is equally absurd since it requires at the very least, large scale occurrence of extreme weather patterns repeated for large scales of time that no one living in those times mentioned or where effected by or shows up in any other way. But multiple rings have been observed! And in our scenario the climate might have taken decades/centuries to settle down post flood.Making every species of tree grow extra rings in exact synchrony, of course.(Biblical-chronology stuff snipped)To tell the truth, I find trees much more interesting than the details of Biblical chronologies.

Dear Tranquility Base;

quote:

---

I have seen it before. It is very strong evidence against the YEC flood. What geo-col era does fossil grove come from?

---

Jurassic I believe, but what I have trouble understanding is the fact that you have seen this strong evidence against YEC and yet you have never bother to investigate it at all. If I was in your shoes I would want to know everything I could about this, if my theories were wrong I sure would want to find out. Makes one wonder how many other cases of "very strong evidence against the YEC flood" you know of, but have never bother to check them out. How can you promote a theory to others if you haven't even checked to see if it is true? How do you expect to convince me with gapping holes like this in YEC that you have no reasonable answer for? Unless you can convince me otherwise, I will regard this evidence as a conclusive disproof of YEC.

quote:

---

You seem to be unaware that multiple rings can form in some years?

---

Actually I knew it would be the first thing out of your mouth. Multiple ring formation is rare and some trees are not very prone to it at all, which is why I referred to the Bristlecone Pine tree dendrochronology rather than any of the other tree ring records. The only way a tree species like the Pinus arisata is going to form more than one ring is if there is more than one growing season in the year. In other words you need a 'winter' in the middle of summer to create the formation of a dormant or winter type ring in the middle of the summer ring. These trees live under very difficult conditions, adding a frequent 'extra winter season' long enough to create a winter ring, will kill the trees off in probably just a few years. So claiming many extra rings is impossible, in fact if the climate in the summer is cold, the summer ring can fail to form in some trees resulting in a 'missing ring'. This means of course that if any error is possible, under counting is more likely than over counting. To check, a tree ring record from another area is used to cross check the two records to see if they agree. A book I have stated on the Bristlecone record. "an independent check on the last 5,405 years of the chronology was possible using a separately developed bristlecone chronology for the Campito Mountains region of California (LaMarche and Harlan, 1973 ). This work showed that the two chronologies agreed exactly over the whole of the last five millennia. It is therefore safe to assume that the whole of the chronology is correct." Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology by M.G.L. Baillie. So you have two records here that agree exactly, and then there are the other tree ring records from around the world. Clearly claiming the formation of extra rings would then require extreme cold seasons in the middle of summer earth wide for hundreds or thousands of years to account for all the supposed extra rings, yet in the Bible no one mentions this and we find no physical evidence of any sort to support such a wild theory. So unless you can up with some better answers, I will regard the tree ring record as another conclusive disproof of YEC.On Bible chronology you stated;

quote:

---

Cleary in this view Adam's age is timed from his expulsion fom the garden.

---

The chronology is given in Genesis chapter 5, and starts with the words "This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them man. When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son . . . " NIV. As you can see from the context Adam's age was counted from his creation, not from the expulsion. This still leaves you with a 1000 year error in your chronology.

quote:

---

My saying we are 'in the last generation' is consistent with 'not knowing the day or hour'.

---

Correct, we only know the season, but if you were correct about the start of the millennium being related to the timing of the creative days, then all the spirit creatures who were in heaven at the creation would know the time which is biblically impossible. Therefore there can be no relation between the timing of the millennium and the creative periods.

quote:

---

That's a good point. The NIV wording leaves open the possibility that it is the events, not the timing, that are uncertain.

---

What Matthew 24:36 states is "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." verse 42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come." The events were described earlier in the chapter, the point as shown by verse 42 was that they did not know when it would happen, they were not told to stay awake because you do not know what will happen. The context is clear, it was the timing that was unknown.

quote:

---

In plain English " God would not have spoken of ANOTHER DAY. THERE REMAINS THEN A SABBATH-REST FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD". The rest for the people of God is clearly the 'another day'! It is not the continuation of the creative rest day because it is 'another day'.

---

You seem to have a major mental block that is preventing you from understanding this point, which is to be expected since if you did, your whole YEC belief system would come crashing down. Hebrews 4:8 does indeed refer to two rest days as we both agree. We also both agree that the second one is God's rest day. What we differ on is what the first referred to in verse 8 is, you say it is the seventh day, I say it was the figurative rest day when the Jews entered the promised land. In the NIV footnote it states it was "Israel's going into Canna under Joshua", and verse 8 even states "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day." The first day spoken of here, according to both the footnote and the context of the verse, was the entry into the promised land. The second or 'another' mentioned here is none other than the seventh day. If verse 8 was really talking about two separate divine rest days as you claim, why does it start with talking about the rest Joshua had given them?--Wm Scott Anderson

Dear PercyYou had stated;

quote:

---

Biblical authors wrote very poetically and spiritually, they did not write very precisely. Practically every Biblical passage is open to more than one valid interpretation.

---

That is a common misconception, while poetic and some verses are indeed open to more than one possible meaning, nearly all of the Bible is clearly enough written that it supports only one interpretation. If it was as ambiguous as you seem to think, I would be unable to debate TB on interpretation.--Wm Scott Anderson

Boy, have you ever got things backward! If it were as unambiguous as you seem to think, you and TB wouldn't be having a debate on interpretation.--Percy

Dear PercyThe problem with biblical interpretation is not due to the way the Bible is written, the problem is with the way it is read. Now there are many things in the Bible such as symbolic prophecies that take much study and cross referencing to understand, but much is perfectly plain and clear, yet many people still have trouble understanding. For example at Matthew 23:1-12 Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, pride, wearing identifying clothing and wanting to be called by titles such as 'Rabbi'. Then starting in verse 8 he tells his disciples they are not to be like that, and in verse 9 he commands "do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." he continues on and condemns the use of titles among his followers and states that those who would take the lead should do so in a humble manner setting an example. The wording is as simple and clear as is the meaning. Yet most Christian religions have titled leaders who wear identifying clothing and act like, well like Pharisees. Some religions even use the title Father even though Christ personally specifically forbid its use as such. Just think of all those televangelists, they make even the Pharisees look good. So why do people have trouble understanding the Bible? It is because they aren't really willing to hear what it is telling them. They consciously or unconsciously reinterpret it in such a way that they think it said what they want it to say. They aren't really listening. It doesn't matter how simple and clear the message is if people don't want to understand it. They are blinded by their own religious doctrinal prejudices, if they were able to see past such, they would quickly see that much of what they have been taught is actually in conflict with the Word of God. Since Christians have a great emotional stake in having the Bible back up their belief system, they suddenly have trouble understanding the meaning of any part of the Bible that threatens their belief structure. That is why TB is having trouble understanding the verses I post that contradict YEC, it is not because the wording is vague or complicated. The Bible is an open book to those with open minds.--Wm Scott Anderson

Hmmm. Blinded by their own religious doctrinal prejudices. Having a great emotional stake in having the Bible back up their belief system. This is as true of you as it is of TB. TB could as easily have written the same passage, merely changing the conclusion to read, "And that is why WmScott is having trouble understanding the Bible."The reason you and TB are two peas in a pod (with lots of other company here) is because you accept the flood as fact based upon revelation instead of evidence.--Percy

Dear Percy;Yes there is always the possibility of being blinded by one's own prejudices, it is a good point for everyone to bear in mind. (Hint, hint) From your viewpoint I imagine that TB and I do indeed look like two peas in a pod, but I gather from your point of view, all who believe look the same. There is a word for your viewpoint, the word is prejudiced. So we come full circle, that is the way it is when you start pointing fingers. You have your own blind spot as well that has prevented you from seeing some things. But we digress from the subject, remember the flood topic? Now in regard to the flood, I haven't been basing my arguments here on proving a flood by citing scriptures. I have been using physical evidence to support the occurrence of the biblical flood. I respect those who accept the biblical flood on pure faith alone, but I am not one of them, I like to look behind the curtain.--Wm Scott Anderson

If we're talking religion here, then I've made no prejudicial expressions. I said nothing against yours or TB's religious beliefs. I've been pretty clear in only criticizing:

• Your belief that in your Biblical discussions with TB there is only one correct interpretation.
• Basing your science upon revelation instead of evidence.

Your religious beliefs have so colored your judgment that you grasp every flimsy straw as evidence of the flood. So does TB. Science works through consensus of the many so as to balance out individual beliefs and biases, and yours and TB's and LRP's and Peter Borger's inability to achieve any consensus should be telling you something about how scientific all your views are. You've all rejected each other's theories, accepting only your own personal viewpoint. You Creationists are not really all that different from the evolutionists who reject your theories - the only difference is that we reject them all while you reject all but one.--Percy

Hi WmScott! The charge of prejudice puzzled me and has been kind of simmering in my unconscious, and then today it suddenly hit me why you said this. You didn't quote what you were replying to, but my message was short so it must have been this: These aren't my sentiments, I was merely echoing your own thoughts back to you from Message 144 where you said: I didn't put quotes around it because it wasn't word-for-word what your wrote, I just assumed you'd recognize it. My point, in case it wasn't obvious, is that you are apparently as susceptible to such influences as those Christians you criticize.--Percy

No posts in a couple weeks, closing this thread.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I'm reopening this thread by request. I closed it because of lack of activity, but I would have left it open anyway had it not been that discussion seems to have become stuck, with all parties having already aired their views, and with what is happening now a mere rehash of previously stalemated points, and with the last parts of the discussion having little to do with the original topic.If there is anything original left to be said on this topic then post it here, but the last part of the discussion about the influence of religious beliefs on scientific interpretation probably belongs in a thread in the Faith and Belief forum.Lastly, I shouldn't be moderating my own threads, but hopefully this is fairly neutral.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Dear Percy;Actually I find it is your attitude that is prejudiced, not your use of specific wording. You are prejudiced in thinking that all who believe are the same, that TB and I are like two peas in a pod, that is clearly a prejudicial stereotyping as is your belief that all creationists are guilty of "accepting only your own personal viewpoint". While such a statement may be true of many creationists it is not true for all and is clearly a prejudiced statement. In the days of slavery it was true that many black Americans were uneducated, but it was certainly untrue and prejudicial to say that all blacks were uneducated. To lump any group of people and state that additional features are universal that were not part of the initial classification, is prejudicial stereotyping. It is like saying all Scottish men are cheap, which is not necessarily true, while saying that all cheap Scottish men are cheap, is true. You are guilty of making assumptions based on incorrect conclusions. Your belief that there is no means of deciding correct or incorrect theories on the flood or creation among those who believe, is also wrong. The scientific standard of evidence and proof is still in effect even if many choose to ignore it, there are those who follow it and you are lumping them unfairly with the others. Even in the case of TB and myself, if you have been following the discussion you know I have shown that YEC is in conflict with scripture and the evidence, while TB who has read my book, has not even challenged me. TB's second departure from this thread speaks for itself. If it was the free for all that you seem to think it is, TB would still be posting here on an equal footing, but that is not the case. TB may not accept my arguments, but he has been unable to answer them. Now when TB and a geologist have an argument about the age of the earth in another thread, and TB is unable to answer and slips away, I don't jump in and say that the geologist and TB are like two peas in a pod and each is only accepting their own opinion. I can see the difference between the two, if you can't see the difference between TB and me it is because you are blinded by your own prejudice. To you the differences between TB and me don't matter since you have already pre judged us, the very meaning of the word prejudiced.My one real problem with your prejudice is that it precludes you from acting as a fair and impartial judge, since you have already made up your mind. No amount of evidence is going to be able to break down your wall since it is inside your mind and can only be breached from the inside. Repeatedly you have stated that my evidence failed to convince you, which is of course impossible to do since you are convinced you already know the answers. If you are really going to fairly evaluate what may seem like a nutty idea to you, you need to be willing to say what if this is true, what would the implications be? If you can't mentally allow for this possibility, you don't really have an open mind and will reject many things without giving them a fair chance. Granted most things from the fringe are untrue, but perhaps not all are, to assume so would be prejudicial. Why even have long discussions if you have ready decided the out come? In your own way, your mind is just as closed as some of the YECs you argue with. A discussion between two closed minds is an illusion, a true discussion is a free exchange of ideas, which can only occur between two open minds each willing to consider the viewpoint of the other.So are there any open minds out there that would like to discuss the Biblical flood?--Wm Scott Anderson