Summations Only

I agree with Coyote's main point, that the scientific evidence conflicts with claims of a recent, worldwide flood. But I also agree with some of the complaints of ICANT about the way that Coyote is presenting this.From the OP: Yes, some biblical scholars place a worldwide flood at about this date. But not all. Probably not even the majority. Certainly not the majority of those who know some science.From message 8: Why accept the (young earth) creationist interpretation of the Bible? Why not the "old-earth creationist" or the "evolutionary creationist" interpretation? Most of the above sources are not scholarly. Morris was neither a biblical scholar nor a scientist; he was a hydraulic engineer. Setterfield is not a biblical scholar; he has only a BA in physics, so far as I know.The ASA has some very good scholars (both biblical and scientific), but does not take a firm position on how to interpret the flood account. While there is some diversity of opinion in the ASA, very few members and none of the current leadership hold to a recent, worldwide flood. Yes, I agree. Scientific evidence has falsified the YEC/"Flood Geology" interpretation of the biblical flood account. But note that this does not necessarily falsify the account itself; it only falsifies one particular interpretation of the account. More than 50 years ago biblical scholar Merrill F. Unger called this interpretation "The Nave View", and said that it was "shaky on hermeneutical grounds and absurd on scientific grounds."

And there is another class: those who try to take the account as it would have been understood by the original authors and audience. I believe these have the most scholarly basis for their claims.But such interpretive issues are questions for a Bible study thread, not a science thread. In a science thread, Coyote is right to pick one particular interpretation for a scientific test. Just realize that we are only testing the veracity of that one particular interpretation of the Bible; we are not testing the veracity of the Bible itself.

I agree with Coyote that in a science thread we should pick a particular hypothesis to test. I agree with him that the hypothesis of a recent worldwide flood is a well-known biblical interpretation, and that it begs for scientific validation or disproof. And I agree with him that this interpretation roundly fails the test.I do not agree that this recent worldwide flood interpretation is required if the Bible is posited as true, or that the failure of this interpretation proves the Bible false. And I do not agree that accepting evolution requires rejecting creation. But these are questions for a Bible study thread, not for a science thread.

Yes, I agree. As you probably know, many evangelical scholars think that the biblical account is describing a local or regional flood, not a worldwide flood. Some (e.g. Dick Fischer) would put this recently, in the last 10,000 years. Others (e.g. Glenn Morton) would associate it with the infilling of the Mediterranean, and push it back much further. Still others (e.g. Paul Seely) would make it semi-mythical but based on a real, local flood.But again, these various interpretations are the purview of Bible study, not science. You are right to restrict this science thread to a single, popular interpretation.Where are all of the YEC Flood Geology advocates? Why aren't they here defending their views? I would have expected them to try to present some sort of evidence for their position (e.g. Sir Leonard Wooley's flood layers at Ur).

quote:

---

The point is Mount Ararat shows the general vicinity of the flood - backed by listing of other nations and regions of its surrounds; it cannot be retrospective if it is the first such listing of that mount.

---

BTW, I hope everyone here realizes that the biblical account of the Flood never mentions Mount Ararat. It mentions the mountains (plural) of Ararat. I.e. it is speaking of a region, not of a particular mountain.