|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Does Creation Science Give Comfort to the Enemy?
|
Christian Agnostic
Shipmate
# 14912
|
Posted
As some of you know by now, I'm trying to foment a rebellion against the evangelical atheists ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) , but I thought I'd bring up the topic of creation "science" and the damage it has done to the Christian cause and Christian apologetics ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) .
--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"
Posts: 493 | From: The Great North Woods | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
All discussions of Creation vs. Evolution, Creationism, and Creation Sciences, belong on the Dead Horses board. That doesn't mean we can't have a lively and productive discussion of the topic there; just means a change of address. Please place your chair backs and tables in the upright position and enjoy your flight to DH.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
In a lot of ways Creationism is a "cargo cult" of modern science, adopting the trappings of scientific inquiry and scientific terminology in order to gain the respect accorded to scientific knowledge in our society. On a certain level it's a tacit admission that belief in miraculous happenings through faith alone is insufficiently convincing, even to adherents. If one considers faith to be crucial to Christianity, the Creationist search for proof or evidence would seem to undermine this.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Creosos,
Thats a very good point imo. Whilst I have to accept that I think Creationism has at least exposed some very bad evolutionary science when it comes to evolution of species.
For example, as a former student of geology I know at the time of great interest in micro fossils that the macro fossil record was being doubted as reliable enough, and certainly not showing enough to support transitional fossils between species. And as for mutation, if one can't reproduce new species 'in tne lab' ist suggests that isnt how it happened in the past.
Darwin always felt the fossil record would as it grew expose transitional fossil record, yet one could argue it has proved the opposite.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Creosos [sic],
Thats a very good point imo. Whilst I have to accept that I think Creationism has at least exposed some very bad evolutionary science when it comes to evolution of species.
For example, as a former student of geology I know at the time of great interest in micro fossils that the macro fossil record was being doubted as reliable enough, and certainly not showing enough to support transitional fossils between species. And as for mutation, if one can't reproduce new species 'in tne lab' ist suggests that isnt how it happened in the past.
Darwin always felt the fossil record would as it grew expose transitional fossil record, yet one could argue it has proved the opposite.
This illustrates the other main failing of Creationism, the failure to come up with a positive hypothesis. The assumption seems to be that if enough evidence is amassed to disprove descent with modification then Creationism gets to be right by default, which is an obvious bifurcation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
As some of you know by now, I'm trying to foment a rebellion against the evangelical atheists , but I thought I'd bring up the topic of creation "science" and the damage it has done to the Christian cause and Christian apologetics .
You're not the first to have this thought. About 1600 years ago, Augustine said:
quote:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The only answer is yes! Young Earth Creationism does huge harm to Christianity.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
I don't think Creation Science is a big problem but Young Earth Creationism is. Not many people have much opinion on Irreducible Complexity, but a 4004 BC creation and museums showing "dinosaur saddles" is a different matter.
I've recently been to two comedy gigs - Marcus Brigstocke and Eddie Izzard. Interestingly, both seemed to have recently become atheists (or perhaps much stronger atheists), and in both gigs:- Attacks on religion featured heavily.
- Incredulity at Young Earth Creationism played a significant part.
- All Christians were characterised as YECcies.
It slightly dampened both evenings for me*. I kept wanting to yell "Try The Ship!"
(* But not as much as sitting on tiny hard seats, coming down with flu, and having a 280lb BNP supporter wedged next to me did. Never expected that at Eddie Izzard.)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I don't think Creation Science is a big problem
Errata: That should read "Intelligent Design".
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I don't think Creation Science is a big problem
Errata: That should read "Intelligent Design".
They're the same thing. Just ask any cdesign proponentsists. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Some wag suggested that typo was just a transitional fossil. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I don't think Creation Science is a big problem
Errata: That should read "Intelligent Design".
I don't know. I've seen some pretty godawful stuff that, while not assuming a 6000 or so year old earth, was fairly horrible science.
The thing that bugs me about a lot of this so-called "intelligent design" is that it manages somehow to be neither scientific nor biblical (I'm not sure whether it even counts as theology.) Losing their moorings in either style, they seem to have wandered into some strange philosophical limbo where nothing really makes sense. I wonder if they are even aware of what they're arguing for.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
I consider myself to be a "form" of IDer. But definitely not arguing for any biblical kind of ID. I separate empirical from metaphysical: and consign science to study of the empirical ONLY.
It is not possible to prove OR disprove God: by "God" I mean a Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place. Beyond that no one can go. The whole universe is a manifestation of the NC's Existence: our own intelligence proves that the NC is intelligent (because intelligence cannot arise from a cause that does not possess intelligence as a trait; that would be ex nihilo). So our existence is defacto proof of ID.
Purpose is another proof: we have purpose, ergo ID also has purpose. What purpose actually is, is the quest of every sapient soul....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is not possible to prove OR disprove God: by "God" I mean a Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place. Beyond that no one can go. The whole universe is a manifestation of the NC's Existence: our own intelligence proves that the NC is intelligent (because intelligence cannot arise from a cause that does not possess intelligence as a trait; that would be ex nihilo). So our existence is defacto proof of ID.
Purpose is another proof: we have purpose, ergo ID also has purpose. What purpose actually is, is the quest of every sapient soul....
This sort of confused mish mash is the biggest problem with Intelligent Design and is probably the kind of thing Bullfrog was complaining about. You start with the assertion that what you call the "Necessary Cause of Existence" is unprovable, and then proceed to assert the characteristics of this entity you claim not to be sure exists and do so in a way that invites an infinite regress. (Intelligence arises from an intelligent cause, therefor the NCE must be intelligent. Since the NCE is intelligent, it must therefore have an intelligent cause, which must also have an intelligent cause, which likewise . . . etc.) Then you do the same thing with "purpose", applying bald assertion to an ill-defined term.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
And as for mutation, if one can't reproduce new species 'in tne lab' ist suggests that isnt how it happened in the past.
Darwin always felt the fossil record would as it grew expose transitional fossil record, yet one could argue it has proved the opposite.
A - failure to reproduce doesn't show that. Not to mention that evolution rates in bacteria/other single-celled organisms are insane. Also, speciation has been shown even this year on finches in the Galapagos.
B - the expanded fossil record has shown many transitional species. They may not live up to what you hope to see, but given the odds of fossil creation, what we have is pretty damn impressive.
quote:
Not many people have much opinion on Irreducible Complexity
I'd have to disagree with you there. Atheist crowds at least online, and science-educated crowds in general, from what I've seen, have just as little respect for IC as they do for ID and YEC (the first two are basically synonomous, and almost so w/ the third).
IDs problem is that it tries to do science in the gaps between currently known things, and do this to disprove evolutionary theory. But, the gaps keep getting filled in a manner perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. Whoever mentioned the lack of a positive hypothesis has it right.
Creation Scientists are also famously ill-trained in their "fields" - typically no rigorous scientific background. That, or they get a PhD, and rapidly leave "real" research for writing polemics about ID.
The biggest problem though is that the YEC stance (along w/ biblical literalism as far as I can see) requires us to deny the evidence of our own senses. There is no support for it, and much support against it. Faith overriding our senses (physical and common/horse/etc) *is* a huge problem for religion in general, and the Creation Science position/crowd show this in sharp relief.
This denial of what our senses and reason tell us is a beyond huge sticking point/damaging spear for the world vs. some (very vocal) Christians.
This isn't to say that a creation isn't impossible. I find the idea of a creation compelling, and it is the biggest thread tying me to Christianity still. I don't see how it can be postulated to any degree though, just a fairly absurd statement accepting things like Nick Bostrom's ancestor simulation theory, Slartibartfast and the Magratheans from Douglas Adams, a Matrix-style universe, or that creation could have happened 2 minutes ago.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The only answer is yes! Young Earth Creationism does huge harm to Christianity.
Though, the OP asked about Creation Science. Whereas Young Earth Creationism isn't the same thing. Although I don't accept YEC, I can see the arguments for it having validity. It's based on an understanding of the nature of Scripture as divine revelation and literally inerrant (another view I don't hold), and in that view a Young Earth and Creator God are an obvious reading of the opening chapters of Genesis (though, not the only reading I might add).
YEC of the form that says "This is what I believe the Bible to teach" isn't a problem IMO. Especially if that's accompanied by an acceptance that the creation believed in must have included the 'evidence' of an old earth - ie: science is right, it's just that the evidence for an old earth and evolution was part of the recent creation. Of ocurse, there's a quaetion there about whether God deceived us in doing that - but one that can, I believe, be answered reasonably well in terms of a demand for faith.
Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.
Technically that's more of a problem for science than a problem for "the Christian cause and Christian apologetics" as stated in the OP.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
As an aside, in the Times Literary Supplement this year, the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel (who should know better) chose a tome propounding intelligent design as a book of the year. Cue indignant exchange in the letters page.
(*) What its name was, I neither remembe nor care.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.
Technically that's more of a problem for science than a problem for "the Christian cause and Christian apologetics" as stated in the OP.
Why is it a problem for science? The vast majority of scientists, even in disciplines relevant to the discussion, work in total ignorance of Creation 'Science'. And, even when they're aware of what the Creation 'Scientists' claim it's not impacting their scientific work by simple virtue of being so totally way off base as science that it's irrelevant.
The only problems it can create for science is if it results in a near constant media demand for comments from scientists on the latest conjecture postulated by Creation Science, if they have to battle demands for Creation Science to get a place in the class room, or if they find their work misquoted in support of some form of idiocy (something I know has happened in relation to C14 dating, where papers reporting AMS performance, including background levels using fossil coal are used to give detection limits that would translate to 40-50k years are used to state that coal that's millions of years old is only a few 10s of thousands of years old).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
A few random thoughts (I'll try to stay on-topic-ish) ....
Croesus says quote:
If one considers faith to be crucial to Christianity, the Creationist search for proof or evidence would seem to undermine this.
In my opinion, the question of whether "faith" is crucial for Christianity or not, or whether it is in conflict with "proof" or not, depends not just on how you define "proof" but also how you define "faith".
If "proof" is defined as "mathematical induction", then not only is impossible for the Bible to prove anything, it's also impossible for science or history to prove anything either. The word "proof" is often used to refer to results of experiments that, strictly speaking, aren't "proofs" but "demonstrations". But personally, I'm more interested in how "faith" is defined.
There are many different ways in which "faith" gets defined, it seems. For example, "faith" could be belief of idea that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all sins. Or belief that God made the world in seven days. Or it could be defined in terms of what James says about the sort of "faith" that has "works".
However, in my opinion, in the context of Paul's letter to the Romans, and 2 Maccabees 6-7, "faith" probably doesn't mean much more than belief in the idea that the martyrs and the saints have not died in vain, because they're going to rise from the dead to see the dawning of God's kingdom really soon. The reason none of us can be justified by law is because if we are still alive, and if we haven't died and risen from the dead ourselves, then we can't claim to have made the highest sacrifice that a human can make - that is, to sacrifice our lives for God - and therefore we can't truthfully claim to be more righteous than those who have. However, as long as we believe that the martyrs haven't died in vain, and that they really will rise from the dead, then we are justified by that faith. Or at least, that's what I think Paul is trying to get at in the letter to the Romans.
And - without putting too fine a point on it - if we are martyrs, then we will rise from the dead too. There's a difference between martyrdom and suicide, though, because, ultimately, our lives belong to God, and we are answerable to God on how we handle the gift of our lives. Hence what Paul says in Romans 12:1 about being a "living sacrifice".
But how is it possible for the martyrs to rise from the dead? That's where the reasoning of the mother of the seven brothers 2 Maccabees 7:27-29 comes in. Quoted in the NRSV:
quote:
But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native language as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: ‘My son, have pity on me. I carried you for nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you. I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being. Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again along with your brothers.’
The whole point is that we don't know how God created everything. All we know is that he did create everything, using methods that are mysterious to us.
Now if we were to insist that we do know exactly how God created everything, because Genesis tells us so - then I think we'd be implicitly denying that God is sovereign enough to be able to raise us from the dead.
But it's not as if Genesis contains a set of instructions by which we can all create worlds of our own, is it? Until the day comes when we can create and destroy complete worlds under controlled conditions, neither prehistory nor eschatology can be considered scientific. There is no such thing as a "scientific" account of how things came to be, or how they will end. This is also the reason why there can be no such thing as a "scientific consensus on global warming".
But even if "intelligent design" was "science" (which it isn't), it still wouldn't be "proof" - at least not in the "mathematical induction" sense of the word.
Joesphine says
quote:
You're not the first to have this thought. About 1600 years ago, Augustine said:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.
Hmm. Unless I've got my history muddled up, the catalyst for Augustine trying to allegorise the eschatological stuff (and therefore, by extension, all time-bound stuff, including the creation story) was the fighting between the Catholics and the Donatists. Basically, Diocletian was a bloke who held high rank in the Roman empire's government and military structure, and he wanted Christians to stop being Christians for some reason. But he didn't want to make Christians into martyrs in the process, since he was aware that attempts to threaten to kill Christians for failing to renounce their faith had backfired in the past. So he pressurised Christians into handing over their scriptures, their relics, and the names and addresses of their church leaders, whilst backing off from forcing ordinary rank-and-file Christians to make sacrifices to pagan gods under threat of death.
A few Christians were martyred in the process - but a lot of Christians complied with Diocletian's orders. But many Christians were unhappy about the fact that some Christians complied, and started accusing them of selling out to Diocletian, and not being "proper Christians". These rebellious Christians separated from the "Catholics" to become the "Donatists".
Then Constantine came along and said that Christianity was going to be the new official Roman State Religion. The Catholics at first saw this as a sign that the millenarian kingdom of God on earth that they had read about in the books of Daniel and Revelation had finally come true - but the Donatists could not reconcile to the Catholics, so fighting between Catholics and Donatists continued. Augustine weighs in, and says words to the effect of "you know what? All this apocalyptic millenarian stuff in the books of Daniel and Revelation - perhaps let's not take it quite so literally after all. Yeah yeah I know it seems like the Second Coming of Christ is the whole point of the faith, and I realise that loads of saints and martyrs have sacrificed themselves for precisely this faith - but don't you think it would be better if we all stopped fighting and, um, just, loved each other instead? Especially now that the Roman empire seems to love us too. Well, I thought so anyway - so I've jotted down a few thoughts about this, you'll find it in my latest book, it's called 'City of God Against the Pagans', see what you think."
But Augustine certainly hasn't had the last word on the matter. Clearly not everyone is happy with the allegorisation - otherwise I don't suppose the Adventist or the Brethren churches would exist, regardless of what we think are the rights and wrongs of their doctrines.
Surely the whole point of the Christian faith is hope for the future, isn't it? So I think there's a limit to how far that scriptural reports of past and future events can be allegorised. Whilst I personally don't think that science contradicts Christian hope for the future, I'm aware that not everyone sees it that way. And whilst I don't think that belief in young earth creation is essential for Christian future hope, on the other hand, I think it can help to conceptualise the future hope. Put simply, the idea that God's kingdom is worth waiting for isn't so daft if you don't think the world is that old to start off with.
Alan Cresswell says quote:
Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.
How are we defining "science"? In my opinion, "science" is the testing of a hypothesis that can be tested, and reporting the results, regardless of whether the results confirm the hypothesis or not. If the hypothesis can't be tested, then it's not "science".
However, the problem of calling things "science" when they're not is by no means peculiar to creationism and intelligent design. It also crops up quite a lot in government policy on education and criminal justice, all over the world. I recommend Richard Feynman's essay on Cargo Cult Science for more on this, it's still as true now as it was when he wrote it, in my opinion.
Indeed - there's no scientific evidence for the idea that a democratically elected government is any better for a nation's GDP-per-capita stats than a totalitarian regime. So why do we bother with democracy? Is it because it's somehow "scientific"?
So I think the problem is that too many people, both Christians and non-Christians alike, muddle "science" up with "appeal to authority".
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Alan Cresswell says quote:
Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.
How are we defining "science"? In my opinion, "science" is the testing of a hypothesis that can be tested, and reporting the results, regardless of whether the results confirm the hypothesis or not. If the hypothesis can't be tested, then it's not "science".
Yep, sounds like a not unreasonable working definition of science - though there would need to be a bit of fleshing out what is meant by "tested" or "confirmation" etc.
Now, in what way does that affect what I wrote? Geology, evolutionary biology, genetics etc makes testable hypotheses and reports advances in theoretical considerations, investigations and experimentations in peer-reviewed literature. And, haven't been found wanting. Creation 'Science' makes hardly any hypotheses at all, it's mostly attempts to discredit mainstream science and offer an untestable alternative, and doesn't report anything in readily accessible places.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is not possible to prove OR disprove God: by "God" I mean a Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place. Beyond that no one can go. The whole universe is a manifestation of the NC's Existence: our own intelligence proves that the NC is intelligent (because intelligence cannot arise from a cause that does not possess intelligence as a trait; that would be ex nihilo). So our existence is defacto proof of ID.
Purpose is another proof: we have purpose, ergo ID also has purpose. What purpose actually is, is the quest of every sapient soul....
This sort of confused mish mash is the biggest problem with Intelligent Design and is probably the kind of thing Bullfrog was complaining about. You start with the assertion that what you call the "Necessary Cause of Existence" is unprovable, and then proceed to assert the characteristics of this entity you claim not to be sure exists and do so in a way that invites an infinite regress. (Intelligence arises from an intelligent cause, therefor the NCE must be intelligent. Since the NCE is intelligent, it must therefore have an intelligent cause, which must also have an intelligent cause, which likewise . . . etc.) Then you do the same thing with "purpose", applying bald assertion to an ill-defined term.
Not ill-defined: simply stated without definition.
There is no regression ("turtles all the way down") when you hold a concept of the Necessary Cause. It is in fact the only Cause that is not itself caused.
Existence in the first place is a FACT: it needs explanation: only the NC explains Existence in the first place.
For the NC to be accurately conceived in the mind, it must be larger than the greatest concept imaginable (the old, exclusive ontological argument -- which cannot be falsified by application to anything else BUT the NC).
For intelligence and purpose to not be ex nihilo, the NC must be (possess) both traits....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is no regression ("turtles all the way down") when you hold a concept of the Necessary Cause. It is in fact the only Cause that is not itself caused.
Existence in the first place is a FACT: it needs explanation: only the NC explains Existence in the first place.
If you believe that everything that exists requires an explanation, then either your NC doesn't exist or it requires an explanation. Hence the infinite regress. If you want to special plead against the need of an explanation of the NC you'll need something better than "because otherwise there'd be an infinite regression".
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
For the NC to be accurately conceived in the mind, it must be larger than the greatest concept imaginable (the old, exclusive ontological argument -- which cannot be falsified by application to anything else BUT the NC).
How do you measure the size of a concept? For example, which is bigger: democracy or quantum mechanics? And what is the magnitude of the difference? How big is the biggest concept, and how much bigger must the NC be than this?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
I don't think it does, particularly.
I agree with the distinction between YEC and Creation Science to a point, though they are very linked.
In both cases it helps to remember that the thinking proceeds from the point of believing that the bible is Truth. Hence you understand measurements of nature by that standard - and reject anything which doesn't fit it.
So great thicknesses of sphagnum peat or kilometers of sedimentary rock cannot be evidence of an old (-er than a few thousand years) earth because that would invalidate the biblical record. So there must be some other explanation, however imaginary or unlikely.
In terms of Creation Science, I'd say it is probably most damaging to the person that believes it then is challenged by evidence which cannot fit the worldview.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aggg:
In both cases it helps to remember that the thinking proceeds from the point of believing that the bible is Truth. Hence you understand measurements of nature by that standard - and reject anything which doesn't fit it.
But once you do that, you cease to be doing science. It's doing this and calling it "science" that is the problem.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you believe that everything that exists requires an explanation, then either your NC doesn't exist or it requires an explanation.
Existence requires explanation; not everything individually: that is the job of science.
quote:
Hence the infinite regress. If you want to special plead against the need of an explanation of the NC you'll need something better than "because otherwise there'd be an infinite regression".
Why "something better?" Unless we are talking about an infinitely expanding multiverse, an infinity of any lesser concepts is examination of obviously lesser concepts than what the NC must be.
quote:
How do you measure the size of a concept? For example, which is bigger: democracy or quantum mechanics? And what is the magnitude of the difference? How big is the biggest concept, and how much bigger must the NC be than this?
Other comparisons do not relate to the NC: it stands alone.
Anytime that you want to determine if a concept for the NC is accurate, you "fallsify" it with a greater concept: if you can't come up with a greater concept, then until you do, that greatest concept will stand as your "model" of the NC to you: it is all that is revealed to you, so far, in any case.
But to take ALL of our concepts of the NC would not even form a beginning of what the NC is; no amount of finite combinations can begin to define the infinite: at best, we can come up with a definition of what the NC is to us, i.e. how it manifests for us.
The one concept that cannot be exceeded, as far as I can tell at this point, is that the NC causes space-time yet Existence in the first place is not bound by it. The implication of this is that the NC perceives ALL as encompassed by NOW: yet within NOW space-time and the infinitely expanding multiverse exist. Also the VOID exists: Existence in the first place and nothing else....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Alan Cresswell says quote:
Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.
How are we defining "science"? In my opinion, "science" is the testing of a hypothesis that can be tested, and reporting the results, regardless of whether the results confirm the hypothesis or not. If the hypothesis can't be tested, then it's not "science".
I am not convinced that testing is central to science. At least, I don't think palaeontology is more or less testable than archaeology, but one is science and the other isn't.
I'm suspect Kuhn had it right when it comes to science: science is a way of generating general empirical theories about the non-human world based on paradigmatic experiments or theories.
That might mean that creation science or intelligent design do qualify as science. After all, climatology explains some features of the climate (the mean global temperature going up) as the result of the action of intelligent beings. The problem with intelligent design theories isn't that they're not science; it's that as science they're done badly.
The book of Genesis is not science: it does not ask to be judged by the standards of science. It asks to be judged by other standards. It is a good example of something else.
Intelligent design and creation science not good examples of something else; they're incompetent, if not dishonest, examples of science.
[ 31. December 2009, 10:04: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
I find myself in the odd position of attempting to defend the indefensible.. however..
To use Myrrh's example from another thread, it is possible to posit a fairly science-based argument based on limited information. If you are coming from a position of imagining that the majority of scientists are wrong and operating in a huge conspiracy, it is not so difficult to believe that sea levels are constant worldwide or that CO2 molecules sink because they're heavy.
And further, it is not then difficult to imagine experiments which prove your point or to refuse to listen to anything else.
I'd still hesitate to say this isn't science. It is certainly operating from an alternative worldvision. It is certainly refusing to accept the validity of the majority of the data. But - I think - science as a method can still be followed fairly by someone who is operating from a false starting point. Of course, what is missing is any sort of peer review - because one does not accept the testimony of peers.
I'm just not sure it is fair to call it dishonest. It is operating from a point that others would not accept - ie that the bible is literally true and therefore anything that suggests otherwise must be wrong. From that point of view, it is arguably being entirely consistent and scientific.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am not convinced that testing is central to science. At least, I don't think palaeontology is more or less testable than archaeology, but one is science and the other isn't.
I would say that good science should include an element of prediction. Science takes a set of observations and draws up a hypothesis that explains those explanations. Of course, any finite set of data can be explained by several hypotheses. And, no set of data is entirely without uncertainties that opens the field for additional hypotheses that fit the data.
Scientists employ two methods to try and distinguish between different hypotheses that fit the data. The first is an Ockhams Razor test of simplicity. If I have a data set that says for x=1 I get y=1, x=2 y=2, x=4 y=4, x=10 y=10 then I can produce a large number of different lines that go through that data set, but I would prefer to simply say y=x. The second means of distinguishing between hypotheses is to use your hypothesis to make a prediction. In the above example, I would predict that if someone measured y when x=20 they should get y=20.
Both archaeology and paleantology generate hypotheses that fit the available data. Both make predictions based on those hypotheses. The sort of predictions made might include "fossil X looks like it's from an organism that evolved from Y. We predict that the fossils of X will be in younger rock than Y, with a possible period when both co-existed" or "this site contains artefacts at 50cm below the current surface associated with with a distant culture. We conclude that trade was extensive at the time, and other sites of the same date along possible trade routes will also contain similar artefacts."
A big difference between archaeology, paleaontology (and some other disciplines such as cosmology) and other sciences is that the predictions can only be tested against chance events that may never happen - species X and Y may have never been very numerous and there is only one example of each and others may never be discovered to allow an age distribution of the fossils to be constructed, all other sites of that age along the potential trade routes have been substantially redeveloped in more recent times destroying the archaeological record.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Oops, I was going to add a comment that that addresses the points aggg raised. I think it might be possible for Creation Science or Intelligent Design to genuinely be science. But, certainly as mostly practiced, both disciplines fail to reach that point.
My experience of both (and, picking up on the other example, climate change 'sceptics' are often in the same position, though there are soem notable exceptions in that field) is that they usually spend an inordinate amount of time trying to identify flaws in mainstream science. Often in the process failing to recognise some important aspects of scientific philosophy and methodology (though, to be fair a lot of mainstream scientists are no better at philosophy of science) such as the fact that multiple theories may explain the existing data (if theory Y explains the data that doesn't mean theory X, which also explains the data, is wrong - I've heard that argument from Creation Scientists, for example as a statement that the Flood explains the geological strata therefore the standard geological explanation is wrong) and failing to recognise the importance of Okhams Razor in determining the liklihood of each theory being correct. Another common failure is the assumption that a single observation that isn't in accordance with the established theoretical framework automatically falsifies that theory, often appealing to Popper - even though Popper himself recognised that it's as impossible to prove a theory false as it is to prove it to be true. Also, I've never come across any decent predictions for unobserved data from either discipline.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is no regression ("turtles all the way down") when you hold a concept of the Necessary Cause. It is in fact the only Cause that is not itself caused.
Existence in the first place is a FACT: it needs explanation: only the NC explains Existence in the first place.
If you believe that everything that exists requires an explanation, then either your NC doesn't exist or it requires an explanation. Hence the infinite regress. If you want to special plead against the need of an explanation of the NC you'll need something better than "because otherwise there'd be an infinite regression".
Indeed: it seems like you have a choice between stopping with an observable Fact (existence) or an unobservable Cause (your NC). Infinite regression doesn't help you chose between them. At the end of the day, you have to admit that only one of the above is unarguable.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362
|
Posted
Shipmates,
If all this comes from a problem with the OT creation story, then take the OT as a fact and fiction history of the Jewish people put together over a lot of years. Everybody wants to know, when, who, how and why things got started so one of the OT authors gave them an answer, end of dead horse, no? Now you can concentrate on how does it all work, no?
Hamp
Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
- I've heard that argument from Creation Scientists, for example as a statement that the Flood explains the geological strata therefore the standard geological explanation is wrong) and failing to recognise the importance of Okhams Razor in determining the liklihood of each theory being correct.
But what if there was a flood. That would explain it right?
They have other arguments for challenging the standard geological column.
Doesn't the whole thing depend on your theological or philosophical premise..viz: There was a flood...or there wasn't?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
- I've heard that argument from Creation Scientists, for example as a statement that the Flood explains the geological strata therefore the standard geological explanation is wrong) and failing to recognise the importance of Okhams Razor in determining the liklihood of each theory being correct.
But what if there was a flood. That would explain it right?
They have other arguments for challenging the standard geological column.
Doesn't the whole thing depend on your theological or philosophical premise..viz: There was a flood...or there wasn't?
It wouldn't. A worldwide flood would create an entirely different set of strata than we see today.
The main problem with the argument from suppositions is that the suppositions drive the conclusions. While I don't think atheists are immune from that sort of thing, piling a supposition of the size of a global flood onto every scientific study seems a bit much. It also seems to go a bit beyond being a mere "philosophical premise."
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Flood deposits would result in a stratigraphy based on either totally random materials (if deposited in turbulant flood conditions) or by size (large boulders at the bottom with fine sediments at the top) if deposited in stiller water. It certainly wouldn't deposit material based on isotope geochemistry.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Flood deposits would result in a stratigraphy based on either totally random materials (if deposited in turbulant flood conditions) or by size (large boulders at the bottom with fine sediments at the top) if deposited in stiller water. It certainly wouldn't deposit material based on isotope geochemistry.
Bearing in mind that creationist apologists challenge dating methods which I take it you are referring to by your reference to isotope geochemistry, doesn't it all devolve into an 'it is', it isn't' argument where each side calls the others liars and fools?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Except that one side has evidence, the other doesn't...
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
As Timothy notes, it's not so much a "no it isn't/yes it is" situation as "no it isn't/yes it is, and here's why . . . "
The typical creationist explanation as to why radio-isotope dating is wrong usually involves postulating much faster rates of radioactive decay in the past. Of course, if you postulate decay fast enough to accommodate an earth young enough to be to their liking (sixty to a hundred centuries) you're left with the problem of why that much extra energy over such a (relatively) short timespan didn't reduce the planet to a molten glob or cause it to explode. At that point they're left postulating a miracle, and if you're going to do that why not simply postulate the Miracle of the Orderly Flood, which took care to sort everything from isotopes to sediments to fossils in ways consistent with a much older earth?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
creationist apologists challenge dating methods which I take it you are referring to by your reference to isotope geochemistry
There's a bit more to isotope geo-chemistry than just dating, though that's the most significant contribution to scientific knowledge of our world.
But, if we ignore the use of isotope geo-chemistry as a dating tool, it's still impossible to postulate a physical mechanism which sorts sediments in a flood event according to subtle variations in trace-elements.
And, yes, you could just declare "God did it" and reject any attempt to provide a scientific explanation that fits with a view derived from a particular understanding of the Bible. But, Creation Science tries to postulate such scientific explanations ... and inserting a specific action by God at every other step along a process chain does rather make any attempt to call it science laughable. Which Creation Scientists recognise, which is why they end up with postulating deeply implausible ideas such as the rate of radionuclide decay having been radically different a few millenia ago.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
And as for mutation, if one can't reproduce new species 'in tne lab' ist suggests that isnt how it happened in the past.
Dog breeders have been artificially creating new species for centuries.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Otter
Shipmate
# 12020
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Dog breeders have been artificially creating new species for centuries.
No, they've been creating new breeds within the sub-species Canis lupus familiaris.
--------------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", YMMV, limited-time offer, IANAL, no purchase required, and the state of CA has found this substance to cause cancer in laboratory aminals
Posts: 1429 | From: Chicago, IL 'burbs | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
creationist apologists challenge dating methods which I take it you are referring to by your reference to isotope geochemistry
There's a bit more to isotope geo-chemistry than just dating, though that's the most significant contribution to scientific knowledge of our world.
But, if we ignore the use of isotope geo-chemistry as a dating tool, it's still impossible to postulate a physical mechanism which sorts sediments in a flood event according to subtle variations in trace-elements.
And, yes, you could just declare "God did it" and reject any attempt to provide a scientific explanation that fits with a view derived from a particular understanding of the Bible. But, Creation Science tries to postulate such scientific explanations ... and inserting a specific action by God at every other step along a process chain does rather make any attempt to call it science laughable. Which Creation Scientists recognise, which is why they end up with postulating deeply implausible ideas such as the rate of radionuclide decay having been radically different a few millenia ago.
I have no expertise at all in the field of Science but regarding the flood I am inclined to trust the scriptures. When you look at ancient history, the Gilgamesh epic for instance, we have another ancient flood story to coroborate scripture.
Now while some scholars will argue the Bible version derives from this, others will say no, they are parallel from a common source. Whatever, There was, in history, a flood.
"Of the combination of these into a whole,(the destruction of the Earth by water, the rescue of a single man and sed of animals by means of a boat etc)however, we may say without hesitation, it could not have arisen twice independently."
William Wundt, Elements of Folk psychology and quoted by A Rehwinkel, The Flood, Ch 10. 1951
Science has changed a lot since 1951..has history?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
"Of the combination of these into a whole,(the destruction of the Earth by water, the rescue of a single man and sed of animals by means of a boat etc)however, we may say without hesitation, it could not have arisen twice independently."
Does he mean the myth couldn't have arisen twice? I don't see why not. If you look at the myths of various lands there are tons of elements that are repeated. He may have no hesitation, but that says far more about him than about the truth of the flood myth.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Isn't that one of the ingredients of legend-making? Taking a known occurrence (floods) and exaggerating it for effect (a worldwide flood that kills almost everyone). Given how many places in the world are prone to flood, I don't see why this would be such a difficult tale to come up with.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aggg:
In both cases it helps to remember that the thinking proceeds from the point of believing that the bible is Truth. Hence you understand measurements of nature by that standard - and reject anything which doesn't fit it.
Do you believe the sun turned back?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
regarding the flood I am inclined to trust the scriptures. When you look at ancient history, the Gilgamesh epic for instance, we have another ancient flood story to coroborate scripture.
I have no problem with there having been a flood, and that Genesis includes a narrative that is based on a historical fact. I could imagine how a small group of people and some of their livestock survived on a boat while the world they knew was washed away in a flood.
But, that's a long way from believing that such a flood is a natural mechanism by which the geological column was created and calling it some form of "science" or "geology".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petrified
Ship’s ballast
# 10667
|
Posted
I would expect the older bible stories to have been passed down as part of the oral tradition and, like Alan, have no problem with the idea that many may have their roots in a real occurence.
I recall reading a while ago that evidence had been found to support the flood story and have managed to locate it here
--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"
Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Big floods are really quite common. There are sunken cities all over the world. Even here in England. There are some sunken plains the sixze of whole countries that our ancestors walked around on - the best-known are the North Sea and (probably, most of) the Black sea but there are many others. The largest is the drowned land between Malaya, Sumatra, Java and Borneo.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Big floods are really quite common. There are sunken cities all over the world. Even here in England. There are some sunken plains the sixze of whole countries that our ancestors walked around on - the best-known are the North Sea and (probably, most of) the Black sea but there are many others. The largest is the drowned land between Malaya, Sumatra, Java and Borneo.
I've heard theories that the cataclysmic flood that formed the Black Sea may have been the seed for the Mesopotamian flood myths. It certainly would've wiped out "the world" as they knew it.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I've heard theories that the cataclysmic flood that formed the Black Sea may have been the seed for the Mesopotamian flood myths. It certainly would've wiped out "the world" as they knew it.
Like everything else, that theory has a Wikipedia page.
quote:
The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus Strait. The hypothesis made headlines when The New York Times published it in December 1996, shortly before it was published in an academic journal. While it is agreed that the sequence of events described did occur, there is debate over the suddenness and magnitude of the events. Two opposing hypotheses have arisen to explain the rise of the Black Sea: gradual and oscillating. The oscillating hypothesis specifies that over the last 30,000 years, water has intermittently flowed back and forth between the Black Sea and Aegean Sea in relatively small magnitudes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
regarding the flood I am inclined to trust the scriptures. When you look at ancient history, the Gilgamesh epic for instance, we have another ancient flood story to coroborate scripture.
I have no problem with there having been a flood, and that Genesis includes a narrative that is based on a historical fact. I could imagine how a small group of people and some of their livestock survived on a boat while the world they knew was washed away in a flood.
But, that's a long way from believing that such a flood is a natural mechanism by which the geological column was created and calling it some form of "science" or "geology".
Without blinding me with science about which I am profoundly ignorant, how do you deal with 'the flood could have made the grand canyon' argument or the seemingly obvious idea that 'fossils need to be the result of the sudden immersion and compression created by sediment that is evidenced by floods.'?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
