The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The surprising contemporary relevance of the Noah flood story > Comments

The surprising contemporary relevance of the Noah flood story : Comments

By Keith Mascord, published 8/6/2012

If the Bible is 'inerrant' it is in a sophisticated way where you have to read between the lines and within context.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
I've commented before that the representatives of major religions get a much easier run here on OO than anyone else, and this is a case in point. Could anyone claiming to represent the union movement or even the Green Party hope to get published with such a rambling, evidence-free sequence of non-sequiturs? If there is any point to this article at all, I couldn't find it.

If OO wants to be taken seriously they need to apply the same standards of coherence and relevance to their religious contributors that they do to everybody else. "He's ordained, so he must have something to say!" just doesn't cut the mustard any more.

And I hope to demonstrate the theory that religious articles get a free kick with my next contribution: 'The Contemporary Relevance of Bolognese Sauce to conceptions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 8 June 2012 7:02:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My reading of Keith's article was more sympathetic than yours Jon J… for anyone who skipped the article, here is my abstract:

You know the Bible – well fundamentally it is wrong. In other words, it's not so much 'inerrant' as in error. Despite what you used to believe, you now need to think for yourself.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 8 June 2012 8:36:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wouldn't call the Bible a book. It's more akin to a collection of documents that I find fascinating.

One thing that makes it so interesting is the way it demonstrates the evolution of the worldview of a reasonably well-defined group of people. For instance the deity that destroys the world in a flood morphs into the deity of Isaiah 1 who says:

11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
[…]
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.

Or take this eloquent plea for justice from Amos 2:

6 This is what the Lord says:

“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not relent.
They sell the innocent for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals.
7 They trample on the heads of the poor
as on the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed….

(Definitely relevant today)

The Bible is interesting because it covers a long period and contains many different points of view. It is not a sterile one time ejaculation from some supposed deity.

But what the Bible is not is an inerrant book of laws and morals dictated from on high. It is a collection of documents composed by people who thought deeply about topics that still interest us today mixed with legend and perhaps even a modicum of real history. Once you understand this all the problems associated with reading the Bible go away.

Of course Christians are not the only people who believe eternal truths are to be found in an ancient document. Look how economists cling to models that patently do not work
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 8 June 2012 8:59:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I sincerely hope hope someone in Govt reaches the same conclusion WmTrevor so our kids are spared this nonsense in their formative years.
Posted by bitey, Friday, 8 June 2012 9:01:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for sharing...it is interesting to see how religious education creates schisms with reality that may or may not be overcome with knowledge.
The creeping nihilism that must accompany the realisation that the "great truths" you have been fed as an innocent child simply *cannot be* must be quite horrid...I assume this is why the likes of runner are so negative...does the prophet of Love *really* advocate such attitude?
God and religion do not solve any existential issues (from whence came God?), nor does it appear to solve moral issues: Christian morality ranges from Catholic over-lord government to snake handlers to "God Hates Fags"...it seems particularly deficient at finding and excluding reality trippers and those that would abuse the role of priest. I guess "mainstream" religion is bizarre enough that the step to waiting in the hills for the UFO pick-up is a small one.
So congratulations Keith for letting brains rule over indoctrination...what a shame it takes gay family members to really make "love thy neighbour" a viable concept.
Posted by ozandyh, Friday, 8 June 2012 9:05:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stevenlmeyer: Economists...LOL! Spot on.
Posted by ozandyh, Friday, 8 June 2012 9:07:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding the big flood; I found what looked like sea shells in the desert in central Australia.
Posted by nohj, Friday, 8 June 2012 9:16:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes nohj, you'll probably find dinosaur and icthyosaur skeletons as well...
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 8 June 2012 10:03:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Regarding the big flood; I found what looked like sea shells in the desert in central Australia.’ - Just goes to demonstrate the power of evaporation in Central Australia over the past five or six thousand years.
Posted by colinsett, Friday, 8 June 2012 10:14:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nohj wrote:

>>Regarding the big flood; I found what looked like sea shells in the desert in central Australia.>>

Because of the operation of plate tectonics* the whole continent of Australia or parts of it would be bobbing up and down relative to contemporary sea levels. I do not know much about the geological history of Australia but it is possible that parts of central Australia were once underwater.

Table Mountain near Cape Town in South Africa is around a thousand metres high. It started life under the sea. In a few tens of millions of years it will have eroded away. Nothing is forever, not even mountains. Over geological time – tens to hundreds of millions of years – landscapes are surprisingly variable.

*See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 8 June 2012 10:49:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Keith,
There’s plenty of geological evidence for Noah’s flood.

I don’t think you’ve looked into the issue deep enough (sorry for the pun).

I appreciate your describing creationists as consistent. They have a consistent and straight forward approach to the Bible. But you need to read a bit more of what they’re saying. Many of your questions listed in your dot points have been tackled and given solid answers, and have so for decades. The landmark book on flood geology that changed a lot of people’s thinking was Whitcomb and Morris’ ‘The Genesis Flood.’ That book goes back to the 1960s, and a lot of further insight has been gained since then.

Evidence for the flood is everywhere, if you know what you’re looking for. Many say there isn’t enough water in the world. Yet the average depth in any ocean compared to the average height of any point on land puts the average spot that you’re likely to stand on the planet right now as quite wet.

I live in Victoria and have seen the famous coastline called the 12 Apostles a few times (though I don’t think there were ever 12 of them in our lifetimes). They used to say that those limestone ‘stacks’ (there’s now only eight) took enormous lengths of time to form. Then when they started crumbling before our eyes, we made revisions on the speed in which erosion occurs. One stack collapsed in 2005 before stunned tourists. This eroding coastline and others like it point to a remnant geology of the world after the flood, and that world is young.

For one geologist’s approach to Biblical geology, I would invite you to the website of Tas Walker.

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/carnarvon-gorge-australia-monument-to-noahs-flood/

Best wishes,

Michael V.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 8 June 2012 10:55:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Regarding the big flood; I found what looked like sea shells in the desert in central Australia."

I can only assume this is a troll, but it is remarkably similar to the "logic" used in arguing about global warming using "common sense". Whilst most have heard and believe in plate tectonics, very few understand why melting Arctic ice may make US winters more snowy, why warming will make both droughts *and* floods worse, why the ocean changes are so scary, etc.
When all you have is a room heater model then all of this is highly unlikely, even though completely uncontroversial in the field.
Highly trained religious minds find stuff logical that the scientific mind finds absurd...and visa-versa. This is why I believe religious primary schools are a form of child-abuse that society will pay dearly for. History is very unkind to those that ignore reality for long.
Posted by ozandyh, Friday, 8 June 2012 10:57:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keeping in mind the billions of years of Earth's changing formation, one shouldn't be surprised that ancient sea crustacea form the basis of various rock formations.

The beginnings of the modern science of geology was precipitated by a surveyor named William Smith in England, spurred by his lifetime fascination of "fossils" found and played with in his boyhood.
The story of how this interest developed into an understanding of geological formation is fascinating. It was laid out by Simon Winchester in his book, "The Map That Changed the World". (one of the best non-fiction stories I've read)

Here's some background on William Smith and the beginnings of geology.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilliamSmith/

Here's the map - extraordinary how close it resembles modern technologically superior studies.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8733
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 8 June 2012 11:22:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahem - as is now well known, the story of Noah's Flood in the bible was pinched from the Babylonians.. scholars have found much the same tale (actually the bible story is thought to be from a couple of sources)in written material that long predates the Bible version.

One suggestion often made is that this very old legend may, in turn, be based on the fate of people in the Black Sea region at the very start of this intergalacial.. That sea was once a lake not connected to the mediterranean, but then rising sea levels plus a melting glaciers feeding rivers abrutly filled up the whole black sea basin. whole communities had to get out quickly.

This is just a suggestion - there is no way to prove it - but it is an entertaining one.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 8 June 2012 11:28:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Dear Keith,
There’s plenty of geological evidence for Noah’s flood.>>

LOL

Oh well, I learned long ago that people will believe what they want to believe.

Curmudgeon

I've heard that one too. Could be.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 8 June 2012 11:35:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is definitely something to look forward to, Jon J.

>>...my next contribution: 'The Contemporary Relevance of Bolognese Sauce to conceptions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'<<

That should stir up the Carbonara faction - watch out for your kneecaps.

But I agree with WmTrevor, that you may have rather rushed to judgement on the article itself. To me, it was a story about a theologian's journey from belief to pragmatism, and as such was both unusual and encouraging. In particular, the way it managed to use the same simple logic applied to Noah, to the problems that Christians have with homosexuality, was instructive.

And hey! - the other positive result was to bring Dan S de Merengue out of his hidey-hole, to remind us that yes, there are still folk out there who find it necessary to take the folkloric parts of the Bible literally.

Hi Michael.

This amused me.

>>I appreciate your describing creationists as consistent<<

I think that may be an example of turning the other cheek. What Keith actually said was "Creationists are admirably consistent", which is of course the polite way of saying "stubborn, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary". So, to pretend to take it as a compliment must have taken a great deal of teeth-gritting, eh.

Your grasp of logic is as free-form as ever, which is one of the more rewarding aspects of your posts...

"They used to say that those limestone ‘stacks’ (there’s now only eight) took enormous lengths of time to form. Then when they started crumbling before our eyes..."

In the eyes of most people, the act of building something is entirely separate from the act, or process, of its destruction or disappearance. To draw conclusions on the former, through observing the latter, is a non sequitur of truly heroic proportions.

But typical of your unique form of argumentation, I have to give you that.

Admirably consistent, in fact.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 8 June 2012 11:54:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A thought provoking article Keith. I have always considered the stories from the bible to be metaphorical, rather than factual. It is hard to find the metaphor however, for this particular story but I am sure there is one. The bible, to me, is a documentary, displaying historic and moral understandings, which have changed over time. The book of books has served to educate and instil for centuries but where to from here? Is it time to add a newer (3rd) testament or are we already doing that with modern media formats? Religion too served a great purpose by giving a set of rules from which to live, the 10 commandments. It was relevant also perpetuate the population, by man, of the Earth but have we reached a finality and in so doing, need to reverse the strategy? If so, what would our new bible/religion look like?
Posted by David Leigh, Friday, 8 June 2012 12:21:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stevenlmeyer,
I agree with you that people usually believe what they want to believe. But sometimes they read something outside their zone can get them to think a little differently.

You say, “I do not know much about the geological history of Australia but it is possible that parts of central Australia were once underwater.”

Tas Walker is someone is someone that does know a lot about Australian geology. This is his website:

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/carnarvon-gorge-australia-monument-to-noahs-flood
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 8 June 2012 1:05:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Extensive geological evidence demonstrates the Himalayas rose to its present height in the age of historical man. It can be demonstrated that the mountain chains of the Caucasus, China, Tibet, Rockies, Alps and Andes all rose to their present heights in more recent historical times.

In South America at a height of over 3000 metres, a curious whitish streak runs along the side of a mountain range for over 500 kilometres. It is composed of the calcified remains of marine plants. This shows that these slopes were once part of the seashore.

Many lakes high up in the Andes are completely salt.

One such lake is Titicaca.

A watermark of salt along the lake shore now runs at an angle to the water level. Originally it must have been horizontal. Clearly the land was not only thrust up to its present altitude, but was tilted in the process. On the beach of this lake high in the mountains, there are seashells as well as traces of seaweed. The lake must have once been a bay or inlet of the sea.

Even today, sea horses survive in the lake.

Today this almost sterile region is capable of sustaining only a scant population. Yet here we are confronted with a colossal mystery. Traces of a huge city lie at the southern side of the lake.

Similarly at the ruins of Tiahuanaco, in Bolivia, it is obvious that a great city once existed here. At an altitude of 4000 metres, endless agricultural terraces, now abandoned, rise as high as 5500 metres above sea level, and continue up under the snow to some unidentified altitude. Today nothing agricultural grows at these elevations.

The city ruins include an ocean quay. It suggests that the city, when built, was at sea level, with vast docks and an enormous harbour.

Today this sea harbour is at an elevation of 4000 metres and 300 kilometres inland!

To me this suggests some pre-modern history major geological event that is yet to be fully explored and scientifically answered.

Food for thought
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Friday, 8 June 2012 1:15:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan. Interesting that Biblical Geology has no connections to the normal evidence based Geology. Like intelligent design and other untenable theories the "evidence" does not stand up to scrutiny.
These sorts of pseudo-scientific oddities rely on an audience that wants to believe and extreme cherry picking (if data is actually referred to!).
One of the strengths of science is that separate lines of study often reinforce each other. Biology agrees with geology agrees with chemistry, etc. Telling a biologist the evolution is wrong is like telling a computer programmer that the C language does not exist. Telling a geologist that Australia, one of the oldest continents, formed in human history is "not even wrong"...it is simply absurd.
Keep an open mind...but not so open that your brains fall out!
Posted by ozandyh, Friday, 8 June 2012 1:39:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps instead of trying to understand the nature of Reality by referring to the archaic myths of a presumed "great flood", the author should really consider the all-inclusive revolutionary cultural implications of Einstein's famous E=MC2 equation.

An equation that, properly understood, tells us that ALL of this is/are never ending patterns of always changing indestructible Primal Energy or Conscious Light.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 8 June 2012 2:40:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers

Its time for Christian theologians to listen to Christians who are working in the science sector.
Clean the theological wax out of thine ears 'yeah verily'... and listen to someone who has studied science, and is qualified to speak on scientific matters, who also holds a Biblical world view. I dare you to punch in the above link... if your an honest inquirer and get your biblical worldview on, perhaps even adjusted to fit the biblical narrative, who know, stranger things have happen in history.
Blessings, to thee and thine. Yeah verily. Rock on!
Posted by PK oh yeah..., Friday, 8 June 2012 3:44:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>For one geologist’s approach to Biblical geology, I would invite you to the website of Tas Walker.<<

That's a pretty funny website Dan. XD

Not as funny as this one:

http://www.truthism.com/

But a lot easier to read.

>>the author should really consider the all-inclusive revolutionary cultural implications of Einstein's famous E=MC2 equation.

An equation that, properly understood, tells us that ALL of this is/are never ending patterns of always changing indestructible Primal Energy or Conscious Light.<<

It doesn't tell us anything of the sort. It tells us energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. A proper understanding of this equation will not tell you anything about Primal Energy or Conscious Light because those are spiritualist gobbledygook and not meaningful physical concepts.

Why is it always E=MC2 that the nutters so comically misunderstand? Don't they like any of the other equations? Why don't Boltzmann's entropy formula or the Schrodinger equation or Einstein's field equations ever get a look in? I think they'd be ripe with potential for rampant fruit-loopery.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 8 June 2012 3:50:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James Dwight Dana speaking the truth to uni students in the 1800's

"Young men as you face scientific problems, remember that I, an old man, who have known only science all my life say to you there is nothing truer in the universe than the scientific statements in the word of God."

Nothing has changed especially when you get to read the idiotic alternatives given by pseudo science to beginnings. Creation faith is far more rational than the faith needed for other idiotic explantions. Every honest scientist must blush everytime they see the created world.
Posted by runner, Friday, 8 June 2012 4:05:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of E=MC2 and Quantum Reality why not check out this website, the author of which is a scientist.

http://www.amitgoswami.org

And this site too.

http://www.fredalanwolf.com

But they are only nutters too - of course!
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 8 June 2012 4:38:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Lavis

Thank you for the link to the truthism website.

But I think you should warn people not to start reading while they're munching on an apple. They may choke to death as I almost did.

Oh well, off to my reptile club meeting.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 8 June 2012 5:35:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a fatal flaw (one of many) that is truly lethal, even for the most credulous of true believers.

Using the Bible's own dating, which is not to be altered by the faithful, the Biblical Flood occurred smack in the middle of the history of ancient peoples, i.e., the history of the Egyptian people, who were blissfully unaware the a universal flood was occurring.
Posted by Sock-Ra-Tease, Saturday, 9 June 2012 8:53:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Pericles: "To me, it was a story about a theologian's journey from belief to pragmatism, and as such was both unusual and encouraging."

So the subtitle should have been: "How it took an intelligent person ten years to realise that some of the Bible is nonsense on stilts"? Even Peter Slipper didn't take that long to wake up and smell the coffee. Why didn't the author just read Richard Dawkins and get it over with in a week?

What's next: "My Lifetime Journey of Discovery: How I Learned the Truth about Santa Claus"?
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 9 June 2012 9:36:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
10,000 years of evolution yet still superstitious, gullible people are discussing arks, whales swallowing people, and the risk of being turned into a pillar of salt, etc.

Perhaps humans are devolving?
Posted by David G, Saturday, 9 June 2012 10:58:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The line between sarcasm and commentary in your posts is sometimes difficult to discern, Jon J.

>>So the subtitle should have been: "How it took an intelligent person ten years to realise that some of the Bible is nonsense on stilts"? Even Peter Slipper didn't take that long to wake up and smell the coffee.<<

The parallel is not quite exact, is it. By the author's own admission, he "grew up in 'Bible-believing' churches", which establishes a relationship with belief systems that is not easy to shake. I'm not sure "waking up and smelling the coffee" accurately describes anyone's journey to enlightenment from such a starting-point.

>>Why didn't the author just read Richard Dawkins and get it over with in a week?<<

I think runner may be able to answer that one for you.

>>What's next: "My Lifetime Journey of Discovery: How I Learned the Truth about Santa Claus"?<<

Doesn't quite have the punch of the Bolognese story, does it.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 9 June 2012 11:42:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes David, here we all are, still discussing arks. If the Bible talks about something, then so will society. It’s that kind of book.

Sock-Ra-Tease,
I’m glad that you recognise that the Bible has a clear enough dating system that it can be readily compared with the chronology of ancient peoples. That’s interesting in itself. Similarly with Keith Mascord’s article, he’s acknowledging that the Bible has something to say relevant to geology and natural history, at least to the level that one can make comparisons between it and commonly taught theories.

The Bible’s chronology puts the Great Flood at around 2300 BC, which does conflict with the standard dates of Egyptian kings your likely to find in the encyclopedia.

But with regard to the records of the ancients, the commonly accepted lists of Egyptian pharaohs can be sketchy and unreliable. Manetho wrote a history of Egypt for the library at Alexandria in the 3rd century BC, and he is the main authority from which the list of Pharaohs is usually ordered. Yet none of Manetho’s writings exist. The only source we have for Manetho’s writings are some of his statements that have been quoted by much later historians such as Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus. One authority on Egyptian history, Sir Alan Gardiner, stated ‘Even when full use has been made of the king lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution …What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 9 June 2012 12:30:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandyh,
Are you alleging that Australia is older than the other continents? Older in what sense?

I’m not sure what you mean when you say the evidence of biblical geology doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There’s plenty of evidence within the link I provided for Tas Walker’s website. Which piece of evidence were you referring to? Keith, in his article said there was no evidence for biblical geology. So are you disagreeing with Keith and saying now that there is some? (There must be some evidence to speak of if you’re saying this evidence isn’t standing up to scrutiny.)

But actually, it is good to try to be clear with our terms. For example, the ‘evidence’ itself is always neutral. The evidence is plainly there for anyone to examine and analyse. It’s the interpretation that we bring upon the evidence that we scrutinise.

For what you said about scientists being in agreement, of course certain biologists and geologists will naturally agree when they’re singing from the same song sheet (that is, choosing the same philosophical background assumptions.)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 9 June 2012 12:35:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As the author of 'The surprising contemporary relevance of the Noah flood story' it has fascinating to follow the discussion thus far. Thanks for the respectful, if sometimes (understandably) puzzled commments. I am with those who wonder why one would re-visit a literalistic reading of the Noah story. Most people, including Christians (and myself included) have long since recognized the impossibility of taking the story seriously ... as fact BUT some still do - including my parents (to whom I dedicate A Restless Faith) and siblings. The point of the article is to draw out some implications of what, historically, has been a gradual dawning of understanding (beginning in the early 1800s and continuing today) for contemporary debates, including the marriage equality debate.

I am one who still wants to take the Christian and Jewish Scriptures seriously, and to draw from their wisdom, but it is simply not enough to say, 'The Bible says x, therefore x is so.' We've a little more work to do before we can sensibly apply the ancient Scriptures to matters of contemporary concern.

One of the reasons for using the Noah story is that it might prove a helpful way to facilitate a less polarized and polarizing debate. I am hopeful it might be of help to people like my siblings (my parents are deceased)in giving them options on issues such as same-sex marriage and gender roles.

There is more than one way to be a Chrisian; there is more than one way to be human. It is possible, I think, to keep mind, heart and spirit in happy relationship.

PS. On the scientific issues I am happily guided by at least one highly qualified professional geologist - who happens also to be a Christian; as I am by long-since-settled scientific consensus on the issues I raise.
Posted by Restless, Saturday, 9 June 2012 3:32:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Restless "There is more than one way to be a Christian;"

The only way I know of to be a Christian is to believe in the virgin birth and divine origins of Jesus Christ, and to accept his resurrection and ascent into Heaven as established facts. And since there is no more reason to believe this than to believe in the occurrence of Noah's Flood, anyone who is prepared to reject one should be prepared to reject the other.

Mere fuzzy waffle about being nice to each other has no more to do with the Christian religion than respecting one's parents has to do with Confucianism.
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 9 June 2012 6:40:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The only way I know of to be a Christian is to believe in the virgin birth and divine origins of Jesus Christ, and to accept his resurrection and ascent into Heaven as established facts.'

Respectfully, not even hard-nosed fundamentalists are likely to describe the beliefs you mention as 'established facts.' Most, I would think, simply accept them on trust - and wouldn't try to 'establish' them by way of argument or evidence.

Moreover, your statement appears to imply that only fundamentalist Christians are Christian - that is a massive call, and entirely unwarranted.

Re Noah's Flood and whether it is fact or fiction, many Christians have come to understand this story as mythical over the last 100 years and more - without thereby compromising their Christian faith.

Re being nice, I do want to respect and be respectful towards those I differ with; such respectful engagement is entirely compatible with my core Christian values - if fact, is demanded by them.

Jesus, the paridigmatic 'Christian', was lovingly respectful towards all, teaching that we should love even our enemies.
Posted by Restless, Sunday, 10 June 2012 3:42:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Love your enemies -- and hate your family and yourself:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple." -- (Luke 14:26)

It's certainly convenient to have a Messiah who said so many contradictory things. It makes it possible to pick and choose the ones that will make you look good in any given situation. If I ever found a religion I will make a point of emulating Jesus, and contradicting myself as often as possible.

On the other hand it must be confusing, especially for the children. "Who are we worshipping today, Daddy -- Loving Jesus or Hateful Jesus?"
....../2
Posted by Jon J, Sunday, 10 June 2012 8:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2/...
As for belief in the divine nature of Jesus, the Anglican Church still, I believe, requires its ordainees to avow their belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles, which includes the following:

"Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men."...

"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day."

And I understand the official creed of the Catholic Church is similar.

So if belief in the divine birth, death and resurrection of Jesus is 'fundamentalist', then the entire Anglican and Catholic Churches are fundamentalist bodies. Won't the Archbishop of Canterbury be surprised!
Posted by Jon J, Sunday, 10 June 2012 9:02:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would be telling my child that today as always we are worshipping the loving Jesus. In the context of that Luke 14 passage, the phrase compares the love for family and one’s own self with the requirement of following Jesus. Nothing must compete with one's devotion to Christ.

All Scripture has its context and it's usually clear enough.

And I would agree with Jon J's earlier sentiments that the Christian faith as revealed in Scripture is pretty plain and clear, that the bodily resurrection of Christ is a foundational tenet of the faith, which was believed upon by the early church as a witnessed event of history (and later confirmed in the Anglican articles of faith and other orthodoxies.)

And a miraculous event such as the resurrection of Christ is not of much or any qualitative difference from other creative miracles such as the creation of man or the virgin birth. So I can't see the sense in believing in one and not the others.

Speaking earlier of consensus, a consensus may at times be valuable. But it's no ultimate guiding principle. A consensus didn't help those in Noah's day. They were all pretty much in agreement that it didn't look like it would rain.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 10 June 2012 11:33:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
noah created an interesting conundrum
like the theory being it wasnt world wide [as such]..but only the mediterrainian flooding with sea rise breaching gibralta..5.3 million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis

its one of those connundrums..cause [apparently]..humans only evolved 70 to 100 [thousand]* [*not million]..years ago..

and while its likely..that the story was told
long before writing was invented...the flood[of the med]..happend

to many it would 'look like' the whole world flooded
but how could the huh?mans..pre invention of writting..
have kept the story true to that now infured as..[interd]..as holy

only by devine guidence of spirit
recalling an event..plus 5 million years ago..
as fresh as if it mearly happend a few thou years ago

anyhow
5 million years ago..wernt we one continent?
yet science seems firm that eve..[renamed lucy]
cant have witnessed 5 million years ago..nor properly envision a global event..[thus infurs local witness..of a local event...as seen in its time..by living flesh being..or flesh made [born again]..into spirit]
Posted by one under god, Monday, 11 June 2012 8:58:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Am enjoying the discussion;

Re Jon J's comments on fundamentalism and Anglican & Roman Catholic orthodoxy; a couple of things to note: fundamentalism began in the US as a movement to safeguard what were considered orthodox beliefs like the Virgin Birth, the saving death and resurrection of Jesus, and his second coming; and so it was, historically, an expression of orthodox Christian beliefs (as Dan points out). However, fundamentalism (even in its historic expressions) cannot be equated with orthodoxy; in opting for inerrancy it went beyond the historic creeds, for example; and, over time, fundamentalists have tended to add to the list of 'fundamental' or 'non-negotiably important' beliefs - with a tendency to sectarianism (eg. 'our church is more Biblical than yours!').

Moreover, Anglicanism and Roman Catholocism - though containing fundamentalistic elements or sub-groupings - are quite diverse - and, in many cases, very open to contemporary knowledge - on things like Noah's Flood, for example. I think it would be safe to say that most Anglicans (world-wide) and most Roman Catholics would not take the early chapters of Genesis literalistically - which tends to be the way of most fundamentalists these days.

Re Jesus (or the Gospels) being contradictory in his (or its) teachings, Dan has answered that one well!! Hyperbole to make a point, surely.

Re the flooding of the Mediterranean 5.3 million years ago - that is helpful to know ('one under god'); if that is the most recentlarge scale Noah-like flood, it is unlikely (as you say) to have played any role in the creation of flood stories. The flooding of the Black Sea in about 5,600 BC is more likely to have influenced the creation of flood stories - later picked up and modified by Hebrew story-tellers.
Posted by Restless, Monday, 11 June 2012 1:03:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A most interesting and worthwhile article, and I congratulate you, Keith "Restless" Mascord, for this insightful explanation of a part of your journey to such an enlightened and evolutionary viewpoint.

I also find myself bound to take a broader view of the 'compilation' of the bible and associated works as evolutionary, rather than static; as part lesson, explanation, mythology and guide, rather than as infallibly prescriptive or as an immutable revelation of all that was and all that will be. (Not that I would dare to compare my understanding or my journey with yours, for I am truly as a mere child in the wilderness of wonder and discovery.)

The message I take from Noah is that of husband-er and shepherd, carer and caretaker of this our home, and of all it entails and offers. My God is of the universe and of all things, both in them and of them, and our role is to nurture, and in turn to receive nurture; ours is to savour, and not to abuse, misuse or destroy in ignorance or in arrogance.

My God is guide and benefactor, providing lessons whereby we may prevail in harmony and common interest, and avoid risk of error and downfall, either by our own hand or by that of another. Some are indeed hard lessons, which I fear we have not yet learned or taken fully to heart - much to the dismay of so many residing in hardship and in peril.

Our arrogance, either of belief or of self-interest is our pathway to division and destruction, and perhaps our destiny. A pity that some tenacious adherence to literal 'belief' precludes vision and true understanding - and thereby precludes a wholehearted embracing of opportunity and of possibilities. Only my opinion, of course. Unlike with Noah, we are most unlikely to have a second chance.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 11 June 2012 2:51:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find myself in an unusual position of agreeing with stevenlmeyer's initial comment. This perplexes me. :o)
Posted by StG, Monday, 11 June 2012 4:55:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is one of the most bizarre threads I've seen on OLO.

Here is some homework for those of you, like Dan S de Merengue, who purport to believe in a literal flood.

Take a land plant, plant it in a suitable pot with soil and nutrients and immerse it in water for, say, 180 days. It needs to be totally immersed. Every leaf should be under water. The side of the container should be opaque and there should be at least a foot between the top of the water and the highest part of the plant. Feel free to refresh the water as often as you like subject to keeping the plant totally immersed.

After 180 days report back with your findings.

Ideally this experiment should be performed with a tree but in practise that may be difficult. For now any land plant, even a weed, will do.

Or you might like to try it with a bonsai tree.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 11 June 2012 5:28:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan.
I guess without bothering to learn science (it is hard work), you would assume it operates in the same way as faith...it doesn't.
What yourself and runner fail to grasp is that science works because it makes *real* predictions that work *in detail*.
Yes they sing off the same song sheet...it's called reality.
Unlike religious "truth" which is asserted and deemed to be correct, science is provisional and inherently humble. By humble I mean that any amount of real evidence can knock any "authority" off simply be being repeatable. the power comes from truth, not authority.
I believe that the child indoctrination that religion requires imparts the lack of humility and sells it as a virtue. The hubris really becomes evident when older people start barging into areas they have no expertise in, yet feel they have equal voice to those that have studied all their lives. Here they play the man, not the ball and hence bring the level of debate down to a slanging match.
Posted by ozandyh, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 9:12:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Neatly summarised, Dan S de Merengue. I totally agree.

>>And a miraculous event such as the resurrection of Christ is not of much or any qualitative difference from other creative miracles such as the creation of man or the virgin birth. So I can't see the sense in believing in one and not the others.<<

It puzzles me too, that Christians still to this day pick and choose the parts they want to believe in, and reject the parts they don't. It reduces the whole thing to an intellectual exercise of ever-diminishing returns: either your God is evident in a whole series of miraculous acts, or he is not. If you stop believing in the fact that Adam was created in God's image, or that the world was under water for ten months and only a boatload of animals and a handful of people survived, then there very quickly becomes no clear reason to believe any of it.

Not that this small fact seems to deter anyone. Selective religious interpretation has been the cornerstone of violent disagreements since religion was invented. But that will inevitably occur, given that the basic written material is so difficult to swallow. The human brain finds it extremely difficult to hold two conflicting ideas without going at least slightly crazy.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 9:15:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
its funny steven
your perfectly right..ECCEPT*
according to 'evolution'...one WILL survive
MUST have survived...or it wouldnt 'be here now'

yes..puting a land plant..back into the water
is every bit absurd as a 'land beast'..returning to the water

[the science explaination for water mammel evolutions..
[wales SO THE THEORY say]..came from..[decended/evolved]..
from..a wolf like cxarnivor mammal land best..to dolphines/whales

returning to the water
thats coverd by evolution
the fittest will [lol]..survive

so 'dan's' land plant
will be the exception..cause [faux evolving..evoloting]science said so..one..must have survived..[or the threory is refuted..on the first declared law]..

proove..the fittest didnt survive
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 9:48:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandyh,
You say your thinking relies on repeatable experiments. You also allege Australia is one of the oldest continents. How could you establish this fact relying only on repeatable experiments? What test could be (or has been) done? 

I think in reality that there are many philosophical (untestable) assumptions behind your claim.

The 'humility' which you prize is, in reality, a state of the heart, not partial to a particular philosophical approach.

Pericles,
Regarding your last sentence, I think it's quite common for people to hold conflicting ideas in different parts of their brain at the same time. That's also part of the fickleness of mankind.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 12:39:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandyh alleges that I don't understand science. Yet Stevenlmeyer challenges me to do an experiment. He must have some faith in my ability to follow logic and reasoning.

So I'll make my prediction. Put the bonsai tree under water for six months - I'm guessing it will die.

So the logical question which follows is how did trees survive the Great Flood?

I'll first take a step back and compare this with the question facing the naturalist (or the atheist). How did the world become covered by green plants? Evolutionary scientists have no idea whatsoever about how the first life (first living cell) came about from non living chemicals on a dead planet. The first living cell is as much a miracle to them as to everyone else.

So Christians have a much easier task explaining how green plants recovered after a cataclysm such as the Flood on a planet that was only months before teaming with life.
 
It is true that most plants and trees cannot survive being submerged for a long time; even the plant life that could survive underwater was probably uprooted and destroyed by the violence of the Flood. But seeds and plant matter would have been able to survive outside the Ark for the duration of the Flood, and sprouted afterwards. Some trees, including those which would provide appropriate sources of food for many herbivorous animals, grow very quickly.

In reality, within our own lifetimes we have seen places which have been desolate, like the barrenness surrounding a volcanic explosion or perhaps a newly formed volcanic island, recover to establish a living ecosystem within a few years.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 12:49:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Some trees, including those which would provide appropriate sources of food for many herbivorous animals, grow very quickly.<<

Olive trees however do not: I have one in my backyard. It is very healthy and produces a good but small crop of olives. But it doesn't grow very quickly. So how was Noah's dove able to find an olive tree from which to remove a leaf such a short time after the waters had receded? It's a mystery.

The Bible has a lot of them. They're usually referred to as miracles. Most Christians happily accept their existence without feeling the need to invent dubious hypotheses to explain them. It is a great mystery to me why some Christians feel the need to treat some chapters of Genesis as a science textbook instead of a religious document. Like other Christians they quite happily accept other miracles as events occurring in defiance of natural law through the supernatural intervention of God: they'll write huge volumes of material on their wacky flood-geology theories but I have yet to see a single paper on the topic of spontaneous human metamorphosis to sodium chloride.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 1:25:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Dan!
Your last post demonstrates my main point quite well.
Despite thousands of people working in fields of science that reinforce on another down to minute details...you prefer to throw all that away for a contrarian view that makes no useful predictions. Did yo know that geology is used to find oil and gas and other useful endeavours?
All contradictions (including decades of work) are seen as flaws in the science or scientist...but without any reference to details!
That, my friends is Hubris.
Posted by ozandyh, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 1:27:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I certainly don't mind it when you contradict me, Dan S de Merengue. But it is considered polite when doing so to add some form of explanation, justification, or even a reference or two to back it up.

>>Pericles, Regarding your last sentence, I think it's quite common for people to hold conflicting ideas in different parts of their brain at the same time. That's also part of the fickleness of mankind.<<

I suspect that "quite common" is just a throwaway measurement, whose significance is only that you prefer your view to mine, but are too lazy to research it.

However, whether or not it is "common", the point I was making is that it causes discomfort, in which the "...human brain finds it extremely difficult to hold two conflicting ideas without going at least slightly crazy."

There is actually a scientific name for this: cognitive dissonance.

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/f/dissonance.htm

"The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance"

F Scott Fitzgerald reportedly claimed that the "...test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." And I accept that may well be true.

But first-rate minds are far from "common" in my experience.

And they are also at least slightly crazy, simply as a result of being first-rate.

And what's all that "fickleness of mankind" business anyway? If a first-rate minds can hold the conflicting notions that, say, the Greek population has brought its financial crisis upon itself, but should be protected as far as possible from its effects - where's the fickleness in that?

But I think that all you really wanted was an argument.

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 3:02:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
its sad that flod debri[stuff that floats]
dont get a mention...[clearly..if waters begin bubbling up..from terror firma...great lumping clumps of stuff will be set free[float]

the talk is stuf floated to islands..[like darwins galapidous islands..dodo..or finches..or land turtles etc etc]..all floated out 'there'..via flood debri..

anyhow
thats how a green leaf..COULD have been found
and the inferance of dry land..be made[not to be made by one wise in the ways of the seas..but good enough for the father..of all mankind[again]..adam phase two

not an ape/not neandertroll/not erectus.nor sapian
just the 7 wives

of all the 7
science [out of afrika]..eves..
via his sons.[yet the [saved]..mothers..have that hypocondrial joinder]..to the first of man..[modern mode um man]..who knows

science sure cant
it has a theory..

that land of that olive tree
might just be the place..the flood debri settled
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 3:52:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is obvious that many feel happy with what they consider holes in the creation/flood accounts. It allows them to continue smugly in their sin and ignore the obvious fact that they will one day give an account for their lives. They focus on what they consider holes in the creation account while continuing to hold their idiotic faith in the something from nothing dogma. The unscientific ever changing textbooks is clear proof they have no idea despite their pride filled assertions. Every time they open their eyes and see design they have to run back to their little pet theories because they have to ignore the obvious. The heart of man does not change from its wickedness. Thankfully some scientist are prepared to speak the truth.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 4:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony, 
I don't look at Genesis as a science textbook. (I don't think anybody does.) I look at it as an account of history. And I think that's the way its authors intended it to be read. Author's intention is the primary concern in seeking the correct interpretation for any literature. 

Ozandyh,
Your assertion that all scientists live in perfect agreement and reinforcement of each other is a fantasy. Just look at the current global warming debate, or just about any other topic we could care to raise. There is much disagreement (often healthy disagreement) everywhere you turn.

The ability to make predictions is no cause for celebration in itself. Under the old ptolemaic system astronomers were happily charting the stars and making predictions of astronomical occurrences. Yet their system was in radical need of reform.

It can be the same with geological theories. Different systems of approach can be used to make successful predictions. Uniformitarian geology is not necessary for finding oil and gas deposits. 

My friend at church is a chemical engineer who works for Mobil in gas exploration. She's a Bible believer. This month she's visiting an oil rig in Vietnam. (My wife was also chemical engineer years ago.)

Tas Walker who I mentioned earlier writes a website for biblical geology holds a degree in geology and a doctorate in engineering. (Reading from his CV) 'he has been involved in the planning, design and operation of power stations for over 20 years with the electricity industry in Queensland. He has conducted geological assessments of new fuel supplies for power stations across Queensland and has been involved with new mining proposals, including the effects of geological factors on the cost, reliability and quality of the coal produced.'

Overall, flood geology itself predicts the occurrence of oil and coal deposits as plant material from the old earth would have been carried and deposited by the surging of the waters and trapped by the movement of silt.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 4:55:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it that time of the month again runner?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 4:56:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Dan, do you reckon Tas Walker lied to his Honours degree supervisor, or you?

His Honours degree does not mention Flood geology at all, in fact it is quite conventional and mentions the age of formations in the millions of years.

He either came to his belief before the degree, in which case he lied to his supervisor and examiners to get the qualification (because he didn't believe what he wrote), or he doesn't really believe in Flood geology and is lying to you.

What do you reckon?
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 5:07:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

>>His Honours degree does not mention Flood geology at all, in fact it is quite conventional and mentions the age of formations in the millions of years>>

LOL, great stuff. You've made my day ;-)
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 8:49:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, I should have said his Honours THESIS, not degree, but you get what I'm saying.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 9:16:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i just want to see how it works
if there is science[that explains it]]..i accept that

if the science is nonsense
i look for what works[like science says..presure in containment...has 'presure'..becauswe random particles are bouncing [colliding with the sides]..i say thats nonsense

clearly..air..too
is composed of atoms
with a vairiable number of /electrons protons etc
orbiting arround the mass..more weighing more[with upper and lower orbital planes]

i see the presure issue at the atomic level[ie atoms with orbits..beinbg pushed together[till the orbits inbteract..and eventually force..a change of state[as they get pushed into ever lower orbits

when released they jump back to where the orbits are gas
but when compressed..their orbits made liquid
[a further change of state..could likely make a solid]

but how does this apply to the topic
the bible states..this happend to whoever
it was written in time after long being told verbitum

science at best is copying[eve=lucy][big bang= let there be light]
even the 7 eve theory...based on noah[or rather his sons wives]

as noah reveals..they wernt the first eve
wether eve was the first homo..who is to say]
but lets lok at the dna..eve =XX..[adams dna =Xy]

so with simple dna modification
of dna say as obtained via the ric of adam[Xy]

a clone of double X..is a simple haploid doubling of the X[and discrading of the y]

the bible as a creation story
leads the science

live with it
its beyond dispute
ditto many other holy texts

the texts are fine
its creed..that created need

jesus came to end the absurdity of creed

continues
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 4:17:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jesus came to unite the fathers sect divided house
jesus came to end the divisive diversions of creed

where any skin blemish was unclean..where any behaviour..could see the person affecivly dead[ostrizized from his community [outcast][so raining the dead..is simply...saying the the creed..that says your dead..is wrong..[go and sin no more]

the egsamples are clear
jesus didnt make wine
[servants certainly wouldnt serve toilet water[the best wine[from a toilet]..and 400 jews refuse to eat..with dirty hands[unclean]..but what do they know

[as the bible records..they ate 'all they wished'..as they didnt wish to eat with dirty hands[especially not when jesus made them sit opisite each other..each watching to run to the highpriest and report

..YOU ATE WITH UNCLEAN HANDS..[your outcast].
thats why jesus..did it twice!

creed and greed
those who dont learn the lessons of the past[will endlessly repeat them][life comes only from life..just like the bible says[as the koran says..FIRST..,ake just one like it[ie life from non life[..

till then..you got a theory
but i got the past thoughts of great minds
talking of the higher things of spirit..not just of the flash flesh
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 4:18:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy