It is perversely nonfalsifiable and thereby affords maximum cover. As I've noted in the past, theism is the ultimate anti-epistemology.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Archeaological evidence for the Bible
- Thread starter Hope
- Start date
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Except that it doesn't. Look as if it's a few thousand years old, that is. If you look at the evidence.
SoyLeche
meh...
Unless we are interpreting the evidence wrong.
Again, I don't think that we are, but I leave the possibility open.
But, that may be what sandy is asking for - what would a universe that was a couple thousand years old look like?
Hope
Princesinha
I believe in the possibility of an old earth, but also believe in the Flood. I don't think God would deliberately trick us. That's not in His nature. I do, however, believe in the limited knowledge of man, the fallibility of man, and the ever-changing nature of science.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
As we have discussed, that is always a possibility, but it is a very remote one, about as likely as the possibility that the earth really is flat, or that matter is not made up of atoms.
Science is not about interpretation, except for coming up with hypotheses--you can get them anywhere you want. After that, a prediction is either confirmed or it isn't--interpretation doesn't come into it. That's what the idea of replicability is about. Anyone who looks at the data should see the same thing; the dial either moves or it doesn't, as predicted or not, as the case may be.
As any other scientific theory, right? Germs, gravity, relativity...?
Well, if you set aside the possibility of a trickster God, of last Thursdayism, then, if you posit say 6000 years, you would not have ice core samples with more than 6000 layers, or more than 12,000 varves (they come in pairs) or creosote bushes that show 15,000 years of growth (IIRC) or King's Holly etc., and all radiometric dating methods should indicate the oldest rocks to be 6000 years old, etc. That's why I say it's not about interpretation, unless you take some kind of post-modern constructivist believe-anything-you-want, science-is-just-another-heuristic approach. You can count the varves yourself and get the same numbers as the Japanese, Finnish, Canadian etc. scientists--there's couple million of them at Green River, IIRC (not googling, just typing). If they are laid down at the rate of two per year, which we know they are, and there's a couple million of them, then the world is more than 6000 years old, unless God is a trickster.
Another important point is consilience. That is, you can count the varves or the ice layers or calculate the rate of growth of the creosote or the coral or the stalactite or use a radiometric method, and you get the same result. Over and over and over. Either science doesn't work, or the earth is 4.56 billion years old, and there was never a flood.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I believe in the possibility of an old earth, but also believe in the Flood. I don't think God would deliberately trick us. That's not in His nature. I do, however, believe in the limited knowledge of man, the fallibility of man, and the ever-changing nature of science.
Yes, Hope, it's ever-changing, in that it's ever improving, ever getting more accurate and more correct. Does that make it, in your opinion, not effective? Do you believe that science is or is not a good way to learn about the natural world.
I'm sorry to tell you that all of the evidence indicates that there was never any such flood. So unless you want to go back to that tricky God, there could not have been a flood. Among other things, there isn't enough water.
Hope
Princesinha
Science is definitely the best method we have to learn about the natural world....no question. I didn't say it was ineffective. Merely subject to change.
I don't care to rehash the whole Flood thing. All that can be said has been said, and one side is determined not to look at certain evidence if it contradicts dearly-held pre-suppositions.
SoyLeche
meh...
So, everybody can't be wrong about what they see in the data?
Obviously
When God created the ice caps how do we know that something about that process, that only lasted a day let's say, didn't leave them ending up with a few million layers - not because he was attempting to trick, but because that's how the process worked? What is the effect of the Fall of Adam on carbon 14? You're assuming there was none - but without being able to observe an event such as the fall, how can you know?
One of my statistics professors told us about a time that he was doing an analysis for some people at another university (something to do with the study of the brain - I don't remember the details). He gave them the analysis, and they said "Great! That means that ...." and went on to describe all of the repurcussions of the analysis, and how it all fit with the theory. A little while later he realised he made a mistake, fixed it, and the results came out quite differently. He went to them and explained what happened and they said "Great! That means that..." and went on to describe the repurcussions, and how it all fit with the theory.
The moral of the story: humans are great at coming up with explanations for the evidence that is presented to us, and just because we have found one that fits the evidence doesn't mean that it is correct. I don't doubt that the current explanation is pretty close to the truth, but it is possible that it isn't, and not because God is trying to "trick" us, but because we are reading it wrong.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
No, it's not about rejecting evidence at all. It's about rejecting a hypothesis that doesn't explain ALL of the evidence. The evidence you cite may support the case for a global flood but it does not explain other things like the geological column or the formation of the Grand Canyon.
SoyLeche
meh...
To be fair - both sides are "determined not to look at certain evidence if it contradicts dearly-held pre-suppositions".
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K., and science says there was never any such flood. Really.
I know, those creationists are so close-minded; it's hard to talk to them.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Not sure I understand you. Yes, it's quite possible that everybody is wrong. When it comes to scientific conclusions, it's likely that in the future we will look back and realize that all the scientists were wrong--and at the same time more right than anyone else. Example: the people who figured out that the earth is round were all more right than anyone who thought it was flat. Then we figured out that's it's actually slightly pear-shaped, and realized that they were all wrong. So while it may turn out that random mutations plus natural selection is not the best, most complete, absolutely correct explanation for the origin of species, it is still the most right explanation we have right now, and much more right than the magic poofing theory.
O.K., so why keep bringing it up, unless to confuse things? Why only raise it in the context of Biblical issues, and not when people talk about atoms, or the round earth, or germs, or...? Frankly, it adds nothing to the discussion, and goes without saying. "Hello, my name is Frank." "Nice to meet you. Have you considered the possibility that you only think you're Frank, when you're actually Joe suffering under a delusion?" "Uh not really, nice to meet you too. Good-bye."
"Hello, there was never a world-wide flood." "Have you considered the possibility that all of the scientists in the world are mistaken, and we will discover 1000 years from now that around a billion years ago, there was a worldwide flood?" "Uh, not really. Good-bye."
Couple of huge problems:
(1) We know that ice layers form annually. We can observe it happening.
(2) And the ice layers and varves and tree rings and radiocarbon dating all come out with the same result. They correlate. They confirm each other. Assuming that your God existed or did anything (big assumption), he created the ice caps with a million (or whatever) annual layers, which happens to correlate with a radiocarbon age of a million years, which happens to also correlate with the number of varves and the number of absolutely everything else we have found or can think of that happens annually????
I'm not assuming there was NOT such a thing, but I'm not willing to assume anything for which there is no evidence. Got any?
What are you asserting the effect of this mythical occurrence was?
I feel like we're having the same conversation over and over. Yes, it's possible that all of science is wrong. Stop using it immediately. Stop having science classes in the schools, colleges and universities. Cease all double-blind randomized tests of anything. After all, it could all be wrong, so what's the point? No knowledge is possible, and we all live in post-modernist, anyone can believe whatever they like land. In this land, you get to believe in a world-wide flood, and the Sioux get to believe that the great turtle rose from the ocean bearing North America on her back, and science has no way to determine which of these hypotheses is correct.
SoyLeche
meh...
I'm sure that the people who figured out that the earth is round were a subset of the "scientists" of the time. At first a very small subset.
Sorry, I thought this thread was about biblical issues
Well, you should at least consider it. I've said before, I don't ascribe to it, but I leave it open as a posibility.
Yes, we know that the layers we have observed form annually. It is probably a good extrapolation to say that therefore all of the layers formed annually. It's still an extrapolation though. Since we don't know the process by which God created the earth we can't rule out that something about that process caused a couple million layers to form instantaneously. Do I have evidence - of course not. This is a thought experiment, nothing more.
We've talked about your red herrings before. They don't do much more to further the conversation then the stuff you are complaining about me saying.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What is your point?!? Of course at first it was a subset, followed by a majority, followed by a consensus, just like the flood now. At one time everyone, (well, in Europe, anyway) including the scientists of the day, thought that the flood story was true. A subset figured out it wasn't. Eventually this became a majority, and is now a consensus. And?
Actually, it's about archeological issues.
And it's possible that you're not actually SoyLeche, but not very interesting or helpful to say so every time you post.
We don't know that God had anything to do with it. What we do know is not just that ice layers form annually, but that radiocarbon dating confirms this. And if you don't have evidence, why bring it up? I have no evidence that an evil but intelligent Pekingnese dog is actually posting under your username, but it's a thought experiment. Talk about red herrings. Sheez.
Fine, if you stop repeating the obvious and uninteresting point that all scientific knowledge is provisional, I'll stop responding by pointing out where that leads.
The question for the thread is not whether archeology (geology, biology, history, etc. etc.) is of any use, but whether any of them support the Bible--or not. Specifically, now that we have de-railed a little into the Biblical flood, whether they support the concept that it ever happened. They don't. None of them. Period. Bupkus. So, instead of muddying the waters pointing out the fascinating but self-evident concept of epistemological uncertainty over and over, how about addressing that point?
SoyLeche
meh...
OK, at least we understand one another
Vassal
Member
The flood in Genesis, even from only a Biblical perspective, could not have been global. In Genesis 8:1 it says clearly states that God cause a wind to blow over the earth (which incidently can also be translated as land, as in a local area of land), which casued the water to recede, and in 8:5 the water is described as "decreasing steadily". Now I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm a bit confused as to where all this water would be receding to if the entire Earth was flooded. And what would wind accomplish if the entire Earth was flooded? Some of the water would evaporate for a little while, but then it would eventually rain back down and the Earth would remain flooded. The description of the flood don't make much sense if is interpreted as a global flood, but makes perfect sense when interpreted as a local flood.
gnostic
The Lost One
Some creationists use the myths of other cultures or civilisations that support the biblical flood.
I don't think it does.
There may be myths of floods in Mesopotamia, Greece, India, China, etc, but it doesn't necessarily mean these flood stories correlate with the same flood as the bible. The Sumerian reported a flood further back in time in their myth than that of the Genesis. The Bible put its to 2340 or 2104 BCE. The flood of Sumerian myths dated back before the reign of historical Gilgamesh, which is around 2750 BCE.
There is a large scale flood that can be proven in regarding to the Sumerian myth of pre-Gilgamesh's reign, of around 2900 BCE. However, the evidence found is not world-wide, which the Sumerian myth or the biblical story have indicated. It is confined to from coast of the Arabian Sea to to the Sumerian city of Shuruppak. This is at least half millennium before Noah's flood.
If Noah's Flood happened in either 2340 or 2104 BCE, there were no break in Sumerian or Akkadian civilisation. Southern Mesopotamia would have been under water far longer than a mere year, which the Bible indicated. Also, the Bible said it covered the highest mountain. Now unless the mountains are far shorter than they are now, there is absolutely no way for flood water to dry up within a single year.
What is clear, is that the Hebrews, during Moses' time or later, have taken Sumerian myth of the deluge and used it as their own. Instead of Ziusudra, they have Noah.
Some creationists used the Black Sea as their evidence, but these silly creationists forgot one very important detail. The Black Sea Flood happened long before Noah's Flood, by over at least 2 millenniums.
The lack of evidences for the Biblical flood, make the Genesis nothing more than a myth.
I don't think it does.
There may be myths of floods in Mesopotamia, Greece, India, China, etc, but it doesn't necessarily mean these flood stories correlate with the same flood as the bible. The Sumerian reported a flood further back in time in their myth than that of the Genesis. The Bible put its to 2340 or 2104 BCE. The flood of Sumerian myths dated back before the reign of historical Gilgamesh, which is around 2750 BCE.
There is a large scale flood that can be proven in regarding to the Sumerian myth of pre-Gilgamesh's reign, of around 2900 BCE. However, the evidence found is not world-wide, which the Sumerian myth or the biblical story have indicated. It is confined to from coast of the Arabian Sea to to the Sumerian city of Shuruppak. This is at least half millennium before Noah's flood.
If Noah's Flood happened in either 2340 or 2104 BCE, there were no break in Sumerian or Akkadian civilisation. Southern Mesopotamia would have been under water far longer than a mere year, which the Bible indicated. Also, the Bible said it covered the highest mountain. Now unless the mountains are far shorter than they are now, there is absolutely no way for flood water to dry up within a single year.
What is clear, is that the Hebrews, during Moses' time or later, have taken Sumerian myth of the deluge and used it as their own. Instead of Ziusudra, they have Noah.
Some creationists used the Black Sea as their evidence, but these silly creationists forgot one very important detail. The Black Sea Flood happened long before Noah's Flood, by over at least 2 millenniums.
The lack of evidences for the Biblical flood, make the Genesis nothing more than a myth.
Hope
Princesinha
Perhaps if you actually took the time to read all those flood myths of other cultures, of which there are literally thousands, spread all over the globe, you might see that these creationists have a legitimate point. Jumping to conclusions about something which you have apparently little knowledge does not help your cause.
It does make a truly open-minded individual wonder, however, when so many of these myths share distinctive, key details with the biblical flood.
Your lack of knowledge about the nature of myths, or willing dismissal of the nature of myths, is apparent here. Almost every flood myth I've read is far more fantastic and elaborate than the biblical version. Which leads me to suspect the biblical version is closer to the truth.
You're entitled to your opinion. But I believe you haven't really examined all the evidence (or supposed lack thereof) thoroughly enough.
The only wonder here is that folks like you prove so adept at dismissing the obvious. Folklore is conflated and filtered story. All primitive peoples were subjected to periodic yet catastrophic flooding. Don't confuse an open mind with a vacuous one ...
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Hope:
Even using your logic, if you're looking for verification of the Noachian flood (and frankly I think comparative mythology is not the best place to look) then if everyone died in the flood, who made up all these myths around the world?
In any case, a brief trip via Google led me to some flood myths from other cultures. Here's what I found on a Maori myth:
[First there's a drought which they have to end by making the frog laugh.]
After peace and quiet had been restored, the question of the drought was again considered. A big eel, who lived in a deep water hole in the river, suggested that he should be given an opportunity of making the frog laugh. Many of the animals laughed at the idea, but, in despair, they agreed to give him a trial. The eel then began to wriggle in front of the frog. At first he wriggled slowly, then faster and faster until his head and tail met. Then he slowed down and wriggled like a snake with the shivers. After a few minutes, he changed his position, and flopped about like a well-bitten grub on an ant bed.
The frog opened his sleepy eyes, his big body quivered, his face relaxed, and, at last, he burst into a laugh that sounded like rolling thunder. The water poured from his mouth in a flood. It filled the deepest rivers and covered the land. Only the highest mountain peaks were visible, like islands in the sea. Many men and animals were drowned.
The pelican-who was a blackfellow at this time -sailed from island to island in a great canoe and rescued any blackfellow he saw. At last he came to an island on which there were many people. In their midst he saw a beautiful woman, and f ell in love with her. He rescued all the men on this island until the woman alone remained. Every time he made a journey she would ask him to take her with the men, but he would reply: "There are many in the canoe. I will carry you next time." He did this several times, and at last the woman guessed that he was going to take her to his camp. She then determined to escape from the pelican. While he was away, she wrapped a log in her possum rug, and placed it near the gunyah; then, as the flood was subsiding, she escaped to the bush. When he returned, he called to her, but, receiving no answer, he walked over to the possum rug and touched it with his foot. It, however, did not move. He then tore the rug away from what he supposed was a woman, but, when he found a log, he was very angry, and resolved to be revenged. He painted himself with white clay, and set out to look for the other blackfellows, with the intention of killing them. But the first pelican he met was so frightened by his strange appearance, that it struck him with a club and killed him. Since that time pelicans have been black and white in remembrance of the Great Flood.
The flood gradually subsided, and the land was again clothed in the green garments of spring. Through the tall green reeds the voice of the night wind whispered soft music to the river. And, when the dawn came from the eastern sky, the birds sang a song of welcome to the new flood-a flood of golden sunlight.
I don't know about you, but I don't see much in common with the Noachian myth there.
Here's a Cherokee myth:
The Great Serpent soon knew that he would die from his wound, but he and his companions were determined to destroy Nanabozho. They caused the water of the lake to swell upward and to pound against the shore with the sound of many thunders. Madly the flood rolled over the land, over the tracks of Nanabozho, carrying with it rocks and trees. High on the crest of the highest wave floated the wounded Great Serpent. His eyes glared around him, and his hot breath mingled with the hot breath of his many companions.
Nanabozho, fleeing before the angry waters, thought of his Indian children. He ran through their villages, shouting, "Run to the mountaintops! The Great Serpent is angry and is flooding the earth! Run! Run!"
The Indians caught up their children and found safety on the mountains. Nanabozho continued his flight along the base of the western hills and then up a high mountain beyond Lake Superior, far to the north. There he found many men and animals that had escaped from the flood that was already covering the valleys and plains and even the highest hills. Still the waters continued to rise. Soon all the mountains were under the flood, except the high one on which stood Nanabozho.
There he gathered together timber and made a raft. Upon it the men and women and animals with him placed themselves. Almost immediately the mountaintop disappeared from their view, and they floated along on the face of the waters. For many days they floated. At long last, the flood began to subside. Soon the people on the raft saw the trees on the tops of the mountains. Then they saw the mountains and hills, then the plains and the valleys.
When the water disappeared from the land, the people who survived learned that the Great Serpent was dead and that his companions had returned to the bottom of the lake of spirits. There they remain to this day. For fear of Nanabozho, they have never dared to come forth again.
Again, not much in common with Noah there.
I guess what I get from reading this various myths, and I admit I have not studied any of them, is that the Noah myth is in the same basic genre, that is, it is, like these stories from around the world, a myth.
Even using your logic, if you're looking for verification of the Noachian flood (and frankly I think comparative mythology is not the best place to look) then if everyone died in the flood, who made up all these myths around the world?
In any case, a brief trip via Google led me to some flood myths from other cultures. Here's what I found on a Maori myth:
[First there's a drought which they have to end by making the frog laugh.]
After peace and quiet had been restored, the question of the drought was again considered. A big eel, who lived in a deep water hole in the river, suggested that he should be given an opportunity of making the frog laugh. Many of the animals laughed at the idea, but, in despair, they agreed to give him a trial. The eel then began to wriggle in front of the frog. At first he wriggled slowly, then faster and faster until his head and tail met. Then he slowed down and wriggled like a snake with the shivers. After a few minutes, he changed his position, and flopped about like a well-bitten grub on an ant bed.
The frog opened his sleepy eyes, his big body quivered, his face relaxed, and, at last, he burst into a laugh that sounded like rolling thunder. The water poured from his mouth in a flood. It filled the deepest rivers and covered the land. Only the highest mountain peaks were visible, like islands in the sea. Many men and animals were drowned.
The pelican-who was a blackfellow at this time -sailed from island to island in a great canoe and rescued any blackfellow he saw. At last he came to an island on which there were many people. In their midst he saw a beautiful woman, and f ell in love with her. He rescued all the men on this island until the woman alone remained. Every time he made a journey she would ask him to take her with the men, but he would reply: "There are many in the canoe. I will carry you next time." He did this several times, and at last the woman guessed that he was going to take her to his camp. She then determined to escape from the pelican. While he was away, she wrapped a log in her possum rug, and placed it near the gunyah; then, as the flood was subsiding, she escaped to the bush. When he returned, he called to her, but, receiving no answer, he walked over to the possum rug and touched it with his foot. It, however, did not move. He then tore the rug away from what he supposed was a woman, but, when he found a log, he was very angry, and resolved to be revenged. He painted himself with white clay, and set out to look for the other blackfellows, with the intention of killing them. But the first pelican he met was so frightened by his strange appearance, that it struck him with a club and killed him. Since that time pelicans have been black and white in remembrance of the Great Flood.
The flood gradually subsided, and the land was again clothed in the green garments of spring. Through the tall green reeds the voice of the night wind whispered soft music to the river. And, when the dawn came from the eastern sky, the birds sang a song of welcome to the new flood-a flood of golden sunlight.
I don't know about you, but I don't see much in common with the Noachian myth there.
Here's a Cherokee myth:
The Great Serpent soon knew that he would die from his wound, but he and his companions were determined to destroy Nanabozho. They caused the water of the lake to swell upward and to pound against the shore with the sound of many thunders. Madly the flood rolled over the land, over the tracks of Nanabozho, carrying with it rocks and trees. High on the crest of the highest wave floated the wounded Great Serpent. His eyes glared around him, and his hot breath mingled with the hot breath of his many companions.
Nanabozho, fleeing before the angry waters, thought of his Indian children. He ran through their villages, shouting, "Run to the mountaintops! The Great Serpent is angry and is flooding the earth! Run! Run!"
The Indians caught up their children and found safety on the mountains. Nanabozho continued his flight along the base of the western hills and then up a high mountain beyond Lake Superior, far to the north. There he found many men and animals that had escaped from the flood that was already covering the valleys and plains and even the highest hills. Still the waters continued to rise. Soon all the mountains were under the flood, except the high one on which stood Nanabozho.
There he gathered together timber and made a raft. Upon it the men and women and animals with him placed themselves. Almost immediately the mountaintop disappeared from their view, and they floated along on the face of the waters. For many days they floated. At long last, the flood began to subside. Soon the people on the raft saw the trees on the tops of the mountains. Then they saw the mountains and hills, then the plains and the valleys.
When the water disappeared from the land, the people who survived learned that the Great Serpent was dead and that his companions had returned to the bottom of the lake of spirits. There they remain to this day. For fear of Nanabozho, they have never dared to come forth again.
Again, not much in common with Noah there.
I guess what I get from reading this various myths, and I admit I have not studied any of them, is that the Noah myth is in the same basic genre, that is, it is, like these stories from around the world, a myth.