Islam belief, Noah, the Great Flood and Science. Coherent or contradictory?

[TagliatelliMonster]

The way i look at this is, there is a ocean of information out there in the science world. Ive read alot, i barely remember most of it. But, alot of this stuff has to be interpreted and explained. Scientists, scholars disagree amongs themselves. And consensus i dont pay attention to, because just because most believe this or that, dont make it so. What most believe can be stupid too.

Scientific consensus is not about "what most scientists believe".

"beliefs" are not what science is about.

But the old ages, i cant see this as not being literal. It just looks too literal as i read it.

I think it's meant very literal. I think that the people that wrote this down, very much believed it.
They were also wrong.

 

[sooda]

No it was not natural erosion. In the article that provided the photos a geologists stated the reason it was not natural erosion. If I can find it I will post it (should have saved the link). It has something to do with the effects natural erosion has compared to flooding. Something to do with the layering.

-

I tried to find my original source & came up empty. My search engine is having problems but I did find this--
Discover the Ice Age Floods

The catastrophic floods from Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville

are among the largest known floods in geologic history

Ice Age Floods-Discover Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville

more evidence

Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com

Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous

Geologists long rejected the notion that cataclysmic flood had ever occurred—until one of them found proof of a Noah-like catastrophe in the wildly eroded river valleys of Washington State.
Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous | DiscoverMagazine.com

-

The Missoula Floods weren't global either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think that Islam started falling apart after the passing of Muhammad PBUH. Saudi Islam especially is excessive and a disappointment to me.

Islam started falling apart when Al-gezhali came up with his toxic and poisoness Kalaam argument.
For a few centuries Baghdad was the epicenter of multi-culturalism, tolerance of ideas and scientific advancement - while our ancestors in western europe were busy burning books, witches and heretics.

Then Al-Gezhali came with his toxic philosophy. He even literally called mathematics the language of the devil at some point. And for some reason, his philosophies won and the islamic world never recovered. The damage that dude caused, persists till this day. To put it into perspective, a single western average university puts out MORE scientific papers annually then the entire islamic middle east combined.

While islamic culture is what brought us arabic numbers, algebra, astronomy, etc.


Ironically, half of the arguments a lot of christian apologists put out today, are actually that dude's arguments put in a christian jacket. It's a bit embarassing actually. And also a wake up call. If you let those guys have their way, 150 years from now the judeo christian west will end up like the current islamic world. Halting all progress and plummeting back into dark ages.

People think that isn't true. But we have a precedent... the islamic world. That is EXACTLY what happened to that culture, after such fallacious and bad reasoning took over the culture.

 

[sooda]

Islam started falling apart when Al-gezhali came up with his toxic and poisoness Kalaam argument.
For a few centuries Baghdad was the epicenter of multi-culturalism, tolerance of ideas and scientific advancement - while our ancestors in western europe were busy burning books, witches and heretics.

Then Al-Gezhali came with his toxic philosophy. He even literally called mathematics the language of the devil at some point. And for some reason, his philosophies won and the islamic world never recovered. The damage that dude caused, persists till this day. To put it into perspective, a single western average university puts out MORE scientific papers annually then the entire islamic middle east combined.

While islamic culture is what brought us arabic numbers, algebra, astronomy, etc.


Ironically, half of the arguments a lot of christian apologists put out today, are actually that dude's arguments put in a christian jacket. It's a bit embarassing actually. And also a wake up call. If you let those guys have their way, 150 years from now the judeo christian west will end up like the current islamic world. Halting all progress and plummeting back into dark ages.

People think that isn't true. But we have a precedent... the islamic world. That is EXACTLY what happened to that culture, after such fallacious and bad reasoning took over the culture.

Glad you brought up Kalam.. Hadn't heard that word in decades. My father used to say wajid kalam meaning lots of blah , blah, blah.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Missoula Floods weren't global either.

. . . and specifically related to the well documented collapse of a glacial ice dam of a large lake, and likely more than one event during the glacial age. Note; the Biblical writers were clueless concerning glaciers.

 

[Jollybear]

Scientific consensus is not about "what most scientists believe". beliefs" are not what science is about.

Yea, consent or consensus is to agree. Not all scientists agree. Science is not about belief, but all scientists have beliefs and all scientists have a consensus. But not all scientists agree with that consensus.

I think it's meant very literal. I think that the people that wrote this down, very much believed it.
They were also wrong.

You assert they wer wrong. How do you know?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yea, consent or consensus is to agree. Not all scientists agree. Science is not about belief, but all scientists have beliefs and all scientists have a consensus. But not all scientists agree with that consensus.

fully 99%+ all scientist fully agree on the basics of evolution and the nature of our physical existence, and the objective verifiable evidence that no such Biblical flood ever happened, evolution explains the history of life on earth, the world itself, and our universe is billions of years old.

You assert they were wrong. How do you know?

What they wrote does not fit the objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Remté]

Islam started falling apart when Al-gezhali came up with his toxic and poisoness Kalaam argument.

What's toxic about it?

He even literally called mathematics the language of the devil at some point.

Not true. He was very much for mathematics and science.

 

[Audie]

Yea, consent or consensus is to agree. Not all scientists agree. Science is not about belief, but all scientists have beliefs and all scientists have a consensus. But not all scientists agree with that consensus.



You assert they wer wrong. How do you know?

Earlier you said- Ive read alot, i barely remember most of it. But, alot of this stuff has to be interpreted and explained. Scientists, scholars disagree amongs themselves

And I want to comment on it.
First-"read a lot". Who knows what sources
these are, or how much you consider to be
"a lot". So your reader does not know what
to make of this.

-has to be interpreted and explained
Raw data is not good for much unless it
it is given some context, interpreted, if you
like. I doubt you were reading raw data.
so what you mean by your statement is
hard to say. Perhaps it is a way of saying
it is all just opinion?

Scientists, scholars disagree amongs themselves

This seems to confirm that you are thinking it is
all just opinion / consensus, and one idea is as
good as the next.

i rather think you have never spent any time
around scientists, certainly do not know any
nor have you done research, and are not at all
familiar with the work, standards of thinking of
researchers. Am I right?

To say people "Disagree" is so general as to
be meaningless. Christians disagree. Historians
disagree about WW2. Automotive engineers
probably disagree.
But about what? Whether to worship god?
Whether or not Brazil attacked India in WW2?

There is also the basis for disagreement.
IF someone wants to propose that Brazil
attacked India and occupied the country, they
will need some data.
As no such data exists, they will be laughed at.
Great Historian though he may nominally be.

IF someone (such as the paleontologist K. Wise)
is a yec, and thinks the world is only 6 k years old,
well, they do not get much respect for it. Why?
Zero data.

To say that "historians disagree" and "paleontologists
disagree" is in such cases either deliberately misleading,
or, just kinda dumb.

What you are referring to as agreement or consensus
is really this-
researchers in whatever field are going to be aware
of the concepts, theories, discoveries of their field.
They know what conclusions best fit the available
data. It is not that they get together to agree on things.

Take WW2 for example. Everyone knows the basics,
and a lot of small details too. There was no gathering
to come to a consensus on whether Japan was involved.
There are endless little details to be discovered, analyzed,
argued over, until, say, the ship is discovered at the bottom
of the sea and there is no more disagreement about where
it might be.

I guess, if you must, you can call that agreement or consensus
about the shipwreck. Is such agreement somehow
a weakness, a problem for WW2 historians, for which they
should be criticized?




Finally, on how you forgot most of
what you've read:

This is not an attack, not a put down etc,
just a maybe-helpful comment on this.

When I was in school, I made sure I
explained any new concept to myself,
in my own words. When I could do that,
and explain it to another person, then I had
it, because I understood it.

When you understand, you do not forget.

It is no good to just memorize, or sorta
remember what you read.

Oh, in your lasts sentence there, you said how
do you know they were wrong.

About whether there was a world wide flood?

 

[sooda]

. . . and specifically related to the well documented collapse of a glacial ice dam of a large lake, and likely more than one event during the glacial age. Note; the Biblical writers were clueless concerning glaciers.

Thank you.. You know, they are clueless about nearly everything more than 30 miles from Jerusalem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yea, consent or consensus is to agree. Not all scientists agree. Science is not about belief, but all scientists have beliefs and all scientists have a consensus. But not all scientists agree with that consensus.

The point is that scientific consensus, is not about mere sharing of beliefs or opinions.
It rather is about agreement concerning the scientific evidence.

A subtle yet important difference.
For example, when the results of plenty independent studies / experiments match, there is scientific consensus.

This is not the same as all agreeing on some idea shared over coffee late at night at the bar.

You assert they wer wrong. How do you know?

Facts of reality show it wrong.
The flood story as told in those myths, makes a bunch of predictions about the world that we can test.
If the tests fail and the predictions are wrong, then the story as told is wrong.

The tests fail.

For example, it predicts a massive universal genetic bottleneck in all species that dates to roughly the same period. No such bottleneck exists.

That alone, already refutes the story.

 

[sooda]

The point is that scientific consensus, is not about mere sharing of beliefs or opinions.
It rather is about agreement concerning the scientific evidence.

A subtle yet important difference.
For example, when the results of plenty independent studies / experiments match, there is scientific consensus.

This is not the same as all agreeing on some idea shared over coffee late at night at the bar.



Facts of reality show it wrong.
The flood story as told in those myths, makes a bunch of predictions about the world that we can test.
If the tests fail and the predictions are wrong, then the story as told is wrong.

The tests fail.

For example, it predicts a massive universal genetic bottleneck in all species that dates to roughly the same period. No such bottleneck exists.

That alone, already refutes the story.

CONSENSUS AMONG SCIENTISTS WHO AGREE CONCERNING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

 

[sooda]

The point is that scientific consensus, is not about mere sharing of beliefs or opinions.
It rather is about agreement concerning the scientific evidence.

A subtle yet important difference.
For example, when the results of plenty independent studies / experiments match, there is scientific consensus.

This is not the same as all agreeing on some idea shared over coffee late at night at the bar.



Facts of reality show it wrong.
The flood story as told in those myths, makes a bunch of predictions about the world that we can test.
If the tests fail and the predictions are wrong, then the story as told is wrong.

The tests fail.

For example, it predicts a massive universal genetic bottleneck in all species that dates to roughly the same period. No such bottleneck exists.

That alone, already refutes the story.

According to scripture there were 300 and some odd years between Noah walking out of the Ark and the collapse of the Tower of Babel,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's toxic about it?

It forms a blueprint for magical thinking and arguments from ignorance.
It's a typical form of logic that is engrained in his philosophy and by extension the whole of Islam, which completely embraced his ideas to the point that he was, and is, called "the greatest muslim since mohammed".

To put it extremely simplisticly, when some phenomena is observed, the phenomena isn't so much the result of a natural laws, but just the will of God.

In one of his works, he literally gives the example of cotton burning when coming in contact with fire. He says it is an illusion that this happens because of some natural law. Instead, it happens each and every time only because God wills it.

Such ideas are the end of the line of scientific thought. And it proved to be the end of the line of Islamic's golden age of scientific advancement, as history shows.

While muslims see Al-Gazhali as the best thing to have happened to Islam since Mohammed, I'ld say that it is actually the worst. To the point that Islam as a culture never recovered and still hasn't.

 

[Audie]

CONSENSUS AMONG SCIENTISTS WHO AGREE CONCERNING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Ah evidence. Data. Yes. A super-important detail.

The Arizona meteor crater was not at first recognized
for what it is, a meteor crater.

When the data was in, those who thought maybe
it was volcanic agreed that yes, no data supporting
volcano, all the characteristic data for a meteor.

This is not just herd mentality,
people mostly agreeing on a belief, but with
many dissenters with equally valid ideas.

 

[Audie]

Islam started falling apart when Al-gezhali came up with his toxic and poisoness Kalaam argument.
For a few centuries Baghdad was the epicenter of multi-culturalism, tolerance of ideas and scientific advancement - while our ancestors in western europe were busy burning books, witches and heretics.

Then Al-Gezhali came with his toxic philosophy. He even literally called mathematics the language of the devil at some point. And for some reason, his philosophies won and the islamic world never recovered. The damage that dude caused, persists till this day. To put it into perspective, a single western average university puts out MORE scientific papers annually then the entire islamic middle east combined.

While islamic culture is what brought us arabic numbers, algebra, astronomy, etc.


Ironically, half of the arguments a lot of christian apologists put out today, are actually that dude's arguments put in a christian jacket. It's a bit embarassing actually. And also a wake up call. If you let those guys have their way, 150 years from now the judeo christian west will end up like the current islamic world. Halting all progress and plummeting back into dark ages.

People think that isn't true. But we have a precedent... the islamic world. That is EXACTLY what happened to that culture, after such fallacious and bad reasoning took over the culture.

If someone else has a better theory for that descent
into darkness and superstition, let them present it.
Please!

 

[sooda]

Ah evidence. Data. Yes. A super-important detail.

The Arizona meteor crater was not at first recognized
for what it is, a meteor crater.

When the data was in, those who thought maybe
it was volcanic agreed that yes, no data supporting
volcano, all the characteristic data for a meteor.

This is not just herd mentality,
people mostly agreeing on a belief, but with
many dissenters with equally valid ideas.

Herd mentality is a good choice of words.

 

[sooda]

If someone else has a better theory for that descent
into darkness and superstition, let them present it.
Please!

The Muslim world or most of it went thru an extended period of stagnation during the Ottoman Empire .. literacy and everything else suffered. Ancient tribal customs were entrenched and passed for Islam. That began changing in the Gulf States about 1950 and they are clawing there way back. Saudi Arabia began a huge push to inculcate critical thinking into education as opposed to rote learning about 20 years ago. They also have excellent universities in the study of petroleum and minerals, geology, chemistry which have been around for 40 years...They have an excellent grasp of the field of plate tectonics ...

 

[Audie]

The Muslim world or most of it went thru an extended period of stagnation during the Ottoman Empire .. literacy and everything else suffered. Ancient tribal customs were entrenched and passed for Islam. That began changing in the Gulf States about 1950 and they are clawing there way back. Saudi Arabia began a huge push to inculcate critical thinking into education as opposed to rote learning about 20 years ago. They also have excellent universities in the study of petroleum and minerals, geology, chemistry which have been around for 40 years...They have an excellent grasp of the field of plate tectonics ...

Are you giving a reason, or, just describing events?

Id be interested to know if they are teaching science,
or, turning out a lot of people who memorized texts
instead of the koran. I will be surprised if they are
teaching science, at all. Or critical thinking.

It could only be done at grave risk to the religion.

 

[sooda]

Are you giving a reason, or, just describing events?

Id be interested to know if they are teaching science,
or, turning out a lot of people who memorized texts
instead of the koran. I will be surprised if they are
teaching science, at all. Or critical thinking.

It could only be done at grave risk to the religion.

The focus is on critical thinking.. I don't think their religion is at risk. I have toured a lot of universities and science centers in Arabia and they have outstanding active displays of earth changes over the millions of years.. The tilting of the peninsula, the widening of the Red Sea, the pushing up of the escarpment and the Mountains of Asir, the change in the Persian Gulf from river to lake to salt water gulf.. At each station they have a little brass plaque with a verse from the Koran. it seems to me that they reconcile faith with science.