Religion and science

[Karel]

Karel, if you’ve studied radiocarbon dating, then you must be aware that it is not without its inherent problems. For intance, scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past. This prompted the observation by Melvin Cook, a professor of metallurgy, that “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.”

That is why I referred to calibrated carbon dating, which is independent of such assumptions. And really, the objection is rather obvious don't you think? Scientists realized right from the beginning that this was something that needed close attention if they wanted to make carbon dating work, and any method of dating by radioactive decay. So they set out to research this point and resolved it to their satisfaction.

You see, this is what I mean about agenda-driven science as opposed to true science. It is not as cut-and-dried and beyond questionability as you have presented it to be.

In the light of my previous answer, I don't think you have given me enough of an argument to accept your conclusion.

With regard to your statement, “No evidence for a worldwide disruption like the flood has occurred in this time or these times; indeed, civilizations seem to continue as if nothing happened,” a lot of well-meaning people believe it to be so, and one can certainly find “authorities” on the subject to support this thinking, but it simply is not the case.

I am quite certain a lot of well-meaning people think so. And it is not their well-meaningness that is under discussion. But since you don't put up a date for the flood and at least one example of a civilisation that was cut off in that period, with traces of being cut off by a flood, you cannot really hope to convince me here.

Not to mention the fossil evidence and the fact that sea shells can be found in the tops of mountains, virtually every ancient civilization in every far-flung corner of the planet has a legend about their ancestors having survived a global flood. While the embellishments to these legends vary, they all agree on certain central elements. For example: that God was angry at mankind due to their wickedness; that it was he who brought the great flood; that only a few righteous individuals were spared, and they survived by building a huge vessel in which they also saved the many different kinds of animals; that after a time birds were sent out in search of land; that the vessel came to rest on a mountain, and the people offered a sacrifice to God after they came out.

Where are such legends found? Among African Pygmies, European Celts, South American Incas, native peoples of Alaska, Australia, China, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Micronesia, New Zeland, to name only a few. Are these similarities coincidental? Extremely unlikely. Rather it is real evidence—circumstantial but real—that the Bible's account of the flood is not just a fable with a moral lesson.

The claim that all flood myths share the central points you mention seems exaggerated. In fact they are reported to differ even in these central points. You will find a discussion here, and also a collection.

“The essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student.”—John McCampbell, professor of geology.

Sure, but not completely, I hope.

Now the points you have advanced make me a bit wary, because you seem to come to this discussion much less well prepared than I, and in such a case the results of the discussion will necessarily be skewed towards the better informed participator, apart from the real value of the positions advocated.

Also, while I am quite ready to come forward with my opinions and to defend them, I don't think this forum is the place for an extended creation-evolution debate, so perhaps we can agree to disagree. But if you insist, I am at your service.

Regards,

Karel

[New-born baby]

Karel, if you’ve studied radiocarbon dating, then you must be aware that it is not without its inherent problems. For intance, scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past. This prompted the observation by Melvin Cook, a professor of metallurgy, that “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.”

You see, this is what I mean about agenda-driven science as opposed to true science. It is not as cut-and-dried and beyond questionability as you have presented it to be.

With regard to your statement, “No evidence for a worldwide disruption like the flood has occurred in this time or these times; indeed, civilizations seem to continue as if nothing happened,” a lot of well-meaning people believe it to be so, and one can certainly find “authorities” on the subject to support this thinking, but it simply is not the case.

Not to mention the fossil evidence and the fact that sea shells can be found in the tops of mountains, virtually every ancient civilization in every far-flung corner of the planet has a legend about their ancestors having survived a global flood. While the embellishments to these legends vary, they all agree on certain central elements. For example: that God was angry at mankind due to their wickedness; that it was he who brought the great flood; that only a few righteous individuals were spared, and they survived by building a huge vessel in which they also saved the many different kinds of animals; that after a time birds were sent out in search of land; that the vessel came to rest on a mountain, and the people offered a sacrifice to God after they came out.

Where are such legends found? Among African Pygmies, European Celts, South American Incas, native peoples of Alaska, Australia, China, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Micronesia, New Zeland, to name only a few. Are these similarities coincidental? Extremely unlikely. Rather it is real evidence—circumstantial but real—that the Bible's account of the flood is not just a fable with a moral lesson.

“The essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student.”—John McCampbell, professor of geology.

Good post, Rob. The fact is that every culture has an account of the flood. The name may not be Noah, but all the cultures speak of an ancient flood of the entire earth.

[Rob]

Both dates fall well within the reach of calibrated Carbon dating, . . .

Karel, if you’ve studied radiocarbon dating, then you must be aware that it is not without its inherent problems. For intance, scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past. This prompted the observation by Melvin Cook, a professor of metallurgy, that “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.”

You see, this is what I mean about agenda-driven science as opposed to true science. It is not as cut-and-dried and beyond questionability as you have presented it to be.

With regard to your statement, “No evidence for a worldwide disruption like the flood has occurred in this time or these times; indeed, civilizations seem to continue as if nothing happened,” a lot of well-meaning people believe it to be so, and one can certainly find “authorities” on the subject to support this thinking, but it simply is not the case.

Not to mention the fossil evidence and the fact that sea shells can be found in the tops of mountains, virtually every ancient civilization in every far-flung corner of the planet has a legend about their ancestors having survived a global flood. While the embellishments to these legends vary, they all agree on certain central elements. For example: that God was angry at mankind due to their wickedness; that it was he who brought the great flood; that only a few righteous individuals were spared, and they survived by building a huge vessel in which they also saved the many different kinds of animals; that after a time birds were sent out in search of land; that the vessel came to rest on a mountain, and the people offered a sacrifice to God after they came out.

Where are such legends found? Among African Pygmies, European Celts, South American Incas, native peoples of Alaska, Australia, China, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Micronesia, New Zeland, to name only a few. Are these similarities coincidental? Extremely unlikely. Rather it is real evidence—circumstantial but real—that the Bible's account of the flood is not just a fable with a moral lesson.

“The essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student.”—John McCampbell, professor of geology.

[Karel]

Karel.... Do you beleive "the flood" (as it's described in the Bible) to be an actual event? why?

Hi Lye, of course not. Attempts to date the flood with the aid of the Bible (and what other source should we use when we consider a historically inerrant Bible) result in a date in the second half of the 3rd millenium BC, except when you give the Septuagint precedence over the extant Hebrew texts, then it moves back a millenium or so. Both dates fall well within the reach of calibrated Carbon dating, and this shows that

1. No evidence for a worldwide disruption like the flood has occurred in this time or these times; indeed, civilizations seem to continue as if nothing happened;
2. What is usually pointed out as evidence of the flood (fossils, evidence of major disruptions) falls mainly very far before this time or these times. (No longer datable by C14, but for instance by the self-calibrating isochron dating methods

There are more reasons, of course, but this should suffice for the moment.

Now I would like to caution you in case you want to quote texts like Matthew 24:37-38 to me, with the implication that Jesus obviously considered the flood to be a historical event. It is well known that in Jesus' time people didn't make the distinction between allegorical/symbolical descriptions of the past and strictly historical descriptions past, as we do. So if you would claim that Jesus believed in the flood, I would agree, but I would not be convinced that His words could only be interpreted in a strictly historical sense. And in case someone would insist that we should interpret His words so: the evidence from science still remains, and we are faced with the dilemma: do we reject science, without any good scientific reason, just on the force of a certain interpretation of the Bible, or do we reject the Bible, because some Biblical inerrantists hold that if the Bible would contain just one significant error, it would fall apart completely. When I see dilemma's like that coming up, I would be inclined to ask whether we didn't take a wrong turn somewhere.

Regards,

Karel