TEs/OECs interpretation of The Flood

[Jorge]

The evidence strongly implies the birds evolved from the dinosaurs. That is that. But it's not a belief in the religious sense.

You do not know what you are talking about and since you have
proven yourself to be untrainable then that's where I'll leave it.

That you claim those that accept common descent are not actually Christians is idiocy and a violation of the tenets of that same faith. In point of fact, IF your kind of definition of what is a real Christian was applied to you, then your own improper assessment of this issue would disqualify you as well. Christian faith has to do with belief in the Deity of Christ, His literal death burial and Resurrection. It has nothing at all to do with what one believes about HOW God made the Earth, or over what timeframe He did it.

That you may believe it is logically inconsistent to believe such is irrelevant.

Jim

As I just finished writing, you have proven yourself on multiple occasions
to be wholly untrainable so why would I even bother trying? I won't.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

The evidence strongly implies the birds evolved from the dinosaurs. That is that.

The evidence had reached the point where any mention in academic papers of "dinosaurs" as we know them from our youth are now phrased as "non-avian dinosaurs".

[oxmixmudd]

You do not know what you are talking about and since you have
proven yourself to be untrainable then that's where I'll leave it.



As I just finished writing, you have proven yourself on multiple occasions
to be wholly untrainable so why would I even bother trying? I won't.

Jorge

It is very hard for me to regard your accusation that I'm untrainable (by you) as anything other than a compliment.

As for what the evidence shows - you don't have a clue. My sig is just one of many possible examples.

Jim

[Jorge]

It is very hard for me to regard your accusation that I'm untrainable (by you) as anything other than a compliment.

Good - you may then consider yourself as VERY HIGHLY complimented by me.

As for what the evidence shows - you don't have a clue. My sig is just one of many possible examples.

Jim

snore ... snore ... snore

Jorge

[Rushing Jaws]

You have made my day -- I mean that -- by boisterously affirming your claim "There is no scientific evidence for a global flood".

Listen and try to learn something: ANYTHING can be proven by simply redefining or reinterpreting things.

What you people DISHONESTLY do is precisely that - you redefine and reinterpret things in such a way that you build your conclusion into the premise. Tell us, what color is Napoleon's white horse, O-Mudd?

But that's not all. If you bothered to actually look into this without your rabid prejudices and blinders you would realize that there is indeed TONS of scientific (observable, objective, verifiable) evidence. But again, what you people do is to redefine/reinterpret so as to make it all vanish - POOF! Besides being extremely dishonest, TEs/OECs are among the world's greatest magicians.

So go ahead and keep repeating what obviously ain't so -- next time use size 16 font instead of size 5. Each time you do it you merely highlight the depths of dishonesty that you people will sink to in order to promote your anti-Scriptural beliefs. Bears repeating: your "bible", your "christ", your "god" aren't the ones of genuine Christianity - they are Frankenstein creations born out of your own desires.

Jorge

## There may be evidence for something - but to say that something is a
geographically
biologically
demographically
universal
flood
that happened
as an historical event
and is described in Gen.6.5-8.22

is another matter. All of these details have to be satisfied, because they are entailed by believing that Gen.6.5-8.22 is an historically inerrant record of a universal flood.

STM there are several issues here:

1. Whether Gen.6.5-8.22 is intended to be a record of an historically real flood
2. What the words & concepts of the Biblical text signify
3. Whether the historicity of the Flood narrative is required for the narrative to be true as part of Scripture
4. Whether the historicity and extent of the Flood are guaranteed by the NT references to, and use of, the Flood narrative
5. Whether the truthfulness of Scripture is compromised by maintaining that the Flood-narrative is a myth
6. Whether the Omniscience of Christ is compromised by maintaining this
7. Whether scientific knowledge of the world we live in has to give way to Biblical statements that are deemed to have a bearing on the sciences
8. What the scope of the inspiration of Scripture is
9. How this inspiration operates in a text
10 - and probably more...

As to the word *kol* (all, every), I looked up how often *kol* appears. Here are the stats for "all, every" in Gen.6.5-8.22:

6.2

= 1 use of *kol* in 6.2

6.5 (x2)
6.12
6.13
6.17 (x2)
6.19 (x3)
6.20 (x2)
6.21
6.22
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.8
7.11
7.14 (x5)
7.15
7.16
7.19 (x2)
7.21 (x3)
7.22 (x2)
7.23
8.1 (x2)
8.9
8.17 (x3)
8.19 (x4)
8.20 (x2)
8.21

= 48 uses of *kol* in 6.5-8.22, which is the Flood narrative itself. In addition, the presence of *kol* in 6.2 links the unit 6.1-4 with the Flood-narrative, to which it forms a thematically appropriate introduction.

9.2 (x4)
9.3 (x2)
9.5
9.10 (x4)
9.11
9.12
9.15 (x3)
9.16 (x2)
9.17
9.19
9.29

= 21 uses of *kol* in 9.2-9.29

This amounts to 70 uses of the word *kol* from 6.2 to 9.29.

Is that proof, or even evidence, that there was a flood that was geographically & biologically universal ?

No.

Is it proof there was a Flood ?

No.

To answer this, from whose POV was "the Genesis Flood" universal? That of -

1. the characters in the narrative ?
2. the human makers of Genesis 6.2-9.29 ?
3. Jesus as presented in the NT ?
5. the Christians who made use of the narrative in composing the NT books ?
6. Christian interpretation in the last 1900 years ?
7. late post-Biblical readers such as us ?

The text takes great pains to emphasise the universality of the Flood. This is not evidence, let alone proof, that the Flood was an historical event. The text of Gen.6.5-8.22 is talking about a Flood that is universal within the narrative, but local from the POV of readers with a more detailed & more extensive geography. Because several texts about floods seem to lie behind Genesis, the question arises to which flood is claimed to have happened.

Scientific evidence - or the lack of it - has to be taken seriously. If there is no scientific evidence of a world-wide flood, then so be it. It is bad theology to ignore or suppress or distort scientific evidence; the disciples of a God of Truth should not do such things.

[Jorge]

The text takes great pains to emphasise the universality of the Flood. This is not evidence, let alone proof, that the Flood was an historical event. The text of Gen.6.5-8.22 is talking about a Flood that is universal within the narrative, but local from the POV of readers with a more detailed & more extensive geography. Because several texts about floods seem to lie behind Genesis, the question arises to which flood is claimed to have happened.

Scientific evidence - or the lack of it - has to be taken seriously. If there is no scientific evidence of a world-wide flood, then so be it. It is bad theology to ignore or suppress or distort scientific evidence; the disciples of a God of Truth should not do such things.

Let's just focus on the above, okay?

"The text takes great pains to emphasise the universality of the Flood. This is not evidence, let alone proof, that the Flood was an historical event. The text of Gen.6.5-8.22 is talking about a Flood that is universal within the narrative, but local from the POV of readers with a more detailed & more extensive geography. Because several texts about floods seem to lie behind Genesis, the question arises to which flood is claimed to have happened.

As per the above, it appears that God did not know what He was doing in preserving His Word for future generations. I mean, God allowed a false AND ambiguous narrative to be preserved. Gee, it looks like we have to toss the Holy Bible into a burning furnace, post haste.

Hardly! Gonna have to try harder here, RJ.


Scientific evidence - or the lack of it - has to be taken seriously. If there is no scientific evidence of a world-wide flood, then so be it. It is bad theology to ignore or suppress or distort scientific evidence; the disciples of a God of Truth should not do such things."

Hmmm ... okay, let's follow your logic / argument.
There are TONS of scientific evidence against all of the following:

- Dead bodies returning to eat and walk (except in ZOMBIE movies, of course)
- People walking unassisted on liquid water
- Men calming/stopping a fierce storm with just a verbal command
- Cripples instantly healed and walking
- Blind instantly healed and seeing
- Leprosy and other illnesses instantly healed
- Multiple thousands of hungry people well-fed with very little food
- Water instantly becoming fine wine

I'll stop there - that's enough examples.

So, since there is NONE, ZERO, ZILCH "scientific evidence" for these things, then using your logic and argument we must hurry and toss our Bibles into the nearest garbage can. After all, "It is bad theology to ignore or suppress or distort scientific evidence; the disciples of a God of Truth should not do such things."

RIGHT?

You really need to think harder and deeper about these things, RJ.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Let's just focus on the above, okay?

"The text takes great pains to emphasise the universality of the Flood. This is not evidence, let alone proof, that the Flood was an historical event. The text of Gen.6.5-8.22 is talking about a Flood that is universal within the narrative, but local from the POV of readers with a more detailed & more extensive geography. Because several texts about floods seem to lie behind Genesis, the question arises to which flood is claimed to have happened.

As per the above, it appears that God did not know what He was doing in preserving His Word for future generations. I mean, God allowed a false AND ambiguous narrative to be preserved. Gee, it looks like we have to toss the Holy Bible into a burning furnace, post haste.

Hardly! Gonna have to try harder here, RJ.


Scientific evidence - or the lack of it - has to be taken seriously. If there is no scientific evidence of a world-wide flood, then so be it. It is bad theology to ignore or suppress or distort scientific evidence; the disciples of a God of Truth should not do such things."

Hmmm ... okay, let's follow your logic / argument.
There are TONS of scientific evidence against all of the following:

- Dead bodies returning to eat and walk (except in ZOMBIE movies, of course)
- People walking unassisted on liquid water
- Men calming/stopping a fierce storm with just a verbal command
- Cripples instantly healed and walking
- Blind instantly healed and seeing
- Leprosy and other illnesses instantly healed
- Multiple thousands of hungry people well-fed with very little food
- Water instantly becoming fine wine

I'll stop there - that's enough examples.

So, since there is NONE, ZERO, ZILCH "scientific evidence" for these things, then using your logic and argument we must hurry and toss our Bibles into the nearest garbage can. After all, "It is bad theology to ignore or suppress or distort scientific evidence; the disciples of a God of Truth should not do such things."

RIGHT?

You really need to think harder and deeper about these things, RJ.

Jorge

Once again you fail to recognize the difference between specific evidence against a claim and scientifcall classifying the NATURAL potential for an event.

Jim

[rogue06]

"implies"??? I do not "imply" it, I've stated it boldly without mincing words!
You really do need to learn how to read for comprehension.

It seems that not long ago that you vehemently denied that your position was that non-YECs weren't True Christians™ and accused those who said it was were dishonestly vilifing you but it now seems lately that you've decided to drop the charade.

[Duragizer]

Once again you fail to recognize the difference between specific evidence against a claim and scientifcall classifying the NATURAL potential for an event.

Jim

Fails to recognize or recognizes and deliberately chooses to ignore?

[TheLurch]

Somewhat relevant: seems like there's evidence for one of the ancient flood legends, this one in China.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...hinese-legend/

This one was clearly local, as the legends also describe some of the political changes that came about as a result of the downstream civilization attempting to deal with long-term damage caused by the flood.

[rogue06]

Somewhat relevant: seems like there's evidence for one of the ancient flood legends, this one in China.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...hinese-legend/

This one was clearly local, as the legends also describe some of the political changes that came about as a result of the downstream civilization attempting to deal with long-term damage caused by the flood.

There are a couple that can be traced back to actual floods. IIRC, the one from some coastal tribes in the American Northwest appears to be linked to a tsunami in 1700.

[logician bones]

Rogue:

-Warm-blooded dinos -- I'm well aware that's a view that's out there. I've seen cases made both ways, but that possibility is still relevant in case they were not.

-No "modern" mammals alongside dinos -- This claim is technically probably true so far as I know, but be careful with it. Mammals are found alongside them (one, at least, having eaten one), and so have things like ducks been found alongside them. And there have been reports of researcher "blindness" to them since dinosaurs are more sensational and tend to get the attention first. Evidently the work of cataloguing the less flashy fossils that have been seen already alongside dinosaurs is still largely to be done.

Things especially get tricky with unsettled issues such as where the Flood layers end, and post-Flood increased activity period begins (remember this would fade off, looking much like Flood layers at first in some places, at least). Some of what is taken as late Flood may in fact be post-Flood. Another issue is prevalence of branches within kinds not represented on the ark. If some branches were more prevalent because they were more violent, it could imply the post-Flood ones should look very different. If both of these factors combine, it would automatically explain that difference. However, even without that, it's fallacious to just assume that for example triceratops would have to live with rhinoceros. We don't know that.

-Dolphins alongside sea reptiles would seem to make sense, yeah, but we can't assume even that. First, is there evidence for the sea reptiles being warm-blooded? Next, might they have lived near the coasts as well, perhaps being more like crocodilians behaviorally? Since they're found in dino layers, the immediate presumption would seem to be that they probably lived near them.


Lurch:

-Bald assertion that it isn't plausible. According to the modeling it is; yes, that is not proof, of course, but it would seem to make sense under those starting conditions. If, however, those starting conditions did not exist, then it wouldn't work as far as I know.

-Why do you think the banding is evidence for gradual motion? I can guess, but you know the drill.

-You cite only the upper mantle, but according to a quick search, mantle temperatures may exceed 4000 C lower down, and oceanic plate tends to be heavier (obviously), so it tends to sink. Fair notice: I've been trying to find the article about this but all the search terms I've tried so far haven't brought up what look to be obviously relevant results... I remember seeing the 3D map of it, and I thought it was fairly deep, but yeah.

-"Quick" is a relative term; since your view is of slow and gradual subduction, I wouldn't really apply it, but I get your point. But the fact that it doesn't happen "quickly" would be why we still find it not yet fully melted today, in the RS scenario.

-You're dipping into fundy territory with your "you must demand a literal reading!" argument. Question -- in your view, did the Hebrews use figures of speech within historical narrative?

-I never said it was an argument. I'm not going to reject your reasoning outright, but I'm skeptical of "armchair science" like that. The numbers you end up with depend on the assumptions you fed into it, and it isn't clear from what you presented that they are the correct premises. You could be right -- and if you are, you should not fear your reasoning being questioned and analyzed over time rather than blindly accepted instantly.



ox:

Nevertheless, it would seem to me the fact we NEVER find modern mammals and dinosaurs (other than birds of course) mixed together undoes the point of the argument you are making.

No it doesn't, because the argument doesn't rely on their being found together. There's too much risk of circularity either way (either insisting they wouldn't because they aren't, or insisting they WOULD because they aren't on the other side) to base arguments on that. If you're going to make actual arguments about that they have to be based on actual features of the animals, the geography, and the model. All possible factors would have to be ruled out. Such simplistic dismissals simply aren't reasonable in light of this.

Doesn't mean you can't have a case, but it needs to be actually made, rather than just "rhinos and triceratops should be together" for example.

dinosaurs occupied every ecological niche. There is no type, location, or behavioral issue that could produce that kind of absolute separation.

This is a good example of a bad approach -- a bald assertion piled on top of an absolute negative assumption -- but if you have a case to make for that, make it.

I'll go first. :P

Well, the small ones, I would expect to live inland as well, yes. Many dinosaurs are coastal, and others found buried with them could be thus coastal as well. This makes sense for the large ones needing more to eat (both types). However, most dinos were small, so I think a case can be made based on that alone that they should be found regionally with mammals. I wouldn't rely on it, but it makes sense. (And of course, there were some pretty large mammals.)

That leaves density and behavior. No idea about the former, but the latter is usually made to depend on the cold-blooded interpretation (with the clouds blocking out the sun). The tack among biblical creationists seems to be to argue for cold-blooded. But I see risk of bias there since this reasoning would seem to imply they need them to be. (Unless there's some other reason they would die earlier.) Offhand I don't recall the arguments on either side; I recall an article that I remember thinking seemed somewhat persuasive for the cold-blooded side fairly recently but I don't recall why so yeah.

And the post-Flood issue also comes into play; I haven't yet seen a lot of work into nailing down those details yet. I don't know what to think because that argument depends on two major "yes" answers to big questions, and on the first, my impression is that there's good evidence for a lot of the higher layers still being Flood. Related is the question of what layers are actually what there. I don't see much room for that argument below this boundary, but above, the erosion of the recession could mess up the pattern a lot, and what's post-Flood just above the boundary in one location could be Flood in another. (As far as I know for now.)


Incidentally, we don't necessarily need total separation, but rather a very strong statistical trend (whether habitat-related or something else). Remember that a minority of some animals would actually be fossilized. This is actually a caution against YE arguments when it comes to living fossils, remember. The same applies here in the other way. And of course there's the black swan issue. Our model doesn't need to worry about future finds; we could theoretically have a cambrian rabbit (not likely precambrian), but need not -- but the OE conclusion, at least the current version of it, would be shattered if we started finding places where there are exceptions to this rule.

Another issue, though, speaking of the "current one", is the moving goalpost of this OE argument. The cases where we find mixing are simply removed from the goalpost -- and they have been expanding as we uncover more fossils (indeed, new types of animals are still being discovered). Just by statistics alone, we would expect with small sample sizes (and this is the case for land-animal fossils compared to sea) some random sorting (I'm not saying that's the only explanation though), possibly even enough to show a global trend by sheer luck, in terms of the small percent uncovered. Then as finds advance, when we do find more mixing (as we have), the challenge simply changes to ask why the remaining ones found together together.

It's fair as long as it's kept as a question, but it doesn't make for a very good argument, since it would have to rely on so many unknowns.


-Mere photos of craters on smaller bodies are not good enough, since without atmospheres to burn up the smaller ones we already expect more craters there. The argument can still work but it needs to be much more careful than that.

-Appearance of age isn't going to get you anywhere, since so many other things appear young (let's keep this all in context; after all, the continents themselves look young by being above sea level, given present-day measurements of erosion versus replacement rates!); you would have the same 'problem'. But really, what appears what depends on what's in human minds; the quality of reasoning they use, and since humans are sinful, biblically it is not at all surprising to have them reaching wrong conclusions. The real issue is about whether we should see things as old or young based on actual sound reasoning, or remain in doubt where it is not fully testable.

-Similar problem with "can't explain it" (fallacy of absolute negative). There is much in your own view that right now is not explained, but that doesn't mean your view is false or that explanations won't be found later.

-In regards to the steepness, I found one source affirming that in deep water tsunamis are not steep, though nothing so far commenting on your specific version of it. (But again, if impacts triggered the Flood, the ark wouldn't be in deep water at first.)

-Thank you for clarifying about the soot. We can have fires in the early period of the Flood event (in those places it wouldn't yet be a flood at that point), especially if they are triggered as you suggest. Out of curiosity, have you factored for the supposed floating pre-Flood forests popular among YECs? (Or do you reject them and why if so?)

-I have no idea of the thickness of post-Flood sediment; as I said that is still widely debated. Both OE and YE views agree deposition can occur outside of Flood conditions, and the OE view in many cases depends on regional catastrophes causing them (several examples of arguments to that end have been posted in this discussion). How thick it can be in the post-Flood increased activity scenario I wouldn't know.

-Out of curiosity, do you have anything on the impact to sea life of just the impacts (forget the RS scenario for a moment) if placed in one year? (And presuming they can spread out globally for some amount of time within that year.)

-Yeah, your scenario makes sense, though I find it extremely difficult to square with the global evidence, especially what little has already been cited here of the lack of surface aging features and the continents still being here. Without the near-global Flood, it's difficult to see how a YE scenario is possible to satisfy those requirements, and the Flood would explain them seemingly. But just in terms of the biblical evidence, a tsunami from that could indeed cause a flood wiping out "all" humans outside a boat.

-Thanks for your clarification about hollow bones. While we're on the topic, what is your view on the "bird hip" issue? And although it's a much looser issue in terms of an actual argument, what about pterosaurs? (The 'argument' is basically that we already had flying reptiles, so why would birds evolve from dinosaurs, let alone the lizard-hipped ones, rather than from pterosaurs?)



Jorge:

Pardon for missing this, but curious about what they're responding to in these latest posts. Are you saying you think non-YECs aren't really Christians?

[rogue06]

Rogue:

-Warm-blooded dinos -- I'm well aware that's a view that's out there. I've seen cases made both ways, but that possibility is still relevant in case they were not.

-No "modern" mammals alongside dinos -- This claim is technically probably true so far as I know, but be careful with it. Mammals are found alongside them (one, at least, having eaten one), and so have things like ducks been found alongside them. And there have been reports of researcher "blindness" to them since dinosaurs are more sensational and tend to get the attention first. Evidently the work of cataloguing the less flashy fossils that have been seen already alongside dinosaurs is still largely to be done.

Things especially get tricky with unsettled issues such as where the Flood layers end, and post-Flood increased activity period begins (remember this would fade off, looking much like Flood layers at first in some places, at least). Some of what is taken as late Flood may in fact be post-Flood. Another issue is prevalence of branches within kinds not represented on the ark. If some branches were more prevalent because they were more violent, it could imply the post-Flood ones should look very different. If both of these factors combine, it would automatically explain that difference. However, even without that, it's fallacious to just assume that for example triceratops would have to live with rhinoceros. We don't know that.

-Dolphins alongside sea reptiles would seem to make sense, yeah, but we can't assume even that. First, is there evidence for the sea reptiles being warm-blooded? Next, might they have lived near the coasts as well, perhaps being more like crocodilians behaviorally? Since they're found in dino layers, the immediate presumption would seem to be that they probably lived near them.

Can you point out exactly where the pre-flood layers end, the flood layers are, and where the post-flood layers begin? For the most part YECs are extremely reluctant to do so.

As for dinosaurs being either endothermic or ectothermic (warm or cold-blooded) the argument has pretty much shifted to whether they were somewhere in the middle or entirely warm blooded as new data comes in. The idea that they were cold-blooded is slowly but surely being dropped.

Further, there is indeed some good evidence that many of the marine reptiles namely ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, and plesiosaurs which dominated the seas back during the Mesozoic were also warm-blooded. <This links to a story about a 2010 study (which contains a link to the study itself although I think only the Abstract is available), but more recent research (this year) on mosasaurs indicates that they were warm-blooded (Link to full paper).

And trust me on this, I'm well aware that mammals lived alongside of dinosaurs and at least one (Repenomamus, at slightly over 3' long, one of the largest mammals of the Mesozoic) dined on baby dinosaurs (specifically baby Psittacosauruss), though it is debatable if they hunted them or scavenged the remains of dead ones.

The point is, if dinosaurs and modern mammals co-existed as YECs assure us they did, then we should regularly find their remains in the same strata and in at least some bone beds. For instance, why aren't there any dinosaurs in the La Brea Tar Pits of Los Angeles (or any other ones like those in Venezuela and Azerbaijan? Were they smarter than the wide variety of Ice Age to modern mammals that got caught in them?

[rogue06]

-Appearance of age isn't going to get you anywhere, since so many other things appear young (let's keep this all in context; after all, the continents themselves look young by being above sea level, given present-day measurements of erosion versus replacement rates!); you would have the same 'problem'. But really, what appears what depends on what's in human minds; the quality of reasoning they use, and since humans are sinful, biblically it is not at all surprising to have them reaching wrong conclusions. The real issue is about whether we should see things as old or young based on actual sound reasoning, or remain in doubt where it is not fully testable.

The problem isn't so much one of Appearance of Age as one of Appearance of History.

The former contains features necessary for something to function whereas the latter contains features that merely convey the impression of a history that never happened. Essentially a false history designed to deceive

For instance, if Adam were indeed created as a fully mature human and he possessed things like worn teeth, calluses or scars, these things are not necessary for Adam to exist but only serve to indicate a history that he never experienced.

Likewise if Adam had a navel (which is a remnant of where a person was attached to his or her mother by an umbilical cord while they were in their mother's womb), this does not serve any real purpose to an adult, but instead only suggests a history he never experienced.

As an aside, there has actually been a great deal of debate over the centuries over the question of whether Adam and Eve had bellybuttons.