Friday, July 5, 2013

The Great Flood


I have to stop a moment, because I just have to comment some more on these supposed evidences for the "Great Flood".

If you haven't read Round 10, Round 11 or Round 12, you should, since that'll provide the context to my thoughts.

Did you notice that they never really defined what the "model" was? I mentioned this some time ago - that I was assuming a "complete" creationism model, where the Universe, Earth and life were all created... because they didn't actually define it at any point.

This is especially a problem here with this flood story. Setting aside the logical disconnect with creationism at all, there's a few questions that should come to mind about this flood they're talking about:
  1. When did the flood happen?
  2. How long was the duration?
  3. What regions did it appear in?
Curiously, none of these questions were actually answered. Some of the evidence they cite points at 275-280 million years ago, and some other evidence indicates a wide span of time across biological history, at the same time that the Biblical account has it happening within human history - particularly when boat technology was understood... say within the past 10,000 years?

The duration of the supposed flood is only specified as "rapid", which is too vague to be meaningful, and they cite evidence that is essentially indistinguishable between a few days to a million years.

If they mean the Biblical account, then that's 40 days and 40 nights duration, at maybe a couple thousand years ago? Thereabouts? Yet, none of the evidence they cited establishes that.

It seems more like their approach to science is to simply find bits of data, that if one discards the parts that don't corroborate the idea, it kinda sorta sounds like what you were talking about... the fact that the cited pieces of evidence were not agreeing with each other, is merely a technicality.

I'm not sure if this is intentional, or not. Do they mean to keep it just vague enough to not alert the readers that the provided "evidence" has conflicts, and the case one is trying to build is internally inconsistent? Maybe they just suck so bad at basic science that they don't realize they've constructed an internally inconsistent case?

I'm not going to play telepath, like they do with me so much. All I can do is point out that, in this case, they've built a house of cards. 

No comments:

Post a Comment