"Science" (vs) Genesis

[POI]

I've debated many apologists and/or theists in my day. In doing so, many of the same overarching comments are ultimately often made...

"Science has it's limitations"
"Science is merely about discovering the undiscovered."
"Science cannot or will not account for this/that"
"Science has changed it's stance upon things"
etc....

I understand there exists both YEC's - (young earth creationists), as well as OEC's - (old earth creationists).

I also understand that 'science' does not yet, or maybe never, have all the answers.

However, Genesis makes many claims which appear to fly in the face of 'scientific' discovery. Let's start with the flood claim, and see where this goes.... The two theist positions, which think this event actually happened, are as follows:

1) Global
2) Local

Another part of this claim, is the following:

A) ~4500 years ago
B) much longer

Before we head into this debate, I must mention a couple of caveats:

-- Just because you do not know, for certain, the ultimate answer to something, does not mean you cannot effectively rule out certain claims. Meaning, I do not know exactly how old any mature oak tree is; but I can still logically rule out that the answer could be 'ham sandwich' or "1 day old".

-- Same goes for earth. I may not know the exact shape of earth --- (egg-shaped, pear-shaped, perfectly round, etc), but I still know it is not flat.

For debate:

X) Theists, please select two answers above (i.e.): 1A or 2B. And then please explain why you have chosen this answer?

Y) How is it that a YEC and an OEC can BOTH read the same verses, and can BOTH equally justify their own conclusions respectively? Doesn't this demonstrate that the Bible is quite flawed in it's information delivery?

Z) How do you reconcile that 'science' does not suggest any such flood phenomenon?


My hypothesis? No flood, no bible. Meaning, if the Bible is wrong about this event, then it is logical to dismiss this book as just another mythological story.

[TRANSPONDER]

Human intelligence itself is a joke. What science would say about what your own grandpapa did on exactly Oct 20, 1945? So would you listen to the description from your own grandpapa and grandmama, or you insist on listening to science?

Science basically is not a tool for past events. Science relies on the predictability and falsifiability of a repeatable phenomenon to get to a truth. To simply put, if a phenomenon doesn't repeat, such as a piece of history, science can never get to a falsifiable conclusion. The "science" dedicated to researching a history only represents the best effort humankind can do with their current technology, even under the circumstance that we knew beforehand that nothing can be falsifiably conclusive. We (our scientists are doing the best we can with our current technology at hand).

Now back to the question, what your own grandpapa was doing on Oct 20, 1945? It is a piece of history science is futile about. However you can get to such a truth by putting faith in the words (a testimony) from the mouth of your own grandpapa and grandmama. That remains the only possible way for you to know what he's doing if he's still remember (he remembers if an event occurred that day remains in his memory).

Now creation, our science can hardly get to a falsifiable conclusion. That's why our scientists are still putting effort in simulating what could possibly happen on a proposed Big Bang. CERN is stilling spending millions on the building blocks of such a simulation. The effort is expected to be endless as we already knew beforehand that nothing can be scientifically/falsifiably conclusive in the foreseeable future.

Similarly to the grandpapa's testimony situation. The Bible provides an account to testimony while a God (a trinity) has witnessed such a creation. For the sake of argument, let's assume that God truly created our world. Then all left is for you to believe the Word of God, or science without a falsifiable conclusion. Both by faith, both are "gods" in a sense. When a "science" is never falsifiable, it is a god for your faith to accept it.

Wrong. You are confusing (at best) historical records with forensic -level detection. There are parallels in court with witness testimony which could be considered undeniable, where forensic detection is merely guessing what happened from traces and scraps. But we know that the evidence on bullet or fingerprint can totally upend a witness claim. In the same way, the findings of geology and palaeontology totally upends Genesis at least. As to the reliability of historical records, sure, and that's no better shown than in the Exodus and Conquest where archaeology has shown that the exodus ca't be exactly as described, and credibly didn't happen at all. So, while I'm not saying you don't make some valid points, they don't actually help the Bible too much.

[1213]

...A cataclysmic flood killed almost all life on the planet yet only managed to wash sea shells onto the tops of mountains and you ask what other organisms there should be. ...

Wouldn't most of them, especially bigger ones, have been drowned before they get to the top? And many of those that were on top, wouldn't they have fallen to lower level because of erosion for example?

How do you think the sea shells got there and why did they not get eroded away?

By the flood story, water level remained at that point some time, those species that usually are in shallow water areas could have migrated to new areas as the water level moved and that is why they ended up there. And because they are smaller, they get stuck easier to there and are not as easily eroded away by erosion. Bigger water animals are usually not in shallow areas and also when the water level decreases, they don's stuck easily to the soil. Even if they would get trapped to higher area, they would probably fall down on the hill to more leveled place, because of their weight.

[1213]

That makes no sense. bigger ones drown? Fish and sea creatures? And you are ignoring that the sea shells and so on are not marine dbris thrown up on mountains but ancient sea beds still with worm burrows in. Thi is proof that they are ancient sea beds raised up as mountains. Despite your denial the evidence shows that happened.Plate tectonics explains how. The movement of contintal plates has een measured today. This is stuff that has been proven to be so.

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you. If we are speaking of sea creatures, please see my answer in post #52.

And about the movement of continental plates, I think it is relative, do you know what is considered the fixed-point, form where the movement is measured from?

You may think that denial of validated science and what is obviously true gets you at least a draw, but it just discredits your YE Creationist position. Look. imagine a cellar of (say) a demolished house. It is filled in to build on, so a few trucks of building rubble is brought in and tipped in. It is going to be one space filled top to bottom with a mix. That is what we should find with a flood -level - everything outside matching what was on the ark - including humans, mind, would all have been killed in the flood and their fossils all mixed together in one flood layer. Now, don't tell me or us that you don't understand this point or deny that it is obviously true, or you will simply be showing that that your denialism is not just based on misunderstanding or ignorance, but on denying what is obviously true, just because you don't like it.

The mix depends entirely on how it happened and what was in the mix. When you understand that earth is not homogenic, and how the flood happened, you understand why earth is like it is. There is no intelligent reason to assume for example that human sinks the same way as a bird. They live in different way, and they have different abilities to escape the flood. Also, earth consists of different materials that are not evenly laid. In some areas the flood would have carried away different stuff than other areas, depending on the direction of the water.

However, by what the Bible tells, the flood came when the original continent collapsed and sunk. It is possible that the Himalaya is former ocean floor that rose during the flood event.

[brunumb]

However, by what the Bible tells, the flood came when the original continent collapsed and sunk. It is possible that the Himalaya is former ocean floor that rose during the flood event.

When you were presented with the explanation that the Himalayas were once ocean floor and got pushed up by the action of plate tectonics, you dismissed that because of the weight of the mountains. Your application of scientific explanations seems very ad hoc and has nothing to do with what is real or feasible.

[TRANSPONDER]

That makes no sense. bigger ones drown? Fish and sea creatures? And you are ignoring that the sea shells and so on are not marine dbris thrown up on mountains but ancient sea beds still with worm burrows in. Thi is proof that they are ancient sea beds raised up as mountains. Despite your denial the evidence shows that happened.Plate tectonics explains how. The movement of contintal plates has een measured today. This is stuff that has been proven to be so.

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you. If we are speaking of sea creatures, please see my answer in post #52.

And about the movement of continental plates, I think it is relative, do you know what is considered the fixed-point, form where the movement is measured from?

You may think that denial of validated science and what is obviously true gets you at least a draw, but it just discredits your YE Creationist position. Look. imagine a cellar of (say) a demolished house. It is filled in to build on, so a few trucks of building rubble is brought in and tipped in. It is going to be one space filled top to bottom with a mix. That is what we should find with a flood -level - everything outside matching what was on the ark - including humans, mind, would all have been killed in the flood and their fossils all mixed together in one flood layer. Now, don't tell me or us that you don't understand this point or deny that it is obviously true, or you will simply be showing that that your denialism is not just based on misunderstanding or ignorance, but on denying what is obviously true, just because you don't like it.

The mix depends entirely on how it happened and what was in the mix. When you understand that earth is not homogenic, and how the flood happened, you understand why earth is like it is. There is no intelligent reason to assume for example that human sinks the same way as a bird. They live in different way, and they have different abilities to escape the flood. Also, earth consists of different materials that are not evenly laid. In some areas the flood would have carried away different stuff than other areas, depending on the direction of the water.

However, by what the Bible tells, the flood came when the original continent collapsed and sunk. It is possible that the Himalaya is former ocean floor that rose during the flood event.

You're missing the point; Assuming the flood strata are all one strata of laid down flood -deposit (the experiment about filtering out of different grades of mud raises other questions) it should contain all the 'kinds' of animals that at least were the ancestors of the super - quick evolved species that exist today. No matter what excuses you try to make about sinking at different speeds or some outrunning others, an elephant or hippo is heavier than a struthiomimus or archaeopetyx, but we do't find them sunk to the bottom of the relevant strata. They are not all found in what is pointed to as the Flood strata. And no matter where you say that level is, the same problem is found..

Cue ALL the strata were laid down in the Flood. Same problem. Hippos and bears and elephants should be in the lower strata and pterodactyls and Coelophysis in the upper, but that isn't the way it is, and even prehistoric fish. which should have died last of all (in an unsuitable mix of fresh and salt) should be in the miocene levels; they are not.

Even allowing that some excuses can work, the deep time geologicl stratification and distribution of fossils supporting evolutionary development fits the evidence exactly. Like Bill Nye said: "One rabbit in a Cariniferous strata would disprove deep time geology and evolution" or something like that, while the creationist said damn the evidence, nothing would change his Faith, or words to that effect.

As to continental drift, it doesn't matter where you measure it from, no more than where the centre of a country is when you measure a race speed and result. The movement of one tectonic plate is measured relative to another. Where they collide, we get earthquakes and Tsunami.

[TRANSPONDER]

However, by what the Bible tells, the flood came when the original continent collapsed and sunk. It is possible that the Himalaya is former ocean floor that rose during the flood event.

When you were presented with the explanation that the Himalayas were once ocean floor and got pushed up by the action of plate tectonics, you dismissed that because of the weight of the mountains. Your application of scientific explanations seems very ad hoc and has nothing to do with what is real or feasible.

Yes. I haven't looked at Himalaya geology in detail, but, as I understand it, in creationist theory, the mountains rose after the flood was over, thus explaining how the flood water appeared to go down. If that had been the case then it should have caught at least some of the dead 'kinds' killed in the flood, but I can guarantee that we don't find that, or we should have heard it. I may have a look as see what date those strata are.

(AAP Factcheck) "University of Wollongong geologist Dr Solomon Buckman, who has extensively studied the Himalayas, told AAP FactCheck the memes claim Everest fossils had been left behind in an ancient flood was misleading.

"The fossils recorded around Mt Everest are Ordovician in age that is, about 420 million years old and formed under the ocean on the northern margin of India when it was still attached to Western Australia as part of the supercontinent Gondwana," Dr Buckman said in an email.

"About 130 million years ago, India drifted away from Gondwana and drifted northwards until it collided with Eurasia between 55-34 million years ago.

"This collision of continents resulted in massive uplift of the crust and the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks that formed part of northern India were thrust upwards by these colossal tectonic forces. These fossils are now found on top of Mt Everest (Qomolangma)."

[1213]

You're missing the point; Assuming the flood strata are all one strata of laid down flood -deposit (the experiment about filtering out of different grades of mud raises other questions) it should contain all the 'kinds' of animals that at least were the ancestors of the super - quick evolved species that exist today. No matter what excuses you try to make about sinking at different speeds or some outrunning others, an elephant or hippo is heavier than a struthiomimus or archaeopetyx, but we do't find them sunk to the bottom of the relevant strata. They are not all found in what is pointed to as the Flood strata. And no matter where you say that level is, the same problem is found..

Cue ALL the strata were laid down in the Flood. Same problem. Hippos and bears and elephants should be in the lower strata and pterodactyls and Coelophysis in the upper, but that isn't the way it is, and even prehistoric fish. which should have died last of all (in an unsuitable mix of fresh and salt) should be in the miocene levels; they are not.
...

No reason to assume that the flood strata would be the same all over the world, earth is not homogenous therefore global flood would not cause homogenous result.

[TRANSPONDER]

You're missing the point; Assuming the flood strata are all one strata of laid down flood -deposit (the experiment about filtering out of different grades of mud raises other questions) it should contain all the 'kinds' of animals that at least were the ancestors of the super - quick evolved species that exist today. No matter what excuses you try to make about sinking at different speeds or some outrunning others, an elephant or hippo is heavier than a struthiomimus or archaeopetyx, but we do't find them sunk to the bottom of the relevant strata. They are not all found in what is pointed to as the Flood strata. And no matter where you say that level is, the same problem is found..

Cue ALL the strata were laid down in the Flood. Same problem. Hippos and bears and elephants should be in the lower strata and pterodactyls and Coelophysis in the upper, but that isn't the way it is, and even prehistoric fish. which should have died last of all (in an unsuitable mix of fresh and salt) should be in the miocene levels; they are not.
...

No reason to assume that the flood strata would be the same all over the world, earth is not homogenous therefore global flood would not cause homogenous result.

Well, yes, there would be very good reason to suppose that, if the Flood covered all the earth, all the critters including humans, note, plus a lot of debris to make up the strata Would be pretty much the same - a global strata with all the critters in it, even if one conceded the strained excuses about heavier animals sinking faster, faster ones running uphill and lighter ones floating for longer. It would be one broad strata with all the kinds of critters that were taken as samples onto the ark in it. And that is just what we do not find.