"The real Noah's Ark" on Discovery

[Bobtheduck]

I may be ignoring something because I'm obviously looking at this very suspiciously, but I notice several logical flaws in this. Besides the fact that they've misquoted the bible in a couple points, they also ignored certain possiblilties because they came from a standpoint of taking certain things as fact, not considering them to be fiction, one being a materialistic worldview. Methinks that dogmatism is JUST as prevalent in the "scientific" world as it is in the world of the "religious."

Anyhow, It's a bit premature as it's not near over, but I don't like the way this is going.

1. They ignored the fact that the animals could have been baby's and eggs.
2. They forget that names of places have changed... Ararat may not be the ararat of the Bible

I keep getting ideas and forgetting them... I'll keep editing this and adding to it, but I am not an expert on this... I have no degrees and have done no research... I would really love to get some people who have the research to back it up, and who could logically oppose these people with research...

[Bobtheduck]

Epic of Gilgamesh... That's what it's on now... They're saying that the Genesis story came from only 600 bc, and that it was a copy of the babylonian story...

Also, they're talking about the "local flood." I've heard that one too... The thing is, they're still ignoring a lot of things. Baby animals, different atmosphere, different continents (not once is Pangaea mentioned, even though it plays an important role in the Biblical story, from what I know anyhow) different condtions and possible different measurement, or unknown factors.

All of this is coming from the belief that there is no God that could have done it... They made that clear from the beginning. They just said it couldn't be the Biblical story, so there's no more of that... Anyhow... I'm not sure if I want to finish, but I want to see if there's anything I missed.

Comment: One person, obviously very anti-religious, said that people are having a hard time coping in a world of "rational thought" but that ignores the facts that everything is based on some sort of assumption, Their assumption just happens to be based on there being no God...

Rational thought requires starting on some assumption. The assumption, say, that what we see is real. What information we gather is accurate. Then, rational thought is possible after that point. There are still things people can never know, because our brains can't wrap around certain things... Not even when we all "work together" at it. Trusting just their senses and reasoning puts them in a place of faith that us trusting in God and what we believe him to have said have.

It's funny how they trust the gilgamesh story, and take it for face value merely because there is proof of a flood in sumeria...

I think I'm gonna stop. It's on discovery if anyone else wants to see the rest of it...

[Bobtheduck]

(is anxious to hear what Technomancer has to say about this)

Frankly, is scared to hear what tech has to say, no offense tech, but the possibility of entering into an argument with someone who has degrees in relevent fields isn't very comforting. Add to that his greatly superior research gathering skills, and I wouldn't have a say.

[Technomancer]

*cue dramatic music*

I haven't seen the show, so I can't comment on the material that was presented. The new Battlestar Galactica was on last night.

From a scientific perspective, it is impossible to reconcile the Noachian flood story with the geological record under any circumstances. First, floods tend to leave massively bedded sediments, conglomerates and other poorly sorted deposits. Such a global layer is not in evidence. Second, there are the obvious problems relating to biostratigraphy- dinosaurs are never found with in the same layer with modern (or most extinct) mammals for example. A similar pattern is found in ocean sediments as well.

There is of course, the problem of biogeography- the distribution of species (and their food sources). Recourse to mind-boggingly rapid continental drift won't work here. The sort of volcanic action that would necessarily go along with it would be enough to kill virtually every living thing on the Earth (Noah included). And of course, the fact that radiometric dating of oceanic crust, or other igneous rocks doesn't bear such catastrophic movements out in any case. There is also the question of the water source- if it was a vapour canopy, the atmospheric pressure would kill most forms of life, and the opacity would preclude photsynthesis. From underground, you're basically going to be shooting superheated water into the atmosphere- this is bad. Also, the rain would also cause a dramtic change in ocean salinity- too much for many living creatures to survive.

There are many, many lines of evidence that directly contradict the literal truth of Noah. A good textbook on introductory/ historical geology is recommended, or on geological archaeology. A a serious consideration of the logistics involved will also reveal many flaws in the literal interpretation. I'll deal with Gilgamesh a little later in the day (irritatingly, my younger brother has pinched my copy for a class he's doing).

[cbwing0]

In addition to the books mentioned by Techno, I would recommend, "The Genesis Question," by Hugh Ross. That book deals specifically with the first eleven chapters of Genesis, with a substantial section on the flood narrative. If you're interested, you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576832309/qid=1074524618/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8338011-5529421?v=glance&s=books

There are just a few more things that I would mention about the flood. First, from a physical standpoint, it would take four times the amount of water found on earth to create a global flood; so advocates of a literal global flood have to account for the extra water in some way.

Rational thought requires starting on some assumption. The assumption, say, that what we see is real. What information we gather is accurate. Then, rational thought is possible after that point. There are still things people can never know, because our brains can't wrap around certain things... Not even when we all "work together" at it. Trusting just their senses and reasoning puts them in a place of faith that us trusting in God and what we believe him to have said have.

It is true that everyone makes assumptions, but I think we should be careful here. In your attempt to defend the Noahic flood, you are denying more and mroe of the basis for rational thought. When trying to prove something like this, we should be careful not the thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water; for, if we cannot trust out senses and reasoning, then faith becomes quite difficult (how can you read the bible if you can't trust your sense of sight as you look at the page?). I happen to think that there is very little that we cannot know, and that the few things we can't know are kept unclear for a reason.

[Ashley]

Now, Epic of Gilgamesh v. Biblical Flood-- did one copy from the other, or are they separate accounts of the same event?

I have always thought separate accounts of the same event. If I remember correctly, just about every single culture has a version of the flood myth to them; some more diluted then others. (Don't ask me to document that, I can't; I think it's just something I read a long time ago.) And an event that cataclysmic...don't you think it'd be handed down in the collective memory? I'm suprised no one's mentioned Decaulion and Pyrreh, the greek myth forms of Noah and his wife.

Also, did they mention the water damage to the Sphynx in Egypt? I've heard that one before too.

[Technomancer]

If I remember correctly, just about every single culture has a version of the flood myth to them; some more diluted then others

Well, not exactly. There are a large number of flood myths around representing many different cultures. However such stories are by no means universal (Japan for example lacks such a story). Moreover, those that do exist differ significantly regarding the causes, number of survivors, cargo and so forth. Only the Noachian and Gilgamesh stories are really comparable in terms of details that would suggest a common origin. Add in the fact that floods are a fairly common sort of disaster, and the prevalance of flood stories is readily explainable. In addition, given the tremendous diversity of details and the short period of time in which cultural divergence would have taken place, it is difficult to give much credance to a common origin (especially given that all of the surviors were from the same family, which adds a further element of biological implausibility).

The problem with the water damage with the Sphinx is also no surprising thing. Notice that the damage only occurs on the lower, uncarved portions of the monument. Since the Sphinx is not made of brick, but rather carved from a natural rock outcrop, this indicates that the weathering occured before it was made. For this we have two possible sources- 1)The climate in the distant past is known to have been cooler and wetter, and rain weathering would have occured in the late Pleistocene. 2)The shifting of the river's course through natural meandering would peridocially flood the area around the Sphinx, as would runoff from the Giza plateau.

[Rashiir]

Add in the fact that floods are a fairly common sort of disaster, and the prevalance of flood stories is readily explainable.

Common in some parts of the world...Very uncommon in other parts, though (Mountain ranges, for example...) I don't know where geographically the flood accounts are from, but there are many places in the world where it never floods...

[ThaKladd]

I'll recomend to take a look at the study of Kent Hovind. His homepage is http://www.drdino.com, but to find out more I suggest you to buy the video seminars.

Some people say It's a local flood, yes, but what is the point in building a ship? why didn't God simply tell Noah to move...

The bible tell's clearly that Noa took two of all Kind of animals, not every species, that makes the amout much smaller.

Bobtheduck: the name of the mountain "Ararat" was given by Noah after the flood, maybe because it was alike an Ararat mountain before, but I think it stayd that way after and that the bible tell about the same Ararat we have today.

Technomancer: there are places where human footprints are found with dinosaur footprints. (of course, some people deny that). And there are drawings from many thousands of years ago where humans are together with dinosaurs. And, not to mention all the "dragon" stories all around the world... There are evidence of a young earth, and a flood... I don't know if you kow about them, if not, I recomend you to take a look..(but, I see you can a lot about this stuff, so maybe you know arguments from both sides allredy..)

[Technomancer]

Kent Hovind is a liar. He presents himself to the general public as possessing a Ph. D from Patriot, however this status is entirely fraudulent. Patriot University itself is a moderately sized bungalow that sells diplomas to anyone willing to fork over the money (apparently this sort of thing is legal in some of your states). However in any serious academic circles his diploma is worth about as much as a soiled table napkin from Denny's. Moreover he is abysmally igornant of even basic science, so much so that not even the Answers In Genesis people will deal with him. Carl Baugh, the champion of the Paluxy "man-tracks" which you allude to is guilty of similar misrepresentations.

With regard to the alleged footprints I recommend you look at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

You should be able to find information on Hovind and Baugh fairly easily as well. There's a thread in the archive "Age of the Earth and all that" where those two individuals are discussed in some more depth. Although ultimately, this digression has little to with the price of eggs.

[Straylight]

I'll recomend to take a look at the study of Kent Hovind. His homepage is http://www.drdino.com, but to find out more I suggest you to buy the video seminars.

I took a look around that site. I'm not particularly fond of when Christians take hold of the YEC theory like that, and proclaim it as truth in a "ministry" fashion. I find it insulting because they almost suggest that my faith is worse off because "I don't believe part of the Bible" as an old earth creationist. We did not live to see creation and the Biblical account of creation is vague -- all we can do is speculate according to the evidence provided (Bible, scientific fact). IMO there ware two ways to go as a Christian -- integrate Genesis with the more sound scientific theories (which is what I have done), or believe only Genesis. I prefer the scientific route -- science is great way of explaining how God does things.

I should also point out that sites like this (pure YEC sites) are not very well respected in most scientific circles -- because the arguments used are extremely loose.

That just my opinion anyway.

[Bobtheduck]

Boy, did I open the wrong can of worms... I guess I have my beliefs and I'd love to get the research to back them up, but I can't right now. I think that "pure rational thought" with the definition commonly accepted to be a materialistic worldview, the only thing that can be verified are things we can assertain with our senses either directy or indirectly, is contrary to what I know about the Bible... It's a matter of faith one way or the other. Either we trust our senses and the Data we're collecting, or I trust what I believe on the matter. Anyhow, I'm going to TRY to stay out of here, but I don't know if I have enough self control... I do want to see what someone has to say about this post, but it's pretty pointless... You couldn't convince me in a million years that it doesn't have to do with faith in something, no matter what we study and observe.

BTW, I never said for sure I was a "New Earth Creationist" I don't normally care one way or the other, as I've been both at different times. However, I don't think the flood falls into that jursidicition.

Personally, I view a lot of the research like people researching diseases hundreds of years ago... They found things that matched up, so they assumed it was correct. They only found later that they were wrong, and in some cases fount out again that they were right... I think the matter of the flood still comes down to one or more unknown factors. And, I think the idea that the flood story was invented (or copied off the other story) in the 600 bc was rediculous and specifically out to make fools of Christians (oh, and even torah believing Jews in the process)

[Bobtheduck]

*deleted*

[Technomancer]

Or if they admired their power, and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. But then again they are not to be pardoned.
For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?
(Wisdom 13:4-9) DRV

The thing is, there should be no dichotomy between faith and observation. We are given senses to perceive the world with, and mind to reason with for a purpose. If we say that human senses and reason delude and cannot be trusted, than what basis is there for belief in anything? We have been given either senses or a world built to decieve. I don't buy this.

However, by studying nature, we study another book- that of creation and so come to know God's purposes better. For this to be true however, the senses have to also be true, albiet limited in their capabilities. I will grant that our understanding of things does cause us to reconsider how we come to understand the divine. But that is nothing new as it comes to human history.

[ThaKladd]

Why does everyone attack Kent hovinds Ph D. ?? I have not seen a single good answer to any of his claims yet..(but of course, I have not searched that much either). I f he has right the Ph D. should have nothing to do with it. I can say a lot of truth about many subjects and not have any Ph D. in it..... He has a lot of experience, has read a lot of books ant so on, so in that case he should have known quite a lot..

but if he lies about his Ph D., I can agree that it weaken his credibility...

anyway.. I dont want to discuss hovinds theory, or Kent hovind himself... It's a little bit off the topic I think.

[Shinja]

For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?
(Wisdom 13:4-9) DRV

im a little confused, is "wisdom" a book?

[Bobtheduck]

Wisdom is an apocryphal book... The apocrypha is mostly accepted by Catholics. While most protestants don't believe in the Apocrycphal books, I DO believe in "Wisdom of Solomon" which Tech knows, and that's (I'm assuming) why he quoted that in response to me. He put a response to me in a form I trust... Even if that wasn't his intention, that was the result, but I feel that I'm unable at this moment to adequately communicate my knowledge and what I end up saying is a misrepresentation of what I had to say. I think tech's response was coming from a standpoint that is assuming I believe something that I don't, but looking at what I had written, it certainly appears that I did... I have been very angry and skiddish lately, because of Silent Hill 2 partly (that game is DEPRESSING!) and partly because I have started school again, and am taking math after essentially a 4 year break. I'm having to work a long time to keep up because I had forgotten so much, and this is having a toll on me. I expect this effect to go away after I get into the "groove" again, and then I'll be comfortable with it.

The special on discovery was, to me anyhow, obviously attacking the biblical point. It was to the point of saying it was imbellished, it was copied, and it was impossible... That made me mad, but it probably shouldn't have...

Allow me to clarify that I don't believe that we can never trust our senses and reasoning ability, but that they aren't supreme... That is all I was trying to say. What we see can be deceptive, or rather the way we interpret it can be. I never meant to discredit our senses and logical reasoning... This would be very against my personality. I only meant that our senses and reasoning can only get us so far, and even the wisest of us can misinterpret things.

P.S. I'd never heard of Kent Hovints fake Ph.D or anything, but I do know he teaches the barcode myth and has obviously fake pictures of "living pteradactlys" I think it's possible for there to be living dinosaurs, but his pictures were obvious fakes to anyone who's watched movies long enough. That, and the heretical "Mark in the barcode" theory which ignores the requirements for the Mark of the Beast, are enough for me to doubt what he has to say.

[Technomancer]

You should be able to search talkorigins on Hovind and get the skinny on him. Just using google should probably turn it up too. I know you certainly won't find Patriot University in Peterson's guide any time soon. Anyways, personally I don't have much of a problem with the idea of parts of Genesis being borrowed from Mesopotamian sources (specifcially Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish). There are several good books on comparative mythology that I'd recommend consulting such as Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God" series,as well as "Myth and Ritual in the Ancient Near East" (can't remember the author sorry). However, its a long story and I don't really have the time to get into greater depth right now- I have to prepare for a lab meeting tomorrow, and get around to finishing off an article for IEEE Transactions on Speech Processing that I'm writing. Never mind my class and research.

[Bobtheduck]

Thing about the "borrowed" thing is that I believe they had the sources long before their babylonian captivity. Whether it was written in the time of Moses or not, it was done at least by the time the Judges camer around. The thing is, I believe that the Bible is the original true source. Anything similar is only similar because they got their information the standard way: To write history in ways that are meaningful to their culture. While I do believe that much of the Bible was given to Jews to be relevant specifically to Jewish culture, I believe that all scripture is God-breathed and while it's not our place to think that we can pull things out of it that's not there, I also don't think it's our place as Christians to think that it was imbellished or ripped off. I understand borrowing from other historical sources (such as what Luke did) but changing the story from a Babylonian myth of their gods to fit our God just doesn't make any sense. That would invalidate the supernatural aspect of the story alltogether.

[That Dude]

Well I believe in the worldwide flood because of one thing. THE BIBLE SAYS THAT IT HAPPENED!!!!! Why would the Bible lie? If you can't believe that one part of the Bible why bother with the rest of it? You're just being like the rest of the world in doing that.

I take most everything that Mr. Hovint says with a grain of salt...I believe that he's head on in some aspects but wrong in many other aspects. I have personally met him and he doesn't strike me as a liar as Technomancer thinks...But he does seem pretty arrogant in some aspects.

You guys should check out Bob Cornuke. He has some pretty good stuff on the resting place of the arc. He is a very smart man who has traveled the globe looking for Biblical artifacts and he uses the bible as a guide for all his searching.

[Technomancer]

I'm suprised that the show only looked at the possibility of exilic sources. If we are to believe Genesis, Abraham was supposed to come out of Mesopotamia. Early (pre-Hebrew) records indicate a group known as the "Hibaru" wandering around at the time, although the records are exceedingly scant and do not go beyond the fact of their existence. It's been a matter of some contention, although I'm not certain if it's been resolved yet. For myself, I think that it is important to understand the Bible in the light of the best scholarship available. And this has to include history, archaeology, philology and the like.

PS. A worthwhile read might be John Romer's book "Testament", or his television mini-series of the same name.

PPS. Anyone still have doubts about Hovind's competence in light of these quotes? Like I said: table napkin. Interestingly, he claims to have been a high school science teacher for a number of years; I pity his students.

"If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour."
Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6 - a transcript of Kent Hovind's early sermons circa 1996.

"Therefore, there may not be any other stars in the solar system that have planets around them. " Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6 - a transcript of Kent Hovind's early sermons circa 1996.

[Bobtheduck]

You guys should check out Bob Cornuke. He has some pretty good stuff on the resting place of the arc. He is a very smart man who has traveled the globe looking for Biblical artifacts and he uses the bible as a guide for all his searching.

Oh, that's another thing they ignored... That ararat in the Bible is probably not the mountain called Ararat today. And, i think I met Bob Cornuke... Not sure, but I did meet one of the big "Ark hunters." who was looking for the ark, not in ararat, but in another mountain...

Tech: Yes, they said that the source for the Noah story in the Bible started in the exile. That was the statement I find the most farfetched. Also, one of the sites you linked to said that the "dividing of the earth" was actually the dividing of people. I don't know about that one, but it really could be either way. It rings familiar with people who say Leviathan is a Hippo, though... (and reading the Job description, neither a Hippo nor and alligator fits for Leviathan)

I'm a bit romantic on the idea that there could be dinosaurs alive today. I think there are a lot of things we have yet to discover that can change a lot of what we think. I only have to look at things like what causes cancer, or the Aether theory (though I haven't found any links or listings in Journals for you yet, Tech) People work with what they have until it doesn't work, then they change it... I see much of this issue in just the same way.

[Ammaranth]

You know, there is something vastly wrong here. Some scientists claim that something in the Bible is unscientific, and then what, we Christians back away from it, or feel like we have to tip toe around, or rush out and find answers for what they say? No. I stand on the Rock that is the beginning and end of all truth, and if the Bible says that their was a global flood, then I believe there was a global flood. And if some group of men tries to claim that their observations prove otherwise, then they are wrong. What, will I believe the claims of men over the Word of God? Are we to be so arrogant as to believe that we can know more about how the world is made than He who made it? I shudder to think of the price of such arrogance.

Science, at it's heart, is a search for truth. But if it rejects the beginning, the very foundation of all truth, then it cannot possibly hope to arrive at the right answer. Put another way, science is a search for God, though it may not know it, and may not wish to admit it. For Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Yes, if we would only approach science in the right way, it can be wonderful. By studying the work of God, we can know more about Him. But if we make this mistake of leaning on our own understanding, then all our attempts will be hindered by our own frail human nature, and all our learning won't amount to anything.

Have faith. If someone makes a discovery which they claim contradicts the Bible, don't be troubled about it. Sooner or later, we will find out that their discovery, or their interpretation of what it means, was incorrect. In the meantime, there are better things for us to do than let ourselves be carried around with every claim that men care to make. Our God is eternal. Let us fix ourselves on Him.

[cbwing0]

Interestingly enough, there was an article directly related to this subject in today's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29972-2004Jan19.html

For those of you that claim that the scientific view cannot possibly be reconciled with the Word of God, I would suggest the book ("The Genesis Question") that I mentioned earlier: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576832309/qid=1074524618/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8338011-5529421?v=glance&s=books

[uc pseudonym]

I've intentionally neglected to enter this thread up until this point, as I knew it would likely be long and require significant thought. There were probably better things I could have done with this seminar, but I doubt any of them merit any more before God than this does.

Mainly, I am not going to enter the issue, as I'm unqualified to speak on the topic. I do have one thing to say, though: I have a soiled napkin from Denny's.

One question, however (and one I would like to be answered by either someone who has read a Hebrew Bible or been through a respectable seminary): What does the Bible actually say about the flood? It certainly doesn't use the word global, and I wonder about the connotations involved with whatever word was used.

[Shinja]

it is assumed to be global, due to the fact that it destroyed the whole population, while it might not have been as deep as often projected, seeing as how we have no idea weather there were mountians at that time or not, it was suffenct to cover everything.

[Bobtheduck]

I've intentionally neglected to enter this thread up until this point, as I knew it would likely be long and require significant thought. There were probably better things I could have done with this seminar, but I doubt any of them merit any more before God than this does.

Mainly, I am not going to enter the issue, as I'm unqualified to speak on the topic. I do have one thing to say, though: I have a soiled napkin from Denny's.

One question, however (and one I would like to be answered by either someone who has read a Hebrew Bible or been through a respectable seminary): What does the Bible actually say about the flood? It certainly doesn't use the word global, and I wonder about the connotations involved with whatever word was used.

it doesn't use the word Global, but it does say "I promise to never again destroy all the earth in this way" so either all life existed only in mespopatamia, or it was a global flood. Also, it said in the Bible that the continents weren't separated before the flood, so a lot of the high peaks didn't exist, because the "plates" weren't pushing together. The World was much flatter then, I think, and it wouldn't have required as much to flood it. Of course, It's all just conjecture because I have nothing to back it up, but at least I've thought it out... I'd like to see answers to specific problems I had with it. It did say EVERY PERSON and EVERY ANIMAL would be killed. I believe in a basic species evolution (I.E. Canis Lupus to Canis Familiaris) and that the Ark could have had a very small number of baby or juvenile prototypes of animals. Also, they said that the ark wouldn't have held together, but that ignores the part of the story where GOD HIMSELF sealed the ark... The door was left open, but God sealed it. I think he could have just as easily prevented leaking and sinking, but the special was coming from an atheistic standpoint... (We think there could have been a flood, but since there is only the physical and no such thing as spiritual, we say it happened differently) Too often, people try to prove something supernatural (or disprove it) by looking at the natural, but if you believe in the supernatural to begin with, that just doensn't need to be in the logic... I think even the geological signs or lackthereof a worldwide flood isn't a nail in the coffin, but just men trying to justify or contradict a supernatural event with natural laws, when God is above all of them.

[Technomancer]

The problem with simply saying "God did it" is that one can explain everything in this fashion, without gaining any meaningful insight into the natural world. It becomes a convenient cop-out for anything that we don't care to understand, and for questions that make us uncomfortable.

(though I haven't found any links or listings in Journals for you yet, Tech)

Try the feb 2004 edition of Signal Processing. I'll also be published in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (where I will be presenting).

[Shinja]

well i dont think theres any explaneing the supernatural, any way even if there was we cant really prove the flood, since all we look at and interperate is what is left some 6000+ years later. at best all we can do is speculate, and speculation doesnt go very far. therfore it doesnt really matter to me how it happened, i just know it did.

[Ammaranth]

But in the end, "God did it" IS the explanation. All we are doing with science is trying to figure out HOW He did it. If we approach scientific study from that point of view, then it becomes a search to better understand His nature, a pursuit that will bring us closer to Him. If, however, we start the whole thing off wrong, by discounting the truth, then it will hinder all our efforts from that point forward. This is exactly what I feel the Noah's Ark show did -- it started with the Biblical account, which it quickly excused as implausible, then hastily went on to propose several theories of how the Biblical account could be partially true. It was very obviously weighted against a Biblical perspective, and from what I saw of it, made only a very thin attempt at any sort of real objectivity.

Suppose that a global flood DID occur. What would that mean for science? At present, science discounts the idea, so if there really was a flood, then it would suggest that there are HUGE amounts of scientific theories and assumptions which are wrong. From a scientific point of view, this is not alarming. This is precisely the sort of thing which scientists ought to be doing: constantly re-evaluating old theories and considering new ones. But from a human perspective, that prospect is terrifying. It threatens the human desire for security, not to mention our all too prevalent human pride.

For this reason, some scientists choose to ignore new theories which would seem to threaten their established world view, or else dismiss them very quickly. Often they will disprove one small aspect of a theory, and then claim that this means that the entire theory must be false. But if we threw out every scientific idea which had some detail it could not explain, how many theories would we have left? And if all that fails, there is always the possibility of sidestepping the theory in question all together, and attacking the character or credentials of the person proposing it.

There are theories out there which offer explanations for how a global flood might have occured. Walt Brown's hydroplate theory is one of the more throrough ones I have so far found. His website at www.creationscience.com gives a very in depth analysis of his theory. I would like to know what you guys think of it. But please, don't go over to some search engine and then come back with some article somebody posted saying Walt Brown is wrong. If you disagree with the theory, please tell me why you disagree with it, not why someone else disagreed with it. Or if you choose to agree with what someone else says to disprove it, tell me what their explanation was, and why you agreed with it. I hope this stirs up some good discussion. And please, no arguing. The world has enough arguments. We as Christians ought to try not to lapse into such things.

Ammaranth

The problem with simply saying "God did it" is that one can explain everything in this fashion, without gaining any meaningful insight into the natural world. It becomes a convenient cop-out for anything that we don't care to understand, and for questions that make us uncomfortable.



Try the feb 2004 edition of Signal Processing. I'll also be published in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (where I will be presenting).