For David and Phil
>>>>David O wrote:
>>>I'm not playing geologist. <<<<
GRM:Yeah you are.
Whatever. You obviously know my motives better than I do. I guess you know everything there is to know about psychology as well? <<<<
This has nothing to do with motives. I don't know WHY you are playing geologist. I just know that you are. When you tell me that I am being selective in the data, you are trying to say that you know more geology than I do. You are also telling me that you think me dishonest. I don't particularly like that charge especially from some lawyer who doesn't know diddly about geology but who, by judging my handling of the geology, is implicitly stating that he knows more geology than I, merely by his actions. What motivates that behavior (which is an observed behavior) I wouldn't have a clue. Perchance you can enlighten us?
>>>No, apologetics is defending the faith before unbelievers. I was trying to explore some possibilities before people who I thought would in some sense be brothers and sisters in Christ, so that I could better understand a difficult issue in our faith, and both be faithful to the truth and represent myself honestly before unbelievers. I joined the ASA a few months ago in the hope that I could find some of that sort of fellowship instead of the usual knee-jerk, one-sided, accusatorial stuff that I've found so far both in the church and in the world. Instead, I found you. How depressing. <<<<
GRM: Ah, and you found me. How bad for me. Look David, You are the one who is saying that I have been selective in the data, which basically means you are saying I am being dishonest, and you find me to be accusatory? Give me a break. I didn't tell you that you were selective until AFTER you said it to me. So, don't try to be the wounded martyr when you started it but now can't finish it.
GRM: I have answered with new data every question you asked, yet you still want to ignore all that data and beleive what you want to believe, that someway some how there was a big flood in Mesopotamia. That is fine. Do it. Beieve it. But don't expect me to fawn over your brilliance. And don't expect me to say that you are right when you ignore geologic data which has direct relevance to the issue, like the total lack of any and all holocene deposits save for those along the river beds in Northern Iraq.
GRM: But don't worry David, by next year, everyone here will have forgotten this again and I will have to go over it again. This must be, ohhh, about the 8th or 9th time on this list I have pointed out the total lack of evidence for a flood in the Mesopotamian region but no one changes their mind. Evidence really doesn't matter at all.
Evidence in the hand of a religion is a sham. They throw data around that supports their position(like there is tsunami from a meteor crater ignoring the fact that no one is really sure if it really is a meteor crater) and thus, they appear as if they really care about what the data means. But in reality, no one does. No one really cares that the genetic data shows that there was no human bottleneck for 30,000,000 years (We want to beleive in Adam at 100,000 years or the YEC 6000 years, so we do it). No one cares that there was no interruption of Mesopotamian society during this great flood (We prefer to believe that there must have been and that the archaologists will find it later). No one really cares that there is no geological data supporting a widespread flood in Northern Iraq (we prefer to believe that it has magically disappeared or that the flood was 3 inches deep). No one cares that in order to flood the northern part of Iraq, the water level would be such as to fill the earth to a depth of 3000 ft above sealevel (Since we want to believe in such a flood we keep quiet about that fact and most people don't notice (bless their hearts )). And then they tell me how sure they are that the ressurection took place (and of course, with people who handle data this spectacularly, I am very happy to believe whatever they say). No, we christians, will all believe whatever we want to and go merrily into that great night knowing that God will bless our efforts on his behalf because all it takes is belief. It really doesn't matter if it is true.
And people wonder why I am so cynical about the ability of Christians to handle data!
****
Phil wrote:
>>>>
The Bible does say that God sent a wind, so I have no problem in calling the existence of the wind a miracle. But it doesn't say God kept switching it's direction, so I have to agree with you that there is a difference. In general I have no problem believing God can make it switch, but I think you and I both have the sense that we don't want to appeal to miracles every time something doesn't work because that does become ad hoc and hard to believe. I think God usually communicates to us when He does a miracle, because that is how we are able to interpret the miracle. A miracle without some kind of communication might be interpreted as the work of Baal or aliens, etc. So the wind might be a miracle, since the Bible specifically refers to it; but a switching wind might not be as believable since that would involve even more miracles of providential timing and these aren't mentioned in the text.
Would I become an atheist over this question about switching winds? No.<<<<
GRM: I want it clear that I, like you, have no problem with God switching wind directions. What I do have a problem with is people saying (not you) the wind blew the ark north without thinking about the topography and the problems and acting like it isn't a miracle but is a natural phenomenon. I too would have some difficulty with believing that is the proper solution, but that doesn't mean it isn't a solution.
GRM: I think the reason people don't want to invoke the miraculous with the flood is precisely for the reason you allude to--that it might not be believable. So, the YECs who profess belief in miracle, never employ it to solve the flood problems. The OECs who believe in miracles (many don't) don't employ them either to solve the problems they have with a Mesopotamian flood. Yet, many of those still believe in the biggest miracle, the ressurrection.
GRM:I need to comment on something. I have struggles with becoming an atheist ever since I left YEC. I was a YEC because I believe that something MUST be real when it speaks to nature, or it is not real. The Bible speaks to Nature when it says there was a flood. Floods always leave evidence of themselves geologically. To make something like this something which leaves no evidence would be equivalent to the YECs saying that there was a global flood that didn't leave any evidence. Sure they can do it, and so can you, but it leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth. Why should what normally leaves lots of evidence for itself, suddenly NOT leave evidence of itself?
GRM: But, my struggles with atheism have more to do with the process Christians use to come to their conclusions, the lack of recognition that evidence means anything. I have had personal interaction with the likes of Henry Morris, Steve Austin, Russ Humphreys, John Morris, Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana and even the Hill's, and all of those, I found them ignoring obvious data which was widely believed in the field. One doesn't have to believe everything the majority believes, but one does owe it to at least mention it and explain why one doesn't believe what the majority believes. But Christians don't do that.
GRM:And on the other side of the fence, those who believe that the accounts are not to be taken as a literal history create a whole set of logical problems whereby we imagine that something which can't tell us anything truthful about physical reality is suddenly telling us the true theology, the truth about theological reality. How one can make such a leap of faith is beyond me but many do.
GRM: Thus, I find both sides to be rather flimsy and useless at explaining data. And because of that, I get whacked from both sides (and of course, I get to whack back and I am pretty good at whacking myself). One has three logical options for the flood story, that I see.
1. say the story is untrue and deal with the consequences.
2. say it is all miraculous and remove it from science
3. do what I do with the flood. At least there is geological evidence for my flood. There is zero for the Mesopotamian flood. There is no interruption of Mesopotamian society, no evidence of geological deposits in northern Iraq, and no naturalistic way to move an ark uphill against the flow of the waters. Yet everyone just knows that that is the correct view. I can't figure out why, but that is what they say.
GRM: Now, do me a favor. You asked for quantitative data. I provided it in the form of a calculation of how much flood water was required to deposit your 1 mm of sediment (the thin veneer flood). I calculate that about 3 inches of water is all that is required at a 3% by weight sediment load. But, in your response, you don't respond to that point. I must confess to being a bit disappointed. In order to have a flood which leaves 1 mm of sediment (something I would have to agree would be hard to find), you have to have a flood which is little more than distilled water--no sediment load, no dissolved matter. THat is unlike any flood I have every seen or heard of. Can you point me to one single example in earth history?
Received on Fri Mar 10 07:48:50 2006