Is Bible history fact or fiction?

[Erasmus00]

all the evidence that you mentioned has been found, and have been found all over the globe, this is not a "limited to certain regions" kind of suported topic.

 

the many many ancient stories of a global flood does not make the story falce..but does the oposite for that possibility. There are mountains of geological suport for a global flood..and I do not care if they say that the Earth couldn't have had such an event. Skippy is extremely correct.

 

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence suggesting a global flood in the geological column. If I am in error, please give me a source to this geological evidence of a global flood.

 

As to the many ancient stories, I'd again point out that nearly every ancient civilization lived near an often flooding body of water. Therefore, it hardly seems amazing that there are lots of flood stories. This certianly is FAR from proof of a global flood.

 

Now, as to your "mountains of geological support for a global flood," I'm curious, as I've never heard of any such geological evidence. Please provide a link.

-Will

[eMTee]

How about the many claims of spotting Noah's Ark on the top of Mt. Ararat?

there are many aquatic animals found petrifies on the tops of mountains. The explainations of some Atheists on this site, of how petrification can and does acure rather quickly (months/or weeks rather than millions of years)

 

How about the ancient stories of a 'global flood' very similar to the Bible.

 

in that they have a..

god warning a man of an upcoming event

the man building a boat

him putting animals on the boat

only tha man and his family and animals surviving

him afterwords thanking the god

 

not only that, but these similar diffrent stories are found on most if not all the continents. does this not stand on anything?

 

If I was to give you recorses to look for yourself, would you consider them?

[Erasmus00]

How about the many claims of spotting Noah's Ark on the top of Mt. Ararat?

there are many aquatic animals found petrifies on the tops of mountains. The explainations of some Atheists on this site, of how petrification can and does acure rather quickly (months/or weeks rather than millions of years)

 

The claims of spotting Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat were a hoax, perpetuated by a man named George Jammal. CBS, fooled by the hoax, ran a documentary in 1993. The documentary was thoroughly discredited.

 

As for aquatic animal fossils found on mountaintops, plate tectonics describes this rather well without recourse to a global flood. A global flood would show up, unmistakeably, in the geological column. It does not, therefore, no global flood.

 

How about the ancient stories of a 'global flood' very similar to the Bible.

 

in that they have a..

god warning a man of an upcoming event

the man building a boat

him putting animals on the boat

only tha man and his family and animals surviving

him afterwords thanking the god

 

not only that, but these similar diffrent stories are found on most if not all the continents. does this not stand on anything?

 

Most of the flood stories are very different than the noah account. However, given that most ancient civilizations were near bodies of water that routinely flood, the predominance of flood stories should surprise no one. More likely, the people who lived the Noah account were subject to a local flood, and to them, their little region was the whole world. Their whole civilization was flooded, not the entire Earth.

 

Finally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That the entire world could flood is certainly an extraordinary claim.

-Will

[Queso]

Of course not...not for someone as enlightened as you.

 

nice! i'm not putting down your crap at all, i was just simply stating it wasn't proof! ay i i!!! ;)

[Skippy]

I think what he meant was that the various flood mythologies from different cultures don't really support the idea of a world wide flood. Why not? Because the accounts of the flood from these different cultures don't match up particularly well, and all the early civilizations were located near bodies of water that routinely flooded. As such, an abundance of flood mythologies doesn't prove a worldwide flood. (also, such a flood would have left, one would think, geological traces that don't seem to be found).

 

Lastly, this is, above all, a science forum. Science is about being skeptical, questioning authority. It thrives because certain people will never be satisfied. People who are scientifically trained tend to develop skepticism, and it serves them well.

-Will

??? Have you not seen the fish and other marine fossils (thick layers in some places) which have been found at various altitudes and far inland? Does that not point to worldwide flood or at least some localized anomaly (not very scientific) that would somehow have sent the ocean to a height of thousands of feet in one location for a period of time but the rest of the world is dry as usual?

[Skippy]

nice! i'm not putting down your crap at all, i was just simply stating it wasn't proof! ay i i!!! ;)

I want to apologize publicly for the previous post ;) . I'm glad you are here. That says you are either curious about religion or hostile to it and attempting to plant subversive thoughts into a believer's mind. I assumed the latter and attacked. Sorry.

 

The Bible says, "Ask and it shall be given to you. Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door will be opened for you." If that is your quest, continue posting your questions and someone, maybe even me, will try to help you through it. - Skippy

[Skippy]

Lastly, this is, above all, a science forum. Science is about being skeptical, questioning authority. It thrives because certain people will never be satisfied. People who are scientifically trained tend to develop skepticism, and it serves them well.

-Will

I think you erred in saying that science is about questioning authority...questioning supposed or stated facts, yes but authority?

 

Since you said it, why is it that you seldom hear of scientists questioning the "facts" other "scientists" report about 1) evolution, 2) the greenhouse effect or 3) genetic homosexuality? Neither theory has solid, irrefutable facts behind it - hence they are still referred to as theories. I know there are some true scientists who refute one or all of these theories, but they are beaten down by the scientific community as being on the take from someone with an agenda, or the fact that they are religious is said to "cloud their judgement."

 

Where is the "science" in believing these theories which can't be proved?

[Boerseun]

I think what Erasmus referred to is science questioning arguments based solely on authority - like the Bible, and arguments and statements from all religious office-holders.

 

Having a platform (authority) to give weight to your arguments and statements, only raises you above the masses without authority, giving you a louder voice, but does not mean that your platform is faultless.

 

Arguing from a seriously flawed platform (religious authority given to a Christian priest, for instance) means nothing to a Muslim or a Jew. But there are both Muslim and Jewish scientists, science being objective and therefore useful to everybody on Earth, regardless of race or belief. Science has to question any arguments based on authority, because authority is subjective and therefore suspect.

[Skippy]

I think what Erasmus referred to is science questioning arguments based solely on authority - like the Bible, and arguments and statements from all religious office-holders.

 

Having a platform (authority) to give weight to your arguments and statements, only raises you above the masses without authority, giving you a louder voice, but does not mean that your platform is faultless.

 

Arguing from a seriously flawed platform (religious authority given to a Christian priest, for instance) means nothing to a Muslim or a Jew. But there are both Muslim and Jewish scientists, science being objective and therefore useful to everybody on Earth, regardless of race or belief. Science has to question any arguments based on authority, because authority is subjective and therefore suspect.

Good points. My pastors frequently tell the congregation to test what they say against what The Bible says. I would disagree that The Bible is not authoritative, just as the Talmud and Koran are authoritative for those religions they cover. They are not necessarily scientific documents, but where they discuss health/hygiene issues they are scientifically solid.

[Erasmus00]

??? Have you not seen the fish and other marine fossils (thick layers in some places) which have been found at various altitudes and far inland? Does that not point to worldwide flood or at least some localized anomaly (not very scientific) that would somehow have sent the ocean to a height of thousands of feet in one location for a period of time but the rest of the world is dry as usual?

 

The theory of plate tectonics describes quite well how these fossils occur. Given that the geological column shows know evidence of a global flood, dating based on cores of the greenland icecap shows no evidence of a flood, tree ring dating shows no evidence of a flood, etc. etc. If there had been a flood, there would be geological evidence that simply isn't there.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

Since you said it, why is it that you seldom hear of scientists questioning the "facts" other "scientists" report about 1) evolution, 2) the greenhouse effect or 3) genetic homosexuality? Neither theory has solid, irrefutable facts behind it - hence they are still referred to as theories. I know there are some true scientists who refute one or all of these theories, but they are beaten down by the scientific community as being on the take from someone with an agenda, or the fact that they are religious is said to "cloud their judgement."

 

Where is the "science" in believing these theories which can't be proved?

 

Actually, scientists frequently question other scientist. Many have a pet theory they want to believe, and anytime evidence comes out to the contrary, they work like mad to figure out whats wrong with the evidence. My advisor often says the best way to do experimental physics is to start by assuming everyone else in the field is an idiot.

 

Experiments get replicated all the time, and almost anytime someone proposes a new theory, they undergo a bit of a hard time defending it. Now, as to your point about theories, special relativity is still referred to as a theory, despite overwhelming evidence for it. Evolution is the same way. There is a whole lot of evidence supporting it. Same for the other theories you mentioned. Just because it is still referred to as a theory doesn't mean there isn't good reason for it. Gravity is still a theory, after all.

-Will

[Biochemist]

...Now, as to your "mountains of geological support for a global flood," I'm curious, as I've never heard of any such geological evidence. Please provide a link.

-Will

E-

 

I am not a "Young Earth Creationist" (these are the folks that think the earth is 6000 years old) but the data in support of the thesis is not absent. A good list of the geological points is here:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp

 

YEC folks are often not held in high regard, because so many of their spokespeople are not scientific. The site I referenced is reasonably technical at times, and is a good reference point.

 

Again, I don't agree with their point of view, but I really do not think their point of view is silly. The point that the YEC folks make that I wholeheartedly agree with it that science folks tend to act in herds, and it takes decades for people to reexamine the data with a different perspective. People are still fighting over Punctuated Equilibrium, even though the supportive data was strong in 1972 when the theory was first offered, and it is stronger now.

 

Any new, valid thesis that is more consistent with observed data than the prevailing theory usually takes decades to get any traction.

[Biochemist]

Actually, scientists frequently question other scientist. Many have a pet theory they want to believe, and anytime evidence comes out to the contrary, they work like mad to figure out whats wrong with the evidence....Experiments get replicated all the time, and almost anytime someone proposes a new theory, they undergo a bit of a hard time defending it....

You are making an argument that I have often made, but I finally quit making.

 

Those disciplines that are fundamentally experimental (particle physics is a good example, biochemistry is another) are indeed characterized by a bunch of smart folks aggressively fighting over facts, interpretations and theory.

 

The issue is more problematic in those fields where the majority of the work is observational, and not experimental. This includes evolutionary biology, geology, archaeology, and paleontology, among others. These folks collect data and assemble it into a framework. The framework gets accepted. It is VERY DIFFICULT to challenge a framework that has been broadly accepted, even when the data in support of the framework is very thin.

 

The example I use most frequently is the accepted dogma of speciation by mutation. I think the evidence in support of mutation as a key element in evolution is extremely thin. Experimental evidence is near zero, and the evidence that does exist can easily be explained through other mechanisms. But references to an assumption of speciation via mutation are rife in nearly all biological and biochemical literature. I find it a little comical, because I think that point of view is not "science".

 

The dating of geological strata has some flavors of group-think as well. That is why I do not discount the assertions of Young Earth Creationsists out of hand.

[Skippy]

Actually, scientists frequently question other scientist. Many have a pet theory they want to believe, and anytime evidence comes out to the contrary, they work like mad to figure out whats wrong with the evidence. My advisor often says the best way to do experimental physics is to start by assuming everyone else in the field is an idiot.

 

Experiments get replicated all the time, and almost anytime someone proposes a new theory, they undergo a bit of a hard time defending it. Now, as to your point about theories, special relativity is still referred to as a theory, despite overwhelming evidence for it. Evolution is the same way. There is a whole lot of evidence supporting it. Same for the other theories you mentioned. Just because it is still referred to as a theory doesn't mean there isn't good reason for it. Gravity is still a theory, after all.

-Will

Unlike the others, gravity is proved every time Shaquille O'Neal jumps. It is a Law. Theories abound as to its cause, but it takes some good drugs to deny it exists.

 

I've seen nothing to "prove" evolution. We have fossil evidence that creatures that once existed no longer exist and theories to "prove" where they came from and why they are extinct, but there are way too many gaps and far too many kooks involved in fabrication of evidence to say that evolution has been "proved."

[Erasmus00]

YEC folks are often not held in high regard, because so many of their spokespeople are not scientific. The site I referenced is reasonably technical at times, and is a good reference point.

 

Many of the points on that site link over the ICR, a group actively engaged in what an only be described as pseudoscience. And most of the articles on that site seek to question science that make the flood seem impossible, but very few offer any positive evidence of the flood. All in all, the "flood model" calls into question some very well verified science, and offers no new explanatory power. Many of the "theories" designed to support it (hydroplate theory,water canopy theory, etc) are downright silly.

 

People are still fighting over Punctuated Equilibrium, even though the supportive data was strong in 1972 when the theory was first offered, and it is stronger now.

 

Any new, valid thesis that is more consistent with observed data than the prevailing theory usually takes decades to get any traction.

 

The fact that people still fight over punctuated equilibrium I think is my point. Scientists battle it out over theories constantly. I've been to evolutionary biology colloquia at Cornell, and it seems to me that biologists battle over theories just as vehemently as any other scientists.

 

The fact is, young earth creationists are making an extraordinary claim (essentially that many different areas of geology, evolutionary biology, climate science are outright wrong. All of this wrongness amounts to a near conspiracy to make the Earth appear older than it actually is.) As such, they need extraordinary evidence to back it up. So far, they haven't produced it.

 

On a more personal note, I am a religious man, and I think creationism does much more harm than good. I know many scientists who are driven away from religion by the rabid pseudoscience creationists tend to throw around.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

I've seen nothing to "prove" evolution. We have fossil evidence that creatures that once existed no longer exist and theories to "prove" where they came from and why they are extinct, but there are way too many gaps and far too many kooks involved in fabrication of evidence to say that evolution has been "proved."

 

Have you ever read any books on evolution from a science perspective? Perhaps the reason you've seen nothing to prove evolution is that you haven't looked. A brief google search turned up this site:http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html which has several good faqs about evolution and the evidence to support it.

-Will

[niviene]

Unlike the others, gravity is proved every time Shaquille O'Neal jumps. It is a Law. Theories abound as to its cause, but it takes some good drugs to deny it exists.

 

I've seen nothing to "prove" evolution. We have fossil evidence that creatures that once existed no longer exist and theories to "prove" where they came from and why they are extinct, but there are way too many gaps and far too many kooks involved in fabrication of evidence to say that evolution has been "proved."

 

How do you prove that your parents are your parents? Do you remember being born? All you have to rely on is the word of others....

 

My point is, what is it that we require to "prove" something to be true? Natural selection certainly makes sense; do we have proof that it caused evolution in humans? No, but we can see it happening in other things with shorter life spans, and then we find evidence suggesting that it happens in humans as well. Everything in life we assume to be true for certain reasons, and I'm curious to what you think it would take to assume evolution to be true, for you. Does the fact that human DNA is 99% identical to that of a chimp - or that of the 287 amino acids in our hemoglobin apes differ by only one mean anything at all to you, or do you just consider it coincidence? I'm not trying to prove anything here - I'm just wondering what you think of these things; I'm curious to what things like this mean to someone who says there is no proof of evolution. Do you simply choose not to believe them, or do you not want to look into what it implies; or do you think it does not imply anything at all?