A conversation with Nick prompted me to bring up the Great Flood Myth in the Bible. It seems like he is one of the people that takes this particular story in its literal sense, which, to me, does not make sense. In regards to that, let me preface this article with a brief description of the Scientific Method.
In order to advance the knowledge of a particular field, a scientist will make observations about the phenomenon that she perceives. (The sun rises and sets every day.) Then, the scientist creates a hypothesis to explain the perceived phenomenon. (The sun circles the earth.) Then, when the scientist is done with the creation and description of the hypothesis, she will then perform experiments to see whether if the hypothesis is correct, and has the ability to predict future actions. (In this case, the hypothesis should predict that other planets also circle the earth.) Then the research is submitted for critical peer review. (Galileo Galilei’s observations, and Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion falsify the Geocentric model.) If the hypothesis proves to be correct, and it is useful for predicting future actions, then it will generally become a theory or a scientific law, as long as no new evidence comes along to falsify it. If it is proven incorrect, then the hypothesis needs to be modified to fit all extant data, or become invalidated.
Of course, this is a rough approximation, but more information regarding the Scientific Method can be found here.
Now, Creationists propose a hypothesis that a Great Flood happened in the recent past. Fundamentalists believe this to be the case because of their belief in the literal truth of the passages in the Bible which relates the Flood Myth. With this belief in mind, combined with the Scientific Method, we can see whether if such a flood has happened in the past. First, the hypothesis: The Earth was covered in water, where even the highest mountain had a span of twenty feet of water covering them. Note that they completely ignore observations about the natural world in the forming of this hypothesis. They start with a theory, and then try to work backwards from there. Okay, be that as it may, we can form some predictions based on the hypothesis already. Some, but not all, predictions would be:
- The amount of water in use to cover the entirety of the earth. The best approximation that I have read would necessitate over 2.5 times the volume of water already in the ocean to make this model true. To date, no data supports this.
- The model should reflect why the polar ice caps are still there. If the earth were flooded, then the polar ice caps should have broken up. In six thousand years, we should only see a number of ice layers in the polar ice cores that have been taken that reflects the time since the flood. To date, no data supports this.
- Mountain erosion. We should see in different mountain ranges similar erosion activity at the same time to reflect flooding conditions. Again, no data supports the Great Flood Myth.
- Unusual amounts of terrestial detritus within the ocean floor core samples that have been taken. If there was a great flood, then terrestial silt and animal by-products (skeletons and such) should be found in great quantities within the core samples. To date, this also has not been the case.
- The presence of Mitochondrial DNA. In the process of tracking back the most recent ancestor for mitochondrial DNA, we should expect to arrive at a number of about 6,000 years or so. Instead, we have evidence that Mitochondrial Eve was alive no more recently than 150,000 years ago! Again, the evidence that we have to date does not correlate with the Flood Model.
- Geological Sorting. The fossil record that we have today should correspond to models of hydrological sorting processes if such a flood had happened. Instead, all corroborated evidence and data in the Scientific Community shows that such a process has not happened in the past.
- Dispersion of human settlements. The Flood Model has not, and cannot, account for all of the evidence pointing to gradual human dispersion throughout the globe.
- Extant Writings. If the Flood happened, then we should not see any written documents from the time that the flood was purported to happen. Instead, we have slabs and slabs of rocks from the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, and so forth, that were written and dated at the same time as when the flood happened!
These are just some of the problems with the Hypothesis of the Great Deluge. The model, in effect, has not made any predictions that have been valuated, and because Creationists worked backwards, they had no observable phenomenon to quantify before the formation of the Hypothesis.
In effect, the Flood Myth has been falsified over and over again. To present, there is no evidence that such a global flood has taken place.
Just one source for your contemplation. There is actually more evidence available than you have sited as “to date, no data supports this”. Most information one gathers to make ones point seem more valid than another, usually remains exclusive rather than inclusive. I would challenge that even some of the department chairs of biology in many top universities would disagree with your analysis of the Flood being myth. Not to mention a true study of stratigraphic evidence would overwhelmingly point to a world-wide catostrophic flood. Just my 2 cents.
http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm
Comment by a2jbigdaddy — September 21, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Actually there is no evidence for a global flood that stands up to any worthwhile scrutiny. There are no means for that amount of water to appear and then disapear without wiping out everything on the planet (again?), there are no sediment layers which such a flood would leave, there is no mass layer of animal remains which such a flood would leave, etc. (I’d go on but I think you get the point).
At best, the noah flood was a localised flood restricted to the middle east region – quite possibly the result of the red or black sea’s access to the wider water bodies being opened via earthquake, forcing that sea into a huge flood which covered sizable portions of the middle east area. Which, back in those unenlightened days, would indeed have seemed like the world had flooded entire.
Comment by Matt — September 21, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
@a2jbigdaddy
Um, the article that you posted, even though it does not say so itself within the text, is completely derived from the apologetics of creationism as postulated by the Institute for Creation Research, that ‘venerable’ body that has been disputed over and over again becuase of their tactics that they use to distort, deceive, and otherwise misrepresent any and all fields that uncover evidence contrary to the special creation hypothesis.
If you look at my article here, there are several points that are detailed that indisputably refute the flood model. Their is no evidence. To quote a scientist: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” There is not such evidence posited in either the geological record, or the human written record, that verifies the existence of a global flood. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Comment by inaeth — September 22, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
@a2jbigdaddy
Just thought of something when I was re-reading the comments. The one thing that you said that struck me as really odd is the fact that heads of biology departments would agree that there was a global flood. Why would this be the case? Their fields of expertise is in BIOLOGY, not Geology, which most of the evidence that should support the flood myth that I posted about was found wanting. Even given that, it still does nothing to alleviate the fact of the mitochondrial evidence that falsifies the time-line as given in the flood myth. If a biologists believes in the flod myth, then it is according to his/her personal religious beliefs, and not to those accorded to evidence and reason.
Also, I have yet to find any experts in the field of geology that has evidence for the existence of the flood.
Comment by inaeth — September 24, 2006 @ 2:54 pm