Great Deluge Models

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

Recent Science Articles

I’m still on a four day weekend right now. As such, I have plenty of time to write and post, but I’m intending to utilize my time to be lazy this weekend. Hence, the scarcity of posts on this blog recently. However, in the wake of the two on-going discussions within the comments section of certain posts, I thought I would take a lighter touch for this afternoon, and posts the heavy articles later on tonight. So, for your reading enjoyment, I’m presenting some interesting news of the day articles for your reading pleasure this afternoon!

First off, in tangential relation to the evolution arguments that are present on this blog, take a look at this article that gives a synopsis of Intelligent Design. For once, I think a fair and balanced approach has been taken to this contentious topic, although the Creationists in the Hovind model will still be unhappy with the outcome.

Ever wonder about the Ark? Has it been found? Where is it? LiveScience.com also has an article that goes over the past hoaxes, frauds, and interesting sitings of Noah’s Ark.

Still in the Microsoft versus Open Source Software debate? It seems that this conversation is becoming moot, as more and more businesses are embracing Free/Open Source Software.

For those developers who work with C++, here are some more verification tools for you! Yeah!

Anyone who may be engaged in the Evolution/Creation debate, take a look at the Top Ten Myths About Evolution. Most people on the Creationist side who begin these debates lack a serious grounding in evolutionary theory, what it’s about, what it’s facts are, and the theory model that predicts future changes.

The Chimp strikes back with the obvious! President George W. Bush this past weekend stressed the importance of not relying on foreign oil. Duh!

ABC will, on September 11th of this year, present a new “docudrama” on the events leading up to, and including, the terror attacks on the World Trade Center. However, this television event is biased, distorts reality, and is basically a gift to the extreme right. With all the controversy surrounding this project, I’m surprised that ABC hasn’t distanced themselves from the project’s creator. Since the project was only vetted by extreme right-wing Republicans, only previewed by Right-wing Bloggers, and was created by people with extreme right-wing political views, one has to wonder whether if it is based in fact, or in revisionist history?

In the light of all the recent advances in genomic studies, one has to wonder about the use of evolutionary techniques in modern day novels. I like Greg Bear, who is a very good author of some Hard Science Fiction. (“Hard” in this case means the usage of modern “hard” sciences in a theoretical novel. No telepathy, space jumps, wormholes, or the like are allowed as they are all hypothesii (sic) that have no direct evidence in experimental studies.) Especially with the last two novels I read that were written by him, _Darwin’s Radio_ and _Darwin’s Children_, one has to wonder about the science of Human Endogenous Retrovirii. This article gives a very good overview of the science behind the novels.

Well, this should keep people interested until later on this evening! Ciao!

Artist Thinker | Questions on Apologetics

Well, late one evening, as is my wont, I was utilizing the random blog jumper button. You know the one, the little arrow in the top right hand corner of the page that appears when you are logged in to see your blog if it is hosted on WordPress.com. Well, while doing so, I stumbled over a post that purported to show Christianity in a “different” light. By the word “different”, I mean that they were trying to show that Christianity was a rational, logical religion that should be believed because the evidence extant proves it to be true.

Well, everyone who knows me in real life knows that I make a distinction between two types of people. (At least when it comes to the religious type of person.) The first group are people who realize that their religion is a product of personal belief and faith and profess as much. The other is more akin to the fundamentalist who says that Logic, Reason, and Evidence shows their religion (and Denomination and Sect) to be the One True Way.

So, I guess what this should show the reader is that I have nothing against a religious Christian. I do have something against a religious Christian zealot who tarnishes her integrity by not claiming that her belief is based in faith.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. I made a comment over at Artist Thinker, a Blog that is dedicated primarily to Christian topics and apologetics. However, one of the posts there seemed to be addressed to the readers at large, and I posted a comment to it. The reason for my comment has it’s basis in what I talk about on this blog, especially when it comes to critical thinking skills. Specifically, what I referenced was the Error of Bifurcation. (Now, let me see if I learned how to do block quoting…)

“The fact of the matter is that either the Bible is the Word of God, or It’s a pack of lies. You have to choose one way or the other for the Bible and every document that claims to come from God. There is no middle ground. If one part of these books is a lie, then how could you possibly trust any of the rest of it?”

Here’s the point that got me all riled up. How, indeed, should we trust a book if one part of it is proven to be false? My, if just one itty, bitty, little bit of it is proven to be a lie, well, then, by Golly! we should chuck the whole thing out of the window! I mean, after all, we know how to do eisegeisis, do we not? We know linguistics, semiotics, the majority of the original language of the written portfolios and autographs, have scientific validation of the historical events that are portrayed within the documents, and so on. But, June wants everyone to believe that if just one, little, itty bit of it is proven false, then the whole thing must be thrown out, rather than just looking at the historical, social, and cultural ramifications and implications of the passage in question. Not to mention that as of yet, there exists no guidelines for telling when the Bible digresses into allegory and when it is relating factual evidence.

Well, June, here is a whole list of inconsistencies, errors, and outright falsehoods of the Bible. Yes, I will admit that the author was stretching a little bit here and there, but the Bible, if it is inerrant, should not get fundamental things wrong, such as the fact that the Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.

Be that as it may. June responded with this quote:

“And the inclusion of a wrong book or the exclusion of a right book would not amount to a pack of lies? What could you really trust anymore? Is God so incapable of perserving His own Word and confusing us on something so vital as the truth? The few small mistakes that have slipped by have been discovered and amended such as 1 John 5:7. Is this not God preserving His Word?”

Well, as we can see, there are far more than a “few small mistakes”. Also, the one thing that I would like to point out is that there is a little bit of ignorance on the part of most lay people about the history of the formation of the Bible. Some of the books that were considered Canon in the first and second centuries are no longer around, and also books were included at later dates that may have even more recent genesis. This is another nail in the coffin of the Doctrine of Inerrancy.

More was said:

“Your Ethics and Reasoning from the Renaissance served to produce such things as racism which tainted early Reformation leaders such as Martin Luther, who really should have known that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and literally by blood since each and every one of us descended from two people.”

I’m sorry, but when did ethics ever present a situation where racism was considered good? I can not think of any. Reason, especially reason that strives to base itself in empirical premises first, also has never promoted racism. However, we can see ample evidence of racism in the Bible, and in many different theologies that are based in Biblical thought. The whole reason why the South (of the United States, that is) struggled against abolition is because they used verses to promote the institution of slavery! Philosophy, especially that philosophy as espoused by the Objectivists, (say what you want about them, as I find some of there logic fallacious as well, but Ayn Rand was right about this) says that “Every man has a right to his own life”. That means that slavery, racism, sexism, and other prejudices that are not based within the content of character of the individual or her actions are ethically wrong. I must respectfully disagree with you on this point, June, as it seems you are utilizing the Straw Man Argument, wherein you set up a factually inaccurate portrayal of the opposing viewpoint in order to bolster your own premise. Your litany is not true.

Again, from the Comments page to the article:

“It also produced evolution which bolstered claims of superiority and relegated “lesser races” as non-humans and even women as lesser beings.”

Well, I wished you would have read my post calling for creationists to submit proof of special creation. As I’ve stated before, there exists proof for evolution by the truckloads. However, most fundamentalist Christians either do not understand the fact of evolution, or they do not understand the theory of evolution, or they intentionally misunderstand all aspects of it. While some people may have misused the theory of evolution, that does not negate the theory itself. People have also misused the theory of magnetism to have others believe that they possessed supernatural abilities. Does this mean that the theory of electromagnetism is wrong? However, to concentrate upon the evolution side of the debate, you also employed the term “superior”. Within an evolutionary context, “superior” only refers to those species that have adapted to their ecological niche can propogate faster than other species. This means the most evolutionary “advanced” species on the planet would be some type of microbe, and most scientists will agree to this. Only madmen, psychopaths, and megalomaniacs have abandoned reason in order to use evolution as their justification for wholesale murder.

Continuing with the statement:

“Such human reasoning gave rise to Nazism and Fascism and Marxism, poxes on history that have scarred many and continue to do so. Don’t believe me? Think such people as Che are to be revered? Well, why don’t we ask the hundreds of Cubans who risk life and limb to make it to this evil nation of America with all it’s evil capitalist freedoms? Are they not the direct benefactors of Che’s ideology? And that chaste man of the people Fidel Castro most definitely did not make it on the list of some of the most wealthy leaders in the world.”

For some reason, I think in June’s earnestness for the sake of argument, June became convinced that I was a communist. I don’t know how I went from just pointing out a logical error in the argument to being a cheerleader for Communism. However, more to the point, June insists that such politics and methodologies such as Fascism and Communism (the Nazis, despite the word “socialist” in their name, were very much a fascist state) can be laid directly at the feet of human reason. Well, I would propose that it would depend on the connotation of the word. I use the word Reason to mean a well ordered, rational approach to the problems of life wherein as much evidence as can be found before forming logical arguments. Basically, I’m using the word reason in the same way that a scientist or a philosopher may use the term. From the way June derides the term, however, I suspect that June’s interpretation of the word is more along the lines of “Whatever a man may think”.

Again, from the comments section:

“By the way, you obviously failed to read Part 2 in this series called Does God Exist? — The Philosophical Argument. If you had, you would have seen how I show how our own reasoning of ethics can be tainted and unreliable. You have skipped to the end of the book and consequently are confused about the ending.”

I will admit that I did not read the article you wrote. I have since rectified that problem, and think that I can succinctly summarize what you presented in this article: For the greatest happiness, there must be a moral order. If this moral order is found that engenders happiness, then it must have been made by someone. This someone is God. Even in this statement you allow several logical fallacies. You beg the question by stating that people are only happy in following rules. You beg the question that these rules do exist, as well as assert an unproven premise. You also beg the question again in the following statement by asserting that the rules had to be made by someone. Not only that, but there is the error of Bifurcation again, as there exist many different possibilities about the formation of these rules and even how these rules are perceived. Your final unproven assertion is that this frame of rules was codified by an unknown and undefined term such as “God”. (That’s a completely different debate that’s been raging for centuries, though.) There are many other methods and arguments that could have been employed in your apologetics for the existence of God, why did you choose this one?

The one thing that I want to point out here is that if I’m wrong, or presented fallacious evidence, or employed errors in my reasoning, then I will be all to happy to admit to the fact of my error and correct it immediately. This also extends to turns of phrase that I may have mis-stated. The point is this: Can you do the same?

After this point, June asks about a personage that I named in the comments section; a certain Mr. Farrell Till, current editor of the Skeptical Review. I think the link should provide all the evidence needed to assay June’s feelings on the topic. This is what was written:

“Question on Farrell Till: If he was a preacher for TEN YEARS as you have stated, then why did he have to be told to dig deeper into the Bible? Isn’t the nature of a preacher the fact that he has already studied the Bible? What were his sermons like if he didn’t dig deep into the Bible until later? They must have been pathetic flops based on his own assumptions and reasoning.
This all just seems soooo….odd.”

I find it odd that a person would engage in ad hominem attacks and character assassination before even knowing something of the subject matter at hand.

This leads me to my final point: I do abhor the fundamentalist. They resort to doctrines that are not true, can patently be falsified (again, in the scientific context), and must use Apologetics that have been disproved time and time again throughout history. A true person of faith will admit to being just that, a person of Faith. They know they believe what they believe because it is an article of belief and faith. If more religious people would just say this up front, I do believe the world would be a much better place.

Let’s Have Some Proof!

Alright, I will admit it: I really, really do not like Fundamentalists. I was raised by Pentecostal/Fundamentalist parents, and because of this I have a deeper understanding of the movement than most other people do. Not only that, but when I really started to study the Bible, I started to also study the underlying linguistics and languages behind the translation of the current King James Bible as well. What I discovered made me disgusted with the people that were in the movement, as they would pervert and twist the passages of scripture to construe what they wanted it to mean to support their own personal theology. Now, it seems that they are not content with just twisting scripture, but they want to twist science as well.

If you have been paying attention to the news, you know by now that the fundamentalist members of the Kansas State Board of Education have been voted out. The population of Kansas seems to be coming to their senses in regards to what actually qualifies as Science. Hurray for them! But the defeat of the “Intelligent Design” movement in that state seems to only give them an impetus for introducing their “alternative theory” into other school districts.

My question is this: What facts support Creationism? Trying to poke holes in Evolution (which they haven’t been very successful at, just look at Talk-Origins for an example of Creationists getting their arguments ripped to shreds in the light of Factual Evidence) does not automatically support Creationism. Evolution has evidence in support of it by the truckload. What can a Creationist point to that supports their hypothesis?