Blog

You should study logical fallacies so you can recognize all you've just made. It may prevent you from making them in the future, and your reasoning will not be so laughable.

That was seriously the last argument I was expecting to encounter. You could have claimed scientific ignorance and you could have developed a case off of that. Logical fallacy? Logic is merely A+B=C. What I said is if there was a worldwide flood, there would be dead organisms buried in the ground. Logical conclusion, this happens all of the time. If an eyewitness saw this, there would be some sort of prevailing story. There happens to be many. And, in light of the dinosaurs, we would expect to see some sort of evidence that humans and dinosausr co-existed (assuming a young earth). Stories about dragons testify to this fact. Maybe you could point out my lack of logic by pointing out an example where I am illogical. Then maybe we could have a true conversation. Merely claiming I'm stupid doesn't accomplish anything.

How about you study up on logical fallacies instead of just saying you aren't committing any. They are real things; documented and known, and they are responsible for horrible leaps of "reason" in the wrong direction. Do a little research, then tell me what you've found out about them. Knowing them can be wonderfully useful. And I never said you were stupid. Lots of intelligent people commit logical fallacies, and they're sometimes hard to spot unless you know what to look for. Good luck and good reading!

Thank you for clearing up what you said before. This is what you initially posted:

"You should study logical fallacies so you can recognize all you've just made. It may prevent you from making them in the future, and your reasoning will not be so laughable."

I don't think I misinterpretted what you were saying, you were very clear in claiming that I am an illogical (I interpretted it as, "stupid") person. I think based on the context that was an appropriate conclusion.

But I'm pushing past that because you have chosen to clarify at least what it is that you are talking about. Let me give you some context regarding who I am:

I graduated from Findlay High School in Findlay, Ohio in 2003. Went to Cleveland State university and graduated in 2007 with a bachelor degree in Health Science. What I often forget to mention is that I was 1 class away from getting a certificate in bioethics (if I would have known before the end of my last semester, I would have pursued that). So I have a foundation in philosophy and logic. But I do not have a Master degree or bachelor degree in logic and so some of the terminology does throw me off. My Master degree is in Divinity with a focus on Biblical studies. So, to some up my background, I have experience as a "scientist," a "philosopher," and a "theologian." Now I use the first two loosely because I know that I did not pursue them to their grandest ends. But hopefully that clarifies my confusion in your challenge. I appreciated the brevity in your posts and so I will respond in brief posts and let you read them one by one so that I do not overwhelm you with one. See next post...

What I discovered (and my study was brief) was that there are several different official types of "logical fallacies." I'm not going into the details of each, I'm sure you are aware of them: Formal, Informal, Logical and Factual, and Taxonomy of Fallicies. I forgot to ask in my first post, what is your background in this area? I would really like to know so that I know what sort of answer you are looking for.

My best guess is that you are accusing me of Informal fallacy and probably Logical and Factual Fallacy. Again, I would like you to specify so that I could know what you are accusing me of, but this is my best guess.

Now, I want you to understand, what I am doing is not declaring to the masses, with 100% certainty that my claim is the only way to look at the evidence mainstream science provides, I am not claiming that I am definitively correct and that they are definitively wrong. I am saying that I disagree with them. The basis for my disagreement is that I used to agree with their premises and believed that the way they were presenting the information was the only way to translate it. I used to think creationists (young earth creationists) were nuts! But I looked at the evidence that creationists were using (which was the same) and how they were interpretting it and I concluded that given the info provided, the creationists actually make a more logical and factually supported case than atheists and other opposition does! In fact, Eugenie Scott said that the greatest friend to creationists is logic. She is an atheist. She isn't saying that creationists are more logical than atheists, but that creationists are able to deduce logical conclusions from the evidence derived from their presuppositions.

To defend one possible point of weakness, that you observe, let's discuss where fossils come from. Fossils are created through rapid burial. If a living organism is not covered shortly after it dies, it will not leave a fossil. That is because decay occurs quickly and if it is exposed to even oxygen for too long, the bones of the creature will not be able to be preserved...especially for millions of years. mainstream scientists concede that most, if not all of the fossils, were of creatures that were caught in a flood or volcanic ash, causing them to be well preserved.

Now think about this. It is possible that a lot of local floods over time killed these creatures and buried them. But is that the most logical conclusion? If we have stories that have been preserved through tradition about a worldwide flood, would you or would you not expect to see an overwhelming number of fossils as a result? That is not to say that fossils point only to this possibility but when you observe the problems in both theories, I have been convinced that the worldwide flood makes more since. (Note: Tsunamis are often brought upon by seismic activity and volcanic eruptions under water. This would even account for animals that were covered by volcanic ash in the fossil record, according to the presupposition of a global flood.)

I hope that this answers your challenge at least to some degree. Again, I don't know all of the "logic lingo" but I have been considered by many ppl, including atheists, to be a logical guy. It is not an argument of logic. It is an argument of the proper interpretation of reality.

So we cannot base our arguments merely on words. They must be backed up with facts. So if you claim that my argument is "laughable" because it does not fit with some conceptual form of logic, look at my claims on the evidence. There have been many a court case where the truth defied the obvious logical conclusions. So, I understand what you are saying, but ask you to observe the context of the arguments I'm making. I did not go into the details, I offered a gateway to a topic that goes much further in depth.

What would you expect to see if there was a worldwide flood? First, I would expect to see world-wide evidence of a flood.

In 1994, Peter A. Clayton wrote a book with a rather lengthy title: Chronicle of the Pharaohs, The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt (London. Thames & Hudson. 1994).
In his book, Clayton demonstrated that the Egyptian Pharaonic Civilization predated the biblical flood. Clayton gave the following dates for Egyptian Dynasties and their Pharaohs.

• Dynasty 0
3150-3050 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 1
3050-2890 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 2
2890-2686 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 3
2686-2613 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 4
2613-2498 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 5
2498-2345 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 6
2345-2181 B.C.E.

Now Noah's flood occurred in either 2958 BCE, as calculated by the Roman Catholic scholar, Euseibus, or 2348 BCE, as calculated by Archbishop Ussher and Sir John Lightfoot. We must bear in mind that Ussher and Lightfoot had access to the Gregorian calendar we use today, while Euseibus, who lived in the third century BCE, had only the less accurate Julian calendar with which to work, which inclines one to lean more toward acceptance of Ussher's and Lightfoot's date, than Euseibus'.
Unless, of course, one sees the irony of attempting to establish an exact date for the occurrence of a fictitious event, as being much like trying to deduce the age of Superman by accurately determining in exactly what year he was born - and failing to see the irrelevance.
Clayton informs us that archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of the above Pharaohs for the associated six Dynasties (3150-2181 BCE) and excavations showed no flood layer of silt above their tombs, deposited by Noah's alleged Universal Flood.
Nor do the records or annals of Egypt, and those guys were anal about annals - meticulous record-keepers - make any mention of a universal, world-encompassing flood.
Clayton's conclusion was that if there had been a universal, globe-encompassing flood in the third millennium BCE, there is no evidence of it in Egypt, just a drone's flight away from the Mesopotamian region where Noah's flood reputedly began - as the crow flies, or as the water flows, Baghdad and Cairo are roughly 800 miles apart.
In Clayton's own words:

"The absence of the mention of such a flood in Egyptian records and annals, from the same general Middle-Eastern area where can be found 'the mountains of Ararat,' combined with the archaeological evidence from the Pharaohs' tombs, created before the 2958/2348 BCE flood occurred, reveal that the tale of Noah's flood is a myth."

The Bible tells us that a worldwide flood covered the tops of all of the mountains and 15 cubits above that (22.5 feet).

The number of gallons of water required to cover the Earth from its surface to the top of Mount Everest is 1+ sextillion gallons of water. And for Ararat, a mere 697+ quintillion gallons of water.

From the National Geological Survey, we know that there are 326 quintillion gallons of water in, on, under, and above, our planet. Of the 326 quintillion gallons - which is half as much as is needed to reach the top of Mt. Ararat, 98% is locked into the oceans, already below sea level, and unavailable for flooding purposes.

Clearly, the Bible is wrong, written in a time when men believed that the sky was blue because space, as we now know it, was filled with water, that the earth was protected from this water by a "firmament" that held the water back, and to flood the earth, all their god had to do was open the gates to the firmament and let the water pour down, which, as all can see today is simply not true.

You were right about one thing - there are tales of a flood in nearly every culture, which could certainly make it seem as though there was a global deluge, but nearly every area on earth has experienced a flood at some point in time, but there are no indications that the flood the Pima Indians wrote about in America, was the same one reputed to have occurred in Mesopotamia. If we didn't have the means of modern communication that is in place today, the residents of New Orleans, when Katrina struck, might have had every reason to believe their flood was worldwide. Let that story circulate for a couple of thousand years, retold down through generations, and by the time it gets written down, it's nothing like the original.

It has also been mentioned that there are sea shells on mountain tops - again proof of a global flood. Not at all, only proof that mountains that once existed beneath the sea, were pushed up when tectonic plates collided. Here's an experiment, try it: place a sheet of fresh notebook paper flat on a tabletop, place one of your hands flat on each side of the paper - these represent the tectonic plates - then keeping pressure on the paper, so it can't slide from under your hands, slowly move your hands together. What happens to the paper? It forms a miniature mountain in the middle, doesn't it? In the same way, some mountains rose up from sea beds, with sea shells already firmly implanted on them.

Ziusudra (Sumerian), or Ziudsuttu (Akkadian) is of particular importance, in that he is listed on the historic Mesopotamian Kings List. The importance of Ziusudra's name on the King List is that it links the flood mentioned in the Epics of Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, et al, to an archaeologically attested Euphrates river flood in Shuruppak, Uruk, and Kish - three Sumerian cities - in what is now southern Iraq, about 125 miles southeast of Baghdad - river flood sediments there have been radio carbon-dated as 2900 BCE, so scholars conclude that the flood hero was a king of Shuruppak at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period (c. 3000-2900 B.C.E.) which ended with the river flood of that latter date.
Author Robert M. Best offers an interesting perspective of the times and conditions under which this small, localized flood occurred. In his book, Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic, Sumerian Origins of the Flood Myth, Mr. Best relates that a six-day thunderstorm caused the Euphrates River to rise 15 cubits, overflowing the levees.
When the levees overflowed, Ziusudra boarded a small commercial river barge that had been hauling grain, beer, and a few hundred cattle, sheep, and goats. The barge floated down the river into the Persian (Arabian) Gulf where it grounded in an estuary at the mouth of the river. He assures us that, "Ziusudra then offered a sacrifice on an altar at the top of a nearby hill which storytellers mistranslated as mountain. This led them to falsely assume that the nearby barge had grounded on top of a mountain. Actually it never came close to a mountain."

I have access to a map, which will demonstrate the extent of Zuisudra's flood in 2900 BCE, but unfortunately, your format will not all me to post pictures here. However, if interested, it can be found at: http://in-his-own-image.com/2010/02/20/2-chapter-6-part-4-rain-rain-go-away.aspx

Realistically, geologists confirm that even a rise of a foot of water on the Euphrates river can, in that level land, result in the coverage of a considerable area of acreage, and since a cubit is roughly 18 inches, the river could actually have risen 22.5 feet. Any river that rose 22.5 feet above flood stage would certainly be something to write home about and could definitely be defined as a flood as regards that local area, but hardly one of global, or even mountainous proportions - no need to rush out and start lining up lions, tigers and bears --
This story of Ziusudra was passed down through generations. It was even immortalized when an anonymous author wrote "The Epic of Gilgamesh," in which his hero encounters the King of the Mesopotamian flood, whom he calls Utinapishtum, who tells his story of the flood. Utinapistum ends his story by explaining how, he sent out ravens and doves until he knew the ground was dry - stories plagiarized by the Bible, as this story was written 300 years before the Noah story supposedly happened - and once disembarked, sacrificed an animal. He tells how, "the gods smelled the savor - they smelled the sweet savor." The Bible, in Genesis 8:21, tells us, "And the Lord smelled the sweet savor...." Where do you suppose the writers of the Bible got that idea?

According to the Bible, the ark was afloat for nine months and ten days. From Genesis, Chapter 6:16, Noah was instructed to make only the one window which hadn't been opened for the entire trip.
Cows munch mostly grass and hay - yet they grow big and hefty. Why? Because of the rumen, the first and largest of a cow's four stomachs. The rumen holds 160 liters (42 gallons) of food and billions of microbes. These microscopic bacteria and protozoa break down cellulose and fiber into digestible nutrients, but as the microbes digest cellulose, they release methane. The average cow expels 600 liters - 157 gallons - of methane gas per day, climate researchers report.
Assuming a 28-30 day month, over the 9-month, ten-day voyage, a single cow on board would have produced 6,086.47 cubic feet of methane gas! We know that there were either one or seven pairs of cattle on board. Assuming only one pair - again, to be conservative - that's still 12,172.947 cubic feet of methane gas, just for the two cows!
We have no way of knowing how many other species of animals were on board, and they ALL farted, along with Skipper Noah and his fearless crew.
Now the ark, by this god's own blueprints (Genesis, 6:15) was three hundred cubits long, by fifty cubits wide, by thirty cubits deep - translated, assuming a cubit to be the standard definition's eighteen inches, that means the ark was 450 feet long, by 75 feet wide, by 45 feet deep. Volume-wise (450 X 75 X 45), that amounts to an entire volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet.
All of those animals occupied space on the ark that should be subtracted from the total volume of the ark if our intention is to determine just how much space was available to hold all of the methane gas produced by those animals over an nine-month, ten-day period of time. But since none of us knows how many animals were purportedly on the ark, clearly we can't make such an estimation, so we'll stick with the amount of space available on an unoccupied ark, while realizing that the actual amount of available space to be much less than my calculations - in other words, we're using yet another conservative estimate.
There are several things we do know:
• the ark would have been built to be water-tight throughout a forty-day and night deluge, and water-tight means airtight.
• by this god's own instruction (Genesis, 6:16), the ark had only one window, about eighteen inches square, and it wasn't opened (Genesis, 8:6) until nine months and ten days after the cruise began.
• a single animal, of the size of a common cow, would produce over six thousand, eighty-six cubic feet of methane gas, over 9, 28-day months, plus 10 days.

That means that it would have taken less than 250 such animals to completely fill the ark with methane gas in less than the time the ark was closed up.
With only one window, on a boat that large, and it, closed for the entire nine months and ten days - the ark was dark. I mean, that was one dark ark - without a window, in an air-tight ark, you couldn't see your hand in front of your face.
But surely they had lanterns, didn't they? Or at least candles?
Have you ever heard of a kid holding a lit match near his rear end, to see if the gas in his fart will light? Trust me, it will. Methane is one of the most flammable gasses on the planet.
Had I not already known about the other three Mesopotamian flood stories (almost exactly like this one, but written hundreds of years earlier, from which this one was clearly plagiarized), the 9-month, 10-day buildup of methane, and the 9-month, 10-day enforced blackout, would have been enough to convince me this story never happened.
So after nine months and ten days of inhaling solid methane, feeding animals and shoveling up after them, all of this in total darkness (unless they had glow-sticks), Noah finally opened the window, no doubt hacking, coughing, wheezing, and gasping for a lungful of fresh air.

@ archaeopteryx

I will not hit every single point you bring up because you refute yourself just fine. That is not a dis just an easy observation for anyone to make. Including yourself if you are open to the truth.

For instance, you wrote both of these statements.

"The Bible tells us that a worldwide flood covered the tops of all of the mountains and 15 cubits above that (22.5 feet).

The number of gallons of water required to cover the Earth from its surface to the top of Mount Everest is 1+ sextillion gallons of water. And for Ararat, a mere 697+ quintillion gallons of water." -------------------------------------------------and then you go on to say how the Bible is . . . well, here is what you wrote about the comment above, "Clearly, the Bible is wrong, written in a time when men believed that the sky was blue because space, as we now know it, was filled with water, that the earth was protected from this water by a "firmament" that held the water back, and to flood the earth, all their god had to do was open the gates to the firmament and let the water pour down, which, as all can see today is simply not true." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I could easily write a few chapters of a book on all the assumptions made in that statement but I won't because it's time to see your refutation of yourself.

And here it is sir, you wrote, "It has also been mentioned that there are sea shells on mountain tops - again proof of a global flood. Not at all, only proof that mountains that once existed beneath the sea, were pushed up when tectonic plates collided." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here's the thing: I'm pretty sure you didn't see your own contradiction because you have it "all figured out." This is not a diss. Archaeopteryx, the question isn't, "were mountains at one time in the oceans?" as you have so wonderfully pointed out tectonic plates move. One of the better asked questions in this case (and there are many that can be asked without a bias) is, "At what rate of time (Speed) were the mountains we see today created?" Yes, tectonic plates move but have they moved at today's rate or has that rate slowed down, sped up, stayed the same, etc.?

If you are truly a truth seeker you must be willing to pursue the answer to this and MANY other questions about the past. The problem you will run into though is this: When dealing with past events, that are truly events of the past, like the origins debate, you will come to see that some things cannot be proven scientifically without making some HUGE assumptions about the past that we do not know. Short of actually making a time machine that works. :) Again, I am not here to fight or argue with you. I just encourage you to realize that you are working from assumptions as well and in fact do have a bias as every person on the planet does. This includes myself and yes, scientists too. I look forward to Bill's comments.

God Bless.

@ archaeopteryx

Your methane comment made me laugh so hard I almost work up my family. :) It was funny. I wasn't laughing at your "facts" in the comment.

Again though, you are making some serious assumptions and you do not even realize it. You assume that the used some sort of "fire" for lighting. Question: since that world was destroyed, is it possible that some other form of light could have been used? Possibly even something like a glow stick. Chemicals combining to make light? Is it possible, is all I am asking.

Regarding the animals, is it possible that they went into a hibernation like state during most of the journey? Again, is it possible? You see, you are making assumptions to the record. As am I. I'm willing to admit it because I wasn't there to do a very important thing, observe it. Are you willing to admit that, if the story is true, you we not there to observe it either?

* woke up

Actually JD70, it was originally a little longer and a lot funnier, but these comments are limited to 4096 characters and I had to cut some to get it all in.

According to Bishop Ussher, the"flood" allegedly occurred in 2300+ BCE, but Genesis wasn't written until 950 BCE, some 1300 years later. As mentioned earlier, the entire Noahic story was plagiarized from the Akkadian flood in Mesopotamia, 600 years earlier. Using Occam's Razor, which more likely, that someone within the Jewish community decided it would help unite the Jews if they had some heroic figures as role models, so they plagiarized the Ziusudra story, making the hero Jewish, rather than Akkadian - or, is it more likely that Bronze Age Hebrew nomads had glow sticks and suspended animation technology?

I have to say, I'm really excited to respond to your comments, archaeopteryx. I just want you to know that I am aware of them and I have actually looked into them before you posted them. I hope I get the time to sit down and write you a sufficient response either today or tomorrow :)

First, I found it really fascinating that you brought up Ziusudra. I just learned about Ziusudra this weekend! Isn't that weird how God works?

What I've learned about Ziusudra is that it is never implied that it is never implied that the flood was a local flood. If anything, it is implied that it is local because the story says that all of mankind would be destroyed. The story, however, is linked to a couple other flood stories, particularly Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. Certain people claim that Atrahasis' story implies a local river flood based off of a line that says "like a raft they moved into a riverbank." Even so, the story says that the entire earth was destroyed. People try to explain this away by saying, "this was these people's entire world" but you would think that if only their region were destroyed and they encountered people after this great flood, they would know that not everyone was killed.
Same thing with Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh is often claimed to be a story about an enormous local flood, but this story also claims that the mountains were covered, I believe it was up to 14 fathoms! That's deep! Once again, if you want you can say that is attributable to legend, I'm just telling you what these stories actually say.
In a book I am working on, called "The World That Then Was," I actually cite the data you used concerning the alleged vicinity of the flood. It is an enormous region that they believed it covered! And it is possible that this flood really happened. What I find ironic, though, is that the sediments in that region are used as proof for an enormous flood, but the evidence for the worldwide flood is dismissed. The evidence I am referring to is the very evidence I cited above. We can argue in circles about this, but that is what I see; there are a lot of dead creatures well preserved throughout the different layers of the earth that were victims of rapid burial. Could something other than a worldwide flood have accounted for their rapid burial? Absolutely. But I find the evidence of fossil graveyards, and yes, the clams found at the tops of evidence to be rather compelling and convincing that some sort of global catastrophe happened in the earth's past. I believe that the Bible tells us what that catastrophe was.

You say that the Genesis flood story was written in 950 BC. That is very presumptuous. If there really was a character known as Moses (even disregarding all of the supernatural stuff in his story) then he would have lived around 1500 BC, according to most of the experts that I have read. So actually, the flood story would have been written around that time. But you also have to realize that before any flood story was recorded, it was probably preserved in oral tradition. Things were not written down immediately in those days. For instance, Buddha lived thousands of years before Jesus, but the first records regarded his teachings were written at least decades after Jesus. We should not assume that just because a document is found from the 17th century BC that it means that it was the original document of its kind. For all we know we might find other documents of its nature that predate it. And, of course, we must also be willing to accept the fact that there is not date recorded on the document itself, which means that it might not date back to the 17th century BC. I believe it probably dates back that far, but that doesn't make it true.

You provide an example of creating paper mountains. I appreciate your attempt to demonstrate science, but making paper mountains is far different from creating real mountains. When scientists are honest, they admit that they really have no definite evidence concerning how mountains were formed. Yes, they have some good and logical theories, but their theories are plagued with geologic problems. I would suggest picking up the book "The Genesis Flood" regarding the different problems regarding the problems of the geologic column and the formation of mountains.

As JD suggested, yes, sea shells at the tops of mountains is good evidence in proving that there was a worldwide flood. The Bible tells us that the mountains were formed (at least in their current state) by the worldwide flood. Under this presupposition, seeing sea shells and other life at the tops of mountains (especially clams in the "closed mouth" position)is good evidence that supports the notion that a flood created the mountains. It is not the only explanation, as you pointed out, but it is a good explanation.

In relation to that topic, you made the claim that there is no way that water could have covered the earth as high as what it did. I highly suggest you read this article: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/fountains-deep-discovered
I don't know everything about this stuff, but I found it rather interesting that this mineral, deep dwon in the earth called wadsleyite, could contain enough water compacted in it to fill 30 oceans! That's a lot of water! As the article suggests, it would be appropriate to call these the "fountains of the deep." Once again, can you look at this data and conclude otherwise? Absolutely.

Your assertion that the Egyptian dates are correct and undisputed are well accepted by the mainstream, even many conservatives. The conservatives that have accepted these dates are unshaken in their faith and develop their understanding of the Bible around this assertion. But...

Chronologies are not easily developed. There is a lot of guess work and carbon dating and putting puzzle pieces together. This is all being done by fallible humans and we all know how fallible we are.

Let's be honest with ourselves, am I one to dispute the dates that you have given for the Egyptian dynasties? No. But there are people who question those dates. Answers in Genesis, for instance suggests that Egyptian chronology is incorrect. I found this article helpful but have not had sufficient time to read the whole thing yet. From what I have read, it is very interesting and makes a strong case: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/moses

I'm not going to lie, I've been trying to find other sources on this data, but it is hard. Unfortunately, because I'm not an archaeologist, I don't know any archaeologists, and I imagine that probably most archaeologists are taught the same stuff (which typically contradicts the Bible...not a hit, just the truth) I know that AIG is my best bet for finding info regarding this topic and people who know something about it.

If you are an archaeologist, I would say you definitely have a leg up on me in this debate and there is not a whole lot I can say. But, I'm guessing you are probably like me; reading books, googling, and trying to find the best info to support your argument. Unfortunately, it is easier to find info to support what you are saying than what I am, in this regard.

Most of my research regarding this topic, though, is in relation to the Exodus. AIG makes the case that the Exodus happened during the 12th Dynasty instead of the 18th. This would change the way we think about the Egyptian chronology if it were true. They cite several writings from the 12th dynasty that correlate really well with the plagues in Egypt and the death of the Pharaoh. Among that, I would say that it is obvious that there were slaves in Egypt and there has been evidence discovered that they up and left all of a sudden. Furthermore, despite popular belief, there is evidence that the Israelites travelled in teh desert. In text books of mine, there are pictures of the altars they used to make sacrifices that were found in the desert. Also, there have been different developments regarding the falling of the Walls of Jericho that give credibility to the Bible's account, even though it was previously thought that there was no evidence of this event.

My point is that I build my worldview based on the authority of the Bible. If I feel that I can trust the evidence regarding the existence of Moses, the Exodus, and the worldwide flood, I am naturally going to reject the claims made by the secular world regarding the chronology of the Dynasties of the Ancient Egyptians. My experience has been that whenever the Bible is questioned in these areas, given the appropriate amount of time, someone in the mainstream says "oops." And I am happy to say, "I told you so."

Archie (is it okay if I call you Archie?) I appreciate the inquiry. It has been a great challenge to take upon and to build upon.

*A few corrections real fast: Buddha lived hundreds of years before Jesus, not "thousands." When I said claims on top of evidence, I meant "clams on top of mountains." There were other errors, but I think I got the confusing and most ignorant sounding ones :)

Oh, and I almost forgot...regarding the whole methane buildup thing. I agree with JD on this one. we are making assumptions about things that we cannot know. I was also going to say that it is possible that the animals hibernated during that time. Some also have a theory that there could have been a chamber at the bottom of the ark, I think they call it a moon pool, that would circulate fresh air through the vessel. But, again, I would not know that and I don't necessarily think that it would be allowed inside of the context of the Scripture. Hope to hear from ya again Archie!

Hi Bill - actually, I prefer arch, it'll save you a couple of characters, and as I learned the hard way, these comments allow only 4096 characters. Actually, I had my last comment down to that, and it still wouldn't post, so I had to drop another 100 before it would accept my comment.

I must say - and I'm not trying to be grouchy - that I really don't like this particular format. That's not the fault of anyone here, the flaw is in the software design. You can't upload pictures, you can use HTML to bold or italicize, but you can's underline book titles, as should properly be done, and worst of all, you have no means of going back in and making corrections after you've posted your comment - I had to delete an entire comment (fortunately, I had copied it first), correct my typos, and repost it. I also have a problem with there being no reply button beneath each comment - to respond to some of the things you've said, I will need to scroll all the way up to your comment, then all the way back down to mine, and that can easily interfere with concentration and occasionally break trains of thought.

Good to get that off my chest.

Naturally, I disagree with nearly everything you've said - amicably, of course - but it's dinnertime here and R & R time after that, so I'll have to get back with you tomorrow, but I just wanted to touch base and say, "Hi!"

Bill Seng said...
“First, I found it really fascinating that you brought up Ziusudra. I just learned about Ziusudra this weekend! Isn't that weird how God works?”

Yeah, it is! That Zeus really comes through in a clutch, doesn’t he?



Bill Seng said...
“What I've learned about Ziusudra is that it is never implied that the flood was a local flood. If anything, it is implied that it is local because the story says that all of mankind would be destroyed. The story, however, is linked to a couple other flood stories, particularly Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. Certain people claim that Atrahasis' story implies a local river flood based off of a line that says ‘like a raft they moved into a riverbank.’ Even so, the story says that the entire earth was destroyed. People try to explain this away by saying, ‘this was these people's entire world’ but you would think that if only their region were destroyed and they encountered people after this great flood, they would know that not everyone was killed.

“Same thing with Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh is often claimed to be a story about an enormous local flood, but this story also claims that the mountains were covered, I believe it was up to 14 fathoms! That's deep! Once again, if you want you can say that is attributable to legend, I'm just telling you what these stories actually say.”

My response:
Let me repeat that I really wish this format allowed for importing pictures, so I could demonstrate the actual area of the real Mesopotamian flood, which covered what we would think of, as about three counties.

I’m not sure you really know your Epic of Gilgamesh - in the Gilgamesh story, Utnapishtim was a fictional name for the historical king, Ziusudra, who, as I mentioned earlier, escaped the Mesopotamian Euphrates River flood of 2900 BCE in a trading barge. Atrahasis, or Atrakhasis in some spellings, is, in a Sumerian legend (not historical, as is Ziusudra) a Sumerian king who was involved in a flood brought about by the Chief of the Sumerian gods, Enlil. It’s easy to see how the Jewish people were able to plagiarize the story, as it had been in circulation for thousands of years. You’ve said, referring to Gilgamesh, “if you want, you can say that is attributable to legend” - The Epic of Gilgamesh was never presented as fact, it was always intended as a work of fiction, not even legend. The Sumerian story of Atrahasis was based on a thousands-year old legend, but not Gilgamesh, which was written entirely for ancient entertainment.

Clearly, if I'm to adequately respond to you, it will be necessary to break my comments into segments - I only hope they will be comprehensive.

(cont. from above)
But you were right when you said, “this was these people's entire world” - this WAS these people’s entire world. There was, in fact, an archaeologically-attested Euphrates river flood in Shuruppak, Uruk, and Kish, in Sumer, now southern Iraq. River flood sediments there have been radio carbon-dated as 2900 B.C.E., so scholars conclude that the flood hero was king of Shuruppak, Ziusudra, at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period (3000-2900 B.C.E.) which ended with the river flood of that later date. You’ve said, “you would think that if only their region were destroyed and they encountered people after this great flood, they would know that not everyone was killed,” yes, you would think that, but would they publicize it? I’ve noticed that at no point in time, when science proves yet another section of the Bible invalid, no one seems to rush a new edition into print that points it out.


Author Robert M. Best offers an interesting perspective of the times and conditions under which this small, localized flood occurred, in his book, Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic, Sumerian Origins of the Flood Myth (http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/index.html), Mr. Best relates that a six-day thunderstorm caused the Euphrates River to rise 15 cubits, overflowing the levees. Interesting, that the Jewish people even plagiarized the 15 cubits.

I don’t recall, from the legend of Atrahasis, and certainly not from the story of the historical Ziusudra or the intentionally fictional Utnapishtim, that anyone believed the entire world was covered - only the Bible can claim that degree of gullibility. If you’ll provide a quotation from the legend of Atrahasis and a link to substantiate it, I’d be happy to look into it and correct my statement if I’m mistaken.

(Cont.)
Bill Seng said...
“You say that the Genesis flood story was written in 950 BC. That is very presumptuous. If there really was a character known as Moses...he would have lived around 1500 BC, according to most of the experts that I have read. So actually, the flood story would have been written around that time.”

My Response:
Presumptious? Not at all. The Jews had no written language until c1000 BCE. The Septuagint, the first five books of the Bible, was written by four distinct groups at different times, and the resultant patchwork quilt pieced together by a Redactor, or editor, in 400 BCE.

The earliest of such groups, known to biblical scholars as the Yahwist (J) Group, wrote parts of Genesis and Exodus in 950 BCE. J is thought to have been composed by collecting together the various stories and traditions concerning Judah and its associated tribes (Levi, Judah, Simeon, and Reuben), and weaving them into a single text. It is the oldest source, whose narratives make up half of Genesis and the first half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers. J describes a human-like God, called Yahweh (or rather YHWH) throughout, and has a special interest in the territory of the Kingdom of Judah and individuals connected with its history. J has an extremely eloquent style.

The Elohist (E) Source was composed in northern Israel (Ephraim) c850 BCE, combined with the Yahwist to form JE c750 BCE. It portrays a God who is less anthropomorphic than YHWH of the earlier J Source. The Elohist Source promotes Israel over Judah, and Levitical priests over Judah's Aaronite priests. E includes Abraham's mission to sacrifice Isaac, Moses calling down plagues on Egypt, Aaron and the golden calf, the Covenant Code, and Joseph as an interpreter of dreams. The Elohist's story appears to begin after Abram has begun migration, with the wife vs. sister story that is also present in the Yahwist tale. The first major story is that of the sacrifice of Isaac. In the Elohist work, Isaac does not ever appear again after this story, and the story appears to imply that Isaac was sacrificed. We know this to be the case, as an early tradition recorded in a midrash still preserves a version of the tale in which Isaac was killed.

The Deuteronomist (D) Source was written c600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform and dealt entirely with the Book of Deuteronomy.

The Priestly (P) Source is the most recent of the four chief sources of the Torah. It is seen as the work of an Aaronid priest and as such, reflects, among other characteristics attributable to priests, the rigorous emphasis of censuses and genealogies. It was thought to describe conditions during and after the Babylonian exile, c550-400 BCE. This source is thought to have written the majority of the book of Leviticus, as well as stories that parallel those in J and in E, suggesting it was composed after J and E had been integrated into a JED proto-Torah. P emphasizes the position of the priesthood and particularly of Aaron, and always presents Aaron as being present when Moses does something on God's behalf, and states that it is Aaron's staff that God works miracles through, rather than Moses'. P also denigrates Moses' ability to continue to perform as leader by stating that, on descent from having become close to God at the mountain where he received the commandments, he was changed in such a way that no-one could bear to look at him.

All four sources were ultimately combined in 400 BCE by a Redactor, who wove the disparate pieces into the Septuagint. Many have wondered why there are two different “Creation” stories, and why one section of the fictitious Noah story relates that animals were loaded onto the ark by twos, while in another, seven of some types and two of others were loaded - the Redactor had no idea which version was the truth (not realizing that neither were), so included both, just to be safe.

(Cont.)
Bill Seng said...
“Your assertion that the Egyptian dates are correct and undisputed are well accepted by the mainstream, even many conservatives. The conservatives that have accepted these dates are unshaken in their faith and develop their understanding of the Bible around this assertion. But...Chronologies are not easily developed. There is a lot of guess work and carbon dating and putting puzzle pieces together. This is all being done by fallible humans and we all know how fallible we are. 

“Let's be honest with ourselves, am I one to dispute the dates that you have given for the Egyptian dynasties? No. But there are people who question those dates. Answers in Genesis, for instance suggests that Egyptian chronology is incorrect. I found this article helpful but have not had sufficient time to read the whole thing yet. From what I have read, it is very interesting and makes a strong case: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/moses

“I'm not going to lie, I've been trying to find other sources on this data, but it is hard. Unfortunately, because I'm not an archaeologist, I don't know any archaeologists, and I imagine that probably most archaeologists are taught the same stuff (which typically contradicts the Bible...not a hit, just the truth) I know that AIG is my best bet for finding info regarding this topic and people who know something about it.

“Most of my research regarding this topic, though, is in relation to the Exodus. AIG makes the case that the Exodus happened during the 12th Dynasty instead of the 18th. This would change the way we think about the Egyptian chronology if it were true. They cite several writings from the 12th dynasty that correlate really well with the plagues in Egypt and the death of the Pharaoh. Among that, I would say that it is obvious that there were slaves in Egypt and there has been evidence discovered that they up and left all of a sudden. Furthermore, despite popular belief, there is evidence that the Israelites travelled in teh desert. In text books of mine, there are pictures of the altars they used to make sacrifices that were found in the desert. Also, there have been different developments regarding the falling of the Walls of Jericho that give credibility to the Bible's account, even though it was previously thought that there was no evidence of this event.”

My Response:
I’ve deliberately left out a section regarding mountain building and the mineral, “wadsleyite,” as they won’t fit into this comment, and because of the absolute PAIN of using this blog format, with its limited character-usage and the inability to bold or italicize without copying and pasting HTML, and the inability to underline at all. I have already wasted for more time this evening, trying to use it to respond, than I had intended. I will get to it tomorrow, however.

But regarding what you’ve said above, here’s what I’m seeing, and this statement applies to you personally, as well as those who operate Answers In Genesis - I think that you begin with the assumption that the Bible is inerrantly true, then ignore all other information except that which seems to back up your assumption. That is known as Confirmation Bias. Basically, you’ve admitted exactly that here: “My point is that I build my worldview based on the authority of the Bible. If I feel that I can trust the evidence regarding the existence of Moses, the Exodus, and the worldwide flood, I am naturally going to reject the claims made by the secular world regarding the chronology of the Dynasties of the Ancient Egyptians.”

Neil Degrasse Tyson, one of, if not the world’s foremost astrophysicist, once said: "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on." But feel free to cling to yours, you need it far more than I.

Bah! I counter with - "Where the hell did all the water come from, and where the hell did it go?"

See, I did the math, and it would require almost 400 times the amount of water present on the planet to cover the Earth, including Mt. Everest.

So, where did it all come from, and where did it all go?

Calculations(Python program) with all the sources here - http://repl.it/Ct2

the original Argument is the most ludicrous atempt at an argument, can you not see that archaeopteryx has beaten you at every atempt of an argument, you cannot provide enough content, archaeopteryx can provide content from multiple books you have one -that was edited at least 50 times and retranslated 5 or 6 times- you have diminished grounds for argument.

Also by not including basalt strata on mountans that is only formed under the ocean and none of these strata -that can only be formed above water- are underneath strata that are formed under the ocean.

Anonymous said..., "Bah! I counter with - "Where the hell did all the water come from, and where the hell did it go?"I did the math, and it would require almost 400 times the amount of water present on the planet to cover the Earth, including Mt. Everest."

You clearly are showing your bias. This isn't a diss at all. If the worldwide flood happened, and I believe it did, how do you or I know what the pre-flood world was like at all? How do you KNOW how tall mountains were in that world? The answer is you and I don't know.

For instance, Minnesota had some major flooding happen in Duluth earlier this year. The pictures of the damage that, that small flood did was amazing! If that would have happened on a worldwide scale that world would have been destroy.

The answer is we don't know what the pre-flood world was like. The amount of water you "think" was needed to cover the surface of the earth isn't a number that can be calculated because the pre-flood world is NOT the post-flood world.

(Cont.)
Bill Seng said...
In relation to that topic, you made the claim that there is no way that water could have covered the earth as high as what it did. I highly suggest you read this article: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/fountains-deep-discovered
I don't know everything about this stuff, but I found it rather interesting that this mineral, deep down in the earth called wadsleyite, could contain enough water compacted in it to fill 30 oceans! That's a lot of water! As the article suggests, it would be appropriate to call these the "fountains of the deep." Once again, can you look at this data and conclude otherwise? Absolutely.

My Response:
I read the article you suggested at www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/fountains-deep-discovered. The article mentions, as do you, the "fountains of the deep."

Let me call your attention to the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis - and by the way, it was known as “Bereshit” before it was renamed, “Genesis” - Gen 1:2 “...and the earth was without form and void.” The American Heritage Dictionary informs us that the word, “void,” is defined as, “empty, containing no matter.” Genesis continues: “...and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters.”

So, “the deep” then, refers to space, the final frontier, not some point deep inside the earth, because the very first page of your Bible makes it abundantly clear that the earth hadn’t even been formed (”void”), yet there the “deep” was, with all of its waters. As I mentioned in a previous comment, early man had no concept of space consisting of nearly nothing but a vacuum, and could have easily imagined that earth was encased in a protective bubble of air, floating in a giant ocean.

But let’s pretend, for the sake of your argument, that somehow the meaning of “the deep” changed from Gen 1, and at some point, began to refer to an area deep beneath the earth - it’s totally illogical that such a change in meaning would occur, but then, since the majority of the Bible is equally illogical, why break up a set? - this is what I found on Wikipedia, regarding wadsleyite:

“Hydrous wadsleyite is a considered a potential site for water storage in the Earth’s mantle due to the low electrostatic potential of the underbonded oxygen atoms. Although wadsleyite does not contain H in its chemical formula, it may contain more than 3 percent by weight H2O. Wadsleyite is found to be stable in the transition zone of the Earth’s upper mantle. These regions are between 248.55 miles (400 KM) and 326.22 miles (525 KM) in depth.”

Your own reference, Creation Moments, says, “wadsleyite...exists only at temperatures above 1,800 degrees.” So imagine water, that begins at 1,800 degrees - and I can only assume that the author means, “Fahrenheit” - to which we must add the heat generated by the friction of being propelled through between 248 and 326 miles (Creation Moments says as deep as 400 miles) of stone - that water would quickly boil off into the atmosphere the instant it reached the surface. Such a vast amount of water vapor, multiple thousands of degrees hot, added to the atmosphere, would not only add all of its heat to the atmosphere, but would serve as a greenhouse barrier, allowing infra-red light from the sun to penetrate, but not allow heat to escape. Such a geological event would have poached everything on earth. Are you really sure you want to stick with that story?

Bill Seng said...
“You provide an example of creating paper mountains. I appreciate your attempt to demonstrate science, but making paper mountains is far different from creating real mountains. When scientists are honest, they admit that they really have no definite evidence concerning how mountains were formed. Yes, they have some good and logical theories, but their theories are plagued with geologic problems. I would suggest picking up the book "The Genesis Flood" regarding the different problems regarding the problems of the geologic column and the formation of mountains.

“The Bible tells us that the mountains were formed (at least in their current state) by the worldwide flood. Under this presupposition, seeing sea shells and other life at the tops of mountains (especially clams in the "closed mouth" position)is good evidence that supports the notion that a flood created the mountains. It is not the only explanation, as you pointed out, but it is a good explanation.”

My Response:
Bill, Bill, Bill - I strongly suggest you do a great deal more research regarding geology and how mountains are formed before expressing your belief to anyone whose opinion matters to you.

To repeat a statement you made earlier: "If I feel that I can trust the evidence regarding the existence of Moses, the Exodus, and the worldwide flood, I am naturally going to reject the claims made by the secular world regarding the chronology of the Dynasties of the Ancient Egyptians.”

Frankly, I suspect that your Confirmation Bias is SO strong, that you will reject any number of rational explanations from any and all fields of science, which conflict with your book, written by people with no scientific background or knowledge of how the world works, whatsoever. Consequently, it would be as productive for me to go out into a field somewhere and begin an argument with a fence post, as it would be to continue this conversation with you. Both I, and my time, are more valuable to me than that. Good luck --

First, the whole JEDP thing, is nonsense. It's purely theoretical. It's based on stylistic differences througout (in this case) the pentateuch. There really is no solid basis for it in reality...just in theory.

Back to the Egyptian thing. My point in conceding that point was only to say, "I don't know, I'm not an expert." You suggest that since there was no mention of a flood in their chronology, that means that it was not a worldwide event. OK, why do native americans who supposedly migrated to north america 30-50,000 years ago still have flood stories on a worldwide scale? I hold my ground, the Egyptian chronology is flawed.

Anonymous, seriously, what's with the attitude man?

Arch, regarding Wadsleyite, I'm not an expert on that either and I doubt you are. Otherwise you have to be the most brilliant man alive; an expert on language, geology, archaeology, science, and all other fields. Let's be real, you are not an expert on that. But in defense of the wadsleyite argument, it was not all necessarily released at once and it was not only the wadsleyite water that was released. There were probably tsunamis, heavvy downpour and volcanic activity. You are assuming that the wadsleyite discharge was all released at once and that it occurred above ground. What if it was discharged underneath an ocean? It would probably be a big difference, right?

Also, you are butchering what the Bible says. On what basis do you claim that the "deep" means outter space? that is ridiculous! I have actually read Genesis chapters 1 and 2 in Hebrew and nobody supposes that the "deep" means outer space! In fact, some define that word as "abyss" which is clearly associated with the depths of the water. On the second day of creation, God separates dry land from water. If the earth is more water than land, as it is today, this suggests that the mass of earth was like a hyper-saturated ball of clay!

The earliest Hebrew-esque writings discovered actually date back to 3,000 B.C. That is not to say that it is Hebrew, but appears Hebrew by nature. It is presumptuous to say that the Hebrews did not have a written language until 1,000B.C. You don't know that and there is no way of proving that.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1/Abraham-chronology-ancient-Mesopotamia