"Many people have gone to Mt. Ararat to try and find Noah's Ark. I have been there more than ten times."
John D. Morris, creationist and apparent boon to the Turkish economy
One of the most important topics to creationists is that of the Great Deluge, which is why they often give themselves the name "flood geologists." This of course sounds better than "anti-Enlightenment theocrat fodder," although the latter may be more accurate. Anyway, attempting to explain how the earth was covered with thousands of feet of water in the last few thousand years when the evidence accumulated by dozens of scientific disciplines clearly demonstrates otherwise is no small task. But flood geologists are up to the task, having discovered an effective strategy: ignore all evidence to the contrary, make up implausible (or sometimes even impossible) scenarios for which there is no evidence at all, and, when all else fails, invoke supernatural involvement by YHWH while criticizing real scientists for not taking them seriously. Of course, when I say "effective strategy," I mean that in the same way that closing your eyes and hoping for the best is an effective strategy for birth control.
To list all the reasons why the Genesis Flood concept is ludicrous in light of our knowledge of the world today would be as daunting a task as... well, as building a giant ark and then packing on two representatives of the millions of species that inhabit this planet, then shepherding them all back to their respective stomping grounds while simultaneously... but I'm getting ahead of myself.
So the next few posts will be dedicated to the Genesis Flood, and how applying a little scientific knowlege, biblical scholarship, and common sense can debunk this whole concept. What follows is a tentative schedule for the upcoming posts:
1) Water - Where it came from, where it went.
Rainbow - How it couldn't have possibly have been the first.
2) Ark - improbability of building it.
3) Animals - getting millions on and off and distributed... seems tricky (this could be a long one)
4) Scripture - I'll take a full look at the scripture, show the discrepencies in the stories, and show that the story of Noah and the flood is actually two seperate stories interwoven, and thus not the direct word of God, and then obviously not something to base science on.
Let me know if there's anything I'm leaving out (keeping in mind that most people will be bored to tears with this whole excapade four posts in). Questions, comments, requests... all welcome now.
Peace, Love, Krisko Disko
Comments (8)
Flood geologists are among the most vehemently uneducated individuals I have ever met. The fact there is an increasing number of them despite the principles of their movement being sufficiently disproven tens and, in some cases, hundreds of years ago is utterly depressing. The few I have met aren't insane, they are just incredibly naive and wholly emotionally invested in believing that their faith is relavent in every single facet of life (including science).
Now, people that take the story of Noah literally are just flat out insane. You don't have to have an advanced degree in genetics, ecology, or animal behavior to understand that it not only could not have happened, but that, even if it did, it couldn't account for the world of teeming/diverse life we see today in significantly less than 6,000 years time to repopulate the earth.
The fact that these individuals argue that evolution couldn't happen because it's simply too improbable (when it's not), and then turn around and advocate a philosophy that is even less probable, speaks volumes about their motives and credibility concerning the issue.
Creation by a divine entity cannot be anything but a theological theory to anyone. It most certainly is not a rigorously tested scientific theory like evolution, as there is no way to verify or disprove divine creation. Science is based on the systematic observation and analysis of natural phenomena--it is not predicated on posturing about supernatural phenomena that cannot be proven, disproven, or even understood according to many Christians when backed into an argumentative corner. Science supposes that every phenomena has a natural explanation. Saying, "God did it! There is no natural explanation!" at every unknown is the antithesis of sound scientific inquiry, and has an absolutely horrible historical track record. This simple fact, in addition to the fact that many of their fundamental claims are proven bogus when available scientific evidence is examined, is the heart of why Creation Science, Young Earth Creationism, flood geology, etc. cannot be considered "sound science", to coin a popular Republican rhetorical device.
Additionally, whether a god (not necessarily the Christian God) "breathed" life onto earth in some form, or simply created a universe with the necessary components and variables knowing they would eventually create life via abiogenesis followed by evolution is irrelevant concerning the "debate" between evolution vs. creationism. The point of this site, and Krisko's upcoming posts, is to detail why there is (and has been for hundreds of years) sufficient evidence to conclude that young earth creationism, flood geology, etc. are utter nonsense, propagated by people (although most well-intentioned) with a blatant lack of knowledge, or even disregard, for the available body of scientific evidence. We know the earth is billions of years old, not 6,000 years old; the scientific theory of evolution is substantiated by the fossil record, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, etc.; and none of the counter-theories to evolution are consistent with the available scientific evidence.
I bother because I have (on extremely rare occasions) helped someone to see the light. In the last three years I've been doing online debating, I have convinced one person of evolution, and another that the biblical genesis story is not literal. I know it's not much, but it's something. Plus, this is a great way to avoid doing my Differential Equations homework.