Creationist Wolf in Cheap Clothing

No, it honestly couldn't. There is absolutely no evidence of simultaneous regional flooding, and your search for excuses is getting a little ridiculous. Either A) suggest that the flood wouldn't be recorded in the soil for some unknown reason, or B) suggest that the evidence is actually there but all geologists are atheists and are hiding the truth.

I know what you're saying, and it's absolutely 100% certain that the flood account is absolutely impossible for many reasons, not just one. It's rather obviously a story meant to tell a lesson, not an actual account of an event to be taken literally, but some people have an obsession with viewing everything in the Bible as literal truth.

Oh, I don't mind being judged at all. I would mind if the only criteria for whether or not I had satisfied some supernatural being is if I kissed his divine ass or not. If the criteria is whether or not I lived a good life, and I come up short, so be it. But if I did live a good life and I still get damned for not sucking up to the heavenly boss, that's his problem, not mine.

Dude, do you understand that if you open that up to being a possibility then you have to doubt everything in the Bible because it might have been misunderstood?

No, it wasn't a flood at all. It would be a flood if the Eurasian and African continents were hurled hundreds or even tens of miles apart. They weren't, as that's not how plate tectonics work. The split would gradually allow water to flow in, originally in the form of something like a river, and eventually growing to be a large body of water constrained by the land around it. That lake would grow very slowly over time as the plates continued to separate, eventually forming the current sea.

Seriously, you guys are fishing for absolutely any excuse you can find, and the desperation is getting a little sad. If you had just visualized the process for two seconds, you would have instinctively known that it couldn't possibly be a flood. Fill your sink in about halfway and then put your clasped hands in. Open them about a hair's width and then open your fingers the slightest bit. Now gradually widen your hands by a millimeter every hour and you have some idea of what the process would be.

 

How much soil is there to record above, say 10,000 feet? Not much, I'm betting. Not only that, but as you aptly pointed out, due to tectonic plate shift (not to mention 3,000 years of weather), I don't think it's at all 'ridiculous' to consider that the evidence of such an event might be changed so much as to resemble something different. And that's even assuming that all the evidence is in hand and has already been studied, which is totally inconceivable.

You are absolutely 100% convinced it's impossible, and that's fine. It's even understandable, as you choose not to incorporate God's influence on the natural realm within the account. You get the practical message out of it (or at least part of it), and that's great. But I fail to see how anyone who isn't willing to consider the full context of the flood itself, including the supernatural components (both mentioned and unmentioned), can think he can speak in absolutes about something he doesn't believe is possible under the most fantastic of hypotheses.

The problem is, the story isn't presented as a parable (like the ones Jesus used). That's where your take on it breaks down.

If the Bible is true, He's going to make it your problem. But, of course, if it's not then you probably have nothing to worry about.

 

The accuracy and intent of the Scriptures is always something I consider seriously in study. I've called it into question many, many times, just to make sure I understood it correctly. And even then, I've made mistakes. I'm not afraid to take hard looks at what it says.

You're saying it's not a flood because it didn't happen quickly enough? I have a hunch a few hundred thousand residents of New Orleans might disagree.

 

Seriously, I'm not desperate at all. And I'm not looking for excuses, I'm looking for options. I'm just trying to consider all possibilities, no matter how remote. In other words, I'm trying not to be closed-minded. Really though, much of this is just an academic exercise. It's not like my faith is riding on it.

 

Maybe you and I have different definitions of "flooding".

 

Geologists have already documented hundreds of millions of years worth of stratigraphy. If the evidence were there, we would have seen it. We've gone far, far, far beyond the point at which humans first appeared. It is not only ridiculous to suggest that the evidence is there and we just haven't found it, but Hershel Shanks (editor of Biblican Archaeology Review) said, "All modern critical Bible scholars regard the tale of Noah as legendary."

It isn't just me, though. It's me, the vast majority of Christians, and pretty much every biblical scholar. The only people who think it's still possible are those who believe in the Bible as literal truth or those who have never actually thought about whether or not it would be possible.

It's presented like everything else in Genesis. If you also believe that the record of creation is a literal, exact account, then that's fine. Most people see most of Genesis as various stories imparting various lessons, not as literal truth.

No kidding, but I'll deal with that when I get there. I'm a pretty stubborn asshole, so if God really wants to damn me for not worshipping him even if I lived a good life, I hope I'll have the courage to tell him to kiss my ass.

Please stop being silly, because it's frustrating me. If a body of water is formed by a gradual accumulation of water, then no, it isn't a flood. You can't possibly pretend otherwise, as you certainly know what the definition of a flood is. You aren't trying to be open-minded because you're not rationally considering the possibilities. You're simply trying to justify something you want to believe in, for whatever reason. Being open-minded does not mean accepting all possibilities as valid, it means considering all possibilities and rejecting the ones that are improbable.

Edit:
Yeah, sorry, apparently we do have different definitions of flooding. I simply assumed you knew what the word actually meant when it's clear that you don't have the slightest clue (although I'm not sure how that's possible).

 

Deep doesn't necessarily equal wide. And there are probably millions of square miles of this planet that have not been excavated. To close that window of possibility is premature at best. It's just plain bad science.

The quote from Mr. Shanks is interesting, and I'll take that into account. But "legendary" is a somewhat vague term, and I'd be interested to know how he managed to get the opinion of ALL modern Bible scholars on the subject.

Clearly you aren't alone in your take, and I can respect that. But to assume that the "vast majority of Christians" agree with you is simply unfounded.

In your opinion.

In my understanding, the creation account was largely written in poetic format, and almost certainly should be taken figuratively, but I cannot say absolutely. I'm not aware that the flood story is presented poetically.

I figured maybe you were right, so I looked it up:

Nope, I don't see anything in there directly referring to rate. Just amount and final result. Now who's being silly?

 

No, bad science would be clinging to an irrational opinion until every square inch of the earth had been completely excavated. Every region on earth has at least been sampled, even the Arctic and Antarctic. That means parts of each region have been analyzed, mostly for documentation of various volcanic activity. None of those excavations have even suggested the possibility of a worldwide flood. None. So either the geologists are lying about what they've found, the flood wasn't recorded for some reason even though all smaller floods have been, or it just didn't happen.

No you don't. This is why people don't like discussing things with you or people like you. You aren't actually interested in "discussing" anything, because discussion implies listening and considering other points of view. All you want to do is justify beliefs you already have, no matter what the evidence may show. The fact of the matter is that most people don't believe the earth is flat, most people don't believe the earth is the center of the universe, and most people don't believe that Genesis is literally true.

Poetic format? I suggest actually bothering to read Genesis at some point.

I suppose that would be because you haven't actually learned what words like "abundant," "excess," and "inundate" mean. But seriously, when you pretend that a river emptying into a body of water is a form of flooding, you are really costing yourself all credibility. Granted, I don't think you actually care too much about how foolish your statements appear to be, but they do come across that way when you say things such as this.

 

And apparently you missed the words normally dry.

Anyway, your slow motion filling is just one theory. Another is that the area holding back the Atlantic game way and there was an multiyear period where the Med filled up.

 

Who's clinging? I'm just keeping it on the table as a possibility until I see something that eliminates it. To me, an absence of evidence is inconclusive. But obviously we agree to disagree on that principle, and that's okay.

So, you've personally examined every shred of that evidence? If not, what are you basing such an strong conclusion on?

Or the evidence they do have is too badly modified from three millenia of geological trauma and weather, or there isn't enough evidence yet, or...