RE: Black Sea Flood

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Sun May 05 2002 - 00:55:27 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Another thing people can throw rocks at"

    Blake wrote:

    >I did not mean to be at all insulting (although the
    >Ugaboogah example could be interpreted as insulting by

    I have talked about Ugaboogah several times on this list and never had a
    complaint about it being insulting either publically or privately until your
    complaint. It illustrates several things, one of which, George correctly
    got--If a god with different characteristics than Jehovah was actually the
    creator, then it wasn't Jehovah who did the creating. That conclusion
    doesn't seem to be particularly insulting to me. If you felt insulted, I
    apologize but you will have to explain why cause I don't understand.

      as in science and in literature, one tests
    >the veracity of a statement by trying to push it to
    >its extreme limits.

    So, then take the question of Genesis 1:1 (which is what I limited most of
    my comments to before). Let's push it to the extreme. If the universe
    isn't created, then it is a product of natural, non-divine forces the origin
    of which we do not understand. How would we test whether or not God created
    the universe by doing as you say, pushing it to its extreme limits. One way
    to be sure that God created would be for that God to inspire a simplified,
    but true story of how it happened. Given evolution, God could have inspired
    a statement, "out of the slime came life". That isn't a 'scientific
    explanation'. It is a layman's story of how life came to be given evolution.
    Instead, what we see is a story about plants before the sun, stars made
    after the earth and several other anochronistic events. That may be a
    beautiful poem, but it doesn't contain any more truth than the Arhtur
    Buller's poem,

    There was a young lady named Bright,
    Whose speed was far faster than light;
    She set out one day
    In a relative way,
    And returned home the previous night.

    On the other hand there are poems which contain actual truth:

    Doin' its Own Thing
    by Edward H. Green

    The first law of Newton I sing
    My voice has a relevant ring:
    "An object left free
    Of hassles will be
    Engrossed in just doing its thing."

    What never seems to register with those of your belief is that a poem can
    contain not only historical truth (Homer) but also scientific truth as
    above. Poems are merely a means of conveying information (in the colloquial
    sense of that word), be it true knowledge or false knowledge.

    The thing I fail to understand about your side of the fence is why God, with
    all that power to raise a dead man, make a fellow walk on water, change
    water to wine, can't even have the ability to give the poor Hebrews a true
    poem about their origins! And that it doesn't seem to bother anyone is even
    more amazing to me.

    This is the logic which makes me view Genesis in the way I do. I think that
    either we have an impotent God, a God who doesn't care what people say he
    did (and thus allowed them to make up the story of creation which lacks any
    truth value), or we have the wrong God. But what I see is that no matter
    what God had said, people would say it is a great story which is true. If
    God had said the world arose from 2 salamancers mating we would defend it as
    theologically true! We give God no way to be wrong no matter what he had

        At the extreme limits, I don't
    >think the necessity of "truth" claims that you try to
    >make hold up. You seem to agree by trying to
    >differentiate cases. We disagree as to how far and to
    >what extent something can be read as a truth claim.

    How far back in Genesis do you believe is actual history? Let's start there.
    Tell me why that chapter has history and the previous one doesn't.

    >think demonstrably false truth claims tend to be more
    >like 2+2 = 7 and the atomic weight of chlorine = 28.

    Or George Washington fought for King George. Not all demosntrably false
    statements have to be scientifically false. They can be historically false
    and demonstrably so.

    >They have to be contained within a defined system that
    >requires precision.

    "England revolted against George Washington and earned their freedom from
    American tyranny," is a demonstrably false statement which in no way is in a
    system requiring precision. I simply can't believe you are advocating the
    above view!

      One last example from history, do
    >you really believe that the mice gnawed through the
    >Assyrian bowstrings when they marched against Egypt?
    >Herodotus records that Sennacherib marched against
    >Egypt. During a certain night, field mice supposedly
    >invaded the Assyrian camp and gnawed the quivers, bow
    >strings and leather shield handles, thus disarming the
    >military force. As a consequence, many of the soldiers
    >were killed and others fled (ii.141). If this is
    >false -- that the Assyrian military defeat was due to
    >field mice, does that mean the battle did not happen
    >or that the Assyrians did not lose? Of course it

    I have read Herodotus, know of this story and think it is really
    interesting. Having seen films of rat swarms in Australia, where they
    covered the ground--literally-- I could believe such an event. What do you
    find objectionable to such a story's history?


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 04 2002 - 17:09:53 EDT