Tuesday, August 29, 2006

the flood

There's a down side to being a Christian from birth. Sometimes as a kid, I think I accepted things a little too readily. Take this famous example from Genesis 7:
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
It all seemed really reasonable as a kid. The people sinned; God punished them. And what more fitting way than to wash the earth clean. If I saw this for the first time today, the first thing I would ask is probably where did all the water come from? And where did it go after the flood subsided? So this was the question we explored over the weekend, and the answers are absolutely fascinating.

Firstly, the wording of the passage and the surrounding verses make it quite clear that this was a global flood that literally covered the whole earth. So by the theory of conservation of matter, the water could not just have appeared and disappeared.

Geologists who studied the event conclude that this was no simple shower. It was quite a cataclysmic that permanently altered the earth's ecology. A series of violent earthquakes tore the ground asunder and reshaped the face of our planet. At the same time, the atmosphere, which till then had comprised a dense layer of gaseous water, chose to purge itself of fluids in a continuous torrent. The event is recorded as such:
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
The scientific record is even more interesting. Many of the fossils discovered today are dated back to that period. And it was interesting to be reminded that fossils are not formed simply by animals that lay down and died. Decomposition would have gotten to them, if they were not eaten first by other animals. Rather, fossils can only be formed when the plants or animals are subjected to abrupt and immense temperature and pressure, such as in a volcanic eruption or earthquake. Hence, the discovery of a rich fossil record from that time period is an indication of seismic activity.

The earth's surface has also changed significantly, evidenced by the discovery of aquatic and plant live on the top of mountains such as Everest. These mountains were once underwater, until they were pushed into the sky by shifting tectonic plates.

And lastly, one interesting indication of how the atmosphere has changed comes from the dinosaurs. For one thing, they are extinct. For another, the wings of the Archaeopteryx could not have kept it aloft in our current atmosphere. So the air must have been more dense, once upon a time.

Anyway, these were just a few of the interesting factoids I gleaned, recorded here for posterity. When I have time I will probably search the web for more juicy details.

Added later: The Juicy Details
There's actually a ton of stuff on the web. But I am linking just a couple that take a clear, coherent and concise position. All articles are one-sided; would love to find any material that resolves the issue head to head.
Arguments for the Global Flood and a Young Earth
1) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition) by Dr. Walt Brown
2) Creation Evolution Encyclopedia
3) The flood in historical accounts
Dissenting Views
1) Genesis vs. Geology, Stephen Jay Gould, The Atlantic Monthly; September 1982;
2) Answers in Creation
3) Radiometric Resource List and the Radiometric Dating Game debate
4) Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective

15 comments:

Yuhui said...

Noah's time was about 4,000 years ago (assuming the geneological record is accurate). Was that the time of the dinosaurs too?

Yuhui said...

Oops, sorry, I meant 6,000 years.

paddychicken said...

Yuhui,
Early palaentologists date the dinosaurs back millions of years. But more recent studies have cast some doubt on the reliability of Carbon 14 dating beyond a few thousand years.

I did a quick search on the topic and found an online book exactly on this topic!

Here is the relevent paragraph:
Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate. Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years, which are typical of coal, have much younger true dates—near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000 years ago.

Donovan said...

Are you implying that this is not conclusive evidence that the ark existed =)

paddychicken said...

Annk:
Well, this is the same God that says you will spend eternity in hell if you don't repent. Back in the day, he did a whole bunch of other punishments we would consider unusual for e.g.
- burning cities
- plagues

Donovan,
You're not even wearing a jacket and you pretend to be on Ararat?

The Rust said...

yay! now that we've got the flood out of the way, can u do research on the tower of babel and find out where exactly is the garden of eden? I couldn't find either through google earth. Oh, I couldn't find where Christ was crucified on google earth either. Anyone wanna try?

Donovan said...

What can I say, I'm pretty tough =)

Actually, for the longest time, the object reported to be Noah's Ark is found neither or Mt. Ararat nor Little Ararat but on a hill about 20km away. There's a quaint visitor's centre there which receives what must be over 10 visitors a day (I signed the guest register so look out for my comments if you're ever in that area).

And the rust, I doubt Google Earth recognises Golgata

Anonymous said...

paddychicken,
the online book you link to leaves out one crucial detail - paleontologists do not use carbon dating, especially not to establish dates greater than 50-60k years. There are many other radiometric dating techniques (basically using substances with long half-life) that are accurate for long time scales.
The online book also is skeptical about the accuracy of carbon-dating beyond 5000 years (conveniently the age of creation). It should be pointed out that there are a wealth of independent dating techniques (not necessarily radiometric) which are used to collaborate each other. For example, ice-core samples from glaciers and coral growth layers (for short-term dating of tens of thousands of years).
Finally (although I have not exhausted my criticisms of this article), the objections raised to tree-ring dating method ignore the immense literature on the topic, and the impressive accuracy of the method for dating events (that, for example, occured AD) We have tree-ring chronologies calculated up to 10,000 years. An error of 100s of years is at the edge of probability and would already imply egregrious error on the researchers part; anyone arguing for a 5000 year chronology must surely be hard-pressed to explain 5000years worth of phantom rings and whatnot.

The Rust said...

Don, I typed Golgata and google earth brought me to somewhere in the United States, somewhere in New Jersey to be exact. Damn it, why did everything happen in America?

paddychicken said...

wakaba:
wow, i thought you were supposed to be a mathematician/economist. Obviously you read very widely.

Thanks for raising all the questions, but can I ask you to be a little more specific? I'm not exactly expert on this topic and I would like to research it more, so if you have articles or web sites that counter these claims maybe you could post them. I was trying but I couldn't find any myself. Your comment is a little bit too general for me to follow up on.

Even better, if you know of any recorded debates between scientists on this matter, that would be the best. Because some of the arguments are so technical it is difficult for a lay person to resolve the two.

In the FAQ he actually writes: "The best way, I believe, to clarify the creation-evolution controversy is to have a thorough, written, publishable, strictly scientific debate. Both sides would lay out their case, much as I have in The Scientific Case for Creation on pages 6–98. Then each side would respond, point-by-point, to the case for the other side. Both sides would have the right to publish the finished exchange. I have sought such an exchange since 1980, but have not had a serious, qualified taker."

Donovan said...

to wakaba,

or maybe God just created an ancient universe. After all, some stars are a gazillion (estimated) light years away. Debating the age, apparent or otherwise, of the Earth draws attention away from the innumerable signs of intelligent design.

Anonymous said...

yo,
There have been quite a number of debates (written and spoken) between scientists and creationists, as well as between scientists and proponents of creation or intelligent design. However, the outcome of most such debates has been that both sides claim victory, as happens when both sides are talking past each other.

I believe that the best source of information on this topic is peer-reviewed journals on the subject. However, this may be difficult for two reasons; first, most peer-reviewed articles are highly technical and would require immense time investment to understand. Second, there are (to my knowledge) zero peer-reviewed articles in the vast literature which disagree with the scientific consensus (in the sense that they are inconsistent with the creationist viewpoint.)

Having said that, I'll point you to a webpage which I believe gives a clear exposition of the techniques of radiometric dating and discusses abit existing misconceptions about dating techniques (by pure coincidence, it is the first hit on google for radiometric dating =)). The author is an earth scientist rather than a biologist, but is probably not sympathetic with the young earth viewpoint (I think he considers himself a christian.) I think it would be educational to read the article very carefully and then return to the online FAQ that paddychicken posted, to see which points were addressed (and ignored) by both parties. I think you'll be able to infer, if not which side of the debate is accurate, then which of the two authors makes the better points.

donovan,
I wasn't trying to refute intelligent design in one fell swoop with a single post on paddychicken's blog =). I was just trying to point out what I disagreed with on one of his links. Also, if paddychicken has no objection, I'd be glad to discuss any evidence for intelligent design that you care to bring up.

Anonymous said...

Here's another webpage (unfortunately, again collated by someone apparently unsympathetic to a young earth) with a bunch of articles arguing for a young earth, and responses to these articles.
I'll be glad to discuss any questions/criticisms you bring up about the links I post.
To reiterate, I don't think webpages are the best resource to learn from. However, given time constraints, I think they are at least a good starting point.

paddychicken said...

Wakaba:
after much reading, I have to agree with you. Since the scientists do not come to a consensus, it is very hard for us laymen to be certain either way.

There is no conclusive evidence to support young earth or old earth, creation or evolution. So we will have to accept that either is scientifically plausible. Some of these things are just beyond the limits of human experience. After all, the best scientist once believed the world was flat.

To this, I should also add that as a Christian, there is also no reason why the explanation must be scientific. The bible has many other accounts of scientific anomalies, which are generally termed miracles. A bush on fire that will not burn (thanks annk); the parting of the red sea; bread falling from heaven; people who hang out in a furnace without being burned. If we can believe all these, we have implicit acceptance that God is not constrained by the laws of physics.

Anonymous said...

paddychicken,
I agree that you need not reconcile science and religion - certainly there are many questions that are outside the purview of the scientific method. Many christians consider their beliefs to be consistent with evolution.
That said, I disagree with your initial statement that there is no scientific consensus about evolution vs creationism, old vs young earth (I didn't mean to give you that impression). The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution and an old earth. As I mentioned previously, there are zero peer reviewed articles in the biology literature which support creationism/intelligent design at this time (the same goes for young earth in the corresponding literature.) I'm not saying this proves 100% that evolution is right, of course; but let's just say you won't find any serious biologists espousing intelligent design at this time.
By the way, I was browsing at a bookstore and I found a book which you may find entertaining and relevant: The Language of God is written by a promiment scientist who is also a devout Christian; in this book, he explains how theistic belief can be consistent with evolution. It delves abit deeper into the scientific bit and the theology bit, though - and not being a christian, I cannot judge how good the book is at the latter part. Another book which I have not read, but which was recommended to me, is Finding Darwin's God which is in a similar vein.