The sticks we beat fundies with are usually scientific ones. Geology, paleontology and physics provide the standard tools to show there was no global flood, and very good tools they are too. Fundies don't know the first thing about science, however, and perhaps there's a simpler argument using history.

The fundies usually like to place the Flood somewhere around 2300 - 2500 BC. That's around the time of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties in Egypt and we have abundant evidence that Egyptian civilisation continued for centuries before and after without sudden changes of the sort that would happen if the entire population of the world was reduced to 8 people. Answers in Genesis goes for 2304 BC, during the reign of Pepi I. Pepi's scribes recorded the opening of a new trade route to Lebanon about then, but they strangely failed to mention the complete destruction of everything. It's the kind of thing you'd probably notice.

If you use scientific arguments against the fundies you get an avalanche of made up "science" involving variable speed of light, hydroplate "theory," why carbon dating doesn't work etc etc. (And in fairness to the rank and file fundies, I don't think many of them realise how blatantly they're being lied to by the creation "scientists.") I've used this history argument a few times on a Christian forum and got silence in response. I think it may be more effective.

the answer i get to this from fundies is that when 'world' flood is mentioned, it actually means 'noahs known world' which is actually a much smaller area. complete shite i know but they will try anything.......

But I agree, it's a good argument. However, it's as easily dismissed as scientific evidence. "How do you know, were you there? No? Well I know someone that was, God. I believe him more than I believe your lies. And so on.

We rational people might think it a good argument (as it, like so many, is.) But to the True-BelieverTM they start with the conviction that their belief (say Teh Flud occurring at that time in history) is a foundational and thus unshakable fact. And from that footing it is rational (it really is) to dismiss anything that contradicts that as clearly erroneous. And they will make up any argument to push it away.

Yes a common one is "where you there?", which is a claim (an assertion really) that "obviously" you (you silly atheists/evolutionists/scientists...) got the dates wrong, because it is a FACT that Teh Flud happened then. So either the events you decribe actually happened some time later, and you just got the dates wrong somehow, or you are deliberately lying.

I know, it's sad.

ADParker wrote:We rational people might think it a good argument (as it, like so many, is.) But to the True-BelieverTM they start with the conviction that their belief (say Teh Flud occurring at that time in history) is a foundational and thus unshakable fact. And from that footing it is rational (it really is) to dismiss anything that contradicts that as clearly erroneous. And they will make up any argument to push it away.

Yes a common one is "where you there?", which is a claim (an assertion really) that "obviously" you (you silly atheists/evolutionists/scientists...) got the dates wrong, because it is a FACT that Teh Flud happened then. So either the events you decribe actually happened some time later, and you just got the dates wrong somehow, or you are deliberately lying.

I know, it's sad.

Fundi logic is a bit like some pure math really....internally consistent. Robotic, which is why I don't like pure logic. reason is better because it lets in evidence outside of a logical system. That is why I have a problem with some mathematical models, because although they "work" they don't let other stuff in. In fact I think some rigour can be enhanced by being a little "leaky". Like evolution appears tautological, because in some respects, it is. There is nothing wrong with Spencer's "Survival of the fittest" except it does not have enough detail to explain what is going on.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Fundi logic is a bit like some pure math really....internally consistent.

Whoa - I have to stick up for pure maths here. It may be stuck in its ivory tower having nothing to do with the world outside, but it doesn't make any claims about the world outside. No mathematical theorem is contradicted by the real world.

I know what you mean about purely internal discussion though. I was following a discussion about using the Bible to calculate the year of creation. The OP specifically wanted to exclude any discussion of science vs creation and a very detailed discussion of Genesis ensued. I suppose you could come to the conclusion that biblically speaking creation was in 4004 BC or whatever and see the merits and flaws in the arguments for and against. It's just that the whole discussion has nothing to do with reality whatsoever.

It's a bit like debating how many children Lady Macbeth had.

ETA: It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. George Orwell - 1984

blindfaith wrote:the answer i get to this from fundies is that when 'world' flood is mentioned, it actually means 'noahs known world' which is actually a much smaller area. complete shite i know but they will try anything.......

How do they then square this with their usual assertion that the masses of fossils laid down in geological strata wherever they are found on the planet were laid down during said flood?

To be fair to pure mathematicians, their brief consists of examining the behaviour of the entities within their axiomatic systems, and pure mathematicians don't pretend (with the odd cranky exception) that the systems they work with are necessarily reflective of the real world. The job of deciding which of those sets of entities and interactions does model the real world is properly the purview of applied mathematicians. The pure mathematician's job is to make sure that the underlying mathematics chosen for a model is internally consistent and rigorous.

Since mathematics has been defended like that, I am impelled to add "pure logic" as well. It too has its value. The problem is not with "pure" mathematics or logic, but with the all-too-human mistake of trying to apply it (unthinkingly) beyond its real scope. Used wisely they can be of great benefit to understanding, when misapplied that misapplication can do real harm.

ADParker wrote:Since mathematics has been defended like that, I am impelled to add "pure logic" as well. It too has its value. The problem is not with "pure" mathematics or logic, but with the all-too-human mistake of trying to apply it (unthinkingly) beyond its real scope. Used wisely they can be of great benefit to understanding, when misapplied that misapplication can do real harm.

ADParker wrote:Since mathematics has been defended like that, I am impelled to add "pure logic" as well. It too has its value. The problem is not with "pure" mathematics or logic, but with the all-too-human mistake of trying to apply it (unthinkingly) beyond its real scope. Used wisely they can be of great benefit to understanding, when misapplied that misapplication can do real harm.

AD Parker said it better....wot I meant in my own sloppy way!

blindfaith wrote:the answer i get to this from fundies is that when 'world' flood is mentioned, it actually means 'noahs known world' which is actually a much smaller area. complete shite i know but they will try anything.......

When the creotards tell you that, ask them if The Grand Canyon in anywhere near "Noah's known world", because some creotards claim that the Grand Canyon was created by the "world flood". See what lies and excuses they come up with then.

I wonder how did Noah know which were the pure and impure animals if said laws were supposedly dictated much later. We could as well have the Venerable Bede disserting about the US Constitution.

The answer I have received to the presentation of the OP, is simply a morass of attempts to cast doubt on all the dates that Egypt, China, South America etc. have. Hundreds and hundreds of "it might have been"s, and "it could be that"s and "if you look at this"s.

Some of these people have to work so hard to sustain their fantasies.

Reading Woodmorappe is like chewing barbed wire.

This argument has been brought up to certain Christian members of this board again and again. I've personally copied and pasted this basic argument in front of a couple of them over and over and over and over only to have it utterly ignored as they go right on continuing their claim that "God is immaterial and you cannot prove his actions or lack of them empirically." Of course, that they are ignoring that the historical evidence shows no such event ever happened tells you right there that they have no interest in the truth.

We see no evidence that all life on Earth except for a few people were destroyed a few thousand years ago. No response.

We see no evidence of any migration of all people from one place on Earth only a few thousand years ago. No response.

We see overwhelming evidence that cultures already existed and continued to exist. No response.

I agree with you that for honest people genuinely interested in reality, these arguments are better ones than scientific ones that people are less likely to comprehend. I'm just saying that for most of the apologists that come here, it doesn't make any difference as they either have no interest in the truth or they are just yanking our chains by the sheer illogic of ignoring all facts and evidence and then proclaiming victory.

Moonwatcher wrote:This argument has been brought up to certain Christian members of this board again and again. I've personally copied and pasted this basic argument in front of a couple of them over and over and over and over only to have it utterly ignored as they go right on continuing their claim that "God is immaterial and you cannot prove his actions or lack of them empirically." Of course, that they are ignoring that the historical evidence shows no such event ever happened tells you right there that they have no interest in the truth.

Indeed, they are only interested in having their own presuppositions pandered to. The fact that REALITY doesn't do this means that they ignore reality.

Moonwatcher wrote:We see no evidence that all life on Earth except for a few people were destroyed a few thousand years ago. No response.

We see no evidence of any migration of all people from one place on Earth only a few thousand years ago. No response.

We see overwhelming evidence that cultures already existed and continued to exist. No response.

Well, actually, you DO receive a response of sorts, but that response consists of regurgitating their destroyed canards as if nothing had happened. Which is easy for them to do because they shut out everything that doesn't conform to doctrine. I've written at length about this phenomenon in the past over at RDF, and reprised a couple of the posts in question here in other forum sections.

Moonwatcher wrote:I agree with you that for honest people genuinely interested in reality, these arguments are better ones than scientific ones that people are less likely to comprehend. I'm just saying that for most of the apologists that come here, it doesn't make any difference as they either have no interest in the truth or they are just yanking our chains by the sheer illogic of ignoring all facts and evidence and then proclaiming victory.

And here's a perfect example thereof ... in this thread, the resident creationist kust keeps repeating his apologetic excrement ad nauseam, ignoring ALL of the hard evidence from reality that destroys his presuppositions, and moreover, engages in rampant discoursive dishonesty. But when you subscribe to a doctrine that is flatly contradicted by reality, you have to lie to others and to yourself in order to prop up the doctrine, and creationists routinely demonstrate that they do this time and time and time again.

jparada wrote:I wonder how did Noah know which were the pure and impure animals if said laws were supposedly dictated much later. We could as well have the Venerable Bede disserting about the US Constitution.

Ironically perhaps, the creationist concept of "immutable kinds" makes conservation easier because it's a cinch to draw up the legislation, in some ways. The NeoDarwinian view of species as dynamic gives the lawyers headaches when trying to draw up conservation statutes and regulations.

logical bob wrote:The sticks we beat fundies with are usually scientific ones. Geology, paleontology and physics provide the standard tools to show there was no global flood, and very good tools they are too. Fundies don't know the first thing about science, however, and perhaps there's a simpler argument using history.

The fundies usually like to place the Flood somewhere around 2300 - 2500 BC. That's around the time of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties in Egypt and we have abundant evidence that Egyptian civilisation continued for centuries before and after without sudden changes of the sort that would happen if the entire population of the world was reduced to 8 people. Answers in Genesis goes for 2304 BC, during the reign of Pepi I. Pepi's scribes recorded the opening of a new trade route to Lebanon about then, but they strangely failed to mention the complete destruction of everything. It's the kind of thing you'd probably notice.

If you use scientific arguments against the fundies you get an avalanche of made up "science" involving variable speed of light, hydroplate "theory," why carbon dating doesn't work etc etc. (And in fairness to the rank and file fundies, I don't think many of them realise how blatantly they're being lied to by the creation "scientists.") I've used this history argument a few times on a Christian forum and got silence in response. I think it may be more effective.

Its simple logic. I'll explain.
Any dates of human civilization that conflict with the bible are wrong dates.
Its just incompetent research that has any peoples existing segregated before about 2400 b.c.
You don't know Egypt had society before this date you simply accept the authority of those who write about ancient egypt.

Robert Byers wrote:
Its simple logic. I'll explain.
Any dates of human civilization that conflict with the bible are wrong dates.

If reality and doctrine differ reality is wrong.

Robert Byers wrote:Its just incompetent research that has any peoples existing segregated before about 2400 b.c.
You don't know Egypt had society before this date you simply accept the authority of those who write about ancient egypt.

You don't know it didn't, you simply accept what's written in one book without any independent verification... that's what science has over doctrine, verification.

Dr. Robert Byers, PhD wrote

Its simple logic. I'll explain.
Any dates of human civilization that conflict with the bible are wrong dates.
Its just incompetent research that has any peoples existing segregated before about 2400 b.c.
You don't know Egypt had society before this date you simply accept the authority of those who write about ancient egypt.

Edited!

We have, on this occasion [one of many I would wager] another Bertie Brain-fart. A nice big, obnoxious smelling, blattering wet one. Robert, you are what you eat. In my case, beans give me flatulence. The mind is like that too. A diet of pure Bible, especially when read without the healthy fiber of science, can and does lead to intellectual flatulence.

Not that I mind brain-farts per se, Robert, but you must test them dear boy. The bible itself is not consistent. The vast majority of clerics of all faiths do not take the Bible literally. Especially with regards to facts about the age of the Earth.
Let me show you the power of evolution:-



Now either learn some science, or take this opportunity to resume consultations with your hand.