At UD, vjtorley has posted a bizarre, 5,000-word “rebuttal” of Jerry Coyne. It begins:
Over on his Why Evolution Is True Website, Professor Jerry Coyne has posted a short passage on the papal condemnation of Galileo, excerpted from Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom(New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company, 1896). However, all the passage proves is that neither White nor Coyne understand the theological doctrine which they are attacking: they are all at sea about the dogma at which they are aiming their barbs.
One slight problem: Coyne isn’t attacking anything. VJ Torley is tilting at windmills.
Coyne doesn’t express agreement or disagreement with the passage. He merely points out a funny proofreading edit pencilled into his copy of the book by a previous, seemingly obsessive reader:
Now I don’t even know if that correction is grammatically necessary, but I had to smile at the anonymous reader who got annoyed and took the trouble to add the proofreader’s transposition symbol.
VJ is evidently so sensitive to any attack on Catholic doctrine, real or imagined, that he’ll fire off a 5,000+ word “rebuttal” without even reading the post he’s responding to!
Noah’s Ark length to width ratio was 6:1 which is the right size for riding the waves. A square shape will sink in a flood easily. The effect of hyper-wave action on a scale model of the Ark was simulated in a wave tank at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at La Jolla, California. A wave-generating machine battered the model with waves proportionately larger than any storm could produce. These tests demonstrated that the Ark indeed could not be capsized (Morris, 1984, p. 295).
Many of the accepted dates for events in ancient Egypt came from an ancient list of pharaohs and the lengths of their reigns recorded by the historian Manetho, who lived in Egypt about 200 BC.
Although there is much more to this, Manetho assumed the pharaohs’ reigns had been consecutive and so tallied them up sequentially to arrive at a very long Egyptian chronology. The problem, it appears, is that some of these pharaohs were reigning at the same time in different Egyptian kingdoms—the Upper Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, or Lower Kingdom. Sometimes fathers and sons seem to have reigned together for a long time, too
Of course Noah’s ark had a ‘hole in the bottom’. It is called the moon pool .Apart from waste disposal, it would have provided a softening of the buoyancy .It was crucial to maintenance the structural integrity of the vessel in heavy seas. Without it hogging and sagging stresses could have destroyed the Ark
The major source of water for flood was plate tectonics, not rain. Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the flood began, there was a “breaking up” of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated (S.A. Austin, J.R. Baumgardner, D.R. Humphreys, A.A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and K.P. Wise, “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History,” Proc. Third ICC, 1994, pp. 609-621)
coldcoffee,
If the Bible doesn’t even get this right, why do you trust its account of the Flood?
LOL! I can’t believe we have a literal Noah’s Flood believer here. She’s quoting every lame-brained YEC piece of idiocy she can find too.
CC, do you realize there are sites in China that have shown human occupation for over 9000 years, back to 7000 BC? And that they have been dated with multiple independent methods like radiocarbon dating, thermoluminescence dating, and optically stimulated luminescence which all agree to within a few hundred years? Noah forgot to tell them they were all drowned I guess.
Then we have dendrochronology with continuous sequences of tree growth going back over 12,000 years. We have sites like Göbekli Tepe in Tukkey that date back 11,000 years. We have the Lascaux cave paintings dating back over 30,000 years. We have the varves in Lake Suigetu going back undisturbed over 60,000 years. Somehow Da Flud missed all of them too.
Seriously – a literal Noah’s Flood and Noah’s Ark? There isn’t a facepalm big enough.
I am not a YEC and though I had fun 🙂 defending YEC, I can’t take this any further. I learned about ships, flood stability etc. While I believe it is possible to build the Ark sized ship and may be float it for a few weeks, I find it difficult to believe :
1. A few men could have built such a massive structure
2. The ship could survive more than few weeks in the flood [The stability tests carried out where for short term. Considering that Ark was a wooden ship, the stress would have been too much in the long term]
3. I have problems with historical dates, not just about the pyramids [I am not satisfied with the reasons] but the evolution of species. I am an old Earth believer since there are sufficient evidence to support old Earth and not YEC, so I find it difficult to reconcile to YEC’s timelines.
I welcome YECs to come from UD and continue to defend the Noah’s Ark.
Congratulations, it was a good play until the moon pool.
“I welcome YECs to come from UD and continue to defend the Noah’s Ark”
Yeah. Arkers, the entire geological column is supposed to have been laid down in the Flood. It’s estimated to be 100-200 miles thick. Say 100 miles to be conservative.
The ocean averages about a mile deep. The Flood is supposed to have added enough extra water to bury the tallest mountain. That would be about 6 miles for Mt. Everest. Be conservative, say the oceans got to be ten miles deep total.
Add a ten mile thick layer of water to a hundred mile thick layer of sediment and stir. You will see that Noah’s Flood was actually Noah’s Mud.
But presumably you are an ID supporter. Interesting how you can make judgement about “sufficient evidence” yet still be an ID supporter.
Tell me, of the two alternatives (ID, ‘Darwinism’) which is most supported by evidence?
Your view of YEC is my view of ID. Unsupported. You’ve learnt enough about the Ark to know it’s not viable. Ever considered that the same is true for ID? It’s just more of the same….
Learn more about evolution and ID just becomes, well, unnecessary.
Still not close to the dimensions of the supposed ark and no one tried putting animals on them.
Exactly! Which is why it would have sunk. You and the bible writers clearly no nothing about hydro mechanics, let alone ship torsion.
Robin,
Robin, you may not have noticed this comment by coldcoffee at Uncommon descent. It appears he/she is not YEC and has been playing devil’s advocate.
ETA
Oops! I see this has been mentioned already. Note to self: read before commenting!
Completely false! Without a rudder, such a dimension would cause the ship to veer against the tide, thus turning it broadside to the waves. In such a situation, said ship would break apart in just under twenty minutes.
There is no record of such a project ever occurring at Scripps. The only reference comes from Morris. Seems to me that Morris made it up.
Ahh…well, I missed that. Good to know. Thanks!
The ever-reliable Joe G @ UD
That’s right. No-one. There’s no possible way you could determine what you’d expect to see if it rained several inches a minute worldwide for 40 days, cascading down from the higher ground and washing away all land-based life, followed by repopulation from bottlenecked pairs.
I’m curious CC, but as an old-earth Christian, does the story of Noah become a metaphor or allegory or some other literary device to get a point across or are there elements that must still be literally true?
I am not an authority on the Bible, so I can’t be sure of the author’s intention, but Bible has to be literal. If not, every one will have their own take on it.
God Himself refers to Ark and Flood
so it has to be true and literal. I believe all of us have some dissonance. Every religion has some aspects in their sacred books which needs suspension of disbelief. God’s ways are not always comprehensible to mere mortals like us
Coldcoffee: “God Himself refers to Ark and Flood”
Not God, the (very fallible) MEN who wrote the Bible.
CC: “God’s ways are not always comprehensible to mere mortals like us”
But man’s ways are pretty obvious, once you get rid of your Idée fixe.
I’ve often seen that argument. It is a foolish argument.
Many contemporary authors mention Sherlock Holmes, or Hercule Poirot. Should we assume that those authors believe Holmes and Poirot to have be real people? Surely, they are just making a literary allusion to well known fictional characters.
I would expect that allusion to Noah or to Adam and Eve was very common in that culture and at that time. It’s just a mistake to rule out the possibility that Jesus was making such an allusion.
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but everyone does have their own take on it.
Even among those who take it literally.
So, you’re of the opinion that if someone refers to a fictional story with a moral to make a point confirming that moral, such a reference has no actual validity? In other words, if Jesus (as Luke supposedly quotes him) knew that the story of Noah was fictional, but referenced it anyway because he also knew his audience understood the moral and metaphorical foundation of the story, his reference would be rendered invalid?
Fair enough I suppose. But I don’t see the sense in following, let alone worshiping, an all powerful, all knowing being who can’t “dumb it down” for the rest of us.
The answer then is surely to follow no religions. Meanwhile, being aware how easily we can be fooled.
vjtorley:
How perverse. Vincent is suggesting that Christians must start with “non-negotiable” beliefs and then interpret the evidence to fit them, truth be damned.
It’s the very opposite of “following the evidence where it leads.”
To a person thinking rationally, Jesus’ belief in the Flood story is a reason to doubt his infallibility. To Vincent, it’s a reason to accept the Flood story, no matter how ridiculous!
It seems to me that Torley, like many Christians (see Cold coffee above), is conflating reference with endorsement. In my view from my reading of the bible, Jesus makes no reference to the actuality or historicity of the events in question, but merely references them so as to emphasize the parallel of the moral points to people who knew the previous story and could then make an association with Jesus’ story.
Take the reference to Noah:
It makes no difference if the story of Noah is literal or not for an audience who know the story to make the connection between the not paying attention to what God wants and giving one’s life for God in order to have everlasting life. The stories themselves are immaterial.
>> so it has to be true and literal.
That is not the position of the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI’s Verbum Domini explains in detail how the Church comes to its understanding through proper interpretation. Included is the admonition:
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, a good synopsis is provided by Fr. Ryan Erlenbush.
rhampton: That is not the position of the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI’s Verbum Domini explains in detail how the Church comes to its understanding through proper interpretation.
That is true but
hence the literal and spiritual sense interpretation is not accessible to every reader. Millions of people convert to Christianity.They too would find it difficult in imbibing the spiritual sense.
hence it is imperative to first interpret Lord’s words in literal sense. Your Pastor would be the right person to interpret and teach you what Lord wants you to do.
If you have faith in your God – what ever religion you follow, the ‘stories’ will make sense when you face hurdles in your life.
Do you truly believe water falling will raise the temperature to melt quartz? Wouldn’t rain water cool down the temperature?
When water evaporates, it carries away energy. When it condenses, it releases that energy. That is the principle behind refrigeration.
Water has mass. When it falls, the fact that water has mass means that it carries kinetic energy. And when falling water hits the ground, that kinetic energy has to go somewhere—which it does by radiating out from the point of impact in the form of heat. If you’re only looking at 1 (one) raindrop, the amount of kinetic energy (hence, the amount of heat) that’s involved is pretty trivial, because one drop of water is a trivial amount of mass; if you’re talking about a Flood’s-worth of raindrops, that’s a way the hell large amount of mass, which carries a commensurately large amount of kinetic energy, and then a commensurately large amount of heat..
I think you haven’t seen the comment of Robin. Pl see it for context
I have no problem understanding that the initial rain water will increase the temperature, however if rain water is falling on layers of rain water wouldn’t it cool the heated rain water layers [the initial rain water] ?
I think the point is that the entire flood story pretty much fails when subjected to rational inquiry.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#NETEFFECT
the amount of energy that much precipitation would release is astronomical.
Hi BWE,
Robin quoted from an article which stated that the 40 days of rain will heat up the Earth so much that Quartz will melt.
I have no problem understanding that the initial rain water will increase the temperature, however if rain water is falling on layers of rain water wouldn’t it cool the heated rain water layers [the initial rain water] ?
Robin’s quote:
Please note this question is not about flood. It is about whether rain would increase the temperature so much
Yes it would
Do the calculations yourself if you are so interested. It’s not a matter of “belief” if you’ve done the sums.
I don’t feel like figuring out how many kg of water would have condensed as rain but if you want to, you can use the figures here:
http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/330823.html
to estimate the heat of condensation. The kinetic energy would be additional and yes there would be a lot added because gravity.
Can you suggest what kind of “life-hurdle” could be lowered by “understanding” the myth of Noah’s Flood?
If it keeps on raining, the levee’s going to break. If the levee breaks we’ll have no place to go. Crying won’t help you. Praying won’t do you no good. When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move. Mean old levee taught me to weep and moan. Got what it takes to make a mountain man leave his home,
There’s been lots of investigation of the heat released by condensing water and bringing it closer to the Earth. Even the most hardened creationist who has looked at the numbers admits that there’s no way that atmospheric water or a vapor canopy or an ice canopy could provide any significant amount of water to a flood without heating the surface and atmosphere to a point where human life (and most other life) couldn’t survive. Melting quartz would certainly be possible under the more extreme creationist fantasies.
For a creationist take on this see Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy and Sensitivity Studies on Vapor Canopy Temperature Profiles. there’s plenty of scientific critiques available on the Web.
Perhaps CC has a point in that as the temperature rises it would reach a point where liquid water would not exist, condensation would not happe, rain would not happen. The story would not happen.
You would reach an equilibration with a hot steamy ocean and no further precipitation.
LOL! Do let me know when your hurdles include a world-wide flood and saving a bunch of animals…
Um…no. The evaporate cooling properties of water would be negligible next to the kinetic energy release by such a deluge. This isn’t a question of belief either…this is just straight up fact.
Edit: Ooop…seems a bunch a folk already beat me to this. Sorry to burst your bubble CC, but this issue is pretty straight forward as all our explanations show.
Well I repeat – this is not about the flood. I have already stated I am not a YEC.
C Unless the next layer of rain is hotter than the first layer, the mixed temperature of layer 1 and 2 will not increase. The temperature of layer will only increase if the subsequent layers of rain water has higher temperature than the initial layer. So how can the water reach temperatures of 
C ? Do you have any reason to assume the subsequent layer of rain water will be hotter and hotter?
Here’s my viewpoint : Let say the first 1mm layer of rain was
Dissection of why it’s simply not possible, absent a miracle, to have a global flood as described here and not boil the earth is well documented. Why not have a look at what’s out there?
You may not face flood again but your faith in God will save you from catastrophes. God will guide you through your difficulties.
Any ‘God’ in particular? Why would you trust a god that killed almost everyone on the earth to “guide you through your difficulties”?
And presumably people to whom terrible things happen (catastrophes) have insufficient faith? Would that be right?
And so will the memory of a parent or sibling or mentor. Personally I find real human examples more inspiring than imaginary ones.
I suppose that’s why some Christians like to talk about Jesus being really human and really suffering. One really can’t imagine how an omniscient god would suffer.
Personally I don’t get inspiers by martyrdom. The guys who flew into the trade towers were martyrs. There’s nothing about the act of dying or suffering that inspires.
What would be inspiring would be an example of living a good and normal life in a world that doesn’t always reward it.
Let’s say rain water falls from a height of 5Km. The potential enegry = mgh [mass of water x gravity x height]
The heat H = mst[ mass x specific heat of water x change in temperature ‘t’ ].
mgh = mst
gh = st, t=gh/s = 9.8 x 5000 /4186 = 11.70 degree centigrade. Water in clouds has zero degree temp. So the difference in temperature between earth and cloud would be 11.70 centigrade.
How can rain water achieve higher temperature ?