Monday, November 19, 2007

Wow! Science says there was a Great Flood after long as it was a *natural* flood...

I tell ya the material naturalists are creative!

"Masse’s biggest idea is that some 5,000 years ago, a 3-mile-wide ball of rock and ice swung around the sun and smashed into the ocean off the coast of Madagascar. The ensuing cataclysm sent a series of 600-foot-high tsunamis crashing against the world’s coastlines and injected plumes of superheated water vapor and aerosol particulates into the atmosphere. Within hours, the infusion of heat and moisture blasted its way into jet streams and spawned superhurricanes that pummeled the other side of the planet. For about a week, material ejected into the atmosphere plunged the world into darkness. All told, up to 80 percent of the world’s population may have perished, making it the single most lethal event in history.

Why, then, don’t we know about it? Masse contends that we do. Almost every culture has a legend about a great flood, and—with a little reading between the lines—many of them mention something like a comet on a collision course with Earth just before the disaster. The Bible describes a deluge for 40 days and 40 nights that created a flood so great that Noah was stuck in his ark for two weeks until the water subsided. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero of Mesopotamia saw a pillar of black smoke on the horizon before the sky went dark for a week. Afterward, a cyclone pummeled the Fertile Crescent and caused a massive flood. Myths recounted in indigenous South American cultures also tell of a great flood."
from here

Love that qualifier... "with a little reading between the lines"...

Heck with a "with a little reading between the lines", you can make up most anything!

Bottom line - the evidence can point to ANYTHING but a God ordained, world-wide Flood...

1 comment:

  1. How about the description in the sub-title as well: "The universal human MYTH..."

    What's so insightful is that the article states in come cases what they had believed to be myth were actually true ("He reasoned that even though the stories are often clouded by exaggerations and mystical explanations, many may refer to actual incidents.") Suppose this can be applied to their own "myth" principle not only of the flood but to the Scripture and Christ himself? ... or will they have a different standard of application for that?

    Even so, I do not doubt that if bias can be put aside and true investigation and science (along with historical research) allowed to do it's work, then evidence will be found to support the flood, for God's miracles do not occur in a vacuum so to speak, but in history, time, and place, and therefore leaving a trail of evidence for those with an eye for it. However, if history gives us any indication, the question even upon such findings will be who will accept it? My suspicion, even as this article shows, is that those with a bias against God will find any and every reason to explain it away. Even so, I'm glad to see one taking a further look into this issue, for I'm not afraid of research and science, just the bias's that some both try to bring into them as well as interpret from them.