Friday, September 29, 2006

And if I had bothered to read a few lines down the page...

Carol Hill also wrote a paper called "The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?" in which she argues that there is good geological and biblical evidence that the flood was local and the mountain on which the Ark landed was Jabel Judi or Mount Qardu and not Agri Dag (Mount Ararat).

She correctly points out that "universal flood" story has been a major stumbling block to belief in the the Bible, primarily because, as I mentioned two posts back, there is not a shred of geological, archaeological or biological evidence for it. Importantly, she notes:

In addition to a lack of any real geological evidence for flood geology, there are also no biblical verses that support this hypothesis. The whole construct of flood geology is based on the original assumption that the Noachian Flood was universal and covered the whole Earth...The “leaps of logic” build one on top of another until finally, as the result of this cataclysmic event, almost all of the geomorphic and tectonic features present on the planet Earth (e.g., canyons, caves, mountains, continents) are attributed by flood geologists to the Noachian Flood.

She also mentions some of the same problems that Mark Isaak points out in his excellent TalkOrigins paper "Problems with a global flood." which is phrased in a series of questions. If there was a world wide flood, then why do we see x? It is a devastating attack on the world-wide flood argument and should be read by anyone even remotely inclined toward that position.

Although I am somewhat skeptical of the position that the person of Noah can be certainly delineated (Lloyd Bailey argues that Noah the ark-builder and Noah the viticulturalist are two different people) or that the Genesis flood account is not a retelling of the flood story in the tale of Gilgamesh, She makes a valiant effort.

No comments:

Post a Comment