Is the biblical flood a natural catastrophe?

but theyre all true!

Let me try to take apart your rant one piece at a time.

Lets start with “So how do we decide which one is most likely?” Likelihood is irrelevant to speculation. For an improbability is not an impossibility. A one-off accident will, over time, be a highly highly improbable and extremely rare event, but its probability is irrelevant. The question is whether it in fact happened or not.

(And on the volcano spewing material for 5000 years, it wont add to or reduce the mass of the earth: the spewed stuff are still of the earth’s. The only way the earth’s gravity is changed is either the mass of the earth or its density changing, and they both have to be due to some extra-terrestrial event.)

On believing “crackheaded ideas”, well for one no one is asking you to believe anything, and thus they are what I said, namely speculations, and more specifically my speculations. They need not be acceptable to you or anyone else.

And whether it make sense or not is an open question, unless you can show that my speculation is an implausibility. That is then an acceptable reason to reject a speculation and not because it is merely speculated. And if I have evidence, or more precisely generally acceptable evidence, then they are no longer speculations.

And have speculations no role in knowledge at all?

To me speculation is a necessary step in reasoning and knowing at least if you want to exercise abduction or induction. Further I hold the view that you need to know to see. Unless you know, a thing may be starring in your face and you wont see it. But since knowing to see is a circular thing, the way you break out of the circularity is to make an assumption of what is true, and then check out reality through that “seeing-framework” thus established, to see if reality is congruent to what you have assumed. If not abandoned it, and go back to step 1.

And try cracking your head to speculate. It is a non trivial exercise, or at for those ‘worthy’ for further considerations. And what are these so ‘worthy’?

For one they must certainly be not implausible physically. Secondly they should be able to better explain known evidences, or at least resolve some of the difficulties in current hypotheses.

Third there should already some evidence to support it, perhaps not in the usually acceptable sense of support, say as in scientifically acceptable. In other words the mere absence of evidence to deny a thing is not sufficient a reason to assert the presence of a thing.

In this instance this support is the numerous similarity in the various myths and legends in various tribes and cultures all over the world. And also if we assume that the bible is true, then there is such a thing as a flood. And these are some means of being informed or inspired to arrive at speculations.

What then are your crriteria for accepting or rejecting any one of the “million” of theories? That some big shot authority say so? Well we each have a mind too, and no one has a monopoly on wisdom.

Duh. That’s why i said “space dust or meteors would have to precipitate”, with the operative word being SPACE. the volcano example was onyl to illustrate what it would be like to live on earth while the space dust rain was taking place. The rate of dust accumulation would be (locally) similar to that of a large volcano. In other words, we’d see clear evidence that isn’t otherwise there.

Thatnk you for that incredibly pedantic explanation of speculation. What I was criticizing is not the imagination it takes to come up with ideas, but the means one uses to prove them right or wrong (to make or break them as theories). The “absence of evidence does not = evidence of absence” arguement is bad reasoning if you are trying to prove or disprove something.

Without speculation, there would be no ideas to eventually evolve into theories. I agree with everything you said about reasoning/speculation/evidence.

until this, that is:

That’s a huge assumption. I say it must withstand scientific rigors like everything else.

My criteria for accepting a theory is exactly as you described…it has evidence, explains phenomemnon better than current explanations, etc.

The accepted view is not always correct, but it was originally accepted for a reason…and you need an equally good reaosn not to accept it. So far, your speculations haven’t presented a good enough reason to think otherwise about ice ages. Certainly you ideas are a good start, but when you do the math, as i have, it’s obvious that what you have described does not work.