or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Great Flood
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Great Flood - Page 3

post #81 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
--there's that CLEVER distinction agian, somehow your metphysics count as "science" while mine do not.

Your "science" (let's use your distinction for just a moment) is wrought with a hundred times the controversy that my "religion" is.

For a start, there's nothing wrong with 'clever'. If you have to get all sniffy about 'clever' you're off on the wrong foot. Right there.

Anyway.

'Metaphysical' means 'beyond the physical'; it is a de facto synonym for 'spiritual'. 'Your metaphysics' cannot possibly, by definition, be 'science'. billybobsky's not dealing with metaphysics but observations of the physical world. Yours are not.

If the processes of Creation Science were testable there would by the same amount of 'controversy' as there is in real, proper science. That is the nature of research. That's how it works. People theorise, they test, they disagree, they come to a consensus. Creation scientists would still be scientists. (There aren't any Creationist research units and peer-reviewed journals, though, and it has been proved beyond axiom that the world was not formed in the way the Bible says and that Genesis is no more correct than the creation myths of the Native Americans or the !Xung San of Southern Africa.)

Your religion is not mainstream Christianity (and scientists don't organise into factions to kill each other over differences in their working methods, I notice, so less of the accusations of 'controversy' if you please) and is based on one particular reading of the Bible, furthermore, so you can't even claim orthodoxy.

Finally, when we actually test the processes you claim formed the planet against what is demonstrably observable and repeatable we find that Genesis cannot possibly right.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
In all reality your "science" takes more faith than my "religion".

This is incorrect. I'd dearly love to tell you what I really think of this sentence, but I'm on a (very gentle, friendly) warning from BuonRotto, so you'll just have to imagine I made you feel stupid.

I will say this, though: get your nose out of the Book and look at what God's made you. Why would you want to deny your Creator full praise for the awesome genius and beauty of His work, and the mind-blowing complexity of His methods? Based on what's in a book written by people who did not have the tools to understand it?
post #82 of 258
Concerning science and religion i will quote my-self :

Quote:

Just a little story about the difference between science and religion.

Many , many years ago, Napoleon assist to a demonstration of Foucault whit his famous pendulum. Napoleon ask Foucault " et dieu dans tout ├ža : and where is god in that (very approximate translation) Foucault reply : god is not an hypothesis.
More recently , Lemaitre who was a famous belgium churchmen from the catholic church, and accessorily nobel prize in physics and inventor of the big bang Theory, like to repeat what Foucault was saying, he just add, after god is not an hypothesis, i have to many respect for him. Lemaitre a very interesting and open man, was pointing out the fact , that science and religion hare to differents matters that should be never mixed together.
post #83 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
....which, of course, proves how solid your science is.

Active science is, by a matter of course, controversial. It means it is testable, that hypotheses are formed, tested, accepted, modified, or tossed aside. Solid (rigid) descriptions of the world are inherently anti-scientific because there is always new evidence or better ways of interpreting data. But this in no way reduces the legitimacy of scientific descriptions, it merely means they adapt to what has been shown experimentally to be true. It is not as if doubt incited people to toss aside newtonian physics, or maxwell's equations both of which (we now know) fail to provide a complete description of the properties they cover.

But again, science and religion cover different aspects of life. So it really is irrelevant that I feel one of science's strengths is that it (hopefully) will remain forever changing giving more and more accurate descriptions of the properties of the universe...

The problem here is that many religions fail to incorporate incredible amounts of evidence that run contrary to their claims on how the world works; but that is their nature. The establish a feeling of constancy in their observers lives...
post #84 of 258
Out of interest, dmz, how does Creation Science explain today's photographs of water erosion on Mars? Did the Great Flood happen there too?
post #85 of 258
According to the genesis mars and the sun are satellites of earth
post #86 of 258
"Eppu Si Muove" - Galileo

(But it does move) - referring to the Earth
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #87 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
'Metaphysical' means 'beyond the physical'; it is a de facto synonym for 'spiritual'. 'Your metaphysics' cannot possibly, by definition, be 'science'. billybobsky's not dealing with metaphysics but observations of the physical world. Yours are not.

Not that I'm agreeing with dmz or anything (and believe me, I'm not), you could make the argument that science is actually another kind of metaphysics--or at least that it emerges out of metaphysical approaches to the world. If metaphysical approaches to reality insist that there are things unseen that create the world around us, or that there are motives or forces that we cannot detect with the naked eye, we can see science as a means of detecting these metaphysical forces.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #88 of 258
Quote:
DNA is a bit more complicated than that. We already know we come from scientists that we have a common ancestor.

Quote:
So you are trying to use science as your proof against science.


Mitochondira are the cell elements that provide the cell with power. The DNA for mitochondria is inherited (IIRC) from the mother only, and therefore is only changed by mutation, allowing it to be used to determine how related individuals are over long periods of time.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #89 of 258
Thread Starter 
I should have known with such a topic, but definitely not where I planned on this thread going
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
post #90 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Not that I'm agreeing with dmz or anything (and believe me, I'm not), you could make the argument that science is actually another kind of metaphysics--or at least that it emerges out of metaphysical approaches to the world. If metaphysical approaches to reality insist that there are things unseen that create the world around us, or that there are motives or forces that we cannot detect with the naked eye, we can see science as a means of detecting these metaphysical forces.

huh? Although I think I know what you are trying to say, I think you have over-reached a bit. I guess it depends on your definition of metaphysical, but the scientific method is limited to things that can be measured and tested. Metaphysics and God, in most of His forms, are beyond science. Offcourse our ability to measure the Universe around has expanded greatly from the subatomic to nearly being able to view the beginnings of time-I guess this is what you were getting at.

On another note, I would like to bring up the fact that comparing science and religion is a bit of an apple and oranges comparison. Science is a method to answering questions, religion is an answer. I do not consider science to be a religion, its a systematic and logical approach to the study of the universe. This is the reason that science doesn't belong in religious studies and creationism doesn't belong in science classes. Sorry, no equal time for creation "science" in biology class. Creationism starts with the answer and twist the evidence to fit this answer, e.g. the great flood carved the grand canyon.
post #91 of 258
we have been trying to establish that...
post #92 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
.........comparing science and religion is a bit of an apple and oranges comparison.



There is that clever distinction again. One person's answers to the meaning of life are somehow not empirically equal to anothers'

Quote:
....Science is a method to answering questions, religion is an answer.

Once science absorbs enough presuppositions that cause it to stop looking at the evidence, it stops being "Science".

Quote:
I do not consider science to be a religion, its a systematic and logical approach to the study of the universe.

Again, when you guys on this forum dismiss, out of hand, this instructors' POV. You become a bit like "Christians against Christ".


Quote:
Creationism starts with the answer and twist the evidence to fit this answer, e.g. the great flood carved the grand canyon.

Atheism, Humanism, etc. (or Paganism---a loose catch-all) starts with the answer and is twisting and cajoling the evidence to fit that answer. Hence, the GREAT BIG asparagus piss you people took on Asterix's instructor. Asterix asked an honest question and got an answer more befitting a turf war among a bunch of thugs than a group of educated people.

Out of one side of your mouths "science" is this white-coat, rubber gloved, clean-room look at the universe---out of the other side you ignore the reality: a swirling morass of opinions and arguments over the foundational nature of the universe. The "scientific" community is constantly promising for the money-shot look at the "way it all works" but in reallity what you end up believing in is the unsubstantiated belief that "science" will ever come to a TRUE consensus.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #93 of 258
You don't understand what Science is. You also don't understand what Paganism is.

Science is not a faith, not a belief system, not a religion. It is a way of explaining, through observation, how the universe works. If new observations are made, or if new interpretations of existing observations are made, then science can change. It's designed to change. Religion can change, but it is often quite reluctant. Science, on the other hand, is designed to be always changing. Although some individual scientists may be afraid of change, and may hold faith in science or an ultimate scientific truth, that doesn't mean that is the way science works as a whole. A good scientist will accept that his theories may be proven totally wrong.

You've said this before, and I corrected you once but you disagreed. You lump everyone who doesn't go by your exact belief system into a broad category which you call "paganism." That is absolutely false, and wrong. I find it exceedingly rude that you do this, because it is completely incorrect. I am NOT a Pagan, and I never will be. Paganism is a religion (or perhaps a category of religions), atheism is separate belief, agnosticism is another separate belief... and so on.
post #94 of 258
dmz. You haven't answered my posts. Why is this? Are you going to?

Do you believe that the points I make in my posts are unanswerable?

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
There is that clever distinction again. One person's answers to the meaning of life are somehow not empirically equal to anothers'

Empirically speaking, you're right - they're not. I could posit all sorts of nonsense to explain anything I like, and that would be perfectly alright in the absence of any sure-fire way to test the facts. If you choose to find meaning in your life through the worship of any God or Gods of your choice that would be fine too, but while you couldn't prove that your God is any 'better' than mine, I could prove the principles of erosion, mutation, whathaveyou. I can prove beyond any doubt that Genesis, say, does not offer a convincing explanation of the world's age or geology.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Once science absorbs enough presuppositions that cause it to stop looking at the evidence, it stops being "Science".

I'm sure you have an example in mind here, and I'd very much like to see it. Because I read 'Nature' and 'New Scientist', and I can promise you that research in cosmology, genetics, paleoanthropology and geology are all progressing quite nicely and telling us more about the world and the cosmos every day.

You're the one choosing to ignore this. You're the one ignoring the evidence. Not all of those who believe that one sacred text from the Middle East, in which a creation account that does not tally in any way to the observable evidence, and which is no more likely to be correct than the creation tales of the Yoruba of West Africa or the Indians of the Argentinian Amazon, is the only possible explanation.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Atheism, Humanism, etc. (or Paganism---a loose catch-all)

Since when has 'paganism' been a 'loose catch-all' for 'non-Christian'? I'm not a polytheist. I don't believe in any god or gods, so I'm not a 'pagan'. This is pretty rude, you, know. Strictly speaking, 'pagan' means 'polytheistic', not 'irreligious' anyway, so I hope that you don't mean that Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus and many West Africans are 'pagans' too?

I think if you want to call non-Christians 'pagans' then you're not really going to have any right to object if someone were to call you a 'Jesus freak' or a 'God Botherer', so I'd suggest that you chill.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
[Bstarts with the answer and is twisting and cajoling the evidence to fit that answer.

The "scientific" community is constantly promising for the money-shot look at the "way it all works" but in reallity what you end up believing in is the unsubstantiated belief that "science" will ever come to a TRUE consensus. [/B]

Give me the address of one single Creation Science research unit.
Give me the URL of any peer-reviewed Creation Science journal.

You are not a mainstream Christian. Your views are not those of the vast majority of other Christians. Christians kill each other all the time over doctrine. Christians disagree all the time, over gay marriages, divorce, contraception, whatever, and scientists (well, everyone else alive on the planet) don't take this as 'proof' that God doesn't exist. Hell, you can't know the meaning of the word 'controversy.'

While you're deciding whether or not to respond to my three last posts, here are a couple of URLs for you. Earth Sciences: papers in 'Nature' magazine, an old, respected journal with papers written by Christians, atheists, Muslims, Hindus and agnostics, none of whom, after decades of study, have suddenly found cause to doubt the age of the cosmos or the forces that shaped the world. New Scientist. Does what it says on the tin. The Astrophysical Journal, established in 1895, full of far-out shit that happens to be true.
post #95 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Once science absorbs enough presuppositions that cause it to stop looking at the evidence, it stops being "Science".

Yup. And everyone agrees with this. It becomes a sort of non-moralizing belief system at that point. This is why science over time attempts to dismantle assumptions because it isn't science if it doesn't . This is why you must clearly state them before proceeding on to a new theory.


Quote:
[B}
Again, when you guys on this forum dismiss, out of hand, this instructors' POV. You become a bit like "Christians against Christ".{/B]

No. I dismissed his POV because it doesn't match any evidence, makes no rational sense, and was completely irrelevant to math. He is a fundamentalist teacher who should stick to the accepted curriculum and stop taking advantage of the poor educational system to spread his irrational nonsense.



There will never be a true consensus in science, there will always be descriptions. If a grand unified theory came to be and matches all evidence it still doesn't make claims about anything that is within the realm of religion.
post #96 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Out of interest, dmz, how does Creation Science explain today's photographs of water erosion on Mars? Did the Great Flood happen there too?
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #97 of 258
Bumping.

I really, really want to know if there was a Great Flood on Mars too.
post #98 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
According to the genesis mars and the sun are satellites of earth

No Powerdoc, they aren't.

The Genesis account does not say that the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth. That was a superstition held to by the religious nuts that had it in for Galileo.

If you're going to ridicule the Creationist account at least stick to Genesis.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #99 of 258
Genesis doesn't even mention other planets...
post #100 of 258
Ahh Christianity... you would think more adherents in this day and age would take a closer look at the religion's origins and discover (like many other religions) that it is merely an evolution/amalgamation of others that came before it. And I'm sure these evolved from religions that came before them, and so on, etc...

It's not like this information is hard to come by.

Cheers,

C.
post #101 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Concord
It's not like this information is hard to come by.

Just hard for some to accept.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #102 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
..........Science is not a faith, not a belief system......


It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.

Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.


(Also, I'm not going to sit here are tell sillybobsky, et al, that they are not doing important, eye-glazing, mind-bending work. I respect those efforts in academia.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #103 of 258
One more thing, if a global flood provides a workable solution to a recent Ice Age---why not investigate?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #104 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.

And rational 'scientists' don't claim to.
Quote:
Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.

Example?
post #105 of 258
epistimologically you don't need a belief to know what you do not know or understand. we are capable of realizing things we do not understand without having faith in that we don't know it. take for instance the following phrase which most people on this board wouldn't understand: alpha helices are the preferred secondary structure of transmembrane peptides. I take that fact from experimental evidence, but to many people reading it it could just seem like i took a random set of words and combined them making up something completely arbitrary like: beta sheets rarely contain proline (there is a joke in here, ah its good to have a scientific vocab...). you do not have to take it on faith that my statements are true to realize you do not understand them.
furthermore, it has been proven mathematically that we can never know all of math and by extension science. this is a proof and not a belief...
post #106 of 258
If you're referring to Godel's proof, it's more accurately stated that no system of assumptions and logic can prove *itself*... the assumptions (axioms) cannot be proven by the system which is based on those assumptions.

This seems pretty obvious to most people - if you assume A, you can't *prove* A... you assumed it in the first place.


Which kind of throws a monkey wrench in the works of proving God if you assume His existence in the first place. :P
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #107 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.

Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.


(Also, I'm not going to sit here are tell sillybobsky, et al, that they are not doing important, eye-glazing, mind-bending work. I respect those efforts in academia.)

First off, thanks for being such a good sport (bunching bag) in helping to keep this fun thread going!

Now, duck here come some more punches:

Obviously, we don't know all aspects of the Universe, but we know a lot more than we did just 100 years ago. No one person can from first principles prove to themselves that what the totality of humanity has discovered is true and correct. We scientists work in our little corners. You may refer to this as faith, and evidence that we rationally minded folks are accepting things based on assumptions and scientific dogma. I disagree since I beleive in the methods that have been used to discover these truths. Sure scientists do get caught up in dogmas, but most scientists I know would love to completely trash a good dogma given a chance- it would likely lead to a good Nature paper. You see, in the long run scientists are always trying to get the better of each other, it keeps us honest. That is why I beleive it when the astronomers tell me that the Universe is going to come to an end in a big crunch, and then when they tell me that maybe they were wrong because they miscalculated the weight of the Universe.

Now, I ask you how can there be a global flood causing an ice age. There is just not that much water. Maybe a flood when the Mediteranean Sea burst the banks of the Black Sea, but the World?? If you respect the efforts of academics, then doesn't that suggest that maybe you even believe a little of it? We're not just trying to make up and use fancy words, we are trying to understand the history and future of the Universe. The Universe is the book we are trying to read. I beleive the answers are far more likley to come from that effort than from the study of a Book written and re-written thousands of years ago by ignorant people trying to forment revolutions and yield power of the populace. So much of the Bible is outright wrong or outdated. I wouldn't trust it much for any kinds of historic details and I certainly have never put my faith in it.
post #108 of 258
dmz.

You've ignored five of my posts now. Five of them.

Now I can reasonably not expect a reply I can quite quite safely call you 'chickenshit'.

I've seen this before from Biblebashers (as a loose catch-all) before right here on these boards so I can't say that this comes as a surprise.

Should you grow testicles, I'd welcome the debate. Until then, I wouldn't call billybobsky 'sillybobsky' when he gets the upper hand if I were you. It lessens the (already hilariously slight) gravity of your argument, and you need all the dignity you can get.
post #109 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
No Powerdoc, they aren't.

The Genesis account does not say that the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth. That was a superstition held to by the religious nuts that had it in for Galileo.

If you're going to ridicule the Creationist account at least stick to Genesis.

You are right it just say that earth is the center of universe, that in an humancentric point of vue is true. But because the earth is the center of the universe, everything is then turning around her.
post #110 of 258
In the correct order : Sillybobski, chickenshit : is this the great flood of insults ?

One time more, and this thread will be closed.
post #111 of 258
Hassan:

Do you really expect honest discussion from someone making the arguments he is?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #112 of 258
Quote:
One more thing, if a global flood provides a workable solution to a recent Ice Age---why not investigate?

Sea levels would decrease in an ice age, not increase.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #113 of 258
Sorry.
post #114 of 258
DMZ.

MARS.

IF YOU PLEASE.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #115 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Hassan:

Do you really expect honest discussion from someone making the arguments he is?

Dude. If he or she thinks those arguments are defensible he or she can defend them.
post #116 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Stoo
Sea levels would decrease in an ice age, not increase.


After a flood, not before. If there were a global flood, it provides a solution to the causes of an Ice Age. There is good deal of argument in academia over workable conditions that cause, sustain, and then end an Ice Age.


Herald:

.....on the Mars thing....I'm not altogether sure why certain molecules are allowed on Mars and some are not.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #117 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.

Which is why we *do* science in the first place. We will never know all there is to know about Life, the Universe, and Everything, and science or scientists never claimed to in the first place. The role of science is to find out why things are the way they are by providing the best possible, unbiased answer that accounts for all of the collected evidence.

This is the fundamental problem that Biblical Science (Creationism, Intelligent Design, Flood Geology) faces. It already carries with it a built-in bias. That's not to say that science is innocent in that regard -- like any agency of man, science is not 100% infallible. But scientists know that and acknowledge that. That's why there's so much emphasis on Peer Review in the professional literature, and why there's so much debate between theories in science (which outsiders mistakenly see as "abandonment" of a theory).

Biblical Science doesn't seem to understand that, sadly enough. Science doesn't make any claim to absolute truth -- Biblical Science implicitly (or explicitly, as in researchers like Gish and Morris) does.

Quote:

Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.

If you're talking about religion, yes. I don't understand God, or Christ. Yet I believe in them both.

If you're talking about science, most definitely not. In science, if you don't understand something fully, you do more work on it, or check your results with someone who has.

There is a difference.
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
post #118 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
huh? Although I think I know what you are trying to say, I think you have over-reached a bit. I guess it depends on your definition of metaphysical, but the scientific method is limited to things that can be measured and tested. Metaphysics and God, in most of His forms, are beyond science. Offcourse our ability to measure the Universe around has expanded greatly from the subatomic to nearly being able to view the beginnings of time-I guess this is what you were getting at.

I'm merely suggesting that because metaphysics is concerned with the nature of reality (and I'm thinking of Aristotle and Plato here, not Kant), science necessarily emerges out of that same impulse, which is simply the belief that there is more to a thing than what can be seen.

This is going to make me really unpopular on this thread, but we should also admit a few things about science. Human history is in large part a series of shifts between acceptable ways of explaining the nature of the reality. For the last 200-odd years science has been privileged. In addition, the notion of what can be "tested," the facticity of fact, and what constitutes "proof" keep changing.

Anyway. Just stoking the fire a little.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #119 of 258
dmz appears to have me on 'ignore'. Could someone please reply to my posts quoting their content? Better still, could someone just reply and copy and paste what I said pretending it's from them?
post #120 of 258
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
dmz appears to have me on 'ignore'. Could someone please reply to my posts quoting their content? Better still, could someone just reply and copy and paste what I said pretending it's from them?

It's not worth it. Really. Seriously.

But then, I'm more interested in the debate about science as another form of metaphysics.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Great Flood