You are mistaken about something. It was scientists who calculated underground water at 1.7%. But it was evolutionists who used that (incorrect) figure to mock the Bible as in the quote I provided.
Let’s see. You provided the quote, but not the source from which it was taken. My sleuthing led to what seems to be the source of that quote at
Dr. Cargill, the author of that article, is “Assistant Professor of Classics and Religious Studies at The University of Iowa”:
Here are his academic qualifications:
A.A. – Fresno City College (Liberal Arts)
B.S. – CSU Fresno (Human Physiology)
M.S. – Pepperdine University (Ministry)
M.Div. – Pepperdine University
M.A. – UCLA (Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations)
Ph.D. – UCLA (Near Eastern Languages and Cultures)
On his website, I see nothing in his professional experience that gives him any particular credentials in evolution, though he says he is a supporter of the idea. He has pretty impressive credentials in things pertinent to Biblical studies, including extensive Mid-East archaeological excavating experience, university teaching of Near Eastern languages, Religions, and Culture.
As to whether he was “mocking the Bible”, here are his own thoughts on that subject:
It is time for Christians to concede that "inspiration" does not equal "inerrancy," and that "biblical" does not equal "historical" or even "factual." Some claims like the flood and the six-day creation are neither historical nor factual; they were written to communicate in an pre-scientific literary form that god is responsible for the earth. It is time Christians conceded that there was no flood.
You choose to disparage someone who sees an important, if not literal, message in Genesis as someone who is “mocking the Bible.”
You frequently refer to “evolutionists” who have made incorrect statements, but you completely ignore that the content of their statements has no dependency on the correctness of evolution, and could have been made by anyone. Evolution is a scientific theory dealing with common descent. Astronomers, biologists, creationists, Moslems, atheists, housewives, preachers, drunks, and prostitutes have all made incorrect statements. But often those statements are not representative of the feelings of the entire group, and those same incorrect statements have been made by people completely outside the group.
People mocked the Bible based on only 1.7% groundwater saying it isn't enough to cause a flood. Now that we know the number might be greater than 100% groundwater, that original argument now looks silly.
According to a literal reading of the Noah story, the water did indeed cause a flood – a flood requiring far more water than is known to be in the hydrosphere. No matter how much you try to talk around it, if you want to add that !00% deep water to what is normally meant by groundwater, then you better have a chasm 400 times deeper than the Grand Canyon, and most of that is through intensely hot soft rock under immense pressure. That is what is really silly.
If not enough water proved the Bible wrong.... then does more than enough water prove the Bible correct?
I’ll turn the question back to you. I will give you plenty of water for the flood you want, but it is embedded within the crystal lattices of nearly molten rocks hundreds of miles under the earth. OK, you got your water, now do you think that makes the flood factual?
I really don't get why the word evolutionists bothers you? What word should we use to describe people who believe in common ancestry?
Creationists love to use the fallacy of equivocation. My objection has never been to the use of the term “evolutionist” for someone who believes in the Theory of Evolution. Under that meaning, I find the Pope, hundreds of thousands of faithful Christians, thousands of Christian pastors, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, psychopaths, child molesters, movie stars, and monarchs. But let’s see if that is really the meaning you intend for that term.
You said: “it was evolutionists who used that (incorrect) figure to mock the Bible as in the quote I provided.”
First, I flatly reject your assertion that questioning the literal truthfulness of a Bible account is “mocking the Bible”.
Secondly, I propose that there were geologists who care squat about evolution who probably also used that figure to question the flood of Noah. And geophysicists. And astronomers. And almost anyone who know of the 1.7% figure, and who had an inkling of the amount of water needed for a global flood. But your wording leaves no hint that literally anyone disbelieving in the flood of Noah could have used the same data. In fact, Dr. Cargill, the person who is the primary source of the quote you used, is far more qualified in theological studies than he is in evolutionary biology.
Thirdly, Dr. Cargill’s article from which your quote was taken was published in 2010. The study you indirectly linked to about the entrapped water deep in the earth came out just last year. No one knew that the 1.7% figure was “incorrect” during the intervening 4-year interval.
Fourth, as it relates to the flood of Noah, until you explain how to get that water to the surface, that entrapped deep water is irrelevant to the flood of Noah. You still got just the 1.7% available underground that is close enough to the surface to be involved in ANY flood.
Fifth, since the 1.7% is almost all within aquifers that often take years to drain, and those aquifers are spread all over the continents, it is silliness to even consider that 1.7% as a potential source of water for the “fountains of the deep”.
I'm sorry the term bothers you but it seems to be the most accurate word.
Oh really? You recently said: “Bible deniers / evolutionists in the past made statements like …”, as though “Bible deniers” and “evolutionists” were essentially synonymous. You know as well as I do that there are many thousands of faithful Christians who accept evolution - are they Bible deniers? Recently I mentioned a list of thousands of Christian pastors that have signed a list affirming their acceptance of evolution. Your intentional listing of those two terms – “Bible deniers” and “evolutionists” in the same context is nothing short of shallow dishonesty. Later in this post you express a hope that I will be open to the Christian message. You would have been more successful than you might realize except for demonstrating that for you, at least, conducting yourself in conformance with Christian ideals is not very important. You want me in, then first show me that you conduct your life the way a Christian should.
As to “evolution” being the most accurate word in the ways you use it – it is exactly right when your intention is to maximize the discredit against evolution. But in fact it is intentional deception if accurately conveying information is your goal. BTW, is it really true that creationists / child molesters are often less than truthful?
God's Word is never wrong, but my understanding of it certainly can be wrong.
You don’t actually have God’s Word. You have an ancient tribal creation account that you choose to call “God’s Word”.
Certainly there are many who compromise on what the Bible says.
That claim is pretty much SOP. Both sides in debates among Christians claim it is the opposing side that is compromising on what the Bible says. That is what I like about science – nature doesn’t pay any attention to which scientist claims to be right – it just does what nature does whether we like it or not. You can humble yourself and go along with nature, or you can fail – those are your choices.
However, as Christians there are things in God's Word stated as absolute truth that we should adhere to and be unwilling to compromise on.
I really appreciate your repeated admissions that in fact you do not actually accept whatever the evidence shows, but in fact refuse to accept it if you perceive as conflicting with an ancient Hebrew story. Like many creationists, for you the Bible is absolute truth, and evidence is only acceptable if it supports that pre-defined standard. Amazing that you, just like Cadry, have strung us all along for more than 2 years under the pretense of something that you now admit just ain’t so. Cadry was a great pretender at being a prophet, and you have been a pretender every time you have declared that science supports your beliefs. But now that charade is over.
Correct, there is substantial clear evidence. Google.... use words like 'evidence global flood'.
To be good scientific evidence, evidence must be credible from the viewpoint of an (ideally) impartial scientist. So, I used the exact 3-word phrase you offered in a google search. Of the first 20 hits that Google came up with, 9 were essentially supportive of the Genesis account of a Global flood. Without exception those 9 links avowed an allegiance to Bible correctness. Not one of them even pretended to be impartial in their presentation. Of the remaining 11 sites, their presentations ranged from disavowal of the reality of the flood story to (more commonly) portraying it as a strictly local, if massive, flood. Those sites were far more faithful at presenting their evidence free of theological bias than the sites supporting your position. So I ask again, what (scientifically acceptable) evidence can you offer that “the earth as it existed, was destroyed” in the geologically recent past? I really hope your response includes specific evidence, rather than just another vague allusion to “substantial clear proof” that you seem unable to actually enumerate.
God's Word is a source of inerrant truth on all matters it touches on, including science. His Word tells about our history... and our future.
Re: “God’s Word”, I am awaiting your overdue response to a prior post about where an eye witness to the creation personally testified as to what he saw.
The Bible is a source of absolute truth.
Nope.
Some of those who have tried to prove it wrong ended up 'on the Damascus road' being convinced of its authenticity.
Why is it that those scientists who are most qualified scientifically are also most likely to dismiss the Biblical Creation account?
I'm praying for you Davis that you would be open to the truth. I would love for you to study the claims of Jesus with a willingness to follow the evidence, no matter where it leads.
Thanks, been there, done that. I did what you ask – I followed the evidence - to exactly where I am. I presume you know that I was an active Christian for decades, and both studied and taught the Bible? Next suggestion?