Did Jesus believe in a literal Noah's Ark and Flood?

[DamonWV]

There is zero evidence of a global flood as stated in the bible.

As a petroleum geologist with 23 years experience I can assure you that you have been lied to by people you trust.

The sad delusions that you also posted about fossilisation means you took those lies on trust and you have never bothered to investigate the evidence for yourself.

The biblical flood was proved false over 200 years ago by a number of geologists in the UK and switzerland. Most of those geologists were devout christians and were looking for evidence of the flood.

Intellectual honesty finally lead them to proclaim the biblical flood falsified. Formost amonst these men was William Buckland, he was a geologist and the Dean of Westminster Abbey ( and therefore a devout christian ) when he dropped his views due to the superior evidence of the Uniformitarian ancient earth model of geology there was no prominant, honest flood geologist left.

And to this day there has never been an honest flood geologist since. It is a position that can only be upheld by faith, never by science, those who attempt to use science to back up their views are either con-men like Hovind and his ilk, out to make a buck off peoples gullabillity, or the intellectually dishonest.

You have your 23 years of geoligist experience to try to back up your claims to saying a local flood.
I have the Bible as my starting point and foundation .. With that , there have been many many, studies, and finds from geologists that prove of a global flood.
What do we find all the time ? Billions of dead things fossilized that are buried in rock layers all over the earth.. What would a global flood cause ?
It would cause Billions of dead thing fossilized in rock layers all over the earth..
I dont have the time right now to copy and paste word for word of explained proofs of global flooding.
But i ask you to swing by Answer in genesis Wesbite by Ken ham, and read articles from Geologists and other scientists with credibility that show perfectly clear why we all have overwhelming evidence for a global flood.

 

[DamonWV]

See, thats the bigest difference between most Creationists that visit here, and those that support evolution.

The Creationists only read one side of the story. If it doesn't support the Bible, it is often thrown out by default no matter how well evidenced or accepted it is.

The "evolutionists" on the other hand, are far more likely to have read from both sides.

Its funny you say this becuase Ken Ham form Answers in Genesis says the same thing but the opposite way . Creationists see both sides but evolutionists only see one.

Honestly here is what I believe to be true. Regardless of which side your on, you start with a foundation of beliefs, personal Bias ect ect.. From that when you examine evidences ( btw evidence is nuetral , meaning both creationists and evolutionists have the same rocks, the same earth, the same eveyr thing , its how its interperted), Then after you examine the evidences your going to base your hypothesis on what you already believe as your foundation.
SO if your an Evolutionist all your outcomes are going to be based to fit into what you believe. Same goes for a creationist. Whos right ? whos wrong.
People try to look for some kind of "MAGIC BULLET " to kill the other side, but honestly there will never be any magic bullet. Because any argument, any study, any debate of evidences always start with people having a Bias, and pre- determined point of view.
If you think your completely neutral and look at both views the same way , then your lying to yourself.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Actually I have done some research and it is impossible for a Christian to support macroevolution because it crosses the God-limitation of God creating everything thing according to kind (Genesis 1:12). Macroevolution supports the crossing of the barriers of kind (ie. a fish can become an ape that can become human.). If evolution from fish to platapus to ape to man is capable and is true why are there not transitioning evidence in the world? Half-ape half-men, half-fish half-bird?

A christian on the other hand can support microevolution which is adaptation within kind (ie. A rabbit changing color of hair in winter compared to spring-summer-fall.).

This paragraph as well as your previous posts makes it quite clear that you do not understand evolution at all. What you are saying are statements that are only heard from Creationists that rejected evolution without ever studying it.

"Macroevolution" is not some seperate type of evolution. "Macroeveolution" is "microevolution" over time. If you take 1, and add 1 to it, you get 2, if you keep doing this 1000 times, you get 1001. This is exactly what "macroevolution" is. It is "micro" evolutionary changes accumlulated over time.

Thus a primitive primate changed numerous times over many many years untill it no longer resembled the original primate much at all. Then this new primate(our ancestor) also continued to change numerous times over many many years untill it no longer resembled its ancestor and had become us. And we also continue to change and in many thousands of years will no longer resemble todays humans.

This is how evolutio works. Over time changes in the genetic material of an organism accumlate. Given enough time, these changes can so alter the appearance of an organism that it becomes classified as a new species.

Evolution does not work on individiual organisms. Evoutions works with populations. A mutation occurs in an organism that gets passed on to its offspring. If this mutation provides a survival benefit to the organism that enables it to reproduce more succesfully, then it will get passed on to its children as well. Overtime this mutation will spread thru an entire population as the organisms inter-breed. Eventually all members of the population will have the mutation.

Something you need to understand is that species is just a human classification used to divide up the trillions of organisms on this planet into smaller chunks that humans can deal with. It is a sorting method, a way to provide useable structure to a massive amount of data. Humans always try to derive structure when presented with a large quanity of material in order to be able to work with it. Even your Bible is strcutured into manageable Chapters and Verse.

To ask why we never find a half-man/half-ape is to show an utter misunderstanding of how evolution actually works. If someone were to ever find such a creature, it would disprove evolution entirely. Evolution predicts that we will find creatures that have changed small amounts over a large period of time. Which is exactly what we do find in the natural world and the fossil record. We have accumulated thousands upon thousands of fossils over the years. We have nearly complete family trees for several modern species. We can trace back the cladistic relationships for most all modern species to their common ancestors. Evolution is one of, if not the best, evidenced theory in all of science.


I do not care if you believe differently than I. What I do care about is when people toss out ideas because they do not jibe with their existing beliefs without ever actually learning what those ideas are. If you want to reject evolution, fine, it is your right to do so. But if you are going to actually discuss this with people on these forums, many of whom are actual scientists, then at least learn what the theory actually is before tossing it aside.

If nothing else you will learn to be more critical of accepting peoples beliefs as truth. What you will find is that much of what is considered truth about science and evolution in particular amongst the circles of Creationism is at best a parody of the real thing, devoid of any actual knowledge or understanding of the subjects they reject.

Most atheists on this board are former Christians. Many of us spent large portions of our lifes as Christians. Most of us have read the Bible several times. Many of us once rejected evolution as well. What virtually all of us found, is that when you stop listening exclusively to people with a preconcieved notion of how the world actually works, and instead find out for yourself, it becomes very hard to reject evolution as a fairy tale. The evidence and ideas behind the theory are just too solid. It really is the best explanation we have for how life developed from the earliest forms to the diversity we see today.

And no where in this does Evolution ever say you have to stop believing in God. Evolution, just like all of science can make no claim about god either positive or negative.

 

[DamonWV]

There is no such distinction between Micro and Macro. They work on the same principles. You are arguing a strawman.
.

Actually he isnt arguing a straw man, there is quite a difference between micro and macro evolution.

Macro evolution is the changing of one species into a form of another .. example... Reptiles to birds , apes to men , fish to apes dogs to cats, cats to dogs.. ect ect you get the point. There is NO transitional fossil support to back up claims of macro evolution.. There would have to be millions and millions of fossils of half things transforming from one kind of species to another.. There is no evidence of this.


Now micro evolution Is a species that adapts to an environment. Example when animal were left off of the ark , take for example Bears.. The multipy in the social group. As they grow in numbers they wander and spread. Over time some move up north, out west , down south .. ect ect .. those up north would start to develop an adaption to the cold weather up there, their off spring in a few generations would slowly become more and more adapt to the harsh climates that they once could not survive in.
Rapid Speciation doesnt take that long at all, where you take a part of a social group of species from a main group and change their environment, and they eventually adapt to their new environment.
SO as i was saying about the bears, they developed thicker skin, hair, and tolerance for the cold weather.. But the fact remains that they are still .. Just a bear .. that is Micro evolutioin , the changing within ones species.. unlike macro which is changing from one species completely into another..

Now had i said the bears that went north they turned into walrus's or penguins.. that would be macro, and their woudl be a fossil history of this change.. but there isnt no fossil history of any such changes.
Hope this helps on the whole view of micro and macro evolution.
No straw man here ,i clearly explained the differences

 

[OdwinOddball]

Its funny you say this becuase Ken Ham form Answers in Genesis says the same thing but the opposite way . Creationists see both sides but evolutionists only see one.

Honestly here is what I believe to be true. Regardless of which side your on, you start with a foundation of beliefs, personal Bias ect ect.. From that when you examine evidences ( btw evidence is nuetral , meaning both creationists and evolutionists have the same rocks, the same earth, the same eveyr thing , its how its interperted), Then after you examine the evidences your going to base your hypothesis on what you already believe as your foundation.
SO if your an Evolutionist all your outcomes are going to be based to fit into what you believe. Same goes for a creationist. Whos right ? whos wrong.
People try to look for some kind of "MAGIC BULLET " to kill the other side, but honestly there will never be any magic bullet. Because any argument, any study, any debate of evidences always start with people having a Bias, and pre- determined point of view.
If you think your completely neutral and look at both views the same way , then your lying to yourself.

Oh we are all biased it is true. However there is one critical difference between the two sides that becomes emphasied everytime we come in contact. Cretionism rejects evidence not becasue the evidence is wrong, but because the evidence is not in agreement with the Bible. Science rejects evidence only when the evidence can be shown to be false.

Creationism is based on a simple, but dangerous concept. If the Bible didnt say it, it is wrong no matter how well evidenced it is. You cannot state this and pursue science. Science seeks for answers, even when we do not always like the answers we get.

From the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith.

Section D. Paragraph 6 states;

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

When you make a statement such as this, you are no longer conducting science. Science must remain open to all new evidence, even it it contradicts what we want to believe. If you deny evidence because it contradicts what you want to believe, you are not using the scientific method and cannot claim to be conductiing scientific research.

This is what seprates us. Science does not lie to itself. If a theory is demonstrated to be wrong, then it is wrong no matter how well accepted the theory is. This occurs regularly in science. It is part of the process of continual discovery that drives science.

Organizations like AIG claim to be scientific, but their operational principles deny this.

 

[Paulos23]

I have the Bible as my starting point and foundation .. With that , there have been many many, studies, and finds from geologists that prove of a global flood.

What studies? If there where such valid scientific studies to prove there was a world wide flood that would be very big news. I haven't heard of anything like that.

I don't have the time right now to copy and paste word for word of explained proofs of global flooding.

Links to such proofs would work just fine.

But i ask you to swing by Answer in genesis Wesbite by Ken ham, and read articles from Geologists and other scientists with credibility that show perfectly clear why we all have overwhelming evidence for a global flood.

And unfortunately that is a site well known for its poor science and cherry picking of evidence.

 

[DamonWV]

Do you really think you can look at the sky and tell us how old the universe is?

So the universe is 14 billion years old. 1.4 billion years ago the atmosphere began to forum and we have a greenhouse effect that puts and end to the ice ball that the earth was at the time. 140 million years ago mammals and flowing plants first appear. The first humanoid shows up 14 million years ago. 1.4 million years ago they start seeing fire at their camp sites. 140,000 years ago they say our common ancestor lived in Africa. 14,000 years ago was the end of the ice age and the beginning of the modern age we now live in. 1400 years ago the world became christian. 14 days is equal to two weeks. The amount of time it has taken God to create and now restore this world.

Now, what does the Bible say?
Day one (14 billion years) let there be light.
Day two (1.4 billion years) let there be a firmament.
Day three (140,000 million years) Dry land: plants and dinosaurs.
Day four (14 million years) First humanoid.
Day five (1.4 million years)First fire and tools.
Day six (140,000 years) Common ancestor of modern man.
Day seven (14,000 years) End of ice age, beginning of the modern era.
Day eight (1,400 years) World converts to become Christian.
140 years ago President Lincoln and the end of slavery.
14 years ago President Clinton elected.

now this is silly

The word YOM in the bible means a literal day .. Every time it is used in the bible it has always meant a 24 hour day.
Why dont we interpret when joshua walked around the walls of jericho for 6 days .. or maybe the word YOM here was meant to be 1000 years .. so 6000 years of walking around the walls of jericho...


When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yom for 'day'. He combined yom with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yom (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yom used in this way always refers to a normal 24-hour day . There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yom in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.
Let us now consider what other words God could have used, if He had wanted to convey a much longer period of time than 24 hours

SOME HEBREW 'TIME' WORDS

There are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time These include qedem which is the main one-word term for 'ancient' and is sometimes translated 'of old'; olam means 'everlasting' or 'eternity' and is translated 'perpetual', 'of old' or 'for ever'; dor means 'a revolution of time' or 'an age' and is sometimes translated 'generations'; tamid means 'continually' or 'for ever'; ad means 'unlimited time' or 'for ever'; orek when used with yom is translated 'length of days'; shanah means 'a year' or 'a revolution of time' (from the change of seasons); netsach means 'for ever'. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning 'seasons' or 'festivals'. Let us consider how some of these could have been used.

1. Event of long ago

If God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, there were several ways He could have said it:
yamim (plural of yom) alone or with 'evening and morning', would have meant 'and it was days of evening and morning'. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified many days and so the possibility of a vast age.
qedem by itself or with 'days' would have meant 'and it was from days of old'.
olam with 'days' would also have meant 'and it was from days of old'.
So if God had intended to communicate an ancient creation to us, there were at least three constructions He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose **not** to use any of these.




with that being all said 6 literal 24 hour period days of creation..

 

[OdwinOddball]

Actually he isnt arguing a straw man, there is quite a difference between micro and macro evolution.

Macro evolution is the changing of one species into a form of another .. example... Reptiles to birds , apes to men , fish to apes dogs to cats, cats to dogs.. ect ect you get the point. There is NO transitional fossil support to back up claims of macro evolution.. There would have to be millions and millions of fossils of half things transforming from one kind of species to another.. There is no evidence of this.


Now micro evolution Is a species that adapts to an environment. Example when animal were left off of the ark , take for example Bears.. The multipy in the social group. As they grow in numbers they wander and spread. Over time some move up north, out west , down south .. ect ect .. those up north would start to develop an adaption to the cold weather up there, their off spring in a few generations would slowly become more and more adapt to the harsh climates that they once could not survive in.
Rapid Speciation doesnt take that long at all, where you take a part of a social group of species from a main group and change their environment, and they eventually adapt to their new environment.
SO as i was saying about the bears, they developed thicker skin, hair, and tolerance for the cold weather.. But the fact remains that they are still .. Just a bear .. that is Micro evolutioin , the changing within ones species.. unlike macro which is changing from one species completely into another..

Now had i said the bears that went north they turned into walrus's or penguins.. that would be macro, and their woudl be a fossil history of this change.. but there isnt no fossil history of any such changes.
Hope this helps on the whole view of micro and macro evolution.
No straw man here ,i clearly explained the differences

Please see my post above yours. Your quoted post above shows you do not udnerstand evolution.

Macro evolution is simply microevolution applied over time thats it. Organisms do not give birth to organisms that are half the parent and half something new. Organisms give borth to organisms that are different in a small way from the parents. When many many genrations go by, you eventually reach a point where the current organism is no longer capable of reproducing with the ORIGINAL organism(the one many many generations back, not its direct parent organims). This is then a new species.


Macroevolution is a bad term. it is deceptive in meaning, and is not in general use by those who use and study evolution.

 

[Baggins]

You have your 23 years of geoligist experience to try to back up your claims to saying a local flood.
I have the Bible as my starting point and foundation .. With that , there have been many many, studies, and finds from geologists that prove of a global flood.
What do we find all the time ? Billions of dead things fossilized that are buried in rock layers all over the earth.. What would a global flood cause ?
It would cause Billions of dead thing fossilized in rock layers all over the earth..
I dont have the time right now to copy and paste word for word of explained proofs of global flooding.
But i ask you to swing by Answer in genesis Wesbite by Ken ham, and read articles from Geologists and other scientists with credibility that show perfectly clear why we all have overwhelming evidence for a global flood.

If you can post one piece of credible geological evidence for a global flood as stated in the bible, I will personally convert to christianity.


All you have is is a faith that you are not being lied to, but i am sorry you are being lied to. It is obvious from your posts that you have no understanding about what you are talking about, but you really want it to be true.

No credible, honest scientist has belived in a biblical flood for nearly 200 years.

Believing it to be true is cute, but it simple doesn't cut it in science.

For the last 18 years I have been working in the oil industry finding oil and gas. We use a model of the earth that is old earth and uniformitarian we use fossils to date rocks, and guess what....... we have been very succesful finding oil and gas using these methods.

Not a single oil and gas company uses a young earth/flood model when looking for oil and gas, care to guess why.....?

 

[Baggins]

Actually he isnt arguing a straw man, there is quite a difference between micro and macro evolution.

Macro evolution is the changing of one species into a form of another .. example... Reptiles to birds , apes to men , fish to apes dogs to cats, cats to dogs.. ect ect you get the point. There is NO transitional fossil support to back up claims of macro evolution.. There would have to be millions and millions of fossils of half things transforming from one kind of species to another.. There is no evidence of this.


No straw man here ,i clearly explained the differences

You clearly haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

I am sorry but you are just making yourself appear ignorant. I'm sure you not an uneducated or stupid person, but you obviously have little in the way of scientific education and you would do well to actually try and learn about what you are so vehemently against.

If you pay attention to the scientific news stories about transitional fossils are very common 9 to the chagrin of creationists ), there are a myriad of transitional Homind fossils for a start, there are excellent transitionals between reptails and mammals, and just lately fish and tetrapods ( Tiktaalik rosea ), cats and dogs don't evolve from each other in the fossil record so that is just pure Hovind nonsense you are spouting there.

Your desire to see millions of these fossils just betrays your ignaorance of how speciation occurs, and the rarity of fossilisation.

Finally if micro evolution occurs, what is to stop lots of microevolution becoming macroevolution over long periods of time? Perhaps you could be the first creationist to make an intelligible attempt at answering that question.

Cheesh! If I went into your church and started telling you where you were going wrong you might expect me to having a passing acquaintance with christian theology, yet you come on here sure you are right without appearing to have ever sat through a science lesson in your life.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

View attachment 79366

Now had i said the bears that went north they turned into walrus's or penguins.. that would be macro, and their woudl be a fossil history of this change.. but there isnt no fossil history of any such changes.

Here's an example, macroevolution from a land animal to modern day whales, and we do have fossil evidence of the steps.

edit? how do you add attachments.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Macroevolution (lots of microevolution) from mesonychids to current day whales porpoises and dolphins.

whales-graph.jpg

 

[Edx]

Actually he isnt arguing a straw man, there is quite a difference between micro and macro evolution.

Macro evolution is speciation, theres no more to it than that.

apes to men

We're still apes today in the same way as we're still mammals.

dogs to cats, cats to dogs..

And this isnt a strawman? Evolution says this would be
impossible!

SO as i was saying about the bears, they developed thicker skin, hair, and tolerance for the cold weather.. But the fact remains that they are still .. Just a bear .. that is Micro evolutioin , the changing within ones species.. unlike macro which is changing from one species completely into another..

No evolution doesnt say that an animal will EVER change into a "completely" different kind of animal.

Yes the bear remains a bear, it will always be a bear and whatever it evolves into in the future will just be a modified version of whatever its ancestors were - in this case a bear. Thats what "decent with modification" means.

Now had i said the bears that went north they turned into walrus's or penguins.. that would be macro,

No that wouldnt, that wouldnt be evolution at all!

Thats Kent Hovind-type caricature of evolution. If that really happened it would mean evolution is wrong, not right.

Hope this helps on the whole view of micro and macro evolution.
No straw man here ,i clearly explained the differences

Do you even know what a strawman is? Eveyrthing you've said here is a strawman!

 

[Jase]

Its funny you say this becuase Ken Ham form Answers in Genesis says the same thing but the opposite way . Creationists see both sides but evolutionists only see one.

Damon, please just stop using AIG as the basis for all your claims. Their "science" is just wrong. Trust me from someone who used to be more of a YEC advocate than you are.

 

[JohnR7]

Macroevolution (lots of microevolution) from mesonychids to current day whales porpoises and dolphins.

whales-graph.jpg

Evos are always offering up evidence that was produced by an artist. Don't they have any real evidence and not pretend evidence.

 

[Jase]

Evos are always offering up evidence that was produced by an artist. Don't they have any real evidence and not pretend evidence.

You could go to a museum and see it.

 

[kangitanka]

Evos are always offering up evidence that was produced by an artist. Don't they have any real evidence and not pretend evidence.

JohnR7's record keeps spinning and spinning

BTW, your use of the word "always" should set off alarm bells (even to you). When you make such statements ("Evos are always offering up evidence that was produced by an artist"), even you should realize that painting with such a broad brush is categorically wrong.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Evos are always offering up evidence that was produced by an artist. Don't they have any real evidence and not pretend evidence.

some photographs for you.
Whale hind limbs. Where did they get them unless they used to walk around?mpm_exhibit.jpgexample07.gifwhale_embryo_small.gif

 

[JohnR7]

some photographs for you.
Whale hind limbs.

The photos really don't show much of anything. This is like looking at clouds in the sky or a likeness of the virgin mary on a peice of burnt toast. You need more evidence than that if you want to convince people of anything.

 

[Edx]

Evos are always offering up evidence that was produced by an artist. Don't they have any real evidence and not pretend evidence.

Those drawings are of fossils, you can look up the fossil for yourself. If these arent transitionals, just how do you define transitional?