The story of Noah's Ark, fiction?

Status
Not open for further replies.

cougtpt1

Active Member
Jan 5, 2006
129
6
46
Washington
✟15,284.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Donkeytron said:
If you don't see any scientific problems with a global flood in 2000 BC, you haven't been looking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html


This is just looking at the flood from one side there is plenty of scientific theory on global flood. I wish that everyone would do some research from both points of view before forming an opinion.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/n/no/noahs_ark1.htm

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Hydroplate1.html
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
You really want to look at both sides of "flood science"? You should be looking here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH400-CH599

... here's an obvious problem with the hydroplate theory. Granite doesn't float on water. There's no natural way for you to get a whole global layer of water underneath granite unless it was created there. And to suggest that God created the world with an inbuilt layer of water designed to explode in 2,000 years' time seems rather irresponsible, theologically. Was that His idea of "good"? :p
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
cougtpt1 said:
From your first link:
AbsoluteAstronomy.com said:
Flood geology (additional info and facts about Flood geology) holds that a global flood actually occurred, as recorded in Genesis, and that many geological formations of today, such as submarine river canyon extensions, layered fossil fuel deposits, fossil layers, and layered sedimentary strata are best explained in terms of a global flood in the recent past.

This is rejected by mainstream geology – which is to say, virtually the entire scientific discipline – which holds that the Earth is extremely ancient, that geological formations were created over many millions of years and that there was no Great Flood. Some have suggested that the Biblical account may be a folk memory of local floods that affected the Persian Gulf (A shallow arm of the Arabian Sea between Iran and the Arabian peninsula; the Persian Gulf oil fields are among the most productive in the world) or Black Sea (A sea between Europe and Asia; a popular resort area of eastern Europeans) regions in prehistoric times. The concept of flood geology was abandoned as a serious scientific hypothesis in the mid-19th century following advances in scientific understanding of geological processes, though it is still promoted (mostly in the United States (North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776) ) by some Biblical literalist (additional info and facts about Biblical literalist) s.
I don't think that website supports the existence of a global flood as much as you think it does.
 
Upvote 0

cougtpt1

Active Member
Jan 5, 2006
129
6
46
Washington
✟15,284.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
I am not trying to convince any one of a global flood. I am trying to get people to look at different points of view and look at them with an open mind.

Granite not floating on water is exactly what causes the pressure to build to a point of the flood. Just thinking not really talking fact, but the layer of water could of been designed as an insulater from the extreme heat of the depths of the earth. if the crust of the earth is connected all the way around the surface of the earth it would hold its rigidity with out having to "float" on the water. I just feel that the science is being found to be more of what God's word says. It is no suprise that non christians have a hard time believing that there is a creator and a Global flood. If you do not have God's word to help interpret science then the likely hood of discovering the answers to God's creation is very slim
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
The main problem I have with this granite hydroplate theory is the same I have with the "no animal death before the Fall" idea: it's the idea that God predestined this world to destruction.

Let me illustrate what I mean. Let's assume this granite hydroplate theory is correct. God created the world with a layer of water between a granite upper-crust and a basaltic lower-crust (not sure of the exact lower-crust minerals they theorize). Now, the process of the water heating up and exploding eventually is a physical, scientific process. It's not something you can turn on or off at will. So let's say that God created the world like that (as they theorize), but Adam and Eve never sinned, they never left Paradise, the world is populated by sinless humans in perfect connection with God. And then? KABOOM! The world is hit by a global flood as all those hydroplates come apart (remember, it's a natural process, once God created it that way it was bound to happen), everything on earth is wiped out, and it's not because anybody sinned.

Quite apart from whether there is actual evidence for the hydroplate theory, this theory assumes that it was basically God's fault that the world was flooded, and not man's fault. When one reads the story of the Flood, one realizes that (whether myth or history) the flood happened as God's reaction to man's sin - in other words that man caused it, in a way. However for the hydroplate theory to be true God must have planned this layer of water in right from the start - God planned the punishment of man's sin even before there had been sin! That goes very much against our Christian idea of free will. And for me, even if I believed in a global flood I wouldn't believe in the hydroplate theory of it because it makes God out to be a God who does not respect our free will.
 
Upvote 0

cougtpt1

Active Member
Jan 5, 2006
129
6
46
Washington
✟15,284.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Interesting I have never thought of it that way. I am not completly sold on the hydroplat theory either, but I think it makes more sense then Evolution and Biogenisis. I do believe that GOd created us not to sin. But I also believe that if GOd created the layer of water then he could of made a way in which for it not to explode and flood. Not sure I am just babbeling. Let me research more and reformulate.
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The main problem I have with this granite hydroplate theory is the same I have with the "no animal death before the Fall" idea: it's the idea that God predestined this world to destruction.

Let me illustrate what I mean. Let's assume this granite hydroplate theory is correct. God created the world with a layer of water between a granite upper-crust and a basaltic lower-crust (not sure of the exact lower-crust minerals they theorize). Now, the process of the water heating up and exploding eventually is a physical, scientific process. It's not something you can turn on or off at will. So let's say that God created the world like that (as they theorize), but Adam and Eve never sinned, they never left Paradise, the world is populated by sinless humans in perfect connection with God. And then? KABOOM! The world is hit by a global flood as all those hydroplates come apart (remember, it's a natural process, once God created it that way it was bound to happen), everything on earth is wiped out, and it's not because anybody sinned.

Quite apart from whether there is actual evidence for the hydroplate theory, this theory assumes that it was basically God's fault that the world was flooded, and not man's fault. When one reads the story of the Flood, one realizes that (whether myth or history) the flood happened as God's reaction to man's sin - in other words that man caused it, in a way. However for the hydroplate theory to be true God must have planned this layer of water in right from the start - God planned the punishment of man's sin even before there had been sin! That goes very much against our Christian idea of free will. And for me, even if I believed in a global flood I wouldn't believe in the hydroplate theory of it because it makes God out to be a God who does not respect our free will.

We may have "free will" but God is all knowing, he knew adam's line would fail. there is no chance it would have turned out any other way.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
We may have "free will" but God is all knowing, he knew adam's line would fail. there is no chance it would have turned out any other way.

I'm sorry but I have to severely disagree with what you just said, and I hope you won't take offence.

One of the cornerstones of Christian theology is that there is a tension between man's free will and God's divine predestination. That means that we can at once say that "God willed this person to be saved" and that "This person chose to be saved". We recognize that there is a tension between the two which is almost paradoxical and we realize that this is a mystery this side of heaven.

But the question of "Did God create Adam knowing that he would sin?" is a completely different question. Whether or not Adam is real (I believe that he is), we recognize that Adam is archetypal of all humanity (in addition to being real, if you believe that). Adam represents all humanity and this is precisely the doctrine of federal headship: that all who are recognized under Adam are sinners, because Adam is a sinner. What your statement means, then, is that God created humanity knowing that humanity would sin. To me, this would be a spectacular contradiction of man's free will.

Remember that according to the Creation stories, when Adam and Eve were created they were "very good" and without sin. When God commands, His commands can be kept by sinless humans. This means that when God commanded them to not eat of the tree of knowledge He fully intended them to follow it. I can't believe that He would have said "Thou shalt not eat of it" and then, as it were, muttered under His breath "But hey, what does it matter, since you're going to screw up and eat it anyway you dirty little rotters ... "

If there was no possibility that Adam could have not sinned and remained in his paradisal state ... that is a worse threat to God's character than any theory of evolution.

Well cougtpt1 I appreciate your willingness to research. Am looking forward to more stimulating discussion :)
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
If there was no possibility that Adam could have not sinned and remained in his paradisal state ... that is a worse threat to God's character than any theory of evolution.

That only ment that what happend was going to happen.

One of the cornerstones of Christian theology is that there is a tension between man's free will and God's divine predestination. That means that we can at once say that "God willed this person to be saved" and that "This person chose to be saved". We recognize that there is a tension between the two which is almost paradoxical and we realize that this is a mystery this side of heaven.

But the question of "Did God create Adam knowing that he would sin?" is a completely different question. Whether or not Adam is real (I believe that he is), we recognize that Adam is archetypal of all humanity (in addition to being real, if you believe that). Adam represents all humanity and this is precisely the doctrine of federal headship: that all who are recognized under Adam are sinners, because Adam is a sinner. What your statement means, then, is that God created humanity knowing that humanity would sin. To me, this would be a spectacular contradiction of man's free will.

Remember that according to the Creation stories, when Adam and Eve were created they were "very good" and without sin. When God commands, His commands can be kept by sinless humans. This means that when God commanded them to not eat of the tree of knowledge He fully intended them to follow it. I can't believe that He would have said "Thou shalt not eat of it" and then, as it were, muttered under His breath "But hey, what does it matter, since you're going to screw up and eat it anyway you dirty little rotters ... "

You seem to be severly insulting God in these statements, you make it seem like he was suprised to find that Eve took the apple.

No one can ever go outside God's will, he knew we were going to send but he made us anyway. He may have wanted follower's who were not empty minded followers.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I am not insulting God. As I have said, it is one thing to recognize the tension between predestination and free will. It is another to assume that God, as it were, predestined Adam to damnation (or to sin, at the very least). This is the unspoken assumption behind the hydroplate theory of global Flood geology.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,604
3,093
✟216,055.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Ive always found interesting the suggestion that the boat shaped object in Turkey, near Dogubayazit is indeed the place the Ark rested....a new theory has come forth that while its true the form that looks like a boat [the size of the original ark] is made of mud dirt and rock, it could be true the actual wooden ship was dismantled long ago....and the form in the dirt is what remains....plus the fact the Bible didn't state the Ark landed on Mr Ararat but in the mountains of Ararat, or could it really be saying the hill country of Ararat? Dogubayazit would qualify for that....Well I know that many feel Ron Wyatt's work was maybe not all credible one can't argue however that isn't it strange that a form would be like this so close to the Ararat Mountain...10 miles away....?? Check out the pictures if you like

www.wyattmuseum.com/ - 94k -


Ark near Dogubayazit
 
Upvote 0

cougtpt1

Active Member
Jan 5, 2006
129
6
46
Washington
✟15,284.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
cougtpt1 said:
Interesting I have never thought of it that way. I am not completly sold on the hydroplat theory either, but I think it makes more sense then Evolution and Biogenisis. I do believe that GOd created us not to sin. But I also believe that if GOd created the layer of water then he could of made a way in which for it not to explode and flood. Not sure I am just babbeling. Let me research more and reformulate.

I am curious. "Biogenesis" means life produces life. What do you find nonsensical about that?

I don't agree that God created us not to sin. That would nullify free will.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I am not insulting God. As I have said, it is one thing to recognize the tension between predestination and free will. It is another to assume that God, as it were, predestined Adam to damnation (or to sin, at the very least). This is the unspoken assumption behind the hydroplate theory of global Flood geology.

We are all predestined for failure, adam was no exception to this rule either.(He started it after all) This does not nullify free will either, we still have free will but God already knows what we will do with that freedom.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cougtpt1

Active Member
Jan 5, 2006
129
6
46
Washington
✟15,284.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
gluadys said:
I am curious. "Biogenesis" means life produces life. What do you find nonsensical about that?

I don't agree that God created us not to sin. That would nullify free will.

What life started that cycle. I agree in biogenesis for after creation but as a creation theory it takes God out.

I should of said his intentions were for creation to be free from sin. If he would of created us not to sin we would not of. I do not believe that God makes mistakes. Free will is not a mistake.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
cougtpt1 said:
What life started that cycle. I agree in biogenesis for after creation but as a creation theory it takes God out.

Still curious. I don't see how it takes God out.

In fact, I don't even see how abiogenesis takes God out.

Are you sure you know the difference between biogenesis and abiogenesis?
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

cougtpt1

Active Member
Jan 5, 2006
129
6
46
Washington
✟15,284.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married




Biogenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Jump to: navigation, search
Biogenesis has two meanings. On one hand it is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which form into spiders. A second meaning was given by the French Jesuit priest, scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to mean the origin of life itself.

The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances. Although these circumstances still remain unknown.




I was using Biogenesis from the first definition of Life producing life. Meaning there has to be biological life to start another life and that means God did not start the life cycle. Going under the definition after that I agree.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jad123

Veteran
Dec 16, 2005
1,569
105
The moon
✟9,838.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Faith my friends, faith. Do not try to make sense of things you will never understand. Adam and Eve, Noah's Arc, etc.

I just saw a show on National Geographic that somehow scientifically proved via the Y Chromosome that all men came from 1 man. I do not understand half of what they talked about. But I do understand faith.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.