• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

did Noahs Ark really happen?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaApostle

Member
Feb 16, 2007
14
0
36
✟127.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

I have never seen the bible say the earth is flat, but I have read that^ in it.
 
Upvote 0

elsbeth

Out of my mind...back in 5 Minutes.
Oct 26, 2006
922
68
AZ
Visit site
✟23,929.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Does that mean

a. there is no evidence for it anywhere;

b. we have not found evidence in every place we look for evidence;

c. no evidence counts unless it explains every single question raised by those who don't believe in a literal genesis or simply; or

d. there is some evidence, but not a preponderance of evidence for a global flood?

I think that helps to clarify the nature of the debate.
The only evidence given that I have seen is not convincing from a scientific point of view. It usually involves many assumptions about "conditions before the flood" which are not backed up with evidence, but which are necessary to explain how the global flood could be literal.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does that mean

a. there is no evidence for it anywhere;

b. we have not found evidence in every place we look for evidence;
We are talking about evidence for a global flood. There is no reason we have to look everywhere before concluding there was no evidence for a global flood, just as even a quick search of a room will show there is no elephant there. Maybe if we check behind the sofa or under a cushion we might find evidence?

They have studies the strata all the way down to basement basalts in many area all over the world. If evidence of a global flood was going to turn up it would have.

c. no evidence counts unless it explains every single question raised by those who don't believe in a literal genesis or simply; or
Or rather that geologists don't find glaring problems with the claim.

d. there is some evidence, but not a preponderance of evidence for a global flood?
No.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but they don't just have to be buried. One of the dirty little secrets of fossilization is that burial in ordinary dirt doesn't fossilize, it rots. You need the right combination of stuff to fossilize. I need to find out more about this (what mineral(s), etc.). Of course, the global flood model answers this just fine in that the needed materials could be dissolved in the general flood.
Weren't we talking about termite mounds? They're built of dirt. The same dirt that covers them in a flood. There's nothing to rot! Of course since the dirt they're built with is 'glued' together with termite spit, it ends up quite a bit harder than sedementary deposits and erosion leaves the really cool picture Mallon posted.

You should just be aware that the term "fossil" does not apply exclusively to fossilized bones but to most evidence of previous life (including tracks, nests, termite mounds etc...)

Yeah, even termite mounds won't be preserved unless they're in pretty specific conditions... but luckily some were and show that these deposits were certainly not the result of a global flood.

It's great that you've put the effort into looking at what creationist experts say. Is there perhaps an article somewhere out there where a creationist goes through the geologic column at a particular site describing the features of each layer and how they were deposited (and how this fits with a global flood).

I'd also be interested in how you explain the many hundreds of meters of precambrian rock that holds fossils -- do you claim this much rock could have been generated in the 2k years before the flood or are you claiming that God created the Earth with lots of little fossils just for the heck of it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

I have never seen the bible say the earth is flat, but I have read that^ in it.
Is that what went wrong in Baghdad?
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟169,998.00
Faith
Baptist
Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus mentioned the flood so yes it was real, however i can't imagine it being worldwide....but it is possible with God.

The mere fact that Jesus used a story from the Old Testament as an illustration in His teaching of eschatology does not mean that He believed that the story itself is true. What Jesus taught about eschatology is true; the story of Noah and the flood that He used to illustrate that teaching is an epic tale. We know that for a fact because the story, as literally interpreted by young earth creationists, has been disproved by both the biological sciences and the earth sciences.

The really sad thing about all of this is that a reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable teenager can read Genesis 6-8 and know for a fact that he is NOT reading an accurate account of an historic event, causing him to seriously question the credibility of the Bible. When this teenager (and there are many million of them) is told by Christians that the scientists are wrong and the Bible is true, he knows that these Christians are terribly misinformed and their credibility as witnesses for Christ is destroyed.

Therefore it is very important for Christians to carefully and prayerfully study the Bible and learn the different types of literature that make up the Bible so that they can share with the teenage that Genesis 1-11 belongs to the genre of literature known as epic literature and that it is in the Bible, not to teach history as history is understood in the mind of modern Westerners, but as epic tales that teach spiritual truths.

How many millions of people are going to dismiss the message of the gospel as nonsense because of Christians who, by teaching young earth creationism and all the baggage that goes with it, make the Bible to appear to be a work of fiction, and because they dismiss the message of the gospel as nonsense, are going to spend eternity separated from God in hell?

What is more important—that people believe an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that destroys the credibility of the Bible causing them to reject the message of the gospel and be eternally lost, or that people believe the message of the gospel resulting in their salvation because the Bible is being taught to them in an accurate manner than does not destroy its credibility?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Does that mean

a. there is no evidence for it anywhere;

b. we have not found evidence in every place we look for evidence;

Yes, and yes. But as noted in an earlier post, we don't need to look everywhere. If there is no evidence of a flood in any place, there was not a global flood.



c. no evidence counts unless it explains every single question raised by those who don't believe in a literal genesis or simply; or

d. there is some evidence, but not a preponderance of evidence for a global flood?

No and no.

You should also have added

e. there is evidence which could not possibly exist if a global flood had occurred, especially a recent one.

Evidence of this sort is more than lack of evidence that there was a global flood. It is evidence that falsifies the premise of a global flood. And a good deal of such evidence exists. The termite mounds are one such example. Intact nests, burrows, aeolian deposits, salt deposits and many other geological features falsify a global flood.

There is even non-geological evidence against a global flood e.g. the lack of a universal genetic bottleneck in species supposedly reduced to not more than 14 individuals (and in most cases only two) during the year of the flood.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Yes, but they don't just have to be buried. One of the dirty little secrets of fossilization is that burial in ordinary dirt doesn't fossilize, it rots.
What's "ordinary dirt"? Please elaborate. Do the quartzite-rich siliciclastics of the Morrison Formation, in which the termite mounds are preserved, count as "ordinary dirt"? (Hint: read a bit about how "ordinary dirt" -- i.e. soil -- is formed. It is not precipitated out of water.)
Of course, the global flood model answers this just fine in that the needed materials could be dissolved in the general flood.
I just provided you with a butt-load of evidence that completely contradicts the global flood hypothesis, but you're still going about as though it still explains anything? Floods do not -- indeed, cannot -- deposit paleosols as we see in the Paleozoic/Mesozoic, pop! I'm sorry, but your "global flood model" provides no answers. In fact, it strikes me that the creationist past-time of trying to relegate Noah's Flood to increasingly smaller sections of the fossil record in testament to God's magic is yet another example of god-of-the-gap theology.
 
Upvote 0
S

Servant222

Guest
A few points for consideration:

1. While I am not aware of any scientific evidence for a world-wide flood, there is very convincing evidence of a massive regional flood in the Mediterranean Basin. Since this area was heavily populated at the time, and likely the cradle of civilization, this event would have killed large numbers of people and land-dwelling animals. This event is described in more detail in a number of scientific publications, and also at this Christian web site: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF12-97Morton.html

In a nutshell, northward movement and collision of the African Plate with the European plate at one point in the distant past closed off the Strait of Gibraltar, which then allowed the Mediterranean Ocean to basically dry up (more water evaporates from its surface than flows into it from rivers).

As plate movement continued, and downwarping of land at the present-day location of the Straits of Gibraltar occurred, Atlantic Ocean water started to flow back into the Mediterranean Basin. The initial flow would have quickly increased as rapid downcutting occurred, thus creating a massive flood that would have rapidly engulfed the entire Mediterranean Basin, and overwhelmed all living things there.

2. There would have been a time in the Earth's distant past, before plate tectonic activity pushed up crustal material to form mountains, when the Earth would have been much flatter, and floods would therefore have been able to inundate much more land (assuming, of course that ocean water was already present in sufficient quantities to cause flooding). Heck, since about three quarters of the Earth's surface is water, maybe there was a time before mountain building occurred when only a very small portion of the Earth was above sea level, and it would have been much easier to overwhelm the air breathing creatures, including man, that were crowded onto the limited land available.

3. The Biblical flood would only have wiped out land animals- all fish, etc. would presumably have been fine. There appears to be some ambiquity in the Genesis account since it states that the flood wiped out all living things, but doesn't explain whether fish and other sea creatures died. It also doesn't explain why the presumably thousands of fishermen and others that would have been out in the ocean with their boats died, or where the second dove that Noah sent out got the olive branch that it returned with.

I have no doubt about the authenticity of the Bible, and therefore no doubt that God created some sort of massive catastrophic flooding event that wiped out a good part, or maybe even all, of mankind, and a bunch of other air breathing creatures. It is intriguing that the story of a world-wide flood is mentioned in other religions and in the legends of some First Nations people.

However, beyond these two truths, I don't pretend to understand the literal story of the Genesis flood, and have to assume that we are not yet to the point where we can correctly interpret what it says in the Bible about this event.

As little as about 100 years ago, the concept of a massive Mediterranean flood, and the mechanism of plate tectonics that created it, would have been considered preposterous. Now, though our past assumptions have been shattered by newly-discovered knowledge, and what was once considered a myth is now accepted to be reality. Science has had a habit of doing that to us numerous times in the past- forcing us to re-examine our interpretations, but, when a better explanation is established, still keeping the basic tenements of our Faith intact, or even strengthening them. I think we need to learn something from that.

So I view the story of the Biblical flood with interest, but have no doubt that our present interpretation of that event is not likely correct.

It will be interesting one day to have God explain it all to me.
 
Upvote 0

Rut

All creation points to the almighty Creator.
Oct 31, 2005
43,794
761
Norway
✟71,960.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
If you are saying"Why did a bunch of animals die at the same time and really quickly" , first of all, what time eriod are you talking about, where is the evidence of this happening, what did the people who found this have to say about it?

Provide any links to anything that said that and I will be thankful. Plus I will read it.

Sayin'

I`m suprised that you haven`t learn that in school.We have leraned it here in Norway.I have seen this kind of animals too when I was in Russia.I shall see if I can find any links but I`m not sure if I can post it here.I post one links one time and then the mod take it away.That`s why I`m careful to do that.
You can maybe read about one of the animals for yourself It`s the mammoths
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
Yet, it makes sense in light of the Bible.
It only makes sense if you ignore reality, shut your eyes and say "la la la la" if anyone tries to tell you that your reading of the Bible as if it were some kind of science text book might actually be false.

But that would hurt too much, wouldn't it?

There is no truth in a literal reading of the Flood myth. It's a lie.
 
Upvote 0

mick24458

Regular Member
Nov 12, 2006
198
12
✟22,986.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did it happen? Of course it did!!! Those who say otherwise, have no proof to the contrary, only theories and speculation. Admittedly, we who believe it did happen really only have the Scriptures to believe that it did. Which one are you going to trust???????
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breetai
Upvote 0

Breetai

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...
Dec 3, 2003
13,939
396
✟31,320.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There is no truth in a literal reading of the Flood myth. It's a lie.
Might I add that all the evidence is against anyone coming back to life, after having been dead a couple of days?

Unlike the theories surrounding millions and millions of years of evolution, you can test death again and again and again. The evidence for not rising from death is much stronger than the evidence used to hypothesize millions of years of evolution. It's been scientifically proven, through millions of 'experiments', that you cannot rise from death. Therefore, the Bible must be wrong in this case. There must is no truth in a literal reading in the resurrection myth. It has to be a lie.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Might I add that all the evidence is against anyone coming back to life, after having been dead a couple of days?

Unlike the theories surrounding millions and millions of years of evolution, you can test death again and again and again. The evidence for not rising from death is much stronger than the evidence used to hypothesize millions of years of evolution. It's been scientifically proven, through millions of 'experiments', that you cannot rise from death. Therefore, the Bible must be wrong in this case. There must is no truth in a literal reading in the resurrection myth. It has to be a lie.
I'm sure you're aware of the contradiction here -- in fact we do NOT have physical evidence that Jesus was not resurrected. Remember, science deals with physical causes so while science might conclude that living organisms that die do not generally come back to life, because it is science, the conclusion is actually, "living organisms that die do not generally come back to life due to physical causes."

Because the causes of any resurrection are not repeatable, they cannot be investigated via science.

Of course, if we had Jesus' body and could show that he most certainly WAS dead, we could disprove the resurrection in a heartbeat. This is actually what happened with regards to a global flood -- we have all the evidence (preserved in the ground) and it shows that there was no global flood. Thus an interpretation of scriptures that takes those passages as historical must be in error.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Proving Jesus didn't rise from the dead would require running tests on his dead body, something even the Jewish authorities weren't able to lay their hand on. Science can tell you that dead bodies don't usually get better and start walking around again, but people in the first century already knew that. The claim of Christianity is not that an ordinary human corpse resuscitated by itself, but the Jesus of Nazareth the son of God rose from the dead by the mighty power of God. That is not something science could ever comment on.

On the other hand there is plenty of evidence we can analyse that shows evolution at work, comparative anatomy, DNA, transitional fossils. There are also multiple methods to show the age of the earth and the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course, if we had Jesus' body and could show that he most certainly WAS dead, we could disprove the resurrection in a heartbeat. This is actually what happened with regards to a global flood -- we have all the evidence (preserved in the ground) and it shows that there was no global flood. Thus an interpretation of scriptures that takes those passages as historical must be in error.
SNAP
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I`m suprised that you haven`t learn that in school.We have leraned it here in Norway.I have seen this kind of animals too when I was in Russia.I shall see if I can find any links but I`m not sure if I can post it here.I post one links one time and then the mod take it away.That`s why I`m careful to do that.
You can maybe read about one of the animals for yourself It`s the mammoths
Rut, I think your insistance that "sudden-death" fossils necessarily indicate a global flood is misplaced. Moreoever, I think you will find other YECs here, like laptoppop, who will agree with me (since, according to "global flood models", the Flood wasn't necessarily violent. Nor are mammoths found in Paleozoic/Mesozoic rocks, which YECs ).
I also don't think you are aware that every living geologist accepts catastrophy in the fossil record (i.e. not necessarilly gradualism), and are more than willing to accept localized, catastrophic events. I can point to the sedimentary record and show you examples of landslides, dune collapses, turbidites, river swells, asteroid impacts, etc. All these things could kill animals with a bolus of food still in their mouth. Geologists reject the global Flood account because there is simply no evidence for it (and much evidence against it, in most cases).
 
Upvote 0

Breetai

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...
Dec 3, 2003
13,939
396
✟31,320.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
This is actually what happened with regards to a global flood -- we have all the evidence (preserved in the ground) and it shows that there was no global flood.
Many disagree with your interpretation of the evidence here.
 
Upvote 0
S

Servant222

Guest
What is more important—that people believe an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that destroys the credibility of the Bible causing them to reject the message of the gospel and be eternally lost, or that people believe the message of the gospel resulting in their salvation because the Bible is being taught to them in an accurate manner than does not destroy its credibility?

I agree with this concern- to hold rigidly to an interpretation of the Bible that puts the credibility of our faith at risk, and not even on a matter that directly bears on salvation, is folly.

Better to err and admit that there are some parts of the Bible that we still don't understand, than to dogmatically hold to a position that goes against all evidence- like believing in an earth-centered Universe.

I wouldn't put the notion of a Biblical flood into the category of being totally disproven, but it certainly does not have any independent evidence to support it, and there are some real problems with our present interpretation of Genesis 6 to 8 (see my post #49 above).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.