I figure this form is where Noahs ark comes up most so I will ask this question here. Do you Christians believe that Noahs Ark is scientific? What I mean by this do you believe that it could be possible for the story of the ark to be true without your God helping. So it is true without you saying, "Well God could have done it".
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Is Nohas Ark Scientific?
- Thread starter BornAgainAtheist
- Start date
Philip
Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity
- Jun 23, 2003
- 5,619
- 241
- 53
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
BornAgainAtheist said:
I don't think your question is well-posed. Given that the story of Noah explicilty states that God "helped", I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect.
Do you mean, "Do all Christians believe that there was a global flood that destroyed all life, save those on the ark?" If so, the answer is no. Not all Christians accept Noah's flood to be global.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
BornAgainAtheist said:
I agree with Phillip, the question is poorly phrased. It also has in it the implication that all Christians are creationists. That is WRONG! Creationists are a small (less than 25%) minority of Christianity.
The literal reading of Noah's Flood, particularly as a world-wide flood, has been falsified. No such world-wide Flood ever happened.
Upvote
0
lucaspa said:
Actually not true, it hasn't been falisified. Its assumed to have never happened by most of the scientific community. Its never actually been proven that it didn't happen though.
Upvote
0
Jase said:
Current creationist flood models have been disproved. Why? Because there exist geological features (among other things) that should not exist if their flood models are correct. But since those features exist, their flood models are falsified.
Upvote
0
Yep your right it hasnt been "proven" that it didnt happen.
However none of the current flood models work, let alone work well,
-----
A quick look at a couple flood models and the bumps they still need to get over.
1) Large flood model.
A global flood of amazing proportions. It covered over Mt Everest at over 5 miles high.
What it did:
- Killed all animals that werent on the ark.
- Buried and fossilized these animals.
- Created Oil and Coal by compressing plant and animal matter.
- Distorted all radiometric data.
- Dug the Grand Canyon and other canyons and formations.
- Provided dead animals for the meat eaters.
- Left trees and seeds to grow to revegetate the earth.
Problems:
- Requires 3 times the amount of water on the entire earth.
- Doesnt account for the organization of fossils.
- The pressure either wasnt enough to destroy trees and seeds or was enough to turn them into oil, but cant be both.
- No explanation of how it distorted different types of radiometric data by the same amount, making the data correlate.
- Very hard for the animals to get back to their original continents without a single one dying. Like to Australia.
- Doesn't explain why certain animals are found Only in certain places, like marsupials. Marsupials should be found elsewhere than just australia.
- Grand Canyon shows signs of a slow creation. The flood would have had less than 8 days to create the entire Grand Canyon.
2) Small Flood uplift Model
The world was flatter before the flood. It only contained hills (Gen 7:19) and so the world was flooded by a medium amount of water and at some point, the mountains grew to what they are now.
What it did:
- Killed all animals that werent on the ark.
- Buried and fossilized these animals.
- Distorted all radiometric data.
- Dug or created the grandcanyon and other canyons and formations.
- Raised the mountains at some point.
- Left Trees and vegetation to regrow.
- Left food to eat for the animals.
Problems:
- No solid biblical evidence for this uplift. As the uplift would have been more destructive than the flood, I would assume to hear a bit about it.
- The Hebrew word for hills (har) is the same as for Mountains.
- The energy needed to create this uplift would be very very great. Enough to possibly boil all the flood water and destroy many things.
- The heat and movement created from the uplifting should have defiantly left some tell tale signs in the rocks and mountains.
- Somehow left plants to revegetate the area and food to eat, after the uplift, which would have easily destroyed most, if not all vegetation and seeds and dead animal meat.
- Doesn't account for the organization of fossils.
- No explanation of how it distorted different types of radiometric data by the same amount, making the data correlate.
- Doesn't explain why certain animals are found Only in certain places, like marsupials. Marsupials should be found elsewhere than just australia.
3) Pangea Small Flood Uplift Model.
Similar to number 2, this model suggests that the world was flatter before the flood and that it was arranged into a super continent. The super continent split apart after the flood. Explaining how the animals arrive where they are today.
What it did:
- Killed all animals that weren't on the ark.
- Buried and fossilized these animals.
- Distorted all radiometric data.
- Dug or created the grandcanyon and other canyons and formations.
- Raised the mountains at some point.
- Separated the super continent into what we see today.
- Left Trees and vegetation to regrow.
- Left food to eat for the animals.
Problems:
- No solid biblical evidence for this uplift. As the uplift would have been more destructive than the flood, I would assume to hear a bit about it.
- The Hebrew word for hills (har) is the same as for Mountains.
- The energy needed to create this uplift would be very very great. Enough to possibly boil all the flood water and destroy many things.
- The heat and movement created from the uplifting should have defiantly left some tell tale signs in the rocks and mountains.
- Somehow left plants to revegetate the area and food to eat, after the uplift, which would have easily destroyed most, if not all vegetation and seeds and dead animal meat.
- The energy required to move the continents from one large continent, to where they are now, would have been so great it would have killed the animals that got off the ark.
- Doesn't account for the organization of fossils.
- No explanation of how it distorted different types of radiometric data by the same amount, making the data correlate.
A brief look at a few flood models and the just some of the problems associated with them.
-Ari
-------
However none of the current flood models work, let alone work well,
-----
A quick look at a couple flood models and the bumps they still need to get over.
1) Large flood model.
A global flood of amazing proportions. It covered over Mt Everest at over 5 miles high.
What it did:
- Killed all animals that werent on the ark.
- Buried and fossilized these animals.
- Created Oil and Coal by compressing plant and animal matter.
- Distorted all radiometric data.
- Dug the Grand Canyon and other canyons and formations.
- Provided dead animals for the meat eaters.
- Left trees and seeds to grow to revegetate the earth.
Problems:
- Requires 3 times the amount of water on the entire earth.
- Doesnt account for the organization of fossils.
- The pressure either wasnt enough to destroy trees and seeds or was enough to turn them into oil, but cant be both.
- No explanation of how it distorted different types of radiometric data by the same amount, making the data correlate.
- Very hard for the animals to get back to their original continents without a single one dying. Like to Australia.
- Doesn't explain why certain animals are found Only in certain places, like marsupials. Marsupials should be found elsewhere than just australia.
- Grand Canyon shows signs of a slow creation. The flood would have had less than 8 days to create the entire Grand Canyon.
2) Small Flood uplift Model
The world was flatter before the flood. It only contained hills (Gen 7:19) and so the world was flooded by a medium amount of water and at some point, the mountains grew to what they are now.
What it did:
- Killed all animals that werent on the ark.
- Buried and fossilized these animals.
- Distorted all radiometric data.
- Dug or created the grandcanyon and other canyons and formations.
- Raised the mountains at some point.
- Left Trees and vegetation to regrow.
- Left food to eat for the animals.
Problems:
- No solid biblical evidence for this uplift. As the uplift would have been more destructive than the flood, I would assume to hear a bit about it.
- The Hebrew word for hills (har) is the same as for Mountains.
- The energy needed to create this uplift would be very very great. Enough to possibly boil all the flood water and destroy many things.
- The heat and movement created from the uplifting should have defiantly left some tell tale signs in the rocks and mountains.
- Somehow left plants to revegetate the area and food to eat, after the uplift, which would have easily destroyed most, if not all vegetation and seeds and dead animal meat.
- Doesn't account for the organization of fossils.
- No explanation of how it distorted different types of radiometric data by the same amount, making the data correlate.
- Doesn't explain why certain animals are found Only in certain places, like marsupials. Marsupials should be found elsewhere than just australia.
3) Pangea Small Flood Uplift Model.
Similar to number 2, this model suggests that the world was flatter before the flood and that it was arranged into a super continent. The super continent split apart after the flood. Explaining how the animals arrive where they are today.
What it did:
- Killed all animals that weren't on the ark.
- Buried and fossilized these animals.
- Distorted all radiometric data.
- Dug or created the grandcanyon and other canyons and formations.
- Raised the mountains at some point.
- Separated the super continent into what we see today.
- Left Trees and vegetation to regrow.
- Left food to eat for the animals.
Problems:
- No solid biblical evidence for this uplift. As the uplift would have been more destructive than the flood, I would assume to hear a bit about it.
- The Hebrew word for hills (har) is the same as for Mountains.
- The energy needed to create this uplift would be very very great. Enough to possibly boil all the flood water and destroy many things.
- The heat and movement created from the uplifting should have defiantly left some tell tale signs in the rocks and mountains.
- Somehow left plants to revegetate the area and food to eat, after the uplift, which would have easily destroyed most, if not all vegetation and seeds and dead animal meat.
- The energy required to move the continents from one large continent, to where they are now, would have been so great it would have killed the animals that got off the ark.
- Doesn't account for the organization of fossils.
- No explanation of how it distorted different types of radiometric data by the same amount, making the data correlate.
A brief look at a few flood models and the just some of the problems associated with them.
-Ari
-------
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
BornAgainAtheist said:
The plan or the pattern for the Ark came from God. Perhaps Noah's family could have built the Ark on their own, without God's help. But they had to get the plan from God. Also, God is the one who brought the animals to the ark. If God did not show Noah how to built the Ark, he would not have been able to build the ark.
It is the same for us today with out lives. If God does not show us how to live, then we are pretty much going to make a mess out of things. We need to live by faith. To many people combine fear or feelings with their imagination and they end up ship wrecked. Even they can try to pray their way out of it, and that will not work. Because we have to live by faith in what God can do.
Upvote
0
Who said those geological features shouldn't exist? What are you basing this assumption on?Pete Harcoff said:
Upvote
0
Jase said:
Well, for example, most creationist flood models that I've seen require that the massive sediment deposits (sometimes miles deep) were laid down rapidly by the global flood (this is to explain the fossils trapped within). Ignoring the problem of where the sediment material came from, within these sediments are certain features to indicate they were not laid down in one quick deluge. Things like: angular unconformities, meteor impact craters, animal burrows, raindrop impressions, dried coprolites (dino poop), carefully preserved dino nests, etc.
These features can only be explained if the sediment layers were laid down slowly over time.
Upvote
0
Arikay-
The tallest mountain of the time was Mount Ararat, so Everest wasn't 6 miles high back then. Now what makes you think, with all the plate tectonics going on, that Everest couldn't rise to its present height from the Asian and European continental plates colliding, over 4000 years?
A volcano in Mexico rose to like 1000 feet in a week. Yet no catastrophic destruction of Mexico resulted from such an abrupt rising of the volcano, so what makes you think the other mountains would be any different? God created boundaries to hold the flood waters in Genesis, and the "fountains of the deep" gushed opened, so im sure there was pretty catastrophic geological events going on during the flood, but under so much water, what makes you think heavy continental collision would boil off all the water? Ever seen it happen?
The tallest mountain of the time was Mount Ararat, so Everest wasn't 6 miles high back then. Now what makes you think, with all the plate tectonics going on, that Everest couldn't rise to its present height from the Asian and European continental plates colliding, over 4000 years?
A volcano in Mexico rose to like 1000 feet in a week. Yet no catastrophic destruction of Mexico resulted from such an abrupt rising of the volcano, so what makes you think the other mountains would be any different? God created boundaries to hold the flood waters in Genesis, and the "fountains of the deep" gushed opened, so im sure there was pretty catastrophic geological events going on during the flood, but under so much water, what makes you think heavy continental collision would boil off all the water? Ever seen it happen?
Upvote
0
But fossilization requires abrubt and quick sediment covering to preserve the fossil. Slow, long processes of sediment being laid down, wouldn't be able to fossilize anything.Pete Harcoff said:
Upvote
0
Jase said:
You've missed the point. Sediments can be desposited rapidly. However, the amount of rapid sedimentation that creationist flood models require is falsified by certain features within those sediments that indicate they were not all laid down rapidly in one deluge.
Upvote
0
The tallest mountain of the time was Mount Ararat, so Everest wasn't 6 miles high back then.
Really? Evidence please.
Now what makes you think, with all the plate tectonics going on, that Everest couldn't rise to its present height from the Asian and European continental plates colliding, over 4000 years?
It wouldnt be over 4000 years, it would be over a very short period of time, as evidence shows everest rising very slowly, it must have made a huge leap sometime in the past for your ideas to be right.
A volcano in Mexico rose to like 1000 feet in a week. Yet no catastrophic destruction of Mexico resulted from such an abrupt rising of the volcano, so what makes you think the other mountains would be any different?
Source please.
One volcano rising only 1000 ft. I am talking about the rising and moving of Every mountain and continent on the earth.
but under so much water, what makes you think heavy continental collision would boil off all the water? Ever seen it happen?
Unfortunatly I dont have the calculations but I believe Frum did them, and they didnt come out well. I shall have to find them.
I would ask you, where do you get all that water?
Really? Evidence please.
Now what makes you think, with all the plate tectonics going on, that Everest couldn't rise to its present height from the Asian and European continental plates colliding, over 4000 years?
It wouldnt be over 4000 years, it would be over a very short period of time, as evidence shows everest rising very slowly, it must have made a huge leap sometime in the past for your ideas to be right.
A volcano in Mexico rose to like 1000 feet in a week. Yet no catastrophic destruction of Mexico resulted from such an abrupt rising of the volcano, so what makes you think the other mountains would be any different?
Source please.
One volcano rising only 1000 ft. I am talking about the rising and moving of Every mountain and continent on the earth.
but under so much water, what makes you think heavy continental collision would boil off all the water? Ever seen it happen?
Unfortunatly I dont have the calculations but I believe Frum did them, and they didnt come out well. I shall have to find them.
I would ask you, where do you get all that water?
Jase said:
Upvote
0
Actually, a 5 billion year old Earth requires extensively more sediment than the flood would have, yet there isn't that much sediment on the ocean floor or land. So where did all the sediment over 5 billion years go?Pete Harcoff said:
Upvote
0
Arikay said:
Look up Paracutin volcano.
If Ararat was the highest mountain, only mountains that are currently higher than Ararat needed to have massive increases. Ararat is currently 17,000 feet high. There aren't many mountains that are higher than that, maybe 5?
Underwater geysers and eruptions ("fountains of the great deep"), and months of non-stop rain.
Upvote
0
You still need to give me evidence that it was the tallest mountain.
Again where do you get the water.
Do you know how much water we have on the earth?
Again where do you get the water.
Do you know how much water we have on the earth?
Jase said:
Upvote
0
I told you where you get the water, the "fountains of the great deep", and the atmosphere. The ocean floor wasn't dry, the ocean was covered with lots and lots of water from the beginning of the Earth. The "fountains" and rain, just added to that amount, to raise it high enough to flood the Earth.Arikay said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
