Noah's Ark

Grumpy Old Man · Oct 5, 2011

golgotha61 said:
The flood was world wide and there is evidence in the fossils embedded in the sedimentary rock layers all over the earth. The fossil record is result of the world wide flood.

No it's not. Modern geological studies and archaeology disagrees with you. Argue with them. Their peer-reviewed studies are good enough for me.

golgotha61 said:
One needs to read the whole verse: Genesis 7:11b on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. There was also a storehouse of water under the earth's crust as given in this verse, so it was not only the rain that caused the flood. It was the water storehouse that was released by earthquakes combined with the deluge that caused the flood.

Yes, according to razeontherock I've been laughed "out of the room" because I don't believe in a storehouse of water under the earth's crust. It's just a shame that there is no evidence for this. So who should I believe; modern peer-reviewed science or the writings of uneducated bronze age desert dwellers?

golgotha61 said:
Evolution is a word that can have more than one connotation. For instance if I say my home has evolved into a thing of beauty, it simply means change since I have painted some rooms, replanted the lawn, and so on. The different "kinds" of animals on the ark branching off into species of the same "kind" is an example of natural selection and mutation acting on a population. There is no problem with this for a Christian. However the general theory of evolution in which molecules change into man, is not factual nor is it provable.

If you say that your house "evolved" then you are not using that word properly. Also, the theory of evolution is provable and factual. You clearly don't know what a scientific "theory" is.

From Theory | Define Theory at Dictionary.com
the·o·ry

   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

In regard to scientific theories, definition 1 above is the one you need to look at. When Christians think of the word "theory" they tend to think it as referring to just an unsubstantiated idea, a hypothesis. But a hypothesis and a theory are entirely different. A scientific theory is a law that has been observed and yields predictable results each time it is tested. Evolution is such a theory. It is testable, workable and provable. Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is a full-blown scientific theory. What scientists can't tell you (with the certainty of a scientific theory) is how life on this planet actually began; those are hypotheses (such as the first DNA came from a passing asteroid). The theory of evolution defines how modern species came to be, not where they came from originally. I urge you to read Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth" and you will learn more about evolution that Answers In Genesis could possibly tell you.

EDIT: Before this thread turns into some insanely long Flood debate I'll say this; I've looked for evidence myself, and I've read both sides of the argument. I am wholly satisfied that there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood (or local flood) that wiped out all life on this planet. The Flood story is a myth. Many Christians these days understand it to be a myth, so it's not just an atheist position. Why it was included in the Bible is anyone's guess, but the Bible is replete with fantastical stories that should not be interpreted literally by any thinking person.

mmcneely · Oct 5, 2011

razeontherock said:
Consider yourself laughed out of the room, due to having no idea what you're talking about! Water also came UP from beneath, and there is actually good physical evidence of this. (Just not on a global scale)

Consider yourself laughed out of the room. Do you know how hot it is under the crust of the earth? It's 932 to 1,652 °F. There is no way that water could even be there (boiling point of 212 °F) And even if there was water at a temp of 1000 °F it would melt the earth, ark, Noah, and all those furry little critters he stashed in a wooded boat.

razeontherock said:
Nonsense. A horse can evolve into a zebra. That doesn't mean my ancestor is a jellyfish.

But it doesn't mean it isn't. Like most creationists it appears that you have a very limited understanding of evolution.

mmcneely · Oct 5, 2011

razeontherock said:
There are not 2 creation accounts at the beginning of Genesis, one for "Creation" and the other for how things were "made?" Why do I need to "provide" proof? The Lord has provided, and it is there for all to behold. How have you managed to miss it? He specifically says "created and made." You have never pondered the difference?

Who brought up creation, or are you just trying to change the subject?

First, the words created and made are very close in definition... I don't need to provide proof because I guess we stopped doing that. Second, your wrong. Look up Genesis 1:25-27 and then Genesis 2:18-19 and then rectify that for me. I don't believe in the Lord, so therefore I don't believe that he has provided any proof.

mmcneely · Oct 5, 2011

razeontherock said:
First of all your quote says you're responding to me, but I didn't post those things. Anyway, Noah was picked because he was HUMAN. The rest of our species was NOT, neither were the animals they way he had created them anymore. That's what the story says, and for you to claim you studied Scripture for 17 years and got a degree in it just isn't born out by your comments here.

My bad... sometimes I get a little too happy with the copy/paste.
So, Noah was human... but the rest of humans weren't? I'm really confused here and have no idea where you are coming from. I know the bible says stuff about the sons of God and the daughters of men, and giants and all that other stuff. I don't see, however, where it says that Noah was the only human left. Your definitely going to have to explain your position on that.

razeontherock said:
Which means, they did NOT "get the idea for a flat earth" from that poetic phrase. It was, as you say, a popular idea at that time. Have you ever sailed over a continental shelf? It really can look like you're coming to the end of the of the world and will fall off, and / or like sea monsters are coming up at you, more than big enough to pull a whole ship down. Pretty freaky!

I'm in the Navy, on an aircraft carrier in fact. I've sailed over the equator, both tropics, and all over the Pacific. Never have I seen anything that your talking about. Yes, you can see the land just dropping, but bro... you got water stretching out for thousands of miles. Have you ever sailed over a continental shelf?

golgotha61 · Oct 5, 2011

No it's not. Modern geological studies and archaeology disagrees with you. Argue with them. Their peer-reviewed studies are good enough for me.

I have read studies from geologists and archeologists that say just the opposite. The ones I read however are those who believe in God's creation story. Basically, the difference is we all see the same evidence but with different world views and biases, we interpret what we see in accordance.

Yes, according to razeontherock I've been laughed "out of the room" because I don't believe in a storehouse of water under the earth's crust. It's just a shame that there is no evidence for this. So who should I believe; modern peer-reviewed science or the writings of uneducated bronze age desert dwellers?

Did you ever look at a scientist's rendering of what the earth will look like in a projected time line? How do they know it will look that way? They don't and the same logic applies to their rendering of what the earth looked like in the ancient past, they don't know, it is a guess. Another example of secular science's tendency to ridicule the Bible without the proper proof is when the science world accused biblical records of being in error concerning the Hittite people. Through archeological studies and discoveries, the Hittite people's records and artifacts were found. And more than that, it was this find that shed light on the construction of the biblical covenants. Biblical covenants were constructed in the same fashion as the suzerain vassal contracts of the Hittite people. So if scientists say "there is no evidence" of certain biblical events, I don't get concerned, they just have do their jobs better and look deeper. As I have followed the "scientists" over the years, I have learned one important thing: they get things wrong from time to time. God never gets things wrong and since the Bible is God breathed 2 Timothy 3:16 and God is true Romans 3:4 that makes the Bible infallible. The same can not be said for science.

If you say that your house "evolved" then you are not using that word properly. Also, the theory of evolution is provable and factual. You clearly don't know what a scientific "theory" is.

In regard to scientific theories, definition 1 above is the one you need to look at. When Christians think of the word "theory" they tend to think it as referring to just an unsubstantiated idea, a hypothesis. But a hypothesis and a theory are entirely different. A scientific theory is a law that has been observed and yields predictable results each time it is tested. Evolution is such a theory. It is testable, workable and provable. Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is a full-blown scientific theory. What scientists can't tell you (with the certainty of a scientific theory) is how life on this planet actually began; those are hypotheses (such as the first DNA came from a passing asteroid). The theory of evolution defines how modern species came to be, not where they came from originally. I urge you to read Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth" and you will learn more about evolution that Answers In Genesis could possibly tell you.

Wrong argument GOM.I posted in response to this: GOM; "Another argument against it is the huge number of species on the planet and how they all fit on the ark without killing each other. I've heard the "kinds" argument, and that fails too. If all animals were wiped out on earth, except a few "kinds" that got saved on the ark, then you are basically acknowledging some kind of evolution in which these flood survivor "kinds" evolved into the millions of species we know today. If you can believe in this "micro-evolution" (as Christians call it), then you cannot argue against evolution in its entirety without being a hypocrite." Now where do you see the word theory or hypothesis or any reference to those two words? The statement I posted to was the correction of your assertion that "natural selection"(species coming from different kinds of animals) is the same thing as the general theory of evolution. The point is,as I stated, natural selection is not the same as what the general theory of evolution postulates and that is the idea that single-celled organisms gained new genetic information over millions and billions of years, and eventually arrived at “higher life-forms” such as man.

EDIT: Before this thread turns into some insanely long Flood debate I'll say this; I've looked for evidence myself, and I've read both sides of the argument. I am wholly satisfied that there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood (or local flood) that wiped out all life on this planet. The Flood story is a myth. Many Christians these days understand it to be a myth, so it's not just an atheist position. Why it was included in the Bible is anyone's guess, but the Bible is replete with fantastical stories that should not be interpreted literally by any thinking person.

As I stated before, we look at the same evidence and we make different interpretations of that evidence based on our world views and biases. I tend to agree with Jay Gould's NOMA statement: Non-Overlapping Magisteria asserts that a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution. I have read some of the no-believing scientist's books and papers and that includes Dawkins and I have read the books and papers of the believing scientists and I choose the believers. As far as Dawkins goes, he is a God hater, now why would I believe someone who not only does not believe in God but also hates him. Do you actually think he is going to interpret anything he sees in favor of God?

Christ refers to Noah in Matthew chapter 24 which makes it clear that if the flood account and Noah were not as the Old Testament describes (an actual event and a real person) he would have told us. His usage of the Old Testament account points to its authenticity and reality. When Jesus was confronted by Satan, He retorted "it is written" (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10), thereby confirming the authority of the written Word. Now you can believe Dawkins or Christ, I choose Christ.

mmcneely · Oct 5, 2011

golgotha61 said:
I have read studies from geologists and archeologists that say just the opposite. The ones I read however are those who believe in God's creation story...

Christian "scientists" often find facts to fit their theories, whereas most secular scientists formulate theories to fit the facts.

golgotha61 said:
Did you ever look at a scientist's rendering of what the earth will look like in a projected time line? How do they know it will look that way? They don't and the same logic applies to their rendering of what the earth looked like in the ancient past, they don't know, it is a guess...

And yet, many Christians have the water canopy theory and other such nonsense like that.

golgotha61 said:
As I have followed the "scientists" over the years, I have learned one important thing: they get things wrong from time to time....

Something scientists will admit, however Christian science can never be wrong just because God said so.

golgotha61 said:
God never gets things wrong and since the Bible is God breathed 2 Timothy 3:16 and God is true Romans 3:4 that makes the Bible infallible.

God is perfect. We know he is perfect because the Bible says so. We know the Bible is always right because God is perfect.

I can fly without any assistance from mechanical devices. You know I can do this because I said so. You know that I'm not lying because I'm telling you I never lie.

See how ridiculous...

golgotha61 said:
Christ, I choose Christ.

And I choose you PIKACHU!!!

Amaranthine · Oct 5, 2011

Originally Posted by mmcneely

The Bible says things like "four corners of the earth" and junk like that. That's where they got the idea for a flat earth. Not to mention that was the popular idea at the time.

Magenta:
People still use that phrase, but it does not mean anyone thinks there are actual corners aside from the major directions of north/south and east/west. We also say such things as we saw something out of the corner of our eye but it in no way implies that our eyes are flat or square.

mmcneely · Oct 5, 2011

You are absolutely right Amaranthine, but in the ancient world people really did think that the earth was flat. They also thought the sun revolved around the earth, leeching would cure you of all diseases, and sacrificing your babies would somehow appease invisible gods. But we all know these things are not true.

Again, I would like to make the point that if God, in all of his perfection, knew that both modern and ancient mankind would struggle with the phrasing of the Bible, then why not make it more clear?

Amaranthine · Oct 5, 2011

mmcneely said:
You are absolutely right Amaranthine, but in the ancient world people really did think that the earth was flat. They also thought the sun revolved around the earth, leeching would cure you of all diseases, and sacrificing your babies would somehow appease invisible gods. But we all know these things are not true.

Again, I would like to make the point that if God, in all of his perfection, knew that both modern and ancient mankind would struggle with the phrasing of the Bible, then why not make it more clear?

Scripture is clear in that we are incapable of totally understanding God; let us compare it to expecting an earthworm to understand the complexity of humanity in all its aspects. Humans do not even know all there is to know about humans... how can we expect to know all about God Who is beyond measure? However, not being able to fully understand something does not mean we are totally incapable of knowing anything in part, nor does it mean we are incapable of having any kind of understanding. It just means we are limited. Ancient peoples were possibly more limited in their understanding since they did not know as much, but it is not an intellectual exercise to know God. Meaning, one does not need to know whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa to know God. In fact, it is immaterial.

Amaranthine · Oct 5, 2011

mmcneely said:
You are absolutely right Amaranthine, but in the ancient world people really did think that the earth was flat. They also thought the sun revolved around the earth...

Again, I would like to make the point that if God, in all of his perfection, knew that both modern and ancient mankind would struggle with the phrasing of the Bible, then why not make it more clear?

You may as well ask why we modern people still say things like the sun set or rose when we know mostly very well that it is the earth's movement and not the sun's that is causing the phenomena known as sunrise or sunset. Are we not still giving future generations the wrong impression to use such phrases?

drich0150 · Oct 5, 2011

mmcneely said:
You are absolutely right Amaranthine, but in the ancient world people really did think that the earth was flat. They also thought the sun revolved around the earth, leeching would cure you of all diseases, and sacrificing your babies would somehow appease invisible gods. But we all know these things are not true.

Again, I would like to make the point that if God, in all of his perfection, knew that both modern and ancient mankind would struggle with the phrasing of the Bible, then why not make it more clear?

Who would have a harder time adapting to the phrases?
Us or them?
Should God really forsake billions of people for these last few generations?
Wouldn't it be much more sensible to use phrases that both can relate to?

mmcneely · Oct 5, 2011

Amaranthine said:
Scripture is clear in that we are incapable of totally understanding God; let us compare it to expecting an earthworm to understand the complexity of humanity in all its aspects. Humans do not even know all there is to know about humans... how can we expect to know all about God Who is beyond measure? However, not being able to fully understand something does not mean we are totally incapable of knowing anything in part, nor does it mean we are incapable of having any kind of understanding. It just means we are limited. Ancient peoples were possibly more limited in their understanding since they did not know as much, but it is not an intellectual exercise to know God. Meaning, one does not need to know whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa to know God. In fact, it is immaterial.

I understand what your saying. I agree that humanity at this time doesn't know everything about one particular subject, and we may never know everything about it.

However, I believe that man has always used God to fill in the knowledge gap. For example, man used to believe that the sun was a god. We know know, through scientific study, that the sun is basically a giant ball of gas on fire. The ancient Norsemen used used to believe that a solar eclipse was their wolf god on the prowl, but we now know that isn't true. Gods and goddess used to be used to explain life, stars, the sea, fire, famine, war, and death. BUT as mankind's knowledge increases the need for a god to explain things decreases. This won't happen in my lifetime, or the lifetime of my son, but I do hope that it will happen one day. Not everything in religion is bad... but there are some things, in all religions, that are pure evil.

mmcneely · Oct 5, 2011

drich0150 said:
Who would have a harder time adapting to the phrases?
Us or them?
Should God really forsake billions of people for these last few generations?
Wouldn't it be much more sensible to use phrases that both can relate to?

If God were truly all powerful he would know the way to bridge the language barrier.

golgotha61 · Oct 5, 2011

mmcneely said:
You are absolutely right Amaranthine, but in the ancient world people really did think that the earth was flat. They also thought the sun revolved around the earth, leeching would cure you of all diseases, and sacrificing your babies would somehow appease invisible gods. But we all know these things are not true.

Again, I would like to make the point that if God, in all of his perfection, knew that both modern and ancient mankind would struggle with the phrasing of the Bible, then why not make it more clear?

God revealed Himself to the ancient world according to their world view which was the supernatural world view. He appealed to their understanding and knowledge in order to reach them as opposed to explaining to them how He created the world scientifically (a concept and word they had no knowledge of) like you would have had Him do. Many other atheists found His Bible to contain enough clarity to believe it true. It is not a matter of enough information or clarity, it is a matter of submission and desire to know God. I doubt your sincerity by the response to my last post.

mmcneely · Oct 5, 2011

golgotha61 said:
God revealed Himself to the ancient world according to their world view which was the supernatural world view. He appealed to their understanding and knowledge in order to reach them as opposed to explaining to them how He created the world scientifically (a concept and word they had no knowledge of) like you would have had Him do.

Then I suppose you could say that God intentionally reached out to people, and alienated the billions of people living today.

There were only 1 billion people living in the world in 1804, 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1987, 6 billion in 1999, and almost 7 billion in 2011. So from 10,000 BCE to 1804 there were less than one billion people alive at one time. At the time of Christ there was an estimated 35 million people alive. If God wanted to reach the most people with his words he would have been more likely to cater us as opposed to the people that lived 2000 years ago.

golgotha61 said:
Many other atheists found His Bible to contain enough clarity to believe it true. It is not a matter of enough information or clarity

And many Christians have found enough unclarity to believe it false. Your point is moot.

golgotha61 said:
it is a matter of submission and desire to know God. I doubt your sincerity by the response to my last post.

I don't want to know God... been down that road. I hope I didn't give off that impression.

Amaranthine · Oct 6, 2011

mmcneely said:
I understand what your saying. I agree that humanity at this time doesn't know everything about one particular subject, and we may never know everything about it.

However, I believe that man has always used God to fill in the knowledge gap. For example, man used to believe that the sun was a god. We know know, through scientific study, that the sun is basically a giant ball of gas on fire. The ancient Norsemen used used to believe that a solar eclipse was their wolf god on the prowl, but we now know that isn't true. Gods and goddess used to be used to explain life, stars, the sea, fire, famine, war, and death. BUT as mankind's knowledge increases the need for a god to explain things decreases. This won't happen in my lifetime, or the lifetime of my son, but I do hope that it will happen one day. Not everything in religion is bad... but there are some things, in all religions, that are pure evil.

Do you likewise believe that there are some things in all people that are pure evil?

Grumpy Old Man · Oct 6, 2011

mmcneely said:
If God were truly all powerful he would know the way to bridge the language barrier.

According to the Bible it was God who created the language barrier in the first place. God must really hate multilingual people.

drich0150 · Oct 6, 2011

mmcneely said:
If God were truly all powerful he would know the way to bridge the language barrier.

Like using one singular relevant term that everyone can completely understand?

mmcneely · Oct 6, 2011

Amaranthine said:
Do you likewise believe that there are some things in all people that are pure evil?

No, I believe that man is neutral. Man has potential for great good and great evil. It is the individual who decides who and what they become. People can be influenced toward certain actions, but in the end it is ultimately up to the individual to choose to steal, or to kill, or to help the old lady across the street, etc.

mmcneely · Oct 6, 2011

drich0150 said:
Like using one singular relevant term that everyone can completely understand?

Something like that, yeah.

Or, to take it a step further, he could have made the Bible less ambiguous. He could have come out and said that slavery is evil, don't do it. Instead he sets down rules and guidelines about how to properly beat your slave and how slaves should be good to their masters. He could have said that you don't need to sacrifice animals to worship me, all you need to do is pray and I'll hear it. Instead he commands sacrifices and savors the smells. Instead of saying that gender equality is awesome, he told women to shut up in church. Instead of ordering his people to murder countless men, women, and children he could have easily came down from heaven and told the enemy cities worship me. But he didn't.

It is for those, and many more, reasons that I believe the Bible to be just a book and God to be a creation of evil men to justify their wicked ways.

Noah's Ark

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

World Christian in Progress

Newbie

Magenta

Newbie

Magenta

Magenta

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

World Christian in Progress

Newbie

Magenta

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency