Noah's Ark - Literal or what? [Archive]

TexasSky

07-12-2005, 10:51 AM

I think that there is a reason the details of the ark are recorded, ergo, I think it must be literal. I know the bible, at times, records things "generally," but whenever it has gotten specific, history has proven it correct. (The temple for instance.)

Therefore, I believe that Ark was quite literally the way the bible says. As to "2 animals" and "7 animals" and the size of the ark. I have never seen any full accounting of what animals existed in those days, their size, etc. I don't see that the bible said the creatures had to be "full grown" either. I also don't think it necessarily says, "two of every breed of....". So, I assume if it says, "two dogs," it meant two healthy puppies, not "2 full grown grey hounds, and 2 full grown shelties, and 2 full grown bull dogs." Two chickens could be 2 chicks, or even 2 fertilized eggs.

I've also really, really looked at the detractor's stories and I have a lot of problems with them. First - they seem, to me, to contradict each other. They tell us if the polar ice-caps melt we'll all drown, but when they talk about the flood, they only talk about the rain falling. They don't talk about how, as the water on the continents rises the ice caps will begin to melt or how the ocean level rising above sea level will merge with the rain water in the rivers. They just skip over all those scientific parts.

As to how the animals scatter. I take it for granted that a God who can cause the flooding of the entire earth, and who can lead animals to the one man He wants to save them, and can protect that man from a massive flood - can take care of scattering His creations.

I also see "ways of nature" that can take care of it. Again - who says we're talking about full grown anythings? We know that a lot of animals spread because of human transportation. We know that tornados and hurricanes can pick up and drop living creatures in locations miles away. We know the contienents were connected at various times in the history of the world. We know that large birds of prey sometimes pick up the young of other species and carry them far away.

All of these things are just "non issues" to me.

The most astounding, hard to believe miracle of the whole bible is resurrection. Yet, I ~know~, literally, ~know~ that my redeemer liveth. As one song says, "He walks with me and He talks with me." I'm more certain of Christ living today than I am that any of you exist.

If God can perform the miracle of Christ - Noah's Ark is a piece of cake for Him.

BobRyan

07-12-2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Monergist:
There was a literal man named Noah who received and obeyed a literal order from God to build a literal boat called an ark to save himself, his family, and at least a pair of each kind of animal from a literal judgment that God was pouring out on literally the whole world in the form of a literal flood...

...Just like Genesis records. ;) Amen!

This is the surprise to many today - the idea that Genesis 1-2 is "true" AND that Genesis 6-8 is "true".

They "sometimes" can be convinced that Genesis 3 is true (the fall of man) but they are "Challenged" as to how that is "literally true" if Genesis 1-2 is not actually true.

Oh yes - and Genesis 4-5 is also "true" long lived generations of mankind pre-flood!

In Christ,

Bob

ChurchBoy

07-12-2005, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Chad,

I read about it in several different magazines years ago including Reader's Digest, and some science magazine like "Scientific American."

I can't recall who found it, but I do remember they weren't looking for it when they found it. It was kind of "stumbled on by accident," then the scientists went back with satellites. Turkey closed it though. They won't let people in to look at it.

It is supposedly now petrified and sitting on top of a mountain mostly buried in snow. Noah's Ark has NOT been found. We are not going to bring up Ron Wyatt are we? Several expeditions to Mt. Ararat have been conducted and have found nothing as of yet. If the Ark were truely dicoverd it would be the greatest archeological discovery in human history! It would be all over the news, probably with 24 hours news coverage for days.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0419arkdiscovery.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp

chadman

07-12-2005, 12:37 PM

Noah's Ark has NOT been found. We are not going to bring up Ron Wyatt are we? Several expeditions to Mt. Ararat have been conducted and have found nothing as of yet. If the Ark were truely dicoverd it would be the greatest archeological discovery in human history! It would be all over the news, probably with 24 hours news coverage for days.
How true that statement is. It would be the greatest discovery of all time at this point in history. I wish these hoaxters would give it up.

TexasSky said:

As to how the animals scatter. I take it for granted that a God who can cause the flooding of the entire earth, and who can lead animals to the one man He wants to save them, and can protect that man from a massive flood - can take care of scattering His creations.
Yes, I take it for granted God can do anything He pleases, but we cannot ignore what we know and see. The question is not one of whether God can do something, but rather, is the story related to us, literal in every detail, or even meant to be. As devil's advocate, anyone of us will admit that we don't take everything literally in the Bible.

I also see "ways of nature" that can take care of it. Again - who says we're talking about full grown anythings? We know that a lot of animals spread because of human transportation. We know that tornados and hurricanes can pick up and drop living creatures in locations miles away. We know the contienents were connected at various times in the history of the world. We know that large birds of prey sometimes pick up the young of other species and carry them far away.
Not sure how we spread all those animals over the entire earth, continent by continent. Tonadoes and Hurricanes? C'mon man, think about that one a while. How long is an animal going to stay alive in a tornado that is traveling at 50 mph, not to mention over the ocean to cross a contient...this one is a little out of the question.

As to continents being connected at one time. Good point, but based on our Fundamentist chronology, which ignores a lot of modern science, how do we age that to match our timeline of the flood. It does not match the metrics of current continental movement on a timeline with the dating of Noah's ark. In other words, at the rate the continents are moving apart today, it dates thing older than we date Noah's Ark. By a LOT. I am not sure.

All of these things are just "non issues" to me.

The most astounding, hard to believe miracle of the whole bible is resurrection. Yet, I ~know~, literally, ~know~ that my redeemer liveth. As one song says, "He walks with me and He talks with me." I'm more certain of Christ living today than I am that any of you exist.

If God can perform the miracle of Christ - Noah's Ark is a piece of cake for Him.
Non issues? Then why believe any of them?

Of course Christ is ressurected. You make it seem as if the story of Noah's Ark was somehow not literal, that that would diminish the truth of the Gospel, or invalidate the Bible. No way man. At most, it would only imply that the literary style of the Bible was not always literal.

prophecynut

07-12-2005, 01:28 PM

Ron Wyatt is for real, he is not a fraud. Recently his wife Mary published the book 'The Boat-Shaped Object on Doomsday Mountain,' which may be bought from their web site www.wyattmuseum.com (http://www.wyattmuseum.com) I have the book, it gives the history of Ron's search for Noah's Ark, it is factual and truthful, Ron absolutely did locate the Ark.

Another book for the skeptics is 'The Exodus Case' by Dr. Lennart Moller that validates Ron Wyatt's discovery of the Exodus route, where the Hebrews camped for forty years, the rock Moses struck to obtain water, the Red Sea crossing, Mount Sinai and the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. The book is expensive but well worth it. You will not be able to deny Ron Wyatt anymore if you had this book, his works are well documented.

http://www.leocordia.com/exodus/

The most significant discovery was the Ark of the Covenant by Ron Wyatt, it definitely will be brought up from its chamber underneath the Temple Mount and placed in the third temple. I strongly anticipate traveling to Israel to locate the tunnel that leads to the chamber and participating in its recovery.

[ July 12, 2005, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: prophecynut ]

chadman

07-12-2005, 02:26 PM

Well I did check out some of his claims, and it appears Christians that have checked him out are left pretty dissapointed.

I checked the website posted earlier, and found this:

Back in 1992, Wyatt’s ‘Noah’s Ark’ claim (see This is not the Ark of Noah) was subject to a thorough investigative exposé in this magazine (see online version).5 The 13-page report told of how this ministry had checked the claims, even ringing the lab staff that had done the analyses, for instance. Sadly, though we would have been delighted if this really were the Ark, we found almost all the specific claims to be untrue and/or misleading.

The results of detailed analysis of this site, including mapping, magnetometer surveys,6 drill-core sampling, and more, enable any geologist to be able to diagnose with certainty the exact nature of this geological object.7

The ‘discoverers’ have since produced a rebuttal, convincing only to those who have misunderstood or not carefully read our article. They quote as support the well-known creationist scientist Dr John Baumgardner (right), but in fact he long ago decided that this ‘find’ was a geological formation. They also appeal to the late marine engineer David Fasold. Fasold, who had repeatedly rejected biblical authority, did originally think it was a boat, but towards his life’s end co-authored an article in a geology journal supporting its true nature.8

When questioned about Baumgardner’s retraction, Wyatt has claimed that it was made for fear of losing his job. Yet Baumgardner has been known as a ‘full-on’ creationist in his job and community for years, and had no difficulty agreeing to our publishing an interview with him in 1997. At that time, he told us that Wyatt’s claims about himself were as ‘bogus’ as Wyatt’s claims about the ‘Ark site.’9
7. The formation is even crosscut by an obvious layer of fossil-bearing (Flood deposited) limestone; this alone eliminates any possibility that it is what Wyatt et al claim. The Wyatt claims appear to have misled some sincere Christians into repeating them. Return to text.
8. D.F. Fasold, ‘Bogus “Noah’s Ark” from Turkey exposed as a common geologic structure,’ Journal of Geoscience Education 44:439–444, 1996. Return to text.
9 See interview with Dr John Baumgardner, Creation 19(3):40–43, 1997. Several other creationists and organizations have also been vilified, subtly or otherwise, after speaking the truth about this matter. Return to text.

TexasSky

07-12-2005, 02:32 PM

George Hagopian has first hand knowledge of the ark. As a young child, he walked along the Ark's planks with his uncle. The following excerpt is from Charles Berlitz, The Lost Ship of Noah , which details the fascinating story.

"He was eight years old, Hagopian said, and it was in the year 1908 [note: another account says the year was 1905 and Hagopian was 10 years old] when his uncle took him up Ararat, past Ahora Gorge, passing the grave of St. Jacob on the way. As the mountain grew more precipitous his uncle carried him on his shoulders until they came to something that looked like a great ship located on a rock ledge over a cliff and partially covered by snow. It had flat openings like windows along the top and a hole in the roof. Hagopian had first thought it was a house made of stone but when his uncle showed him the outline of planks and told him it was made of wood he realized it was the Ark, just like the other people had described it to him. His uncle boosted him up from a rock pile to reach the Ark roof telling him not to be afraid, "because it is a holy ship ..." (and) "the animals and people are not here now. They have all gone away." Hagopian climbed on the roof and knelt down and kissed the surface of the roof which was flat and easy to stand on.
-----
Lieutenant Roskovitsky
In the summer of 1916, during the thaw, Lieutenant Roskovitsky of the Russian Imperial Air Force noticed a half-frozen lake on the shelf or gully on the side of Mount Ararat while flying high-altitude test to observe Turkish troop movements. As they flew nearer to the lake, he saw a half submerged hull of some sort of ship. He noticed two stubby masts and a flat catwalk along the top.
----------------------
From the New Eden Magazine, California, 1939): "We flew down as close as safety permitted and took several circles around it. We were surprised when we got close to it, at the immense size of the thing, for it was as long as a city block, and would compare very favorably in size to the modern battleships of today. It was grounded on the shore of the lake, with one-fourth underwater. It had been partly dismantled on one side near the front, and on the other side there was a great doorway nearly twenty feet square, but with the other door gone. This seemed quite out of proportion, as even today, ships seldom have doors even half that large ...."

He then told his captain who wanted to be flown over the site. The captain stated that it was Noah's Ark and explained the reason for its survival as "frozen up for nine of ten months of the year, it couldn't rot, and has been in cold storage, as it were, all this time .... "

The captain forwarded a report back to St. Petersburg resulting in orders from the Tsar to send two engineering companies up the mountain. One group of fifty men attacked one side, and the other group of one hundred men attacked the big mountain from the other side. Two weeks of hard work were required to chop out a trail along the cliffs of the lower part of the mountain, and it was nearly a month before the Ark was reached. Complete measurements were taken, and plans drawn of it, as well as many photographs, all of which were sent to the Tsar.

From the magazine article: "The Ark was found to contain hundreds of small rooms, and some rooms that were very large, with high ceilings. The unusually large rooms had a fence of great timbers across them, some of which were two feet thick, as if designed to hold beasts ten times the size of elephants. Other rooms were also lined with tiers of cages, somewhat like what one sees today at a poultry show, only instead of chicken wire, they had rows of small iron bars along the front. Everything was heavily painted with a waxlike paint resembling shellac, and the workmanship of the craft showed all the signs of a high type of civilization. The wood used throughout was oleander, which belongs to the cypress family and never rots; which of course, coupled with the fact of its being frozen most of the time, accounted for its perfect preservation."
--------------------
Captain Schwinghammer
In late spring or summer of 1960, pilot from the 428th Tactical Flight Squadron based in Adana, Turkey were on routine observation flights.
Captain Gregor Schwinghammer and another pilot had flown around Mount Ararat with a Turkish liaison officer when they saw "an enormous boxcar or rectangular barge visible in a gully high on the mountain." He states that "... the Ark we saw was about 4000 feet from the top (13000 feet altitude) on the southeast slope, perhaps four o'clock from due north."
-------------------
Wyatt/Fasold
In 1959, the Turkish Air Force was conducting an aerial survey of the Ararat region. Seventeen miles south of Mount Ararat's peak, on the lower slopes (6300 feet), a photograph was taken by Lieutenant A. Kurtis revealing the outline of a ship. Its dimensions were later found to be 500 by 150 feet and its protruding height, 45 feet. (Biblical dimensions are 450 by 75 feet and 45 feet in height.)
In 1960, dynamite charges were placed on the wall of the Buried Ark and exploded by the Turkish army. No inner chambers or clear evidence of beams were discovered. Bits of decayed wood were found in the remaining debris.

In 1984, Ron Wyatt smuggled 8.6 pounds of stones, sand and earth from the Buried Ark to New York for exhibition. The Turkish government was outraged over his lack of consideration for their national customs and regulations. This incident interrupted other expeditions on the mountain.

In 1985, Wyatt returned with David Fasold and CAT scanned the Buried Ark. They found traceable lines of iron which crisscrossed the mound at equal intervals. Ron Wyatt was immediately convinced that the Ark had been found.

------------------
Dr. Arslan says, "I believe enough people have seen it (the Ark) within the last fifty or sixty years to establish the truth of the legend. It will probably be found right where it is supposed to be - between 14,000 and 15,000 feet up, following the right-hand side of Ahora Gorge right up to the front of Parrot Glacier. There is a huge flat plateau there, as big as a football field, a hundred yards deep in ice. This is where, during melting periods, the Ark has been seen and pieces of it have been taken away, and this is where the remains of the Ark will be found."

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/317nark.jpg

chadman

07-12-2005, 02:45 PM

Does it happen to bug anyone other than me, that a Christian Organization spent time and dollars to corraborate Wyatt's evidence and found it false and misleading? Why would Christians not be terribly happy to embrace something like this discovery?

I think becuase the minute we all did, the world would scrutinize it, and find out the facts, and we Christians would be embarrased once again on this topic.

chadman

07-12-2005, 02:48 PM

I would personally love nothing more than someone to find and validate Noah's Ark with real proof.

However, having grown up reading Chick publications (tracts and magazines) like encyclopedias, my world was rocked when I started checking facts out. I found, people can and will write anything they please for their own purposes. And many more will believe whatever they read.

TexasSky

07-12-2005, 02:51 PM

Chad,

I used a picture from Wyatt, but the information I posted isn't from Wyatt.

ChurchBoy

07-12-2005, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by prophecynut:
Ron Wyatt is for real, he is not a fraud. Recently his wife Mary published the book 'The Boat-Shaped Object on Doomsday Mountain,' which may be bought from their web site www.wyattmuseum.com (http://www.wyattmuseum.com) I have the book, it gives the history of Ron's search for Noah's Ark, it is factual and truthful, Ron absolutely did locate the Ark.

Another book for the skeptics is 'The Exodus Case' by Dr. Lennart Moller that validates Ron Wyatt's discovery of the Exodus route, where the Hebrews camped for forty years, the rock Moses struck to obtain water, the Red Sea crossing, Mount Sinai and the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. The book is expensive but well worth it. You will not be able to deny Ron Wyatt anymore if you had this book, his works are well documented.

http://www.leocordia.com/exodus/

The most significant discovery was the Ark of the Covenant by Ron Wyatt, it definitely will be brought up from its chamber underneath the Temple Mount and placed in the third temple. I strongly anticipate traveling to Israel to locate the tunnel that leads to the chamber and participating in its recovery. The Ark of the Covenant has NOT been found. Wyatt's claims are bogus:

From AIG:

The Ark of the Covenant—could it even be found?
The Wyatt/Gray ‘track record’ of false claims on other subjects (see main text) makes it easy to dismiss these current claimants to finding the Ark of the Covenant, along with all their ‘reasons’ as to why no one is conveniently allowed to access any hard evidence.

The Ark was probably lost or destroyed when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and destroyed the temple. If Jews had hidden it, the Ark would surely have been used in the Second Temple, which Josephus says it wasn’t (Jewish Wars 5:219).

An additional reason for skepticism, which would apply to any future such claims by others, relates to God’s dealings in fulfilling the Old Covenant system via the New Covenant in Christ. God forcefully demonstrated this with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, predicted by Christ four decades earlier (Matthew 24). There were to be no more animal sacrifices once His designated ‘Passover Lamb,’ the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:29, Rev. 13:8), had been slain ‘once for all’ (Hebrews 10:10).

Jeremiah 3:16 strongly suggests that there is to be no reappearance of the Ark of the Covenant, either: ‘And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.’Ron Wyatt has claimed, among other things, to have discovered the following:

1. The Ark of the Covenant.

2. Chariot wheels and other relics from Pharaoh’s drowned army at the bottom of the Red Sea.

3. The real Sodom and Gomorrah, with building outlines still standing as piles of sulfur-fried ash.

4. Noah’s Ark.

5. The real Mt Sinai

6. The rock at Horeb.

7. The true site of Korah’s earthquake.

8. Noah’s house, and the graves of Mr and Mrs Noah, together with millions worth of her jewelry (allegedly then stolen from Wyatt).

9. The real site of the crucifixion, apparently above the cave containing the Ark of the Covenant, so that Christ’s blood would drip on to the Mercy Seat.

10. An actual sample of Christ’s blood, with chromosomes allegedly still visible under the microscope, showing that there was no human father. Placed in growth medium, the cells began dividing, says Ron.

11. The tablets of the Ten Commandments, bound by golden hinges.

Now if even half of these claims were true it would make Ron Wyatt an extraordinary man for sure.

source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/ark.asp#Sidebar3

TexasSky

07-12-2005, 03:01 PM

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-2.html

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=208686

http://www.imagingnotes.com/novdec00/feat3.htm#chronicle

http://s8int.com/images/araratsat2.jpg

http://www.eomonline.com/Common/Archives/1998feb/98feb_anthony.html

Rachel

07-12-2005, 03:36 PM

TexasSky

07-12-2005, 03:46 PM

Someone wrote: "but we cannot ignore what we know and see. "

Every single Christian does that every single day. Faith requires ignoring "what we see," and realizing that we really don't know.

Think about it. What scientific evidence is there to support that a man who died on the cross, stayed in a tomb 3 days, actually returned in 3 days, having conquered death?

You believe in Christ don't you?
Why can't you believe in the miracles God performed?

When did you decide God had to fit into man's defintion of "how the world works?"

prophecynut

07-12-2005, 04:04 PM

Chadman, if you buy either of the books, you will become a believer.

Another site on the ark:

http://www.anchorstone.com/content/view/181/62/

In 1977 Ron Wyatt took his first trip to eastern Turkey to pursue an interest in ancient history, archaeology and the Bible. Little did he realize that this would be the first of over 100 trips to the Middle East or that he would become the discoverer of some of the most sought after Biblical treasures of all time.

Before he died in 1999, Ron would be credited by many with finding the remains of Noah's Ark, the ashen ruins of Sodom & Gomorrah, the spot where the Red Sea Crossing took place, the real Mt. Sinai (not in Egypt but in Saudi Arabia), the location of the crucifixion site of Jesus Christ and the hiding place of the Ark of the Covenant.

The Anchor Stone web site was one of the first established (April 1997) to feature these Discoveries. It is the oldest remaining web site that contains virtually all of the material and newsletters he released during his lifetime. From the beginning it was started with Ron's full approval and cooperation. We believe it contains the best and most accurate information on his work. Ron said in one of the last talks he gave before he died, "Now, if you haven't figured out by now that this isn't Ron Wyatt's 'stuff', I'll make it real clear to you that this is GOD's 'stuff'!!!....These things are ours to use, folks." It is our desire here at Anchor Stone International to continue that same spirit, "This is God's stuff and it's ours to use."

We believe that these discoveries prove the Bible to be true and that it can be trusted. When God says something happened in the past and we find evidence that it did, it strengthens our faith and gives us hope for the things that He says will happen in the future. Before God intervenes in history again with the greastest event of all, the second coming of Jesus, he will give every one in the world the opportunity to know the truth. These discoveries are not to be worshipped but are to be used to lead people to our Creator and Redeemer. They are to be used to make us rejoice and praise God more and to be a testimony for God to the world.

We are convinced that the discoveries that we are sharing with you and the world have been miraculously preserved and will play a big part in preparing the world for God's final intervention. They are having a major impact on many people's lives bringing about revival and reformation. Each of the discoveries was a unique event in history and prophetically, each discovery is linked to the return of Jesus Christ to this world.

The fact that these discoveries have all been made recently can be considered a sign that time is running out. It's a final call to planet earth.

Friend, let's answer that call, what do you say? If not now, when?

In His service,
Anchor Stone International Board

chadman

07-12-2005, 04:17 PM

Someone wrote: "but we cannot ignore what we know and see. "
Ahh, that was me. Well, God gave us a brain, and God is not a liar. We can see God's manifested work all around us, and he gave us wisdom as well.

At one point the earth was considered flat, and there was Biblical verses that backed that up in a literal fashion as well. Only when we studied enough of God's real work, we found out the Earth was really round.

You just don't get what I am asking. I know God performs miracles, so thats settled. Otherwise, I would be some athiest.

I was only asking how many believed Noah's Ark was literal, based on the story.

Now you and some, say that the Ark has been found conslusively? See, that part there, is NOT a miricle. That part is a man-made claim of finding evidence that supports a miricle. The miricle already happened.

I do question the validity of this type of claim, you bet I do, and so should you. We look like fools in front of educated people when we take for granted claims that cannot be proven, even by our own Christian brothers.

Like I said, everybody is obsessed with a literal translation validating the spiritual truth of the Bible. The Bible was not written as a science manual, it was meant to convey spiritual meaning. Even if it was, it could not have been comprehended at that time.

chadman

07-12-2005, 04:25 PM

Every single Christian does that every single day. Faith requires ignoring "what we see," and realizing that we really don't know.
No, no, no. Faith does not require ignoring what you see. That is a gross and out of context fallacy. See, there is a very distinct and vast difference here. Faith requires that you believe something that you DON'T SEE. Not the reverse, ie, ignore what you DO SEE. What you DO SEE shows you God's works. That does not mean at all, that everything in the Bible has to be proven with Science. That is ridiculous of course.

Faith requires that you believe and act upon that which you know to be true spiritually. It does not mean that you keep believing the earth is flat because of a previously flawed interpretation.

prophecynut

07-12-2005, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by chadman:
We look like fools in front of educated people
1 Cor. 1:27-28
"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are."

Thanks for the compliment Chad, Ron Wyatt and me are the foolish ones Paul was referring to.

TexasSky

07-12-2005, 04:42 PM

Chad -

Something else to consider - you said "don't ignore what we know" well - Science "knew" the world was flat, that "there was nothing invisible that caused disease to spread from man to another," that "when man first walked in Mexico," that "traveling faster than the speed of sound was impossible," and "bumble bees can't fly."

When I was young they "knew" that "newborns can't see".

They also "knew" the the chemo they gave my mother would cure her. Except - it turned out her cancer was estrogen fed and their chemo was estrogen based. *OOPS*

They "knew" that Paxil was going to help depressed people all over the world. Except - they've noticed a significant rise in suicides of those using it. *OOPS*

They "knew" my grandfather had six months or less to live - thankfully - God didn't agree. He lived about six years after that.

They "knew" that I was dieing and would lose my face to cancer. Thankfully - God didn't agree.

They "knew" my best friend was going to be dead three years ago. I got an email from her a few minutes ago.

Science - in the end - really KNOWS every little, Chad.

And - if we assume science DOES know - we'll stop learning because the greatest scientists are the ones who questioned what "was known."

[ July 12, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: TexasSky ]

BobRyan

07-12-2005, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by chadman:
Faith requires that you believe and act upon that which you know to be true
Well that much of what you said is true at least.

Question: Should Eve have "Believed" what she was being "shown" by the serpent? The serpent was providing imperical 'data' to support his claims. Should he have been "believed"?

OR was the data "flawed"? Was the experiment "flawed" in a way that Eve was not trained/educated/informed enough to detect?

If so - would there ever in all of time be a point where she would be informed enough - to adequately 'detect' the flaw in the experiment that the serpent was doing?

Originally posted by chadman:
It does not mean that you keep believing the earth is flat because of a previously flawed interpretation. And that much is true as well.

But in this case the abuse of science by atheists (and then creation of junk-science "stories" to counter the Bible) is not a case of SCIENCE vs religion - it is a case of TWO RELIGIONs BOTH appealing to science. ONE turns science into JUNK SCIENCE to overblow its own claims while the other has no incentive at all to go "Beyond" current science. It matters not to a Christian "Believer" that science has "questions" that are still unnanswered.

But that is a HUGE problem for evolutionists that "need" to spin stories "As if they are fact" -- take the horse series for example.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-12-2005, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by chadman:

Now you and some, say that the Ark has been found conslusively? See, that part there, is NOT a miricle. That part is a man-made claim of finding evidence that supports a miricle. The miricle already happened.

I do question the validity of this type of claim, you bet I do, and so should you. We look like fools in front of educated people when we take for granted claims that cannot be proven, even by our own Christian brothers.
Whether or not they found the ark "yet" does not have any bearing on what the Bible actually SAYS (unless they are going to rewrite the Bible after they find the Ark). The Bible already tells us about the fact of God's dealing with mankind 4400+ years ago.

Originally posted by chadman:
Like I said, everybody is obsessed with a literal translation validating the spiritual truth of the Bible.
The evolutionist lives in a dream world where "exegesis" does not actually exist. So no need to simply "read the Bible" and SEE what it says. In their world the Bible is up for contual editing so as to fit the current speculations of atheists trying to discount the Bible record of God's dealing with mankind.

But the question is actually directed at Christians - Bible Believing Christians who ARE inclined to actually READING the text and applying ACTUAL methods of exegesis to it.

The Bible was not written as a science manual, it was meant to convey spiritual meaning. Even if it was, it could not have been comprehended at that time.If by "science" you mean "factual" then NO MIRACLE (not even the birth of Christ OR His resurrection OR His ascension into heaven) is "science FACT". And certainly SCIENCE knows NOTHING about the nature of sin, the sinful nature the fall of man or the NEED of a new birth!!

None of those FACTS are available to SCIENCE. JUST as SCIENCE has no ability at all to CREATE a living planet OR to flood one or to SEE the flood of one and monitor its "process" at a "planetary level".

What science CAN do is observe much smaller LOCAL floods and then "SPECULATE".

But without the ability to "reproduce the experiement" at a global level - ... the "speculation" is about a process that is not "reproducable".

As Collin Patterson noted - even evolutionism itself is not REPRODUCABLE (though it certainly SHOULD be given artificial means in the lab).

In Christ,

Bob

Marcia

07-13-2005, 01:30 AM

I did always think that I heard finding Noah's Ark was a hoax as it was never verified.

Chadman posted:
At one point the earth was considered flat, and there was Biblical verses that backed that up in a literal fashion as well. What literal verses say the earth is flat?

bmerr

07-13-2005, 02:35 PM

chadman,

bmerr here. Much has been said already concerning Ron Wyatt and others. If nothing else, his is an interesting site. Ther are many others similar to his. If his discoveries were legitimate, the world would not neccessarily be overjoyed to know about it.

He would not be the first person to be ridiculed and rejected for giving a good report. I couldn't say whether he's found anything or not, but I'd admit that he appears to have found several things that look like what he claims they are.

We must be careful (in many areas) to not just "follow the crowd" in judging the veracity of matters. Biblically speaking, the majority is almost always wrong.

Some other Biblical references to Noah are Isaiah 54:9; Ezekiel 14:14, 20; Luke 3:36, 17:27, 27; Matthew 24:37, 38; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5.

I'd say if he was real enough for Jesus and His inspired writers to refer to him, he was real enough for me.

In Christ,

bmerr

av1611jim

07-13-2005, 04:00 PM

Ge*10:25
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Some folks (myself included) believe this is a reference to when the continenets seperated. This would explain how the animals scattered after the ark landed. There once was one huge land mass, then it seperated "in the days of Peleg."

FWIW

BTW; It doesn't bother me a bit that this is a casual "aside" in the narrative of Scripture. After all, if you consider the immensity of the "heavens" and the multitudes of stars in them, Genesis simply says;
Ge*1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

As if to say "BTW God made the stars too."

Why would it be so difficult if He also said, "BTW, this is when the land masses seperated."

In HIS service;
Jim

bmerr

07-13-2005, 04:34 PM

bmerr here. I don't think a "Pangea"-type land mass is required, even. If the water level in the oceans were dropped a hundred feet or so, all the continents would be connected anyway.

There's a guy named Kent Hovind (a Baptist) that has what he calls the "Hovind Theory" concerning the flood, and the surrounding events. Though I can't agree with his theology, he presents a reasonable theory concerning the flood, the scattering of species, etc.

Might be worth a look.

In Christ,

bmerr

BobRyan

07-13-2005, 08:18 PM

Pangea is useful in extrapolating back from the drift of contentents today and seeing how they "fit back together" --

So it is not just a case of "trying to account for animal dispersion". It is also a case for seeing geologic dynamics as well as the "match" between contentents when you put them together.

Certainly we see island chains forming over time with plate dynamics. If it rains today - no need to doubt that it rained at the flood only more so. If the plates and continents are moving today no need to doubt that they moved around the time of the flood - only more so.

As for God creating the stars WHEN He created the TWO great lights. I think He only created TWO lights on day 4 -- the stars He had already created.

IMHO.

In Christ,

Bob

chadman

07-14-2005, 06:58 PM

BobRyan said

Question: Should Eve have "Believed" what she was being "shown" by the serpent? The serpent was providing imperical 'data' to support his claims. Should he have been "believed"?

OR was the data "flawed"? Was the experiment "flawed" in a way that Eve was not trained/educated/informed enough to detect?
Gee Bob, take it easy bro.

Everybody here is so jumpy. Did someone find Eve or say they found the orginal serpent? No, so give it up.

I am so very sorry, science and people everywhere are alowed to inquire in archealogical dicsoveries, and ask that some reaonsable display or proof of authenticity exists.

Of this I am sure you have the highest concurence on spurious Catholic documents from the past, which were invalidated by both sides after careful and exhaustive investigation.

When I say we look like fools at times, that is NOT in reference to spiritual truths, which to man are indeed foolish.

People, don't play work games here. You know what I am talking about. When big grown up people who are supposed to have education, believe that *both* ark's have been found with full assurance, without Christians amongst themselves even validating it, then yes, we look like un-educated fools to the outside world.

chadman

07-14-2005, 07:07 PM

BobRyan said

If by "science" you mean "factual" then NO MIRACLE (not even the birth of Christ OR His resurrection OR His ascension into heaven) is "science FACT". And certainly SCIENCE knows NOTHING about the nature of sin, the sinful nature the fall of man or the NEED of a new birth!!
Bob, you are getting jumpy again, settle down man. LOL. Stop that dude.

No I dont' mean *at all* what you said. You are debate crazy. I mean if molecular biology and subatomic physics were written into the Bible, nobody but nobody would have understood the meanings. They couldnt see germs, etc. Over their heads, splitting atoms, energy storage and release, pole reversal, red light shift, galaxies, globular clustering, relativity, etc.

Even today, we discover things that we don't understand and we have the most open minds in history. I'll bet if we had the whole truth of it all dumped on us by God in vivid detail, we still would not really understand it.

Thats what I mean. Yet today we turn things around and always try to cram science exactingly into the first chapters of Genensis. Not sure that is the best approach based on the literary style used there.

chadman

07-14-2005, 07:12 PM

Prophecynet said:

Chadman, if you buy either of the books, you will become a believer.
Hehe. It will take more than a book for me to believe this one. So sorry.

After all I saw In Search of Noah's Ark originally in the theater, and I beleived that. That was very convincing.

What is the book going to offer me? Jack Chick style proof, conpiracies that we can't show, but somebody saw. Sorry, since I am here today in the real, it takes more than faith now. You can actually SHOW people these things if it is real and get OBJECTIVE VALIDATION.

But we do digress from the topic.

So it looks like a literal interpretation is the norm here. Thats fine.

BobRyan

07-14-2005, 07:17 PM

chadman
No I dont' mean *at all* what you said. You are debate crazy. I mean if molecular biology and subatomic physics were written into the Bible, nobody but nobody would have understood the meanings. They couldnt see germs, etc. Over their heads, splitting atoms, energy storage and release, pole reversal, red light shift, galaxies, globular clustering, relativity, etc.OK - a calmer response then.

I was responding to a point you were not making - but one that has been made here in the past by those trying to "get out of" the way the Bible's view of origins contradicts a more humanist version (as "if" humanism IS Science but the Bible has no actual science fact).

The truth is "science" would be interested in knowing about a literal 7 day "origins" period vs billions of years "trying to get life jumpstarted". Those two entirely different views for origins would have entirely different science "facts" expected. (Or at least they would expect to find some very specific science fact pointing in their direction).

Obviously God does not spell out the 'way' in which His "spoken Word" is able to transform matter, energy, space and time. He simply points to the end product giving both the "What" and the "When" without showing "How" His Word is able to do that.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-14-2005, 07:22 PM

BobRyan said --
Question: Should Eve have "Believed" what she was being "shown" by the serpent? The serpent was providing imperical 'data' to support his claims. Should he have been "believed"?

OR was the data "flawed"? Was the experiment "flawed" in a way that Eve was not trained/educated/informed enough to detect?
Originally posted by chadman:
Gee Bob, take it easy bro.
That is the "easy version".

Originally posted by chadman:
Everybody here is so jumpy. Did someone find Eve or say they found the orginal serpent? No, so give it up.
Is that a new kind of "exegesis"??

How about addressing the question posed at the top?

Originally posted by chadman:

I am so very sorry, science and people everywhere are alowed to inquire in archealogical dicsoveries, and ask that some reaonsable display or proof of authenticity exists.
That has never been the problem.

Rather the problem has been much more blatant and is perfectly illustrated by the myths and blunders of evolutionists in the case of the horse series. It is a case of science bent to the usages of humanists seeking a non-god answer for origins.

Having said that - I have no burden to suggest that the ark has been found.

In Christ,

Bob

chadman

07-14-2005, 07:33 PM

Bob said:

OK - a calmer response then.

I was responding to a point you were not making - but one that has been made here in the past by those trying to "get out of" the way the Bible's view of origins contradicts a more humanist version (as "if" humanism IS Science but the Bible has no actual science fact).

The truth is "science" would be interested in knowing about a literal 7 day "origins" period vs billions of years "trying to get life jumpstarted". Those two entirely different views for origins would have entirely different science "facts" expected. (Or at least they would expect to find some very specific science fact pointing in their direction).

Obviously God does not spell out the 'way' in which His "spoken Word" is able to transform matter, energy, space and time. He simply points to the end product giving both the "What" and the "When" without showing "How" His Word is able to do that.

In Christ,

Bob
Very nice post, and I concur actually on all points. Once small complaint of course...you said

I was responding to a point you were not making - but one that has been made here in the past by those trying to "get out of" the way the Bible's view of origins contradicts a more humanist version
You know...I understand, but this drives me crazy, and why it is near impossible to have a real debate on this board. You guys do this to the Catholics all the time, and topics merge and verge all over the place, going pages at times off topic about stuff never brought up.

Intellectually, it drives me crazy.

chadman

07-14-2005, 07:48 PM

BobRyan said:

Is that a new kind of "exegesis"??

How about addressing the question posed at the top?
Not interested in this riduculous type of scenario. Completely and utterly different than what I was asking for.

What I would like proof of, in this instance, (which is a side topic to the original, but I aint going three topics over), is modern validation of 'AN ARCHEALOGOCAL DISCOVERY THAT EXISTS IN THE HERE AN NOW TODAY'. Your question is about science data interpretation before religious figures demonstrating faith in a past history(that hurts my head, lol!). You talk about it more if you wish, you obviously have some humanistic axe to grind on me with, although I am completely Christian and deny humanism.

Other modern day archealogical discoveries are validated and in-validated all the time. Other Christian artifacts, and findings are validated.

And hey Bob, you CAN belive fully that Noah's ark was found, just get those two books previously mentioned and you will be a believer! Hey, thats what the lady said ok?

And while you are at it, get Rome Sweet Home, by Scott Hahn and you'll become a Catholic believer too! Hehe (Ok Catholic brothers and sisters, dont' get punchy on me, I am just kidding ok? It is a good book. Just giving Bob a hard time because he seems like he could use some humor)

TexasSky

07-14-2005, 08:36 PM

Chad,

Be careful please. You discounted my comparison of miracles by saying that we don't have evidence that refutes the resurrection. Technially speaking, from a scientific perspective, Science has as much evidence against the resurrection as they do against any other biblical miracle. People die ever day around the world, and none that are dead for three days are resurrected. Science, even today, would tell you that you can't be dead for three days and come back to life. Science today would and does, dismiss Christ because He doesn't fit their belief system.

Do you believe the burning bush? Remember that? It burned, but it wasn't consumed? That pretty much violates any scientific evidence, but I believe it is true.

I posted several links to various sites supporting the belief that the Ark was found. I saw a Discovery Channel show recently that says they have those Chariot Wheels that you say Wyatt didn't find. Your evidence against the Ark of the Covenent is "probably" and "they would have," - in other words, your evidence against Wyatt is "theory" not fact. Yet, you cling to it like it was fact.

As some one else pointed out - the evidence that we DO have about the Bible SUPPORTS it. Why shouldn't we trust it?

Most of my life there were rumors that Nazareth wasn't real. Then they discovered a city marker, on a fishing village, right where they expected biblical Nazareth to be.

For decades the nay-sayers used to hit me with, "How can you be so intelligent and believe the bible? The thing wasn't even written until several hundred years after it supposedly happened." Then they learned that some of the manuscripts for the bible are dated in the first century AD.

I grew up being told that there was no way the red-sea could have parted. Then when I was in high school they went, "Oh my gosh. There was a comet that passed so close to earth that its tail would have disrupted the seas, and may very well have caused the parting of the red sea." Did Science say, "Yes! Proof of the accuracy of God's word?" Of course not. They said, "Well, yeah, it probably happened, but its not a miracle. Its "just" a comet." Excuse? JUST a comet at JUST the right moment is NOT a miracle?

If you put your faith in Science, above your faith in God, you'll be terribly disappointed. Faith in God REQUIRES faith in God's word. The two go hand in hand.

As Dr. Ralph Smith used to say, "How can you accept the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus, and NOT accept the other miracles of the bible? How can you pick and choose what part of the bible to believe and really believe any of it?"

Mercury

07-15-2005, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Technially speaking, from a scientific perspective, Science has as much evidence against the resurrection as they do against any other biblical miracle. People die ever day around the world, and none that are dead for three days are resurrected. Science, even today, would tell you that you can't be dead for three days and come back to life.Indeed. This means that if Jesus rose from the dead, it must be a miracle. If science had shown the opposite -- that a person could quite easily rise from the dead -- it would be this that would falsify the resurrection miracle, because it would lower that occurrence to nothing more than a cheap trick. Jesus' divinity rests (at least partially) on the fact that he defeated death in a way that was naturally impossible. We should thank God that science has continued to show us the miraculous nature of what he did!

Now, the problem with other miracles that are brought up is not that they are impossible according to science, but that they don't leave the traces one would expect to see. If someone claimed that their grandfather rose from the dead, but it was still possible to dig up his dead body, this would lead me to doubt that a miracle actually occurred. If someone claimed to miraculously feed a thousand people, and then to miraculously make them hungry again before someone else could check the claim, I'd be skeptical that the two miracles actually occurred. Any time the sum effect of multiple miracles is to make things look as if no miracle occurred, I'm skeptical. (For Jesus' miracles, we have no surviving physical evidence either for or against, and we do have testimony that they occurred, so I see no reason to doubt them.)

I have the same skepticism toward those who try to add miracles to the Genesis accounts, such as having God miraculously provide a bunch of water for the flood and then miraculously remove it, or miraculously sorting all the fossils in a way that matches common descent, or miraculously placing radioactive elements in rocks so that they consistently reveal a far older age than reality. I doubt those miracles because they seem capricious and are only hypothesized to try to line up reality with a certain interpretation of the Bible.

I grew up being told that there was no way the red-sea could have parted. Then when I was in high school they went, "Oh my gosh. There was a comet that passed so close to earth that its tail would have disrupted the seas, and may very well have caused the parting of the red sea." Did Science say, "Yes! Proof of the accuracy of God's word?" Of course not. They said, "Well, yeah, it probably happened, but its not a miracle. Its "just" a comet." Excuse? JUST a comet at JUST the right moment is NOT a miracle?I agree with you about this principle, whether or not it holds true as an explanation for this particular miracle. God can use natural means to accomplish miraculous results, because God is sovereign over nature.

Joseph_Botwinick

07-15-2005, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by chadman:
I would personally love nothing more than someone to find and validate Noah's Ark with real proof.

However, having grown up reading Chick publications (tracts and magazines) like encyclopedias, my world was rocked when I started checking facts out. I found, people can and will write anything they please for their own purposes. And many more will believe whatever they read. Hi there Chad,

Let's say for a second that someone were to find Noah's Ark tommorow-hypothetically speaking. How would that discovery effect your faith in God or the Bible, or your understanding of what God's will for you is? What if nobody ever found any of these things? Would that take away from your faith in God or the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick

rsr

07-15-2005, 02:46 AM

I view with skepticism attempts to prove the Bible by archeology. Our understanding of such things is so clouded that there is not likely to be a conclusive answer. Christianity is, in the end, a matter of faith. If we think we can find concrete validation of the faith in archeology, then we are mistaken. There may be things that strengthen a case for historicity, but they cannot prove it. (This is not to dispute archeology, but to state its limitations.)

In addition, artifacts, given our fallen nature and sentimentlity, are subject to deification. I do not believe that pieces of the true cross exist, nor that the cup of the Last Supper is something worth pursuing. God knows better than to leave such things lying around.

God knows us and knows our weaknesses. Do we know exactly where Christ was born? Where He died? Where He was crucified?

There are guesses, some better than others.

But it makes no difference to me. God is not bound by geography or archeology, and it makes no difference to me if the ark is ever found, other than I do not like being embarrassed those who repeat unverified tales (repeated over and over on the Internet, as if that is proof) as if they were the Gospel.

TexasSky

07-15-2005, 02:07 PM

RSR -

One of the former Presidents of Southwestern Theological Seminary used to teach his own students, "Never be afraid to seek the truth in regards to Christ - whether it regards historical evidence, time lines, geneologies, or science. God IS the truth. While He may not reveal Himself in the evidence of the world, He IS the truth, and eventually, the evidence of the world always confirms that God is God."

He went on to say that those who "avoid" any discussions of such things because they don't have the answers need to ask themselves what they are really afraid of.

You just stated you don't want to be embarrassed by unverified claims. Unfortunately, that attitude had allowed athiests and flat-out-liars to change the attitude of the world about the bible from "Respectfully reverence as a great historical document, even if they did not believe it was a holy book," to treating it like a bad joke.

The fact is - no other ancient historical document has been verified as often by other historical documents or by physical evidence as the Bible.

But today - the bible is the "laughing stock" of the majority of the world because Christians would rather "avoid it." OR because Christians do NOT stand up for it.

I've worked in acadamia long enough to understand that often the "facts taught in a class" are the personal opinions of the professors teaching the class, and that when facts - REAL facts - contradict their points of views - MANY professors are NOT so "morale" that they offer both sides and let you decide. They just present the side that supports them.

Just like the study of Noah's Ark.

There are many people, respected scholars, all over the world that say, "Yes, there is a huge man-made object on a mountain in Turkey, that appears to be made of wood, and that could be the boat referred to in the Hebrew texts."

Yet - people who do not WANT to believe this mock it and ridicule it and try to discredit the men who speak.

And the Christian community buries their head in the sands so the world won't laugh at us personally.

What happens if, like with the discovery of the Nazareth Stone - it turns out they are RIGHT? Do you REALLY expect a secular world to ADMIT they found Noah's Ark?

TexasSky

07-15-2005, 02:15 PM

Joseph,

I do like YOUR question. smile.gif

Gup20

07-15-2005, 02:31 PM

Let's say for a second that someone were to find Noah's Ark tommorow-hypothetically speaking. How would that discovery effect your faith in God or the Bible, or your understanding of what God's will for you is? What if nobody ever found any of these things? Would that take away from your faith in God or the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick Great point.

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Two parts of this verse stick out to me - i have bolden them. First, we see from verses 5 & 6 that Peter saw the flood as literal and left absolutely no doubt as to whether or not it happened.

But secondly, he speaks in the 2nd verse of Peter 3 about the very question that we have today - Did it really happen, and does the answer effect your faith.

Look at another passage:

Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

We all know this story. The guy is in hell and asks abraham to send someone back to warn his family. Abraham tells him "They have Moses (didn't he write Genesis, BTW?) and the prophets" and the man responds... "no only if someone comes back from the dead to tell them. Abraham responds that they wouldn't believe even if someone came back from the dead to tell them.

BobRyan

07-15-2005, 05:49 PM

Double post

BobRyan

07-15-2005, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by rsr:
I view with skepticism attempts to prove the Bible by archeology. Our understanding of such things is so clouded that there is not likely to be a conclusive answer. That is too bad. It seems to me that Archaeology has always been the friend of the Bible.

When skeptics have challenged the Bible with the "negetive assertion" Archaeology contributes by "Discovering the positive" in favor of scripture.

#1. Writing at the time of Moses
#2. The cities of the plains destroyed by fire.
#3. The world wide flood
#4. The kings of the Bible

No sense in letting the atheists out of the embarrassing facts of history and 'discovery'.

Remember the myths of junk-science and atheist survive only in the void where emperical evidence is lacking.

IN Christ,

Bob

mud

07-18-2005, 02:06 AM

Hi Chad, everybody,

I believe that the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is an accurate account of actual events. From its first mention in Genesis to its last mention in the New Testament, Scripture regards the man, the boat, and the flood (not to mention the creation account itself) as actual history. I think that should settle it for us. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine . . .” (2Ti 3:16) including the first eleven chapters of Genesis! ;)

If the prophets, apostles, and the Lord Jesus himself were mistaken to regard these as literal and historical how can we trust them about anything else? If he has told us via scripture of things natural, observable, tangible and got it wrong, should we really trust him with things spiritual, invisible, hoped for? Jesus himself said "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

As to archaeological evidence, I am doubtful as to the claims that Noah’s Ark has been located. But what is plain to me is that we live in a world starkly marked everywhere by evidences of water erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediment on a scale that boggles the mind to consider. Is this not what we should expect to find if God flooded the whole earth in divine judgement?

Surely we err greatly to judge or compromise God’s holy word based on the theorising and conclusions of fallen, ignorant men derived from their observations of a sin cursed world.

BobRyan

07-18-2005, 02:35 PM

Well said!

just-want-peace

07-18-2005, 03:42 PM

Yeah, what mud said!

To add, I have my doubts that the ark remains will ever be found AND verified simply because the ark remains themselves will undoubetedly become icons of worship just as "the shroud of turin" appears to be.

I can believe that the remains in Turkey are the actual remains, but prior to the rapture will not be verified as such! Just MHO!

MARANATHA!! graemlins/thumbs.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif

ChurchBoy

07-18-2005, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by chadman:
I would personally love nothing more than someone to find and validate Noah's Ark with real proof.

However, having grown up reading Chick publications (tracts and magazines) like encyclopedias, my world was rocked when I started checking facts out. I found, people can and will write anything they please for their own purposes. And many more will believe whatever they read. Hi there Chad,

Let's say for a second that someone were to find Noah's Ark tommorow-hypothetically speaking. How would that discovery effect your faith in God or the Bible, or your understanding of what God's will for you is? What if nobody ever found any of these things? Would that take away from your faith in God or the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick [/QUOTE]Dr. John Morris wrote about this.

Would the Discovery of Noah's Ark do any Good? (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1115)

chadman

07-18-2005, 10:56 PM

Quoted by TexasSky:

Chad,

Be careful please. You discounted my comparison of miracles by saying that we don't have evidence that refutes the resurrection. Technially speaking, from a scientific perspective, Science has as much evidence against the resurrection as they do against any other biblical miracle. People die ever day around the world, and none that are dead for three days are resurrected. Science, even today, would tell you that you can't be dead for three days and come back to life. Science today would and does, dismiss Christ because He doesn't fit their belief system.

Do you believe the burning bush? Remember that? It burned, but it wasn't consumed? That pretty much violates any scientific evidence, but I believe it is true.

I posted several links to various sites supporting the belief that the Ark was found. I saw a Discovery Channel show recently that says they have those Chariot Wheels that you say Wyatt didn't find. Your evidence against the Ark of the Covenent is "probably" and "they would have," - in other words, your evidence against Wyatt is "theory" not fact. Yet, you cling to it like it was fact.

As some one else pointed out - the evidence that we DO have about the Bible SUPPORTS it. Why shouldn't we trust it?

Most of my life there were rumors that Nazareth wasn't real. Then they discovered a city marker, on a fishing village, right where they expected biblical Nazareth to be.

For decades the nay-sayers used to hit me with, "How can you be so intelligent and believe the bible? The thing wasn't even written until several hundred years after it supposedly happened." Then they learned that some of the manuscripts for the bible are dated in the first century AD.

I grew up being told that there was no way the red-sea could have parted. Then when I was in high school they went, "Oh my gosh. There was a comet that passed so close to earth that its tail would have disrupted the seas, and may very well have caused the parting of the red sea." Did Science say, "Yes! Proof of the accuracy of God's word?" Of course not. They said, "Well, yeah, it probably happened, but its not a miracle. Its "just" a comet." Excuse? JUST a comet at JUST the right moment is NOT a miracle?

If you put your faith in Science, above your faith in God, you'll be terribly disappointed. Faith in God REQUIRES faith in God's word. The two go hand in hand.

As Dr. Ralph Smith used to say, "How can you accept the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus, and NOT accept the other miracles of the bible? How can you pick and choose what part of the bible to believe and really believe any of it?"
Ok, Texas, that is a wonderful post bro. I am NOT going to diss you on this post. You have some great thoughts and ideas, and your sincerity gives me weak knees frankly. My first impression is to hug you and be glad God is a mighty God.

I have not had time to read all the responses, but let me tell you this one thing. Most that post here, just have an agenda. I DON'T. I frankly don't give a heck about Baptist or JW, SDA, Catholic or Orthodox. But I am Baptist for the record.

I am just after sound reasoning and truth. If my brothers exibit one or the other, I will concur, but for heavens sake, if my brothers and sisters exhibit anything else, then I am on the carpet first, askking questions.

I hope to read all these responses, and give an adequate response myself.

chadman

07-18-2005, 11:20 PM

Posted by J. Botnewick

Hi there Chad,

Let's say for a second that someone were to find Noah's Ark tommorow-hypothetically speaking. How would that discovery effect your faith in God or the Bible, or your understanding of what God's will for you is? What if nobody ever found any of these things? Would that take away from your faith in God or the Bible?

Joseph...after reading your question...I am ...questioning my faith. Not!

I belive in the Roman Road, John 3:16, etc, etc, so answer the questions bro! Quit making it an invitation.

Joseph Botwinick
Ahhh, here come the absolutely INEVITABLE internal religious questions that ignore sound reasoning. ***Based*** on somones CLAIM that they have found an ARCHEOLOGICAL ARTIFACT.

Let's see Joseph, hard to answer your question. I would only question at the moment, my INTERPRETATION of the Bible NOT the spiritual truth of the Bible. If I only have faith in Science, I discard the Bible and Jesus completely. Right?

Prove the ressurection. Jesus is either in your heart or not. If you don't believe this, as DHK says, you are lost and in need of salvation. I hope you belive in Jesus Joseph.

In the meantime, like John McEnroe said once, "ANSWER THE QUESTION!" lol.

Somebody TODAY says they have conclusively found Noah's Ark. SHOW ME. We don't need faith today if you have evidence that you have THE ARK. You just need to show conclusively with Objective Christian concurrence that such is the case. Then we can actually start the debate with the lost world and their scientists.

I am saved, brother, the whole Roman Road, John 3:16, etc, etc, don't trouble yourself in my case. I believe blindly. Just not modern claims of artifacts. That is not in the Bible, I don't have to believe that stuff. If you say now today, "I found Noah's Ark", Hmmmm...Show me.

Joseph_Botwinick

07-18-2005, 11:31 PM

Hi Chad,

I think you might have misunderstood my point. So, please allow me to clarify. My faith is not based on archeologists finding Noah's Ark, or scientists proving or disproving anything in the Bible to be true. My faith is based on the Word of God. Science cannot prove faith. Neither can it disprove it. If archeologists never found Noah's Ark, I would still, by faith, trust in the Word of God.

Joseph Botwinick

Gup20

07-19-2005, 11:43 AM

If I only have faith in Science, I discard the Bible and Jesus completely. Right?

I believe blindly.First of all, it is a myth perpetrated by secular humanism that the Bible and Science are mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, complimentary when both are accepted for their limitations.

See www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com)

Secondly, I don't know that we are to 'believe blindly'. Faith is perfected with corresponding action - and you must have some understanding to take action.

Moreover, 1Peter tells us to always be able to give a reason for the hope that is within us.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Science cannot prove faith. Neither can it disprove it. Science, by it's definition, is the observation of the visible evidence. Faith, by it's definition is the evidence of the invisible. It should be mentioned, however, that one is not mutually exclusive of the other. In fact, if you look at a lot of the 'founders of modern science', such as Newton, Pascal, (almost all scientists before the age of Darwin) - even more recent scientists such as Albert Einstein - they attributed the ability to observe order in the universe as a direct result of it's having been created by God. They felt that God would do things in an orderly and observable manner which could be studied. Moreover we see the commission for science implied in Genesis:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

In fact many of the early founders of the modern scientific age directly quoted these scriptures as reasons for their scientific endevours. So science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive, but rather they are complimentary.

Joseph_Botwinick

07-19-2005, 12:33 PM

1. Scientist and Faith are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Scientist and a Christian at the same time. But, this is only true if you keep science seperate from faith. Yes, many early scientists, and even many modern day scientists are Christians. But no, I have seen no indication that any of them have observed the creation story, or any Biblical account of faith, under a microscope and come to scientific conclusions. That is because faith deals with the unobservable.

2. Further, I think there is a danger to trying to force science on faith. Once one does that, people tend to focus on the evidence rather than the faith. Just look at the reaction to the supposed Marian Apparitions. The so called science of faith becomes an idol.

3. Science and faith are not for or against each other. They are neutral. Science can make theories and conclusions (which change all the time, BTW) based on what they can see. They cannot make valid conclusions about faith as they cannot take into account the variables of the miraculous and God, since that cannot be seen. Finally, Faith, unlike science, does not change. It is absolute.

Joseph Botwinick

BobRyan

07-19-2005, 02:11 PM

Humanism and Gospel-based Christianity are two philosphical systems - two "World views" that both make "appeals to science".

Humanism makes a religion of those "Appeals" called "Evolutionism" in order to give plausible deniability to the underlying fact that it is a pure faith-based system!

Christianity does not need to go to such extremes because it is upfront with its claims to being "faith based".

The comments about "Science or Christianity" simply do not convey the truth about this more basic and obvious partnership.

BOTH of these philisophical systems appeal to science so NEITHER of them wants to present itself as "opposed to science". Science (when differentiated from that corrupted system of junk-science known as evolutionism) is neutral. It simply "finds things" and it conducts experiments that CAN be verified and repeated. It discovers rules and relationships.

But it does not "see history" like a video tape. If it did all crimes would be solved.

How one interprets the data and places value on one artifact over another - is determined to some degree by the bias - the world view of the person.

Hence the debacle of Simpson's horse series foisted onto the unsuspecting public "AS IF" science had actually FOUND and confirmed the smooth transitions in layer after layer for horse evolution as presented.

In fact - it was simply shoddy guesswork with sequences "glued" together based on the bias and preference of the faith-based system we know today as "evolutionism".

Even Evolutionists (usually atheist ones) will now admit that. Even some Christian evolutionists are slowly coaxing themselves to admit to the facts on this one as well.

In Christ,

Bob

mud

07-20-2005, 03:32 PM

"Finally, Faith, unlike science, does not change. It is absolute.”Not to be a hair splitter, Joseph, but it is not faith that is absolute but rather the Object of our faith. Some have little faith. Some have great faith. Others have no faith. Sadly some lose faith. Thank God we can pray, as did the apostles, “Increase our faith!” (Luke 17:5). In fact we are admonished to add to our faith (2Pe 1:5-7).

So faith is variable, but our God is a Rock , “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17).

Cheers

chadman

07-21-2005, 12:10 AM

Posted by Joseph B.:

Hi Chad,

I think you might have misunderstood my point. So, please allow me to clarify. My faith is not based on archeologists finding Noah's Ark, or scientists proving or disproving anything in the Bible to be true. My faith is based on the Word of God. Science cannot prove faith. Neither can it disprove it. If archeologists never found Noah's Ark, I would still, by faith, trust in the Word of God.

Joseph Botwinick
My appologies. I don't really get your point on this particular thread. You want to talk faith in Jesus. I want to talk archeological findings of modern times.

Lets hook up on a theology thread sometime, perhaps that would add some cohesion to our conversation?

mud

07-21-2005, 01:58 PM

Is anyone here familiar with Dr. John Baumgardner’s flood mechanism theory? He calls it Catastrophic Plate Tectonics which postulates that all the continents were together in a single land mass prior to the flood and that the tectonic plates began to separate quickly and catastrophically at the time of the Flood when the “fountains of the great deep burst forth.” The model has terrific explanatory power as to where all the water came from and went to, mountain building, erosive patterns, magmatic extrusions, geomagnetic pole reversals, post-flood ice-age, and others.

Baumgardner is an geophysical expert in the field of plate tectonics having been employed as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he did research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn.

If interested in reading up on it, go to: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate_tectonics.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp

A wealth of information regarding Noah’s Ark and the Genesis Flood is available here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp

Johnv

07-21-2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by mud:
Is anyone here familiar with Dr. John Baumgardner’s flood mechanism theory ... that all the continents were together in a single land mass prior to the flood and that the tectonic plates began to separate quickly...It's an interesting theory, but it's not much more than an attempt to fit a scientific square peg into a philosopical round hole. The reality is that all continents were, at one point, joined in one land mass. There's no arguement about that. The continents have been consistently drifting away, but there's no evidence to suggest that the drift was suddenly accellerated by a single event. Just the opposite. Available evidence suggests that the continental drift has been somewhat regular over time. That in no way bolsters or refutes the belief in a great flood event, so the issue of continental drift need not be an issue amongst Christians.

Remember that, while ansersingenesis is a respecteable site, it takes the most extreme position on a Genesis interpretation. Even entertaining that a Genesis day is anything other than 24 hours is verboten to them. But, imo, they're still worthy of perusal, and they don't disply contempt or disrespect for Christians who differ in opinion from them.

BobRyan

07-21-2005, 02:35 PM

Thanks for sharing that is outstanding Mud -!

It just goes to show how having a Bible based "direction" to search can benefit someone with access to the science of flood dynamics!

The fact that AIG takes the same Bible based view of THE REAL World has also been very helpful in explaining some aspects of Christ the Creator's literal 7 day week that was literally spoken to literal man at literal Sinai resulting in a literal observance of the literal 7th day of the literal week.

Really!

In Christ,

Bob

Johnv

07-21-2005, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by prophecynut:
The petrified remains [of Noah's ark] were found near the Turkish Iranian border in the '80s. As much as I wish this were true, it is not. The claim was made by Ron Wyatt (who also claimed to have found Jesus' blood and analyzed it for DNA). The aforementioned John Baumgardner, who initially supported Wyatt, has since denounced Wyatt's claims. The "remains" turned out to be a natural geological formation. Claims of "wood" were debunked, and claims of "metal" turned out to be oxides that were naturally occurring.

Additionally, Wyatt insists that he was right because the site was where he claims scripture said the ark rested. He is quite wrong. Scripture does not say that the Ark came to rest upon Mt. Ararat. Scripture says that the Ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat, known then as the Mountains of Urartu. The Urartian Mountain range cover hundreds of thousands of square miles, and Ararat is only one mountain in that range. To insist that Noah's ark landed on Mt Ararat is not scriptural. Further, to insist that the Ark exists today is simply not scripturally supportable, nor is it required for Christians.

UTEOTW

07-21-2005, 03:08 PM

Baumgardner's model has too many problems to be saved. One problem is the tremendous amount of heat that would be released. His own estimate is 10^28 joules, an amount greater than that required to boil all of the water from all of the oceans. Here is a link where is asked about this directly and does not challenge the number. [ http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp ] I think the number can be found in his paper

Baumgardner, John R., 1990a. Changes accompanying Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol. II. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, pp. 35-45.

Now, in his response on the linked page he says "Indeed I do believe a significant fraction of the volume of the oceans was boiled away during the catastrophe. But since the atmosphere can hold so little moisture, the water quickly returned as cool fresh water to the ocean surface." However, this is not possible from a thermodynamic sense. When the water condensed, it would release the same amount of heat as what had been required to evaporate the water in the first place. A pound of condensing water vapor releases 1000 Btus of energy. And that water is still at the boiling point! 1000 Btus is enough energy to raise the temperature of a pound of air by 4000 degrees F. There is no way to get rid of the heat. What would happen is that as the oceans boiled, the atmosphere would be quickly heated until it was also at the boiling temperature for water. Without the water condensing, the atmosphere would have quickly become almost entirely water vapor. Anything on the surface, Noah for instance, would have been roasted by temperatures of at least 212 F while being suffocated by an atmosphere that was essentially all water vapor. There just is not a reasonable method for ridding the planet of that kind of heat flux.

There is another, unrealted heat problem. To get the model to work, he needs for the viscosity of the mantle to be lower which means it would have been much hotter. This heat, too, must be removed from the earth.

Here is another problem for his model. To quote him again. "But most are unaware that the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary also represents a nearly global stratigraphic unconformity marked by intense catastrophism. In the Grand Canyon, as one example, the Tapeats Sandstone immediately above this boundary contains hydraulically transported boulders tens of feet in diameter."

Paleomagnetic data shows that the continents were not in the Pangean configuration at the time of this boundary between the precambrian and the Cambrian. Since his model is dependenant upon this, his model is at odds with a fairly simple observation from geology. Pangea came much, much later. Now if you go around and take samples from each continent of rocks from this layer, you can check the way the magnetic field lines are arranged and find out what direction is north. From this, you can reconstruct how the continents were arranged with respect to one another. Simply, they were not in the position at this time that his model demands. He claims that the landmasses of the earth were in a particular position at a particular place in time. The data from geology does not agree with his assertion. There is still not anything to show that the earth's landmasses were in fact in the configuration that has been asserted. Since his model depends on this and since I have yet to see data offered to support the assertion, he has a major problem.

One more problem. In this paper

Baumgardner, John R. and D. W. Barnette, 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, pp. 77-86.

he asserts that the velocity of the water currents during the flood would have been as much as 180 ft/sec. I will assert that this rules out the possibility of most fossils that we see having been formed by the flood. There would be little other than tiny pieces to fossilize! But that is not my main point.

The water would have been flowing. We know, from Stoke's Law, how things settle out that have been suspended in water. It mainly has to do with the size, shape and density of the objects. The rate is actually proportional to the square of the diameter, so size dominates. What this means is that in the case of the flood, that the order that things settled out should follow a pattern based on Stokes Law. So what does this mean for us?

In the case of dirt and rocks, it means that the geologic column should be sorted by size and by density to a lesser extent. Boulders on the bottom. Rocks and pebbles next. Each succeeding layer should be increasingly fine until the top layers are the finest of the silts. But this is not what we see. By the same token, the fossil record is not sorted by such features either. Animals of similar size and shape and even habitat are sorted through many differening layers. Even mmore curious is that a given layer generally only has a very narrow slice of all the known life in them. This is how we get the use of index fossils, by repeatedly seeing that the same narrow groups of organisms are always found together and at the same date when the layers can be directly dated. And there is no correlation between size or shape or body type that would account for the sorting.

BobRyan

07-21-2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] Baumgardner's model has too many problems to be saved. One problem is the tremendous amount of heat that would be released. As much as this game may be entertaining for somoe - one thing to remember is that the guesswork presented in UTEOTW's summary involves EVEN MORE GUESSES for its conclusions.

Aggregrate heat amounts do not boil water for example. The heat has to be there at one time.

Secondly the heat in the earth is ALREADY there today. The question is not "why doesn't it go away" it is just where do you want it? The molten Crust already has the heat today - and does not boil the Oceans.

Finally - the primary point was to show plate movement allowing continental drift. But even the Bible declares the flood to be an act of God and not just "a bunch of clouds getting together on one long rainy day".

The effort to make this " a natural occurance" and to guess about planetary flood dynamics or a non-uniform tectonic plate dynamic is fun but it depends on your starting "bias" as to what guesses you will "favor" over others in that relatively factless void.

And clearly we have those who have "already made their choices".

So when "gaming" I like to read the guesswork of those whose choices have been FOR the Word of God not against it.

In Christ,

Bob

Johnv

07-21-2005, 05:33 PM

Who says natural occurences are not miracles and handiwork of God?

An agnostic friend of mine once said that if he could go back in time and witness Jesus feeding the crowd with the loaves and fishes, he'd be able to come up with a scientific explanation. I replied that the presence of scientific explanation does not result in the absence of divine miracle.

BTW, he's a devout churchgoer today.

Joseph_Botwinick

07-21-2005, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by chadman:
Posted by Joseph B.:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Hi Chad,

I think you might have misunderstood my point. So, please allow me to clarify. My faith is not based on archeologists finding Noah's Ark, or scientists proving or disproving anything in the Bible to be true. My faith is based on the Word of God. Science cannot prove faith. Neither can it disprove it. If archeologists never found Noah's Ark, I would still, by faith, trust in the Word of God.

Joseph Botwinick
My appologies. I don't really get your point on this particular thread. You want to talk faith in Jesus. I want to talk archeological findings of modern times.

Lets hook up on a theology thread sometime, perhaps that would add some cohesion to our conversation? [/QUOTE]Chad,

My apologies to you as well, as it seems I may have misunderstood your statement in this thread where you expressed a longing for someone to find and validate Noah's Ark. If I may ask, why do you long for this to happen? Is it so you can show physical evidence to prove your faith, or is it merely a great interest in things of archeology? When I originally posted, I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed that your reason was the former. If I was wrong, I apologize.

Joseph Botwinick

mud

07-22-2005, 04:19 PM

The continents have been consistently drifting away, but there's no evidence to suggest that the drift was suddenly accellerated by a single event.Well, what about the fact that the ocean floors, especially as you move away from continental shelves toward the mid-ocean ridges, appear newly formed since they have very little sedimentary overburden? Baumgardner’s model shows that as the pre-flood ocean floor subducted under the continental plates the overlying sediments would be scraped off and left to accumulate at the areas of subduction forming the immense geosynclines geologists believe became the mountain ranges. Indeed, most of the world’s mountain ranges are comprised of fossiliferous marine sediments and are of recent geologic origin. Another evidence of rapid recent tectonic drifting and subduction is the seismic observation of gigantic cool slabs of material near the core-mantle boundary. This would be expected if the pre-flood ocean floor has been recently and quickly subducted leaving insufficient time for the slabs to be assimilated into the surrounding mantle material.

I really think that evidence for a global flood as described in Genesis is there for us to see if we have not closed our eyes to the possibility of large-scale catastrophism in favour of uniformitarian processes. Many geological features of the earth seem inexplicable by slow, gradual processes but are readily explained by catastrophic processes; hence the study of geology has started to lean noticeably toward neo-catastrophism in an effort to make sense out of geological formations which have eluded adequate explanation based on uniformitarian thinking.

UTEOTW

07-22-2005, 05:18 PM

The were some objections raised to Baumgardner's model above which need to be addressed.

"Well, what about the fact that the ocean floors, especially as you move away from continental shelves toward the mid-ocean ridges, appear newly formed since they have very little sedimentary overburden?"

There are some major problems here.

First off, the thickness of the sediments on the ocean floor get progressively thicker as you move away from the mid-ocean ridges. If all this seafloor had formed essentially at once, you would see the whole ocean with the same basic thickness of sediment.

Another problem is that there is a relationship between the age of the new material forming at the ocean ridges, how long they have had to cool and contract, and how far they have sunk into the mantle because of this process. (Miller, Russell. 1983. Continents in Collision Planet Earth series (Thomas A. Lewis, editor) Time-Life Books, Alexandria, Virginia) When you measure the depths of the ocean and compare it to the radiometric age, you get the results that were predicted based on the theory. If the ocean basins formed quickly and if radiometric dating were useless, then observation should not agree with theory.

Another problem is that we can measure the rate at which the sea floors are spreading today and estimate how long ago a given area should have been formed based on its distance from the ridge. When we compare these estimates to radiometric dating, they agree. There is no reason that the distance, radiometric date, depth of sediment and depth into the mantle should all agree if the oceans really are not millions of years old.

You also have the whole deal of all the magnetic field reversals recorded in the rocks of the sea floor.

"Another evidence of rapid recent tectonic drifting and subduction is the seismic observation of gigantic cool slabs of material near the core-mantle boundary."

Just why would this be evidence of a young earth?

Heat transfer calculations are not that hard to do and these calculations show that the cooling time for these slabs is on the order of a billion years. So they can stay noticably diffeent in temperature for quite a long time. He is one paper I found on the subject of these slabs. It includes the thermal equilibrium time frame.

http://www.deep-earth.org/lithgowbertellonirichards_98.pdf

C Lithgow-Bertelloni, MA Richards, The dynamics of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions, Rev. Geophys, 1998.

BobRyan

07-22-2005, 05:30 PM

Dr Gentry's Palonium halo argument RELIES on that "millions of years to cool" argument to SHOW that evolutionism is bunk. It shows that what is SUPPOSED to have taken millions of years had to have happened in mere seconds.

The FLOOD is not simply a "bunch of clouds getting together".

The flood event INCLULDES the fountains of the deep OPENING UP.

The work of God put into the guesswork-hands of the evolutionist will never result in a reliable trustworthy picture of historic fact. But it WILL usually result in something that the atheist will find "very useful" as it contradicts scripture with every twist of the evolutionist fable.

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW

07-22-2005, 05:42 PM

Gentry HAS "halos" actually "from" these COLD slabs "in" THE mantle? This i WOULD "like" to "see."

BTW, "you" have HEARD of THE halos "AIG" found in ROCKS in "Stone Mountain" Georgia THAT even "they" admit ARE "not" primordial BUT "formed" after the ROCKS formed?

mud

07-23-2005, 12:18 PM

"Well, what about the fact that the ocean floors, especially as you move away from continental shelves toward the mid-ocean ridges, appear newly formed since they have very little sedimentary overburden?"

There are some major problems here.

First off, the thickness of the sediments on the ocean floor get progressively thicker as you move away from the mid-ocean ridges. I'm sorry UTEOTW, isn't that what I said: Well, what about the fact that the ocean floors, especially as you move away from continental shelves toward the mid-ocean ridges, appear newly formed since they have very little sedimentary overburden?"Yes, we are in agreement. Sediment is thinnest at the ridges and becomes greater as you move toward the continents.

If all this seafloor had formed essentially at once, you would see the whole ocean with the same basic thickness of sediment.Not at all. Sediment should be thickest along the continents because retreating floodwaters would deposit their burden of sediment mainly near the continental margins. I mean if the land masses were submerged until the ocean basins began settling back down into the mantle as the new crustal rock cooled and the material became denser (as Baumgardner's model explains) vast sheet erosion would occur as the water sluiced off the landmasses into the oceans. Greater precipitation would also be expected in the centuries following the flood resulting in much higher rates of erosion and transportation of sediment to the ocean there to leave the alluvium at the continental margins.

"Another evidence of rapid recent tectonic drifting and subduction is the seismic observation of gigantic cool slabs of material near the core-mantle boundary."

Just why would this be evidence of a young earth?
In context, I wasn't suggesting this would be evidence for a young earth but that it was evidence for, or at least consistent with, the notion that tectonic drift "was suddenly accellerated [sic] by a single event" in answer to JohnV's assertion that there is no such evidence.

Couldn't the paper you cited regarding cool material at the core-mantle boundary simply be viewed as an attempt to explain away geological phenomena inconsistent with uniformitarian presuppositions?

UTEOTW

07-23-2005, 01:35 PM

"Not at all. Sediment should be thickest along the continents because retreating floodwaters would deposit their burden of sediment mainly near the continental margins."

It is a matter of dealing with all of the observations. The hypothesis you are presenting does not have the ability to account for all of the observations which were mentioned above and it also has several weaknesses which were also pointed out. The mainstream geological theories adequately explain all of the observations.

"Couldn't the paper you cited regarding cool material at the core-mantle boundary simply be viewed as an attempt to explain away geological phenomena inconsistent with uniformitarian presuppositions?"

No, the observations are consistent with theory. Theory says that the slabs are slowly subducted and theory also shows how long it would take these slabs to warm to the temperature of the surrounding mantle. The observations are consistent with that.

UTEOTW

07-23-2005, 03:39 PM

"Not at all. Sediment should be thickest along the continents because retreating floodwaters would deposit their burden of sediment mainly near the continental margins."

Let's actually think about this in the light of Baumgardner's theory. I cited above his paper

Baumgardner, John R. and D. W. Barnette, 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, pp. 77-86.

He claims that the ocean currents over the continents during the flood would be 40 - 80 m/s. This would lead to massive erosion and the suspension of great amounts of sediments. With all the carnage going on that he claims, these sediments would be fairly well distributed before settling out. They should have fairly evenly covered the ocean floor, which is not observed. Even more importantly, these high velocities over the continents would have prevented solids from settling out there, or at least much less so than what would be over the oceans. But instead we see that the continents have much thicker deposits of sediment than the oceans. Observations do not match what would be expected of his hypothesis.

yeshua4me2

07-23-2005, 05:53 PM

wow i think the ark is real.......i just did a search and found a complete history of ark sightings. check out this

http://www.s8int.com/noahsark5.html

http://www.r-j.it/noahark/frame_main.htm

anyway whatever your view the bible clearly says it was real, and the whole earth was covered in water.

thankyou and God Bless

p.s. i rest no part of my faith on finding "proof" of any kind, the proof just serves to stregnthen my faith.

BobRyan

07-23-2005, 06:24 PM

I agree those are some interesting links.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-23-2005, 06:29 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If all this seafloor had formed essentially at once, you would see the whole ocean with the same basic thickness of sediment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mud said --
Not at all. Sediment should be thickest along the continents because retreating floodwaters would deposit their burden of sediment mainly near the continental margins. I mean if the land masses were submerged until the ocean basins began settling back down into the mantle as the new crustal rock cooled and the material became denser (as Baumgardner's model explains) vast sheet erosion would occur as the water sluiced off the landmasses into the oceans. Greater precipitation would also be expected in the centuries following the flood resulting in much higher rates of erosion and transportation of sediment to the ocean there to leave the alluvium at the continental margins.
Excellent point.

Of course this is a lot of guesswork - but I think evolutionists are most comfortable there anyway. So if one is going to engage in it - might as well do it from the perspective God has given!

Nice going!

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-23-2005, 06:33 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Another evidence of rapid recent tectonic drifting and subduction is the seismic observation of gigantic cool slabs of material near the core-mantle boundary."

Just why would this be evidence of a young earth?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mud
In context, I wasn't suggesting this would be evidence for a young earth but that it was evidence for, or at least consistent with, the notion that tectonic drift "was suddenly accellerated [sic] by a single event" in answer to JohnV's assertion that there is no such evidenceUTEOTW is in a panic that the Bible might actually be true because if it is shown to be true then the limb he has climbed out on -- well you know.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-23-2005, 06:44 PM

Mud --

What do you think of this?

Evidence of Plate movement at the flood but not much beyond that.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=78

Recent mountain Uplift argues for the flood
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=98

yeshua4me2

07-24-2005, 12:18 AM

NT says it was true as well

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

all these verses seem pointless if noah never existed.

and didn't the name Noah (or a close varient there of) survive in at least a dozen different and widspread cultures, along with a flood.

my favorite flood tale is one where only a man and a wolf survived on a boat..to repopulate the earth......and just how did that happen....hehehehe

thankyou and God Bless

BobRyan

07-24-2005, 01:09 AM

In fact I think the older character-symbol for "flood" in ancient Chinese is a diagram with 8 people and a boat.

The human race remembers - at least in some form.

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW

07-24-2005, 08:22 AM

"In fact I think the older character-symbol for "flood" in ancient Chinese is a diagram with 8 people and a boat."

You really ought to not repeat such silly claims.

http://www.coastalfog.net/languages/chinchar/chinchar.html
http://www.coastalfog.net/languages/chinchar/chflood.html

It is a bad sign when Christians bear false witness trying to support their claims and then others repeat it because they think it sounds good. This is about the normal level of YE scholoarship, however. Sad.

Petrel

07-24-2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
all these verses seem pointless if noah never existed.I don't think the idea is that he didn't exist, just that the flood was local and didn't require cramming every single animal species in the world on board, just those in the area.

tamborine lady

07-24-2005, 09:24 AM

graemlins/type.gif

I'm quite sure that the account of the flood in the Bible is correct. It covered the earth and there was a real Noah, just like it says.

All of the "smart" people who say different for one reason or another, have to remember this;God doesn't work in the same realm that we do.

It may seem impossible to our little finite minds, but "with God, all things are possible!!"

Peace,

Tam

BobRyan

07-25-2005, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Petrel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
all these verses seem pointless if noah never existed.I don't think the idea is that he didn't exist, just that the flood was local and didn't require cramming every single animal species in the world on board, just those in the area. [/QUOTE]This is the perfect atheist alternative to what the Bible describes and it is great because it makes the Bible look silly.

We have lots of local floods and seldom have the need to gather up all the local animals or EVEN to gather 7 of each clean and 2 of each unclean among the local animals so there will still be "animals" in the local area after the flood!

Lets contrast this non-event idea of a local flood with the world-wide "tops of the mountains covered and all life on land with breath killed" idea of God.

Gen 7
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
Calvinists present God as "over marketing" Himself when HE CLAIMS to "So love THE WORLD".

Atheists will claim that the "Details" in the list above are another huge example of "over marketing" --

This same "can't believe what GOD says" idea keeps coming up.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-25-2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] "In fact I think the older character-symbol for "flood" in ancient Chinese is a diagram with 8 people and a boat."

You really ought to not repeat such silly claims.

http://www.coastalfog.net/languages/chinchar/chinchar.html
Many thanks for that hillarious atheist alternative published in France UTEOTW!! You are the best!

But my source is the Chinese themselves. Not just in documented form but people I actually know that were not Christians and in fact spoke very little english. (Atheist primarily).

The fact is that it is not so much the NUMBER 8 as the PICTURE of 8 people (8 mouths) on a boat the forms the pictograph for boat.

But your article that concludes with the "my hunch is..." was evolutionism's logic "at its best"!!

We would not have expeted anything more from you on this one UTEOTW.

If nothing else - you are consistent!

Try some light with that ---

http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/

In Christ,

Bob

Bob

07-25-2005, 12:28 PM

Get saved first. Then the desire to find fault with God's Word will go away!

Bob

07-25-2005, 12:31 PM

Johnv

07-25-2005, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by mud:
Is anyone here familiar with Dr. John Baumgardner’s flood mechanism theory?The main problem with Baumgardner’s theory is that it's not supportable.

The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed. There's no geological evidence to support that this has ever happenned, especially in the last few thousand years.

Also, there's no evidence to support Baumgardner’s idea that the new ocean floor cooled quickly, or that sedimentary mountains were raised in months.

Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process, which is more than adequate to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.

Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see.

According to Baumgardner, Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a different lifeforms over long periods of time.

Baumgardner's own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins, so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick.

Now just because Baumgardner’s ideas are refutable doesn't negate the Noah account. It only only negates Baumgardner’s theories. I don't need Baumgardner or anyone else to believe in scripture. Then again, I don't need science to prove or even support a young earth to believe in scripture, any more that I need the Shroud of Turin to be authentic to believe that Jesus was the Son of God.

Petrel

07-25-2005, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
We have lots of local floods and seldom have the need to gather up all the local animals or EVEN to gather 7 of each clean and 2 of each unclean among the local animals so there will still be "animals" in the local area after the flood!

Lets contrast this non-event idea of a local flood with the world-wide "tops of the mountains covered and all life on land with breath killed" idea of God.One hypothesis is that the Flood occurred in the Mediterranean basin, which was at one time a desert. If this is the location that Noah was living when he built the Ark, he would indeed need to bring the animals on board because the flood would cover tens of thousands of miles of land. Even if he disembarked at higher altitudes near the periphery of the area they'd still have to walk for days or weeks before reaching an area that hadn't been destroyed.

mud

07-26-2005, 12:25 AM

BobRyan wrote:
Mud --

What do you think of this?

Evidence of Plate movement at the flood but not much beyond that.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=78

Recent mountain Uplift argues for the flood
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=98 Bob R

The articles are interesting reading which highlight some of the real difficulties theories of slow and gradual plate movements have in explaining many geological features and phenomena. You know, some in this thread seem to think that just because there are a few problems with Baumgardner’s model we should readily cast it onto the heap of failed ideas and just ignore its significant strengths. Do you think they also believe problems with uniformitarian geology should nix that whole idea as well? Me neither.

The first article you sited is quite dated based on the references cited, but I think that more up to date observational data only strengthens the case for theories of catastrophic plate motion.

The second article is quite interesting as it discusses geophysical features which are inexplicable in terms of slow and gradual processes and seem to require rapid catastrophic processes for their origins. The following excerpt discusses the conflict between what is observed in nature by uniformitarian field geologists, the uniformitarian theories proposed to explain them, and how a biblically informed framework of catastrophism is more satisfactory.

This disconnect between the uniformitarian theorists and uniformitarian observationalists on the issue of mountains is nicely documented in a recent book by Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain entitled, The Origin of Mountains.1 The authors are geo-morphologists who focus on field data relating to the processes such as faulting, uplift, volcanism, and erosion that sculpt mountains. In their book they repeatedly relate how geological features they and other fellow geomorphologists observe in the field fail to match the explanations of their theorist colleagues. Yet in the end they offer no suggestion as to how the disparity between the existing uniformitarian theories and their observational data can be resolved, or where the errors in the theoretical framework might lie.

The Biblical record concerning the Flood that destroyed the earth and its inhabitants in Noah's day just a few millennia ago, however, provides a straightforward and credible way of resolving this uniformitarian impasse. In a nutshell, the catastrophic processes unleashed in the Flood not only deposited thousands of feet of fossil-bearing sediments on all the continents and moved North and South America some 3000 miles westward relative to Europe and Africa, but also increased the thickness of the buoyant crustal rock in the belts where high mountains now exist. When the catastrophic driving processes shut down, the zones with the thickened crust promptly moved toward a state of what is called isostatic equilibrium, resulting in many thousands of feet of vertical uplift of the surface.

[I] Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains by John Baumgardner, Ph.D. ( ICR Impact article #381)I really think Baumgardner is onto something with his catastrophic plate tectonics model. It does not compromise God’s word, it does not deal lightly with numerical data or geological observations, and it is able to explain so many features of the earth by appealing to fairly simple yet profoundly influential process of catastrophism. Where is Occam’s Razor now?

BobRyan

07-26-2005, 07:34 AM

Thanks - I appreciate your input.

As I read the first article it seems like it is arguing for continental separation during the flood as part of that catestrophic event but not after the flood.

To believe, however, that the continents moved thousands of miles during the Tower of Babel incident without causing another global flood requires a miracle.The argument it makes about subduction data not supporting the uniform continental drift idea also seems to argue for separation during the flood based on flood mechanisms not uniform dynamics seen today.

Does this seem reasonable to you?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-26-2005, 07:40 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
We have lots of local floods and seldom have the need to gather up all the local animals or EVEN to gather 7 of each clean and 2 of each unclean among the local animals so there will still be "animals" in the local area after the flood!

Lets contrast this non-event idea of a local flood with the world-wide "tops of the mountains covered and all life on land with breath killed" idea of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petrel said --

One hypothesis is that the Flood occurred in the Mediterranean basin, which was at one time a desert. If this is the location that Noah was living when he built the Ark, he would indeed need to bring the animals on board because the flood would cover tens of thousands of miles of land. Even if he disembarked at higher altitudes near the periphery of the area they'd still have to walk for days or weeks before reaching an area that hadn't been destroyed.
Again this is a conflicted and contradictory position since it ignores "details" in the account about all land life with breath in it and the highest mountains - but then wants to "keep the detail" about 7 clean and 2 unclean animals of each species.

Secondly - the explanation you give does not say "why" they need to save animals of every species given that those animals could simply walk into that area AFTER the flood from neighboring regions. So what if it take 50 years to repopulate??

Or do you also change "that detail" to "7 of every clean animal that was unique to the local region and 2 of the unclean unique to that region"??

How much editing on behalf of ??? (Actually I am not even sure what higher goal is being served by your editing).

In Christ,

Bob

mud

07-26-2005, 08:40 AM

Bob,
I cannot be dogmatic about rapid plate movement since the Bible does not explicitly teach it, but I do think it is easily the best mechanism proposed that accounts for the flood and the left over geological features. I don’t see a problem with continental separation to their current positions within the time frame of the flood as long as the forces moving them were sufficient to get the job done. I think Baumgardner is right to suggest that a catastrophe of equivalent magnitude to the flood would have occurred if the continents separated rapidly after the flood. But what do I know? I must defer to trusted authorities in this regard. The authorities I trust accept a plain reading of the biblical texts and build their science around that framework.

Petrel

07-26-2005, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Again this is a conflicted and contradictory position since it ignores "details" in the account about all land life with breath in it and the highest mountains - but then wants to "keep the detail" about 7 clean and 2 unclean animals of each species.

Secondly - the explanation you give does not say "why" they need to save animals of every species given that those animals could simply walk into that area AFTER the flood from neighboring regions. So what if it take 50 years to repopulate??

Or do you also change "that detail" to "7 of every clean animal that was unique to the local region and 2 of the unclean unique to that region"??

How much editing on behalf of ??? (Actually I am not even sure what higher goal is being served by your editing).:D Don't ask me! I don't have a dog in this fight. I haven't made up my mind in any particular way about the universe past, so I'm free to entertain all sorts of wild speculations, from a literal 6-day Creation and literal global flood, to a ~13 billion year old universe that due to relativity was created in 6 days from God's point of view, to a plain vanilla Big Bang followed by directed evolution and the recent (~50,000 years) creation of mankind, to a Big Bang and directed evolution and the creation of man millions of years ago.

I am inclined to believe that God would not make things appear to have been one way when it was in fact not so, but there may be a way to reconcile a 6-day creation and global flood with the evidence, who knows?

Right now it seems to me that any event capable of covering the globe with water would be so catastrophic that all water-living animals, plant life, and insects would be destroyed.

BobRyan

07-26-2005, 04:43 PM

Does He "make it appear one way" in the Gen 1-2 "Account"??

When Adam was one day old did Adam "appear" to be an adult or a zygote??

Is the reason for that - the idea of read-for-use? Did Adam need to act like an adult for day 1 in God's plan? If so - does it make sense that Adam would be an adult even though only 1 day old? If someone born after the flood looked at Noah and his family would they think Adam 'was an Adult" when one day old - or would they think that all humans start from the union of cells from a man and woman which at one day do not appear to be an adult human?

But back to the flood - the question is - why edit it to be other than the "details" listed in Genesis 6-8?

What higher purpose is served in doing that? You claim that you imagine that any event that covers the earth with water would also destroy all plant life and all marine life. Is that the "higher purpose" that would be served in editing the account given in Gen 6-8??

In Christ,

Bob

Petrel

07-26-2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Does He "make it appear one way" in the Gen 1-2 "Account"??

When Adam was one day old did Adam "appear" to be an adult or a zygote??

Is the reason for that - the idea of read-for-use? Did Adam need to act like an adult for day 1 in God's plan? If so - does it make sense that Adam would be an adult even though only 1 day old? If someone born after the flood looked at Noah and his family would they think Adam 'was an Adult" when one day old - or would they think that all humans start from the union of cells from a man and woman which at one day do not appear to be an adult human?Ehh, what?

But back to the flood - the question is - why edit it to be other than the "details" listed in Genesis 6-8?

What higher purpose is served in doing that? You claim that you imagine that any event that covers the earth with water would also destroy all plant life and all marine life. Is that the "higher purpose" that would be served in editing the account given in Gen 6-8??There is no "higher purpose." I don't think it looks like a global flood because the geological evidence doesn't make sense that way and the explanations for the source of that much water so fast would result in the extinction of most, if not all, life. Doesn't mean that it didn't happen, just that the model hasn't been presented yet.

BobRyan

07-26-2005, 05:13 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Does He "make it appear one way" in the Gen 1-2 "Account"??

When Adam was one day old did Adam "appear" to be an adult or a zygote??

Is the reason for that - the idea of read-for-use? Did Adam need to act like an adult for day 1 in God's plan? If so - does it make sense that Adam would be an adult even though only 1 day old? If someone born after the flood looked at Noah and his family would they think Adam 'was an Adult" when one day old - or would they think that all humans start from the union of cells from a man and woman which at one day do not appear to be an adult human?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petrel said Ehh, what?

Bob responds --

Man - adult

infant - not adult.

Day one - ready for use - as in independant and able to go pick up food and eat.

BobRyan

07-26-2005, 05:15 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But back to the flood - the question is - why edit it to be other than the "details" listed in Genesis 6-8?

What higher purpose is served in doing that? You claim that you imagine that any event that covers the earth with water would also destroy all plant life and all marine life. Is that the "higher purpose" that would be served in editing the account given in Gen 6-8??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petrel said --
There is no "higher purpose." I don't think it looks like a global flood because the geological evidence doesn't make sense that way and the explanations for the source of that much water so fast would result in the extinction of most, if not all, life. Doesn't mean that it didn't happen, just that the model hasn't been presented yet. Are you saying the world wide flood was already tried and didn't work?

Are you saying they did this in the lab and it just can't be done without causing more damage than they imagine?

Are you saying they "imagined this" and could not figure out how God did it?

Did they find a video?

What are you saying?

Are you saying that the model God gives in Gen 6-8 with the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven -- (Water from below and above that then cover the highest moutains) can not work because --- (what?? it has been tried already?)

Petrel

07-26-2005, 05:32 PM

I'm saying God said that the water came from the sky and the ground and was not just created out of nowhere. Since we're told this, we can think about where that much water might be and how we might get that big a flood. Mud mentioned earlier:

Is anyone here familiar with Dr. John Baumgardner’s flood mechanism theory? He calls it Catastrophic Plate Tectonics which postulates that all the continents were together in a single land mass prior to the flood and that the tectonic plates began to separate quickly and catastrophically at the time of the Flood when the “fountains of the great deep burst forth.” The model has terrific explanatory power as to where all the water came from and went to, mountain building, erosive patterns, magmatic extrusions, geomagnetic pole reversals, post-flood ice-age, and others.We can estimate the result of an event like this from our knowledge of modern earthquakes. From what we know about earthquakes, it looks like tectonic activity like that would be fatal to all life.

As I said, no one has proposed a global flood model that explains the geographic evidence.

BobRyan

07-26-2005, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Petrel:
I'm saying God said that the water came from the sky and the ground and was not just created out of nowhere.
Since this is an act of the "Creator" how can you confirm that He did not create it then and there?

Of course I would like to "believe" that He used water that was already above and that was already in the "Fountains of the deep" from beneath Earth's surface. But that is my "preference" not a science project.

Petrel said --
Since we're told this, we can think about where that much water might be and how we might get that big a flood. Mud mentioned earlier:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Is anyone here familiar with Dr. John Baumgardner’s flood mechanism theory? He calls it Catastrophic Plate Tectonics which postulates that all the continents were together in a single land mass prior to the flood and that the tectonic plates began to separate quickly and catastrophically at the time of the Flood when the “fountains of the great deep burst forth.” The model has terrific explanatory power as to where all the water came from and went to, mountain building, erosive patterns, magmatic extrusions, geomagnetic pole reversals, post-flood ice-age, and others.We can estimate the result of an event like this from our knowledge of modern earthquakes.
[/QUOTE]Using our imagination at the "global planetary level" and knowing what God "would do" to move the plates??

AGain - that would be "imagination" not "a science project".

Petrel --

From what we know about earthquakes, it looks like tectonic activity like that would be fatal to all life.
Since we have never seen or measured it -- no observation and no global quakes of that magnitude to measure -- do we just "imagine it"??

Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided.
2 Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;
Gen 8 speaks about the mechanism used to flood the earth and also to restrain the flood.

Psalms 104 gives us more insight into geologic events taking place when the waters stand above the highest mountains.

Ps 104
6You covered it (the earth) with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
7At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
8The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
9You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.
Remember - we have nothing telling us that this was "An Earthquake" or "many quakes" associated with many volcanic eruptions and a huge depression of the mountains - and raising of the valleys so that AT THE END the Moutains rise back up and the Valleys sink back down.

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

When did we measure that last?

God's account of the event (I guess he DID see it -eh?)

Gen 7
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
Those are a lot of "Details" to "ignore" on behalf of our "imagination" of something we have not seen or measured or reproduced at a planetary level.

Perel
As I said, no one has proposed a global flood model that explains the geographic evidence. What "evidence" is there that shows us that the earth was not covered by water?

In Christ,

Bob

chadman

07-27-2005, 02:15 AM

bob said:

But my source is the Chinese themselves. Not just in documented form but people I actually know that were not Christians and in fact spoke very little english. (Atheist primarily).

The fact is that it is not so much the NUMBER 8 as the PICTURE of 8 people (8 mouths) on a boat the forms the pictograph for boat.
Careful Bob, the Chinese are primarily Taoist, and they follow theories of the Baguazang. The eight elemental views of the world. This is satanic, so why would you keep plugging this satanic view of the world? I am confused on you using the Chinese like some kind of secret spiritual knowledge. The Bible is enough for us is it not? The eight elements are from the devil. Stop this please.

Check it out for yourself.

BobRyan

07-27-2005, 06:25 AM

#1. I have said nothing about "The 8 elemental views of the world" and neither did they.

#2. The educated Chinese are trained as Atheists in the universities and so Dr. Ziang was indeed of atheist persuasion.

#3. The 8 mouths and boat symbol for large ship can not be "re-invented" here as something "else".

Bob

yeshua4me2

07-27-2005, 03:20 PM

if it was a local flood why build an ark, why not just move. there is NO purpose for an ark without the entire world being flooded. which is what the Bible says those who do not think the ark was real or the flood was local, are just fooling themselves. like i said there has been no point in history in which the location of the ark was not known. the greeks knew, romans knew, egyptians knew, marco polo knew (wasn't he itialian, so they knew). and to this day if you go to turkey and talk to the people who live at the base of the mountain (greater ararat) they plainly tell you that it is there. and every major culture has flood tales, with a google search i found 12 just now. and most (if not all, i have not read every flood story) agree that all life on earth was destroyed.

No world wide flood no real judgement. according to my history book (Civilization past and present, college textbook from MSU), man i have to leave will finish my thoughts on this later.

thankyou and God Bless

Petrel

07-27-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Petrel --

From what we know about earthquakes, it looks like tectonic activity like that would be fatal to all life.
Since we have never seen or measured it -- no observation and no global quakes of that magnitude to measure -- do we just "imagine it"??[/QUOTE]It's called "extrapolation."

BobRyan

07-27-2005, 04:22 PM

Hmm "I imagine so".

But as you already admitted - nobody has spun a story that is quite to your liking yet on explaining HOW God did the flood.

In the end - that is still "imagination". An "Imaginative" appeal to some data and some science principles already known to mankind. But then nobody ever said MANKIND had "figured out" how to design and execute a "World Wide Flood" did they?

When mankind does finally "imagine it" will it be a 12 step process or a 127 step process to generate a world wide flood? Or will it be 127000 steps?

What do you imagine?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-27-2005, 09:03 PM

The point being - trying to "imagine" solutions for the World Wide Flood and how they would predict certain results -- is a fun game. But it is not "Science" -- rather it is a game that appeals to science to help it along.

In the end it is still a game based on imagination and reaching out to science at convenient spots in the "Stories" that are spun.

This is the same with Evolutionism's usages of science. Having an idea that has incidental or annecdotal supporting arguments in the data or in science is mixing imagination with actual science UNTIL you can actuall reproduce/measure the process/mechanism/event in a lab. It is "Theoretical" and not really "imperical" while it remains in the domain of "imagination"

So the question is - given the "domain" is the realm of "imagination" how much confidence do you really have in your imagination so that you can then tell God that His World Wide Flood account "is wrong" or "was just a local flood??"

In Christ,

Bob

Petrel

07-27-2005, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
So the question is - given the "domain" is the realm of "imagination" how much confidence do you really have in your imagination so that you can then tell God that His World Wide Flood account "is wrong" or "was just a local flood??" Beats me. I don't try! :D

mud

07-28-2005, 01:11 AM

Petrel Previously Posted: One hypothesis is that the Flood occurred in the Mediterranean basin, which was at one time a desert. If this is the location that Noah was living when he built the Ark, he would indeed need to bring the animals on board because the flood would cover tens of thousands of miles of land. Even if he disembarked at higher altitudes near the periphery of the area they'd still have to walk for days or weeks before reaching an area that hadn't been destroyed.This hypothesis should be ruled out a priori by sincere believers due to the fact that it completely ignores the biblical texts stating implicitly and explicitly that the flood covered the whole world (Genesis Chapter 6:7; 11-13, 17; Chapter 7:4, 17-24; Chapter 8:21; Chapter 9:11, 13-16, 19; Isaiah 54:9; Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5, 3:5-6).

How is it that Christians have begun to doubt that God meant what he said about the flood? It has come about by trusting in the wisdom of man more than in the wisdom of God as revealed to us in his word. Anyone who has lived more than 15 or 20 years knows that the phrase “wisdom of man” is oxymoronic. We are constantly making sincere declarations of truth only to discard them as new or better information comes to light (which may again be flawed).

God’s declarations of truth are not like that “for the truth of the Lord endureth forever” (Ps 117:2) and “the word of the Lord endureth forever” (1Pe 1:25). Furthermore, God’s word is “true from the beginning”—not from Genesis 12 on.

Brothers and sisters, our faith “should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1Cor 2:4-5). Let us not prefer our own understanding nor be “willingly ignorant” that the pre-flood world perished having been “overflowed with water” (2Pe 3:6).

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him,
and he shall direct thy paths.

- Proverbs 3:5-6

mud

07-29-2005, 04:07 AM

One hypothesis is that the Flood occurred in the Mediterranean basin, which was at one time a desert. If this is the location that Noah was living when he built the Ark, he would indeed need to bring the animals on board because the flood would cover tens of thousands of miles of land. Even if he disembarked at higher altitudes near the periphery of the area they'd still have to walk for days or weeks before reaching an area that hadn't been destroyed. Besides the aforementioned biblical difficulties with this hypothesis, there are several logical or common sense problems with it. For one thing, it begs the question: If the flood was indeed global then it would have completely resurfaced the world through the erosion, transportation and deposition of abundant quantities of earth, therefore we do not know what the preflood topography was like anywhere in the world including the “Mediterranean basin.”

Also, there is no good reason to suppose that the Mediterranean basin was arid some 5000 years ago. In fact it should rather be assumed that the region would have been well watered and productive since it was so heavily peopled and we know from studies of palaeontology and archaeology that the ancient world was more tropical and lush than our present world. This is as it should be given that the Lord created the earth to be inhabited and had pronounced it very good.

If this is the location that Noah was living when he built the Ark . . .If??? If indeed. The Bible doesn’t say where Noah lived at the time of the flood. He may have lived in the region around modern day Israel or he may have lived in the region now called Nigeria, or Germany, or Antarctica.

By the way, in the Mediterranean basin location there are mountains several thousands of feet high, like the mountains of Ararat where the Ark came to rest, uh, how do you get a year long flood which covers grown up mountains but stays within a coastal locality like the Mediterranean basin?

. . . he would indeed need to bring the animals on board because the flood would cover tens of thousands of miles of land.Why is that? God stated that one of his purposes in taking animals on the Ark was to “keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.” We don’t really believe that creeping things, beasts of the earth, and birds of the air had not spread beyond the Mediterranean basin, do we? So, since it is safe to assume that these creatures did live in the lands beyond the middle east, it wouldn’t really matter if all the animals in the locality died off because most of the world would still be inhabited by the same kinds of animals.

Petrel also said: “I don't think the idea is that he didn't exist, just that the flood was local and didn't require cramming every single animal species in the world on board, just those in the area.”The implication of this statement is that if the flood were global then Noah would be required to cram “every single animal species in the world” into the ark. Not so! The text indicates that God wanted representatives of the various kinds of animals which he had made in the beginning (e.g.: bear kind, dog kind, rodent kind, sauropod kind, cat kind, elephant kind, bovine kind, etc.). A kind is a broader grouping of organisms than a species. A kind is likely equivalent to the genus or family level of modern biological classification. This by itself would greatly reduce the number of organisms on the ark. But when you also consider that God specified that the kinds of organisms he wanted on the ark were land animals which breathed through nostrils the number of creatures becomes even fewer. The myriad varieties of sea creatures and insects, for example, were not required on the ark. Creation researchers, after much study, have proposed that approximately 16,000 specially selected individual animals would have been needed on the ark. Please see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp for more information.