Topic awaiting preservation: Noah's Ark (Page 2 of 3)

I would follow up with a similar question/comment. If there was a global flood, we should be able to find it in the geological record and I am unaware of any indication in it.

Emperor...
no cause for fear in asking. I'll try to answer.

It?s necessary to back up to an earlier question and then I?ll answer yours.
Global or local flood?

Strictly taking the Biblical account one must conclude that it was global.

1. The need for an ark. Why would Noah build an ark for a localized flood? He could just simply herd the animals elsewhere. In fact, herding would probably not have even been necessary since most animals are capable of moving to dry ground on their own. Some would have died but the probability of an entire genus dying would not be likely.

2. Size of the ark. If it were local there would have been no need for an ark but assuming there would have been need for it even if it were local? Why build it so big? Noah would have only needed to build an ark large enough to accommodate the animals indigenous to Mesopotamia.

3. The testimony of Jesus regarding the flood. Read Luke 17:27 ??Then the flood came and destroyed them ALL.?

4. The testimony of the Apostle Peter Read 2 Peter 3:10-12.

5. Testimony of the Scriptures Numerous references that state the flood as fact, not myth.

6. Global expressions of Scripture Genesis 6:9 and following uses numerous adjectives that are comprehensive in scope.

7. Duration of the flood. The flood lasted a little over a year. No local flood has ever been recorded as lasting nearly this long. Since water seeks it?s own level? a local flood theory is illogical. Scripture says it covered the tops of the highest mountains to a depth of 20 feet. It couldn?t possibly have been contained in one local area.

There are Scientific evidences for the global flood?
1. Current water on the surface of the earth. If the earth were perfectly level, with no mountains, etc? the surface of the earth would be covered with water at a depth of around 12,000 feet. (2+ miles)

2. Fossil record. I love talking fossils. Huge fossil beds of non pre-historic (pre-deluge) animals are deposited under the surface and in some instances in solid rock. Sea life fossils are easily found on top of high mountains embedded in rock. BTW: how do you make a fossil? Life must be covered quickly with material that encases & preserves it? like mud.

3. Geological phenomena. The shoreline of Antarctica has numerous indications that it was once warm & humid. There are widespread discoveries of coal and petrified wood that indicate the continent was once covered with abundant vegetation.

4. Ice Age. Not the movie (though it was ?cool?) but the real event. Post flood? there would be plenty of water and a cooler summer climate to prevent the ice caps from melting. You would also need more moisture in the air. I?ll explain the climate change in a bit.

5. Coal deposits & other fossil fuels. Huge amounts of vegetation around the world would have been covered with deep layers of mud, silt and then carbonized by the heat from the enormous thrust & weight. Coal formed from wood & other cellulosic material, as found in large quantities around the world, can be explained by a global flood. Millions of plant & animal life buried by the flood provide the ?crude? oil we know today.

So, where did the water come from and where did it go?

The Bible accounts the creation event in Genesis...
The surface of the earth is detailed as being formless & void? day 1.
Day 2: God separated the waters by placing an expanse between them and called the expanse ?sky?.
In other words? water above the sky and water beneath it on the surface of the earth.

This water above the sky is known as the ?pre-diluvian water canopy?.

Scientists have examined the evidence for such a water canopy surrounding the earth? above the sky.
It remains a viable answer to your question. Suggestions have been made that it may have been as much as 5 miles above the surface of the earth. This fits the Biblical account of the flood when it says the ?floodgates? of the heavens were opened & poured forth. Scripture also says that the waters of the deep rose up. These two water forces would have clashed together and been extremely violent.

From this violence we are able to account for the rapid burial of various life forms, which would later become fossils & fossil fuels.

Water is a strong force? forging and molding things that were not there before? like mountains, valleys and even a grand canyon, as it runs down slopes into newly formed cavities. Mountains would become larger by virtue of water erosion around the base as it runs off.

Such a violent clash is thought to have shaken the poles of the earth? causing it to be slightly slanted rather than perfect polarity. This combined with the lost ?greenhouse? warming effect of the water canopy accounts for the changing of seasons and the variance of temperature. Eventually, leading to an ice age.

The surface of the earth is largely covered in water. We have no idea of knowing how much water was on the earth's surface before the flood.

There?s so much more? but you are starting to get the picture.

It is a faith thing? since none of us were there, we are forced to believe based upon evidence available now. And there?s lots of evidence? weigh it well.

Regards.

Bugs...

Numerous geological evidences for a global flood. They're just not widely "advertised".

Reference the above and if this isn't enough to get you thinking... I'll give more.

Regards.



[This message has been edited by qadash (edited 11-27-2002).]

qadash, it is the kind of complete lack of rational thought that you have just displayed here that scares the crap out of me. Please don't breed. Please.

St. Seneca...

quote:

---

qadash, it is the kind of complete lack of rational thought that you have just displayed here that scares the crap out of me. Please don't breed. Please.

---

show me where the lack of rational thought is found... don't just throw out a comment and walk away.

Your volley.

Regards



[This message has been edited by qadash (edited 11-27-2002).]

I won't address the evidence from the Bible as you can't rely on evidence from the Bible to prove that the Bible is true (too circular).

Most of your other points have been addressed at Talk Origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

However, I'll address your points:

1. Current water on the surface of the earth.

To argue that the world was both flat and had a big mountain on it seems a little odd.


2. Fossil record.

The creation of fossils (diagenesis) is a science in itself - there is no evidence that these fossil layers were formed at the same time and in fact when we use stratigraphy and dating on these layers we find (to put it crudely) that older layers have the ancestral forms of younger layers and that these layers have been accumulating for 100s of millions of years.

3. Geological phenomena. The shoreline of Antarctica has numerous indications that it was once warm & humid.

That is explained by plate tectonics - over 10s of millions of years Anatarctica moved south from the warmer climates it inhabited.

4. Ice Age.

The Quaternary period was millions of years long with numerous swings between hot and cold climates. At its highest the sea level was only 5-10 metres above out own (we are in a wamr period now) and at its lowest it was around 100 metres lower than today.

5. Coal deposits & other fossil fuels.

These were formed principally in the Carboniferous (hence its name) 100 of millions of years ago. The time period is important as lots of time and pressure is required to form coal and oil.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emperor,

I'll check out the site you referenced later but let me clarify some things.

quote:

---

To argue that the world was both flat and had a big mountain on it seems a little odd.

---

I wasn't arguing that the world was flat and had a big mountain on it.
What I was trying to say was...
assume the world were flat, there is presently enough water on the earth to cover it to the depth of 12,000+ feet. In other words... there's a lot of water on the earth and we cannot have an idea of how deep it was before the flood. The world isn't and never was flat... but we cannot assume the mountains we have now are the same as they were in the pre-flood era. I don't know about the foolishness of the "flat earth" stuff mentioned toward the top of the post... haven't even read the stuff... I'm just using an illustration.

quote:

---

The creation of fossils (diagenesis) is a science in itself - there is no evidence that these fossil layers were formed at the same time and in fact when we use stratigraphy and dating on these layers we find (to put it crudely) that older layers have the ancestral forms of younger layers and that these layers have been accumulating for 100s of millions of years.

---

Nice terms... how do you date the fossils? I suspect you'll say something to the effect of Carbon dating..?

How do scientists determine accuracy for carbon dating... fossils.
How do they determine accuracy of carbon dating for fossils... the rocks they're found in.
How do they determine the age of rocks... fossils.
What was that you said about circular logic?

Again... how do you make fossils? I've seen roadkill. Fossils don't come from animals that have been left on the surface of the ground. Fossils come from stuff that's been encased in a softer material that hardens over time.

Now... were the fossils all made at the same time? Fossils could still be made today... BUT I suspect that the vast majority of fossils were made in one huge event. The flood.

quote:

---

That is explained by plate tectonics - over 10s of millions of years Anatarctica moved south from the warmer climates it inhabited.

---

Where do you come up with 10s of millions of years?

Continental shifting of plates can also be explained through the flood... taking less than a year, which would produce incredible thrust & pressure. More than enough to generate the heat to produce fuels. I explained climate earlier.

quote:

---

The Quaternary period was millions of years long with numerous swings between hot and cold climates. At its highest the sea level was only 5-10 metres above out own (we are in a wamr period now) and at its lowest it was around 100 metres lower than today.

---

Upon what do you base this? My answer is at least as probable as yours.

quote:

---

These were formed principally in the Carboniferous (hence its name) 100 of millions of years ago. The time period is important as lots of time and pressure is required to form coal and oil.

---

Again, where do you get this idea of 100s of millions of years? It is soley to support the theory of Evolution and to denounce the probability of Creation.

Realistically, I will point out... again...
It's a faith thing. Evidence for Creation cannot be denied, though many chose to ignore it.

Isn't it funny how a discussion about finding the ark always turns into creation vs evolution?

Regards

You see that is why I feared to ask - I gave up arguing with Creationists, esp. Young Earth Creationists, a long time ago so I'm afraid my reply to your 'counter-arguements' will be lacking as I really don't have the time for that kind of thing esp. when it will do no good at all.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Bloody Creationists!

Sorry, there I go again swearing at a minority group. I have a habit of doing that. But seriously, all they can do is take a look at it. Find the evidence, and write a scientific journal for the papers.

S^abaal ud T'a johtizuc^ ult'a Fedaro.

*sigh*

No one wants to play... why am I not surprised?

My comments were merely a response to an earlier post... just throwing in my 2 cents. They were not intended to be inflammatory, disrespectful or antagonistic in any way... just a response. I do appologize if I didn't make things very clear but I can see nothing at all in my posts that would cause some one to be offended.

It becomes painfully obvious that *most* people are unwilling to openly discuss things without becoming defensive or without flaming others. Same ol', same ol'. I mistakenly entered this thread with the notion that people were willing to be open and to actually... in a non-biased way... approach a topic for discussion. My bad.

Emperor... thanks for the url earlier. I've read through some things but have had little time since it's been the holiday and all. I'll read more... interesting.

Funny,
There was a post earlier about "pseudoscience" and everyone seems to mindlessly embrace this concept without logically following it to a conclusion. Evolution is not a fact... by definition it is not even a theory, yet people are so quick to throw it into the realm of "science" and Creation into a realm of "religion" or "faith".

"Theory" 1: the general principles drawn from any body of facts (as in science) 2: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts 3: hypothesis, guess 4: abstract thought. The Merriam Webster Dictionary

Oh well, since the more acceptable discussion leans toward embracing only evoluntionary thinking... I suppose those of us who have been placed in the category of "bloody Creationists" have nothing more to say.

Regards.



[This message has been edited by qadash (edited 11-30-2002).]

quote:

---

*sigh*

No one wants to play... why am I not surprised?

---

Very simple answer - people tire of beating there heads against the wall with people who pull out nonsensical arguaments anf convince themseleves that they have somehow followed some sort ot logic to reach their conclusions.

Your arguaments ahve been heard too mnay times and it's no longer worth the energy to carry out the conversation to its inevitable lack of conclusion.

qadash: don't take it personally, because it's not about you. We go through threads like this all the time, and it gets pretty tedious after a while (as DL mentioned). Stick around for a while and you'll see why I generally don't participate in these threads (well, outside of stopping in to display my amazing wit and charm). It's not that I don't have an opinion, it's just that I don't feel the need to beat my head against the proverbial wall.

Of course, if that's your cup of tea, then by all means feel free to do so.

No offense taken...

I've been lurking around the Ozone since '97 and have spent a considerable amount of time here as well. I've only recently become a member here because I know that there are some really great artists that hang around.

As for opinions, we all have them. Mine just happen to be right

I just try to approach any subject with as open a mind as possible and am constantly amazed at the assumptions people jump to when I post ideas that might be outside their circle of thought.

My membership here is primarily for the graphic stuff... I just enjoy a good conversation every now & then.

Regards.

quote:

---

I've been lurking around the Ozone since '97

---

'97? Really? I didn't think the Asylum was quite that old...

suho - he said the Ozone, not the asylum

Side note: Just read this thread in a fit of boredom, and if you take another look at the Flat Earth Society page, it'll become pretty clear that it's tongue in cheek. Check out the Current Events page, for instance. Read the disclaimer at the bottom if you're in doubt.

I had heard that there really wasn't an honest Flat Earth Society anymore a couple of years ago. If anyone really believes the Earth is flat, there may not be enough of them left and they probably aren't well organized.

qadash, please don't take any of that up there personally. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way at all. There are quite a few of us here that love a good discussion from time to time. But I must admit, I don't actually know any "young earth creationists" and I am finding your posts very interesting. I don't know if you know me but I am a believer but I'm a bit far removed from Creationism.

Here's a general question I would love to ask before getting into any lengthy posts. It would seem to me that if the creation accounts in Genesis have any bearing on what we know now via scientific disciplines like geology, astrophysics, etc. then either God would have had to tell the author of Genesis about it or the author would have had to know on his own.

I doubt you think the author just happened to know how the world was created, so assuming you believe God told him the details, then what purpose did it serve for them to know back then? How could they have written it down even if they were told? Could they have understood it in any meaningful way? (For that matter, I doubt our current knowledge can understand what really happened)

. . : slicePuzzle

In fact, that's one of the arguments given against a literal interpretation of Genesis: that if the book was written according to God's word, then either God expressed himself in a metaphor Moses could understand, or the divine knowledge of God was "corrupted" (if you'll pardon the seemingly sacriligeous term) by the human inadequacy of Moses' mortal mind.

Perhaps if God were to give his revelation today, to modern astrophysicists, it would take the form of highly specialized equations and diagrams? And perhaps even our more knowledgeable modern scientists would be unable to truly understand God's revelation, and again they would be forced to express it in terms they could deal with.

qadasH:

quote:

---

It becomes painfully obvious that *most* people are unwilling to openly discuss things without becoming defensive or without flaming others.

---

If a chess player knew from the opening move that the game would play out exactly the same way as it has a hundred times before then at some point he just stops playing as there are much more interesting/constructive things to do. You made the opening move, I replied, you made the response I expected and I bowed out from this branch of the discussion. Its nothing personal - I'm sure you are different to all the YEC I've engaged in debate with a few years ago - but them again I said that every single time before and was proved wrong hence my scepticism

Anyway read the Talk Origins FAQ as they address most of your points and use Google to search through various Usenet groups as it has all been picked over in those groups

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

There was one small Flat Earth Society still in existence when I looked it up several weeks ago. From what I found on the web, it's only a guy and his wife who are the major proponents... The site I linked to is not the original site I was directed to, apparently, the site's not in existence anymore. Go figure...

qadash - not all dating of fossils is based on archaeological strata. Though you are correct in stating that the dating began that way. These days most fossils and strata are dated by a half-life process in which the decay of Uranium elements is measured against the half-life of other known elements in whatever is being dated. This half-life decay is uniformly incremental and easily measured. It is scientifically verifiable and replicable, which is important.

And as I said before, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, no one has provided any proof of either Creationism or of Noah's Ark that will stand up in a controlled scientific test. It's ALL theory in that regard.

The point of this is NOT that these things don't exist, but simply that they are not scientific. Any time the supernatural enters into an argument, the argument becomes immediately unfalsifiable. You cannot prove conclusively that anything supernatural was the cause of anything, therefore, it can't be accepted as a scientific answer to the question of creation, or the Ark.

No one said you shouldn't believe in it. Just saying it can't be proven scientifically.

As for evolution, let's look at another example and see how it matches up. Let's take the statement "Smoking cigarettes causes cancer". There've been many many studies done on the effects of smoking and lung cancer. None of them proves conclusively that smoking does cause lung cancer, but all of the evidence converges to that conclusion. There are always exceptions to every rule, and even science can't rule them all out. But when the evidence all converges on a specific idea, that specific idea then becomes the simplest and most likely explanation.
Evolution is the same. The scientific community has reached a consensus regarding evolution based on converging evidence. The theory has simply become accepted as fact.

But no one said you couldn't believe in creationism if you really want to.

BTW - A "Pseudoscience" is a belief system that purports to be scientific. Creation "Science" is obviously purporting to be a science, and it has no technical, replicable data to back it up.

Emps - a healthy dose of skepticism never hurt anyone... a lot of people believe everything they ever hear, and most of it is bull crap in the first place.
Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 12-02-2002).]

Sorry about the long absence from this thread. I was getting my black face paint, camouflage and raiding my sword collection.

Qadash - have you given any thought that, at the time the bible was written... or at least the stories were being passed through the generations anyway, the WHOLE WORLD might have only included the areas that are mentioned in the bible? Hence the flood could well have encompassed their ENTIRE world, as they knew it. There isn't any mention of any other land masses anywhere in the bible. If the Earth is as young as you believe, there hasn't been enough time for there to be major continental drift nor has there been any major ice pathways for the animals to achieve their current places of living. I'm thinking that the bible may well be a localized text about local things. The context has changed is all.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

Suho 1004...

quote:

---

'97? Really? I didn't think the Asylum was quite that old...

---

The Asylum isn't that old but the Ozone has been around for a while. However... I've also been lurking here at the Asylum since it's existence. I've been a big fan of Doc for a long time and have enjoyed the Gurus since they've been online, only just recently decided to join the Asylum.

Emperor...
Point taken and agreed. However, I'm simply stating that there have been many assumptions made throughout the discussion.

quote:

---

Bloody Creationists!

---

is an assumption that I am a creationist... as you assert, a young earth creationist, of which, I have not previously stated in this thread.

Not being hostile here... just trying to make a point that there are a lot of assumptions made.

My direct statement was:

quote:

---

Assumptions seem to abound that full grown animals were put on the ark.
False presumption... No such statement is made in the Bible.

---

and

quote:

---

(if you really believe the Biblical account)

---

Both statements are true and neither are expressive a faith... they're just fact.

Again... I stated that I love discussions about the ark. In fact I love discussions about a lot of topics from the Bible, I just was trying to state that if people are going to talk about Biblical things they should at least discuss it intelligently and with the benefit of full account information.

GrythusDraconis...
I've also punched around the idea that you suggest and I think it's valid. From a strictly Biblical perspective though you would have to understand that the flood is a "God thing" not man made... God would have been aware of all the earth and not just Mesopotamia. As for the time issues, geography & continental shift stuff... that all boils down to a theory of which neither the Creationists nor the Evolutionists can prove. I have my ideas but that's as far as I can go. Since none of us were there we are left with a lot of ideas based upon the clues left for us.

As I've already stated... it's a faith based discussion. People must weigh the facts and decide which faith they will accept and follow.

Bodhi23...

quote:

---

not all dating of fossils is based on archaeological strata. Though you are correct in stating that the dating began that way. These days most fossils and strata are dated by a half-life process in which the decay of Uranium elements is measured against the half-life of other known elements in whatever is being dated. This half-life decay is uniformly incremental and easily measured. It is scientifically verifiable and replicable, which is important.

---

I'm aware of the current dating methods, however... they are considered flawed by many scientists. Why? Because there are too many variables that effect the rate of decay. Again, in matters of fossil discoveries, we are left with many "clues" but we must grope for the most logical answers. Since we cannot reproduce the conditions under which these fossils were created, we cannot scientifically determine with accuracy the rate of decay, Therefore... we cannot accurately date them by this method alone. Other methods are employed in addition to thiese methods and they can help as a litmus test to determine if we are in line with a particular date. However... I think everyone would agree that "science" is often biased toward a particular thought... generally the one that pays the bills. Data can be ignored and perverted to create the desired effect. "Spin" is what the world of politics likes to call it.

quote:

---

And as I said before, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, no one has provided any proof of either Creationism or of Noah's Ark that will stand up in a controlled scientific test. It's ALL theory in that regard.

---

Exactly my point for both Creationism & Evolutionism. If you want to be specific... neither are correct in term. "Theory" is something that is a tested fact supported by evidence. Neither model can be reproduced or tested, therefore, neither are "Theory". They are faith based since neither can espouse clear evidence for support.

quote:

---

BTW - A "Pseudoscience" is a belief system that purports to be scientific. Creation "Science" is obviously purporting to be a science, and it has no technical, replicable data to back it up.

---

Again... the whole science discussion is humorous to me. Both evolution & Creation are faith... as I already stated. If one is duped into thinking either is a science... by virtue of definition... one would be wrong. In this realm, Creationism is equally as scientific as Evolution.

Let me state that I am simply trying to raise the discussion to an open field of valid, intellectual thought. One can argue "I believe" but it doesn't get us anywhere. What I believe doesn't enter into this discussion or lend it any credibility. If we are truly open minded about this... or any other topic... we will approach it without any preconceived ideas. We gain insight by listening to others and by offering logical "moves" of discussion. Some become more logical than others and so sometimes we adjust our understanding... this is called learning and it's a lifelong adventure. I certainly would never claim to know everything and I would never argue a point from such a perspective.

Chess was used as an example... good example. I stink at chess. My wife beats the crud out of me everytime I play her. I never did like playing chess for that very reason. But... I'm impressed with those who do and who are able to play it well... or at least hang in there and learn while they're being beaten.

As I recall... the discussion was originally about Noah's ark. To that point I seem to remember saying

quote:

---

Isn't it funny how a discussion about finding the ark always turns into creation vs evolution?

---

To violate the "don't ask don't tell" policies...
I am a Creationist. No apologies from me. I haven't always been a Creationist and I haven't always been a young earth Creationist. I measured out the difference in the faiths against the evidences and I just simply don't have enough faith to follow Evolution to it's conclusion. I would never criticize or rudely treat anyone who holds to the Evolutionist idea... some of my great friends, collegues and aquaintances are Evolutionists. That is their choice.

Now you can stop the assumptions because I have clearly stated my current position. My skin's pretty thick and I don't take many things personally.

As for Noah's ark... finding it doesn't matter to me, nor does it make any difference in my faith. I don't need to touch & feel something to validate my faith. I enjoy discussions, exhibits and ideas as much or more than most but it still comes down to faith.

Regards

Very well. I'm not sure why you went on about people making assumptions though. From your comments, how could you have been anything but a YEC? I think the "bloody creationist" comment was clearly meant tongue in cheek.

But anyway, I had asked a general question that perhaps you missed above. What do you think about this?

quote:

---

Here's a general question I would love to ask before getting into any lengthy posts. It would seem to me that if the creation accounts in Genesis have any bearing on what we know now via scientific disciplines like geology, astrophysics, etc. then either God would have had to tell the author of Genesis about it or the author would have had to know on his own.

I doubt you think the author just happened to know how the world was created, so assuming you believe God told him the details, then what purpose did it serve for them to know back then? How could they have written it down even if they were told? Could they have understood it in any meaningful way? (For that matter, I doubt our current knowledge can understand what really happened)

---

Thanks.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs...

First, man you've got some killer sigs and I love the code swap... very cool. I particularly enjoy the bug with the little bug lights swarming around it. Awesome lighting effects... you make my head hurt.

OK, with that outta my system... now onto the post.

Let me clarify that I often use tongue in cheek myself. I've already stated that I take no offense to the comment. There's a lot of sarcasm oozing through the threads here and I personally get a kick out of it. Per the YEC thing... yeah my views are pretty easy to spot but without it clearly stated it was still an assumption. I like assumptions but sometimes they get me into trouble.

My general thoughts on the questions...
I don't think that it would have been necessary for God to reveal to Moses the details of the creation beyond what is written. Perhaps He did. Or not. ?

There are lots of things that I'd like to know but I'm glad that I don't know them in advance. That having been said... I do think that there are many things about God that go beyond the human ability to comprehend... that's why the Bible uses examples from earth to provide a measure of understanding... sort of saying it in a language we can assimilate.

Man constantly tries to understand the infinite with his finite mind. No can do. We can only look at the examples and from these we gain a little insight.

As for the purpose for sharing the details that God shared with Moses. Well, this thread is further proof that mankind is always seeking answers to things outside our own power. Everyone wrestles with the questions of life, purpose, value, morals etc. God designed us as inquisitive... it stands to reason that He would provide answers... or at least provide enough that we'd continue the search.

I do believe that man understood the reality of the Cretaion account from his first days. The further away from an event we go (in reference to time) the easier it is to blur the details or to forget.

In spite of all our knowledge & learning... there are some things that will not be answered here. (Even in the Asylum)

Regards.

Ok. So here's a follow up. If the Genesis accounts weren't intended to fully lay out the actual creation process, is your young earth position based solely on what you see in the physical realm or does it begin with an assumption (sorry for using that again) that the Biblical accounts really are intended to date the world to around 6,000 years or so? I do notice you have emphasized that it's a faith thing but I just wanted to ask anyway to be clear.

Hehehe.

OK,
I base my young earth belief on a couple items:
1. I take the creation account as literal. When it says "God spoke" I believe that is the instrument of His creative expression. He spoke... it was there... that's enough detail for me. (Still leaves room for assumptions)

2. The Jews were excellent in keeping geneological records. Names and lineages are found throughout the Bible and in great detail. I believe they're there for our benefit as a sort of calendar.

3. There is no reason for believing in an "old earth" unless you embrace Evolution. Initially, the concept of millions and then billions of years was introduced by Evolutionists to allow for a better possibility for the evoution of the species. Mathmatical probability alone has caused the Evolutionists to seriously rethink & nearly abandon this thought. Should the earth actually be billions rather than thousands of years old really makes little difference to me... other than the specific accounting for time as God has prescribed in His Scriptures.

4. The "Day/Age" concept of God using eras of time as represented by the "days" of Creation is inconsistent with sound Biblical hermeneutics. God uses the term day consistently throughout the Bible to mean a literal 24 hour time period... as we now know it.

5. Catastrophism suggests a young earth. Great examples of young things looking old are all around us.

I believe that there are numerous evidences around us now but I don't base my position upon them alone. Ultimately, I take God's word as He has given it and I see no need for an older earth other than to accomodate Evolutionist thinking.

Regards

This:

quote:

---

Again... the whole science discussion is humorous to me. Both evolution & Creation are faith... as I already stated. If one is duped into thinking either is a science... by virtue of definition... one would be wrong. In this realm, Creationism is equally as scientific as Evolution.

---

and this:

quote:

---

Let me state that I am simply trying to raise the discussion to an open field of valid, intellectual thought. One can argue "I believe" but it doesn't get us anywhere. What I believe doesn't enter into this discussion or lend it any credibility.

---

are contradictory. If neither Creationism nor Evolution is "scientific", then how can you have an intellectual discussion without the benefit of "I believe"? Especially if the evidence surrounding both topics is considered to be "flawed".
And people are entitled to their beliefs, so unless you are simply discussing your beliefs and how they differ from others', as opposed to the validity of them, there's no point in continuing discussion...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 12-04-2002).]

Bodhi23...

The title "forum" implies an open discussion... that's what we're doing here. I'm not trying to pursuade anyone to anything.

I enjoy the conversation... my beliefs are expressed but what I am saying is that what I believe really makes no difference in regard to something that has happened. It merely determines how I view something.

My statement about science was to allow people the opportunity to see a commonly made error in terminology.

Per validity... There are a lot of threads here that are not based in valid thought. I wasn't aware that was a determining factor in posting. "Philosophy & other Silliness".

Regards

Look Qadash if you just believe in that stuff....well see I am religeouse too but lately I have been questioning myself what does it prove that there is god....ok fine yeah they found some hebrew graves and bones with the names that apiered in bible....but if you just believe in it so much....please tell me at least something that may prove that there is god....I need to know.....

"And for my next novel................" qadash says with a smile.

The issue I'm running into is as follows, Qadash.

You accept everyone's thoughts and beliefs without stopping to consider the validity of what they are saying as it relates to your own beliefs. Acknowledging something isn't the same as learning or growing from it. Everything you do, if you don't allow someone elses beliefs to influence you in some way... even if it is just to confirm your reasons for your own beliefs, is just tossing someone elses 'faith' out the window. It's abrupt, rude, and very uncouth. "I agree with everything you say but it isn't right," just doesn't really click for me as open discussion with an effort to get somewhere. You discount everyone elses beliefs while agreeing with them at the same time. Make a choice. Don't agree with us if you think we're wrong but give us real reasons beyond 'Because'. So far 'Because' is all you've given us.

"I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe and I don't have to care about what you believe even though I asked you to tell me what you believe"

That's what your messages say when you boil them down. If you didn't want to really look at other people's beliefs to reaffirm your own or to reevaluate them no less, why did you ask? What does it matter what I believe if you refuse to think about it's validity, perchance to change your own beliefs and grow beyond your original programming? If you don't care what I believe, don't ask. I won't waste my breath and you don't have to argue against something that you agree with while discounting it at the same time. Sit down and think long and hard about what you've read here. Decide if you're actually going to continue to refuse to think about new things and let them change or reinforce your own views. Simple denial of others beliefs does not make your own belief stronger nor does blind acceptance equal true belief. You need to support your belief through the trials of reviewing and thinking about other people's beliefs. If you can't do that... then it's time to change your beliefs.

As for it being an arguement between Evolution or Creation... not really. It actually started as an arguement over Local or Global. Evolution just happens to support Local Flood theory and discounts the Global theory in the essence that most people agree that all of the variants of each type of animal could not have fit within the ark, babies or not. In order for there to have been any possible chance for the diferent genus' of each family to fit... there would have to be a base species of each type of animal. A dog, A cat, etc... Afterwards there would have to have been global distribution and evolution in just that small respect to get the different species we have today. We know evolution happens, we know it takes a long time. There just isn't enough time for that to happen in the biblical expression of time since the flood. That's my reasoning behind my belief that it was a local occurance and not a global one and in part supports the Old Earth theory. Not to mention that the religion following the bible was a local occurance in and of itself. If God were so global in his views why were there people that believed otherwise and have no mention of him in their histories? Give me your reason that it was global and support with more than 'because the bible tells me so' If you come up with something good.... I might have to change my point of view on it. At the very least I'll think about it and discuss it with you.


GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 12-04-2002).]

Oh Grythus - I just love you!

Exactly. The gist of my last post was this: We've discussed the facts, for the Ark, for Creation, and for Evolution. At this point, to continue the discussion without new evidence, or new information is pointless.

Qadash - I'm happy to discuss philosophy and religion any day of the week, as long as the conversation doesn't start going in circles. I have a lot of views, and I consider myself very open minded as far as beliefs held by other people. And I enjoy learning about new ideas and beliefs. But to be open minded, you have to recognize that everyone has different beliefs, and not go denoucning them in favor of your own. You'll note that I said several times that I wasn't trying to change your beliefs. But you can't have a discussion about Creationism without talking about your beliefs. And that's why I said those 2 comments were contradictory.

And I'm sure Bugs would like it if you wanted to give your opinion on his question, instead of going over and over this with me and GD. Shall we move on to that now?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a general question I would love to ask before getting into any lengthy posts. It would seem to me that if the creation accounts in Genesis have any bearing on what we know now via scientific disciplines like geology, astrophysics, etc. then either God would have had to tell the author of Genesis about it or the author would have had to know on his own.

I doubt you think the author just happened to know how the world was created, so assuming you believe God told him the details, then what purpose did it serve for them to know back then? How could they have written it down even if they were told? Could they have understood it in any meaningful way? (For that matter, I doubt our current knowledge can understand what really happened)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Bodhi - Cell 617

Gilbert... you're killing me buddy.

I'll try to be brief.

Bodhi23...
I've already answered that post, perhaps you missed it?
It's the sixth one up from the post you just made... ^^^

GrythusDraconis...
Where am I being disrespectful or rude in my posts? I haven't made any comments about disregarding anyones posts, views or beliefs. In fact, I find it quite humorous that you're taking such a stand. Please show me where I have said any of these things.

I have stated my beliefs... I am young earth... I am Creationist. That is my belief, formed by many years of examination of numerous sources, of which the Bible is one. However... I've already stated that I'm not posting here to evangelize anyone. Nor am I here to mock someone else's belief system.

You've stated that I have asked the question of what another believes and then have, in my response, effectivly said "I don't want to hear you." I'm truly sorry if there has been any indication that I was doing this... it's not my intent. I fail to find, after reading through the posts again, anywhere that I even asked, though I do actually want to hear what others are saying.

There were many things in your last post in particular that intrigue me and that I'd like to hear more from you about. I will never mock you or anyone else and I am truly sorry if I have responded in a way that indicates that I would. Please post and I will do my very best to respectfully respond... I may agree, I may disagree... I will not mock.

The validity statement was made in another context, by bodhi23... I simply responded.

Now, I'm willing to share my beliefs to whatever is asked... I would hope everyone would be able to say the same.

Ruski...
I believe in God based solely upon the Bible... However, there are lots of other things that confirm (for me) my faith. The evidence that you ask for is in abundance from many extra Biblical sources. I'd be glad to respond to whatever I can.

For fear of running too long I shall end my novel.

Regards

*AHEM* Take 2

It isn't a specific disrespect, just like it wasn't a specific request for other people's beliefs. Your statement that you like to have discussions about the ark and your purvayance of your beliefs "violat(ing) the 'don't ask, don't tell' policies..." are invitations for others to express their beliefs to you. If you insist on being literal, than no, you didn't ask for it. But being open minded as most of us are... we tend to view things as they are implied, especially since text doesn't carry 'tone' very well.

The disrespect I speak of is your inherent denial of anyone's beliefs. Not by out and out saying you don't believe them. As yet you haven't disagreed with anyone's points of view. You validate our point of view and then ignore it, stating your beliefs above ours without supplying a reasonable amount of evidence beyond 'Because the bible tells me so'. Now whilst that isn't a specific statement made by you, it can be inferred from your previous responses. You can't agree with everyone and not eventually change your point of view without ignoring everything that's been said. If we all have beliefs that are valid and accepted by you and yet differ from your belief significantly, the only way you can hold to your belief without reasonable explanation is to be ignoring us. That's the disrespect that I speak of. You can't tell me that my arguement is valid and makes sense and then brush it away so it doesn't interfere with your beliefs. It may well be that it fits in with your beliefs in a way I didn't realize and thusly reinforces your own faith. Without examining it and thinking about it you may never know.

Better watch out Bodhi23, my fiance might get upset if she new I had an Asylumite mistress. LOL

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 12-05-2002).]

GD - I meant that in the most platonic of senses... I have utter respect for the women in your life! (Callisto too - meow!) Hope the Trans-Siberean Orchestra performance and the rest of your evening went well!

Qadash - I did miss that response. Short and sweet for what you've been posting. Must have been why it slipped me by... I'll buy it.

Bodhi - Cell 617

LOL bodhi23... Trans-Siberian was an incredible concert. It was right up my alley. Trans-Siberian this and rans-Siberian that appeared on my Xmas list after that concert. Hehe. I'm sure Callisto and my fiance Chris, understand my devotion to them both and feel that you aren't a threat.... LOL

Well... Jeesh... This thread has kinda stalled.

Sorry if it's my fault.


GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

I don't think anyone's at fault for the thread stalling. I think we'd taken it about as far as a discussion could go. There's no sense talking around in circles about a topic when all the facts have been laid out. If there's no new information, it's pointless to continue to rehash the ideas. It's probably just as well.

We could talk about something else now if you like. Anybody got a burning idea for discussion? (but we really should start a new thread...)

Bodhi - Cell 617

I, for one, would like to know if we're ever going to finish the drug debate! And if not, let's start another formal debate pretty soon.

I heard about that ark thing too, I think it was in National Geographic too or maybe it was Popular Mechanics, they said that since the Turkish government wouldn't let them on top of mount Arafat, that they were trying to verify it with a satilight in space to take a picture, but everytime they tried to take a picture cloud cover or bad weather would stop them from viewing the spot. Sounds like an act of God to me!

Oh wait here's another site on it.... http://www.noahsarksearch.com/
and here's a possible picture I guess, I think this is the one I remeber seeing in National Geographic... http://arcimaging.org/GeisslerRex/Durupinar20001.jpg



Maskkkk

- Face the Present

[This message has been edited by Maskkkk (edited 12-07-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Maskkkk (edited 12-07-2002).]

*sigh*

Another...discussion...creation vs evolution...hoo boy.

Well...been thinking alot...and we know that evolution does exist...and can be proven...just take the virus. A prime example of evolution. It is evolving constantly (well, also mutating, which is a proponent of evolution...).

The problem with evolution (on a higher scale), is one of time. Since we (as humans) don't have the advantage of hundreds of thousands of years of life (well, not yet, anyway...), it is therefore necessary to use models where we can 'excellerate' time...and such is the model of the virus, because it replicates extremely fast, thus solving the time issue for us. But using this, as a natural phenomena, we can therefore expand the model to include other, higher models, with a great degree of accuracy...to bacteria, for example...where evolution also holds true (gotta love bio-chemistry...hehe...). By comparing both models, one can then begin to expand to even higher models, like complex cell groups, where evolution also holds true...such as in one-cell organisms...and so forth. Somewhere along the line, we run into the time thing again...with very complex cell groups. Until we have a recorded history 8over hundreds of thousands of years), there will always be those who cannot accept the theory of evolution...even though it has been proven in lower models...and thus, for all things, remains a theory, but for smaller models, is proven...

To be sure, the theory will probably (and has) go though changes, as more is known about the system...however, it is not only a viable system, it is also based on science...which is much more flexible than a system based on religion, as history has proven. Science is not, as was suggested in this thread, a system of belief in that sense, as religion is. Science is based largely on fact, and repeatable findings. It is also susceptable to revisions...as new findings and facts become known. Scince is a system, with the human element of belief, yes, but alone, a system. Humans bring the belief thing into it, and not vice versa...whereas religion is the opposite. Religion cannot 'stand alone', without human intervention...no humans, no religion. Science still exists, irregardless of the presence of humans...the wind would still blow, water would move, light would shine, etc...science is merely the transcribing of this information into a form that humans can readily understand. Research, and facts, decide whether or not it is accurate (or true). And the mechanics of wind blowing, water moving, light shining, are the same, irregardless of whether or not humans exist.

But the threads topic was, I believe, Noahs Ark...which hasn't yet been proven to exist. What one believes, on the other hand, is myriad. Until it is actually found, and scientifically proven to actually exist, then I'll change my mind (regarding the Ark). I do believe that the bible is full of interesting things...and does have some actual fact in it. Other parts of the bible, however, clearly didn't happen the way it is written. Goats do not change color simply because someone puts colored rods in the ground around them...we know know that they have color characteristics because of their genetic code...