Talk Elections

As we've seen, many people still truly believe that the world was actually created in six days.  Strangely enough, many also claim that the account of Noah's Ark is also genuinely true.

I was merely wondering if anybody on this forum also believes it to be a true story.  If so, please post your arguments.

Impossible to tell if the story is true or not (all a matter of faith etc. etc. etc) but I would be suprised if the core of the story isn't true. People tend to neglect and look down on oral history, which is pretty sad really.

Note that for people living at the time it (or something similer to it) happend, the "world" would have been something very, very different to how we see it now. IIRC there's a theory it might have had something to do with the drowing of what is now the Black Sea following the end of the last Ice Age.

Most of the earliest-settled parts of Asia are now on the Indian Ocean floor actually.

Oh, and btw - The Fire Next Time.

I absolutely believe in the biblical account of Noah’s Ark as written in Genesis chapters 6 through 9.

Biblically, it is clear the rest of the bible interprets the account as literal and even adds details to the story that are not included in the Genesis account.

Scientifically, if the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermo support the idea that a supernatural force created the whole universe, why couldn’t that same supernatural force cause a flood on a very minute portion of the universe?...Basically, if a force can create the whole universe, certainly it can flood the little planet earth.

Ahh... interesting. Yay; multiple possibilities :)

The logical consequences of the story of Noah's Ark are astounding if it is indeed literally true:

- There are hundreds of thousands of species of animal.  Noah would have had to build his ark large enough to accomodate two of everything.  If we reject the theory of evolution, this includes such things as two elephants, two rhinoceroses, and all of the acquatic life present on the planet, including all of the whales (and presumably he would need to build a tank big enough to hold all of the acquatic life, since he needed to keep them alive for forty days and forty nights).

- Noah would have had to get all of the animals.  This includes all of the acquatic animals that live on the ocean floor.  Noah must have built one hell of a diving suit to accomplish this feat.  Noah would also have had to capture two lions, two cheetahs, two bears, etc. without having the animals kill him.

- Noah and his family would have to monitor every single carnivorous species twenty-four hours a day to ensure that nothing ate anything else.  This includes all of the acquatic life.  I suppose that diving suit will come in handy here as well.

- Somehow, God caused it to rain so much that all of the water-dwelling animals would die as well.  I'm not sure how this one would work.

- What if there were, say, a Himalayan guru living on a mountain some 1,000 meters above sea level?  It would take no less than 5.11 x 10²² liters of rain water to drown this person.  That's 51,100,000,000,000,000,000 liters.  That's an average rainfall of 1.28 x 10¹⁹ liters per day.  That's an awful lot of rain, and I'm not even touching on how long it would take the sun to naturally evaporate that much water.

Of course, this could all be explained away by saying "God allowed it to happen", but if God could do all of the above, why did he need Noah to go to all the trouble to make the Ark?  Couldn't he just have snapped his fingers and have all of the bad people on the world disappear?

This provides absolutely no evidence that it actually happened.


They don't.  Your gross misinterpretation has been shown several times in the other thread, but you haven't understood yet.


Is this truly the brunt of your scientific argument?

"Well okay, none of it makes any sense, but God created the whole universe, so he can make it make sense."

Not only that, but Genesis also states that there were only eight pairs of animals on board: seven 'clean' pairs of animals, and one 'unclean' pair.

Animal in the biblical sense pretty much translates as Mammals+Birds, so forget the fish stuff.

I thought that the Great Flood was supposed to eliminate everything living on the planet so the world could have a fresh start.

Now...to refute this with any sort of certainty I'd actually have to read the relevant biblical text...

I agree the story is compatable with the devastation caused by flooding after the last ice age about 10,000 years ago, but is nothing more than that. The ice would often melt 'backwards' creating lakes of water held back by an ice dam. When the dam was broken it leased mile after cubic mile of water into the surrounding area.

If there really was an ark, i doubt it could have contained the billions of animals needed. Once again jmfcst makes himself look stupid.

maybe new amninals were added after the flood

As I said earlier, Genesis claims that there were only eight pairs of animals on board.  But this of course creates many more questions that serve to make the story completely ridiculous.

Only 8. Wow. Those animals must all have evolved to create the billions we have today...eh jmfcst ;)

Eight pairs?  The way I read it, there were 7 pairs of each clean animal (deer, cows, etc), and 1 pair of every unclean animal (pigs, etc).

So... that makes Noah need to accomodate even more animals than I previously thought, then.

That's not part of the biblical account, though.

If we reject evolution, as I suspect... someone here does, then the only other conclusion is that all animals currently present were present at the time of the Great Flood.

Not that much more since "clean" species are vastly outnumbered by the "unclean".

here is the text form the bible

Genesis 6

Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress [c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [d] 16 Make a roof for it and finish [e] the ark to within 18 inches [f] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

    22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

Oh yes, I had forgotten that God gave Noah measurements.

I find it kind of hard to believe that you could fit every single land-based animal in such a small ark...

You couldn't. And most Christians, barring the fundamentalist ones, know that.

You all need to think out of the box* (so to speak) a little more over this... same goes for a lot lot of the OT.

*By this I don't mean picking and choosing what to believe depending on other viewpoints

Is it any less strange to believe that man is descended from apes, and explain away the differences by just saying that millions of years past?  Is it any less strange to believe that the complexities of mankind are just the random eventual result of a bunch of hydrogen getting together?

I grew up learning the literal interpretation of Genesis in school, but its historical validity never mattered that much to me.  There isn't any way to prove any of it.   All I know is that I would much rather have people believe that all mankind is equal before almighty God that I would for them to believe in natural selection.

What we do with our beliefs is what counts.  We can barely read the past, but we can write everything in our future.

Personally, my take on the story of Noah's Ark is that a huge flood probably did actually happen at some point in time that did kill a lot of people, but it neither was sent by God nor killed everything on Earth.  It probably got embellished over time until it became what we know today.  There are way too many things in the literal version of it that just don't make any sense or that are not physically possible.

Jesus was once asked why he used parables in his teachings. He said because its easier for the people to understand and remember the lessons that way. IMHO the story of the flood is such a parable.

I agree, which is why the story is there in the first place.  But there will always be a 'special' few who don't know what metaphors are.

You really do not know your Bible.

The Bible says nothing of acquatic animals.  And, the ark is really, really big.

God sent the animals to Noah.  If God can do that, he can presumably make them peaceful.

Meat was not consumed before the Flood.

The water-vapor canopy that surrounded the earth collapsed.  Also, the fountains of the deep were opened.  There is a lot of water under the crust of the earth.

Thats assuming the surface features before the Flood are the same as it is today.  How can you make such an assumption?  And who said abything about having to evaporate all the water?  It can seep into the earth.


And yes, I do believe a universal flood.  Almost every single culture on the planet has a flood myth going.  Coincidence?  I think not.



You also didn't read your Bible.  Before you go and make such senseless comments, you may want to check your Bible.  I suggest you go back and read it over again and report back.

Perhaps, but the ark sitting on mount Ararat is a rather inconvenient piece of proof that needs to be explained away.  How would you do that?

It says that all life on Earth would perish, and we have animals that live in the ocean today.  Did God fail to kill those animals?


It's not "really, really big" if you run through the list of all species on Earth and realize how many there are.


If God could do all that, then why did he need Noah to do the rest?


Carnivorous animals such as lions did not exist before the flood?  I'm not talking about what Noah would have eaten.


Even if there was a peak on the earth 100 meters high, it still would take a whole lot of water to drown anyone on top of it.

Maybe you should pray and ask God.  I don't have all the answers; I'm just reciting what the Bible states.

I didn't say that, did I?  Maybe you can think a bit more and it will dawn you.  I re-iterate: meat was not consumed before the Flood.

And a water-vapor canopy around the earth would be a lot of water.

Humans have been eating meat for millennia. A look at fossil dental records and your own teeth will show you that :)

Correct me if I'm wrong - but has one actually been found there? I just did a check on this and while some people have claimed to have seen a 'boat-like' object, but no real proof of it has been found as far as I know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_ark#Modern_searches

I believe it to be true, but one needs to define what the "world" was during the time of the flood.  By the time of Noah, there were many cities, but still closely consolidated in the Mesopotamian area.  So, a flood would only have to wash out that area in order for it to be considered "the world."  Some scientists have examined the area of the Black Sea floor and have seen evidence of what appears to be ancient rivers and coastlines.  Their theory is that a wall holding back the Mediterranean Sea gave way, and flooded out the Black Sea "valley."  Such a rush of water could be seen as a global flood if the Old Testament settlements were in that area.  And if that is the "world" in discussion, then the types of animals needed to be saved would be much less, since most of your animals live outside of that region.

Or, perhaps you could the power of logic instead of just blindly reciting the contents of the Bible as if it were known to be the absolute truth.  Or would that be too much effort?


I don't know what you're saying, and it will help things along greatly if you just say it instead of attempting to be mysterious about it.

Don't waste your breath Gabu. Why fight with a bunch of puritans who conveniently ignore hundreds of years of historical study and scientific knowledge in order to defend the Bible. Thank Christ i'm Catholic. The Church may eb a bit nuts sometimes but at least it understands history and science and intreprets the Bible for what it truly is.

OK.  You're going to have to do better than citing someone's opinion.  While I haven't visited the ark myself, I've seen video footage, and if you talk to the locals in the area, they will tell you about the great boat up there.  There is also an altar, and several large anchors.  Do I have proof?  Nothing more than books that I've read and some video footage.  Will I eventually go up there?  Yes.

Maybe Google Earth will show it to us.  I know the Russians knew about it and wanted to explore it in the Soviet Era.

Says who?

I wasn't making an argument; I was telling you what the Bible said.  Take it at that, or leave it.



Maybe if you fired an extra neuron...  Its easy to put two and two together: Lions and other carnivores were vegetarians prior to the Flood.

Read the Bible.  It gives you the number generations between the time of Adam to Noah.  And when you read the stories that the off-spring lived with and/or near their parents in tribes, you can safely conclude that the early settlements did not leave the Middle Eastern lands by the time of the flood.

The Bible does not say only the Mesopotamian area was inhibited.  The Bible also states people lived to be 900 years of age.  In that time period, it is easy for women to have 500 or more kids in a lifetime.  Combined with the fact that they will also live 900 years, I estimate in 2,000 years the population would have been close to 11 billion people.

And how could they feed those 11 billion people with primitive farming methods?

Mind linking your video footage? All I've found is this (http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_ark_dgimage01_02.jpg&cap=According%20to%20press%20materials%20supplied%20by%20Shamrock%20--%20The%20Trinity%20Corporation,%20this%20satellite%20view%20shows%20Noah’s%20Ark%20jutting%20out%20from%20the%20snow%20on%20Mt.%20Ararat.%20Image%20Courtesy%20of%20Digital%20Globe) satellite photo that sparked the attempt at an expedition in 2004. (Frankly, I don't really see that as an ark, but what do I know?)

And Richius, while I know Wikipedia isn't a definitive source and may contain opinion at times, "the books I've read" are not exactly a credible source.

Who said anything about primitive farming methods?

Just because Jesus at times used parables, doesn't make the story of Noah a parable.

In fact, when Jesus spoke of Noah, he wasn't even speaking in parables.  He referred to the flood in the literal sense and added additional details to the account, such as how the people of the world were going about their day to day business:  planting, marrying, building...up to the day Noah entered the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Peter also added additional details about the account, such as Noah being a preacher and God waiting patiently for Noah to build and complete the huge Ark.

The account of the Flood is not treated by the latter parts of the bible any differently than any other story in the bible, except from the fact that it is viewed as a very significant event.

Sounds like they were just making it up as they were going along.

John: I'd love to link to the video footage, but it is on VHS.  There are DVDs around, but I haven't bought them due to a lack of funds.  Maybe in the future.  The documentary is about 2 hours long and documents the tale of the expidition up Mount Ararat.

The picture you linked looks like it may be the ark, but I cannot say.  The peaks are covered by viscious snow storms.  Unfortunately, due the earthquake, the ark is now split into two pieces.

You're not going to give me credible evidence online, and I can't show you books.  I suggest if you're really interested in this, pick up some books (I can recommend a few) and read them.  They can explain it much better than I can in a simple online forum.  Since it is neither my interest nor my inclination to make a case here (I'd refer you to material if you're interested), the point is moot.

And no, I don't buy into all the bloody conspiracy theories websites that may cover Noah's ark.  I believe solid scientific evidence is required if I'm going to make a factual statement.  And right now I'm making such a statement: there is a huge bloody boat up on Mount Ararat.

*dies laughin*  Ok, now you're just being rediculous.

Anyway, the Bible (and archeology) does say that the Mesopotamian area is the center of the Biblical world.  Going all the way back to Genesis 2:10-14:

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [a] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

These rivers are located wholey in the Mesopotamia region.  An no, there were no 11 Billion people at that point in time.

There is a boatlike formation on the mountain that could be caused by erosion or geological formations. Just like the 'face' on Mars. Looks man made, but probably isn't.

You're quite the fan of the deus ex machina, aren't you?

I was thinking the very same thing.  Whenever you counter this story as being completely illogical and unlikely in so many ways, the believers keep coming back with, "Well, God made it so because he's all-powerful".  A nice get-out clause, if ever I saw one.

Really?  Prove it.  I can show you the population growth equations.  You really think people that live to age 900 are going to have one or two or three kids?

I don't see anything that states people only lived in Mesopotamia.

How do you know?

There was a bloody archeological and geological expedition up there in 1985.  They used radar to map the boat.  It isn't just "geological formations" as you claim.  You're very unedcuated.

Just sick and tired of people making unsubstantiated assumptions.

Obviously, that is what a non-believer would think.  

But no one can read Jesus' and Peter's comments and honestly say they were trying to convey that the story of the Flood was simply an analogy.  They treated it just as literally as the other stories they cited.

The bible's own interpretation of the Flood is that it was a literal event, even though it is symbolic of other areas of doctrine.

(It must be noted for the record that I have absolutely no reason to argue that it is literal if I didn't believe the bible treated it as literal.  I don't belong to a church that would kick me out for believing it is merely an analogy.   I simply find no basis that the bible treats the account as merely an analogy, in fact, I find much evidence to the contrary.)

So are we, believe me.

Then give me a credible source. Even the majority of the Christian sites I'm reading on the subject aren't claiming the ark has been found on Ararat, only that it is speculated.

There were not 11 billion people at that time as farming methods could not support them (we can hardly support 6 billion people now) There is no fossil or bone evidence to suggest anyone has lived to be 900 years old. Women only produce enough ovum to sustain fertility until their 40's and 50's. Whether or not they lived for 900 years they could not have had multitudes of children.

How the hell is that deus ex machina?  I didn't even mention God.  No wonder Mcleans' says what it does.

Indeed. Who knows if it was actually 900 years, literally? There could have easily been some kind of translation error. Try replacing 900 "years" with 900 "months"; that might seem more reasonable, at least nowadays.

...says the person who is claiming that Noah's Ark was entirely real, that Noah's Ark has been found, that people lived to 900 years of age, that there used to be 11 billion people on Earth before the flood...


It doesn't have to literally involve God to be a deus ex machina.  That answer just seemed to be rather, shall we say, convenient.

I don't care what Christian websites think or say or claim.

Start by reading Graham Hancock's Fingerprint of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth's Lost Civilization (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517887290/qid=1133831730/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-9280465-1315122?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).  And in case you're wondering about his credentials, Graham Hancock was formerly Eat Africa correspondent for The Economist and a correspondent for the London Sunday Times.  In this book, he discusses older civilizations.  He draws conclusions, but in a very general way that you will realize once you read it.  He isn't there to indoctrinate you with his views, but rather, he wants to raise questions.

Next read Jonathan Gray's Dead Men's Secrets (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1572584033/qid=1133831913/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/104-9280465-1315122?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).  I know this author personally.  This book is not a narrative; it contains exhibits of "misplaced" archeological evidence.  For example: aluminum belt buckles were discovered in a very old sealed Chinese tomb.  Western civilization didn't discover aluminum until the 1800s, much less understood how to work with it.  In another example, the temple of Ba'albek had stones quarried (they knew it was quarried because several miles away there is a half-quarried stone still in the quarry) and they were over 700 tons each.  The largest crane today have issues with 200 tons.  No known technology can construct buildings with stones weighing 700 tons.

These are two introductory books.  After that, I have many more to recommend.

Those are theories, and I'm not about to make a case for that.  To do so will require several hundred pages.  I'm giving summaries and simple alternastives to some of the arguments.  The UK homo guy proposed "primitive farming methods" and I countered with an alternative.

Once, twice, perhaps thrice, but not more than 10 times over.

Since when has Ancient China been considered 'Western civilization'?  They also invented fireworks, you know, but actually kept making them so that they could claim the credit for it.


Sounds like a mystery like the Egyptian pyramids, or Stonehenge.


Classy.

I'm sure that something happened -- there are a great many flood myths throughout historical cultures, such as the Gilgamesh Epic of the great deluge.  This event was probably big enough to affect many cultures throughout the Mesopotamian region, and a flood that devastated the fertile crescent is not out of the question.  So far as Western writing is concerned, that would have been "the world" at the time that we traditionally date Noah as living in, so the stories are probably not out of line calling it a worldwide flood.

In terms of Noah, I think you detractors are trying to take the story a little too seriously.  In the Bible, it effectively makes a point (as someone earlier pointed out that parables do), and perhaps all it amounted to in reality was a farmer gathering his livestock (maybe two of each so as to start new herds, flocks, etc.) and family into a hastily built boat in order to escape a flood, which subsequently wiped out his villiage (and possibly all of the surrounding villiages and/or most of Mesopotamia). 

When the floodwaters receded, the family started afresh, fully vindicated by a powerful God who wiped out all other sinners.  The ancients interpreting events in that way is not out of the ordinary, nor is it surprising that other similar stories could have come from similar survivors around the region in the form of different flood epics.  That such powerful tales survived via oral tradition is hardly novel.

A literal Biblical interpretation is quite unlikely, given that there are up to 1.75 million distinct species (and likely many more back then).  You all make good points -- a true interpretation of the Noah's Ark story doesn't take into account the genetic diversity required to restart populations or the farming methods that would be needed to supply such a society (or the one that apparently sprang from the remnants of Noah's family).

I've seen the evidence for archaeological discoveries, and as far as I've seen or heard, the evidence is sketchy -- both sides make claims for and against.  This (http://www.detailshere.com/images/The__REAL_Noahs_Ark_lo.JPG), I believe is a picture of the boat or boat-shaped structure that Richius is referring to.  It's doesn't exactly scream "ARK" to me, but I'm sure there's more research to be done.

And afleitch -- you said it: thank God I'm Catholic and can appreciate the story and accept that God was behind a flood without taking everything in the Bible so damn literally.  The folks 6000 years ago just didn't have the capacity to describe things literally, nor did they have writing methods to write it all down till much later.  A lot gets flubbed up in oral tradition.

Cheers Richius..very robust.

Regarding the first book, I clicked on your link and read the reviews.  One of them made a very obvious point if you think about it:

"if crustal displacements DO happen as frequently as the author suggests, then, do to latitude change of certain locations, any star aligments to dates like 10500 BC or 15000 BC are completely invalid. If crustal displacement theory is correct, then these star aligments are not. Two of Hancock's longest-running central themes are mutually incompatible right from the start. "

Numerous cultures across the world have a great flood myth. Floods appear in the Bible, the Quran, the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Hindu Puranas, Greek mythology, Norse mythology, Inca mythology, and so forth.

Obviously, this does not prove that the whole world was actually consumed by a flood at any particular time, and it certainly does not prove that the flood was caused by God. However, it might indicate that there is probably an historical basis for a flood story of some kind. Perhaps the end of the Ice Age, and the related rise in sea-levels, led to the rise of these legends?

It would be hard to debate with those who take it seriously if you didn't take it seriously in your rebuttals.

Very interesting hypothesis.

Haha...touché.

That is perhaps the most intelligent argument I have seen regarding this issue.

You're missing the bigger picture.  This is what happens when I don't write proper essays on the topic.  Let me rephrase that: Technology to work with aluminum isn't supposed to  have been available to the ancient Chinese, yet they worked it.  They later lost that ability, and only recently regained it again.

Ah yes.  The pyramids.  Some people still believe the Egyptians built them.

His name is hard to remember.

Crustal displacement is not discussed to a large extent in this book.  He mentions it.  He also clearly states that he does not know whether to believe this theory or not; afterall, it is Hapgood's theory.

As an agnostic, I'm open to anything, but the story of Noah's Ark really seems to be a mythological interpretation of the floods many of the early river valley civilizations would experience during large rainstorms.  In fact, an almost exact copy of the story of Noah can be seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh, written around the same time as the Old Testament.  Not only that, but it was certainly impossible for one man to bring all the species of the Earth onto one boat, considering that no one in the Middle East knew anything about the western continents. 

A massive flood of some type probably did happen. Do I believe in the story literally? No. One rather obvious hole in it: What did the carniverous animals eat while on board?

Noah didn't bring the animals to the ark, the animals came to Noah:

Gen 7:8-9 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

Hole closed...all animals ate plants at that time:

Gen 1:29-30 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

That works if you choose to reject all science and believe in fundie literalist garbage that flies in the face of all science and logic today, along with that evolution never happens and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Luckily my church is enlightened enough not to. :)

The animals came to Noah:

Gen 7:8-9: Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

---

It was only the animals that lived on land, not fish in the water:

Gen 7:21-23 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.

Do you believe in evolution?

If not, the transition from being herbivores to being carnivores is an awfully big one.  Did lions, and tigers, etc. all of a sudden just decide to eat meat?

This is another big deus ex machina - "Oh, there's no problem; we'll just have there be no carnivorous animals until after the flood!  Issue solved!"

Also, if God killed everything, but only mammals and birds were saved by Noah, where did lizards, amphibians, and acquatic animals come from?

I'll repeat my other question: if God could do all this, why couldn't he just wave a magic wand and eliminate the need for the ark entirely?

NEWS FLASH:  The writers of the bible interpreted the account literally.  There is absolutely no biblical basis to NOT consider the flood literal.

---

As far as science is concerned - science looks for natural explanations and has come up with a time frame 13.7 billion years.

IF the bible were trying to say that the universe is due to natural phenomenon that only required 6000 years to reach the current result, THEN the bible would be in conflict with science.

But the bible is NOT trying to point to nature as the cause of all things, rather it points to God.

So, if someone were to ask me: "How long, jmfcst, would it take for natural forces to duplicate the results currently seen?"  I would answer, "Probably around 13.7 billion years!"

But there is another possibility:  The current state of things are due to SUPERnatural forces, not natural forces.

As we have already discussed in another thread, all scientific data supports the need for a supernatural force for the universe to exist.  So why couldn't God have simply made the universe 6000 years ago, and made in the condition we currently observe?  
Such an idea is not contrary to science; scientists are simply looking for causes they can observe.  It would be a tad difficult for science to use its wisdom look for God since God can not be observed through human wisdom:

1Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Furthermore, the bible actually claims that God is purposely frustrating those who reject his testimony:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (Isa 29:14; 1Cor 1:19)

God could have done it anyway he wanted, but he chose an ark. 

In choosing an ark, he also taught us many lessons:

1) Noah's salvation required believing God's warning that a flood would destroy the earth.
2) Noah's salvation required Noah's obedience to God in building the ark.
3) The Ark had ONLY one door, symbolic of salvation only through Jesus - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
4)  The same day Noah entered the ark, the Flood came and God’s wrath destroyed the world…it will be the same on the day the church is Raptured and the wrath of God falls on those left on the earth.
5)  Noah was saved through water, just as believers are saved through water baptism.
6)  God is the one who closed the door on the ark (Gen 7:16), it is God who decides when the opportunity for salvation is closed.
7)  God waited for Noah to finish the ark, showing God’s patience with us.
8 )  etc, etc, etc

I could name at least a couple of dozen other lessons from the story of the Flood, but you get the point.

So I guess the North American moose population swam across the great seas to Noah's house.  Can we come back to reality yet jm?

Ooops,  almost forgot one of the most important parallels:

Since Noah’s salvation through water symbolizes baptism, and since baptism is a baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ, Noah’s entry into and exit out of (after the flood) the ark, makes the ark symbolic of a COFFIN and entry into and out of it is symbolic of death and resurrection.

The bible doesn't say where they were before they came to Noah.  But I think it is safe to say that God specially prepared the animals that came to Noah, just as God prepared the fish that swallowed Jonah:

Jonah 1:17  "The LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights."

To say that God, who created the whole universal, can’t provide animals and bring them to Noah is silly.

Have you read the bible?  If so, you would know that the bible does change the diet of man and animals IMMEDIATELY after the flood:

Gen 9:1-5 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal.”

Just as Noah was given meat to eat following the flood, the last statement “I will demand an accounting from every animal” shows that the animals also became carnivores.

Like I have said, the bible has every argument covered!

---

Also, when Christ returns and rules the earth for 1000 years, there is evidence that animals will resort to being herbivores once again:

Isaiah 11:7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox,

---



Where did you get the idea that only mammals and birds came to the Ark?

Gen 6:20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

A coffin?  That's a stretch, considering the ancients didn't use them, at least in the modern sense that you're implying.

Jmfcst, I don't understand one thing -- people of great faith are usually quite adept at reconciling faith and science.  While you don't have to readily accept evolution now, you've got to admit that science itself has disproven and trumped a lot of other once-common beliefs, like that of a geocentric universe.  I doubt anyone can still make a good case for that, or for disbelieving the existence of, say, gravity.

Religion, jmfcst, has only managed to survive because it adapts.  That's not to say that God doesn't exist or the underlying principles of religious teachings are untrue -- I happen to believe they're very true.  But I also recognize that a Christianity as it was in the 15th century would be unable to exist today (save for a few radicals).  Do you honestly think that a Christianity that denies progressive science can continue to exist and grow?

There's nothing wrong with reconciling faith and science.  St. Albert is an ancient example of early attempts to do so.  How, exactly, are the stories of the Old Testament cheapened if they're not literal?  Do the lessons not still apply or the stories not still ring true?

coffin = tomb or whatever other name you want to apply to it.

The entrance into ark symbolized their death to the world and their exiting symbolized they were given a new life.

---


So, how does a “Christian” reconcile their faith with science, when science claims it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been resurrected from the dead?

Does the Christian then agrees with science that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead?  If so, they are certainly NOT Christian.

---

Actually, I am in agreement with science!  For I agree that Jesus could NOT have rose from the dead based on any observable force in nature.

But the bible is NOT attempting to claim his resurrection was the result of natural forces.  Rather, the bible is claiming is was a supernatural event.

Therefore, there is no contradiction with science.  And this is what YOU are having a hard time understanding.

---


Then you should have no problem naming a single teaching of the bible that science has disproven!

---


Where, EXACTLY, in the bible does it teach that the earth is the center of the universe?

---


Where, EXACTLY, in the bible does it teach that there is no such thing as gravity?

---


I strive to believe the EXACT same things as the writers of the bible.  Give me one example where I have “adapted” my beliefs in a way that doesn’t match the viewpoints of the writers of the bible.

The faith that is described in the bible has had no reason to “adapt”.

---


I try to copy the pattern that laid down 2000 years ago, not the one that existed 500 years ago.

---
 

You’re falsely assuming my science is somehow different than modern science.

----


Why do you not understand that God shaped this creation and his message in such a way so that it would seem “foolish” to the world?  Doesn’t the bible plainly say that since the world’s wisdom can NOT recognize God, it pleased God to fashion a plan of salvation which the world would view as “foolish”?

Isn’t that the reason why you are debating with me, because you think I am “foolish” to believe the account of the bible because you find the accounts of the bible too foolish to take as literal?

---


1) If you can’t take the story of the Flood as literal, what basis do you have to believe that God put on the flesh of a literally man, literally died, and was literally resurrected?

2) Show me where the bible treats the account of Creation any differently than any other historical account of scripture?  For example, does the bible treat the account of the Flood any differently than the account of King David’s reign?

One HUGE problem with NOT taking the accounts literally is that 2 of the 4 gospels trace Jesus’ lineage back through the characters of the Old Testament all the way down to Adam. (See Matthew 1  and Luke 3).

How can a Christian accept Jesus’ genealogy yet reject the accounts of the people within his lineage?

It is EXTREMELY clear that Matthew and Luke (who also wrote the book of Acts) accepted Jesus’ genealogy as LITERAL and used it to prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

I choose to side with the opinion of Matthew and Luke.

Agreed, but the flooding may have not been limited to Mesopotamia or even the Mediterranean basin.  There is evidence of multiple flooding due to glacial dams failing in Washington.  Perhaps Alcon can describe the topography of the eastern part of his state.

This article might be worth the time taken to read it. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html)

You could also produce just as much data showing that Jesus' resurrection was impossible.

"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. " (1Cor 1:21)

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that God's intention was to make the message of salvation "foolish" to unbelievers.

So in other words, your God likes irrational people who switch off their brains. There's no evidence of a global scale flood, it's pretty much impossible to put two of every land-dwelling species and enough food to feed them for the 40 days and nights plus the time it took for things to dry out on a boat of the size specified, along with the various other problems this scenario imposes - yet your God expects us to put all the reasoning power that he gave us to waste and simply take what some book says as fact even though known facts contradict what the book says. Yeah, that's some God you've got there, real wise guy alright.

I find this philosophy to be a far better one:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

So, basically, God dislikes intelligent, rational people and wants them all sent to hell?

Nice guy.

It's quite the useful thing for believers to be able to just explain away anything that doesn't make sense by just pointing to God and saying, "well, he can do anything, so there".  Of course, I have to wonder whether you would prefer it if scientists just sat back and said, "well, God does everything, so there's no point examining anything critically".  I can only imagine how advanced our civilization would be if they did that!  Then there's the issue regarding how God conveniently decided to stop intervening in people's everyday life before any of us came into existence... but oh well, we mere mortals simply can't understand it, but we know that it's true nonetheless, right?