Noah and the Ark

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Good point.

The big difference though, regarding the initial subject of this thread (Noah and the Ark), is that the Bible gives measurement, capacity, material used, time on board, of a ship that was designed to carry a Zoo beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Its one thing to believe in a miracle and another to believe that Blue is Black.

I don’t believe that the Bible tells us all the details of what truly happened. For example, I believe as the ancient traditions teach that Noah was a city king. That isn’t mentioned in Scripture.

God gave us measurement to define Truth. This is important, otherwise people can say whatever they want to, telling us, "It's a MIRACLE". False doctrine grows upon the foundation of the unproven and unmeasured. We see this in past civilizations and Religion, where they were told to "Just Believe", and the belief or idea was found to be a lie.

Box recipe.

Even today, many Religions use ideas that cannot be proven to establish a following. For instance, Mormons, use an array of unproven ideas to gain power over their constituents. We stand back and call them an Occult, while we ourselves may be guilty of the very same thing. We can become arrogant and blind if we think otherwise. Anytime a “People” think they have found the Truth about God without accountable measurement, the realm of Faith or the Impossible within that Religion must be scrutinized or ideas will grow into fables.

I hear you. But that’s an expansive subject beyond this conversation.

Putting the concept into a more viable light might be to say, "We drove around in my car for a year, with 45 people in it, never stopped at a bathroom or for food, and then landed on high ground ready to re-populate the World". Of course we all think this is ridiculous. In fact, it can't be done.

I don’t think this compares.

Remember, years ago people couldn't validate the Ark experience like they can today. People lived in very isolated communities. What they "Saw" would be a very limited populace of animals, so the belief in all of them being on one ship might work. Today, we see the entire Earth and the equation or measurement of such an event is impossible. One ship could never house such an array of animals, supplying all of their needs by just 8 people.

I think some interpretations are unfeasible. However, I’d not rule the story out all together. For example, one interpretation is that God commanded the earth to bring forth creatures and that after the flood some of the life we see are either rapid mutations or spontaneous generation as in the beginning. I’ve also heard interpretations stating that the notion was that anything will a soul died… not necessarily every animal.

We can visit places (Zoo's, Wildlife Parks) that take care of several hundred species, and the effort, work, environment, food, and staff to care for these animals is astronomical. We are told the Ark housed 2+ million species, and if this doesn’t add up to Truth, how far will we go with unproven theory? How deep will we allow Religion to carry us into places that are false?

I don’t know how Jesus fed 5000 with two fishes and five loaves of bread…but I believe he did. Same with the OT.

[Aquila]

I read Ross's book, Creation and Time. I found it to be very good and I like a lot of what he has to say. I just think that the narrative is pretty clear about describing actual days not long periods of time. Besides, science would have microscopic and simple plant life come way before the age of the "third day".

Alan Haywood's theory (Divine Fiat Theory) is that we see God, in the dateless past, speaking for six literal days. Then everything spoken begins to manifest and develop over a period of billions of years. No specific order is required, no specific time frame or outline needed. That would mean that the world around us that has been developing for billions of years is the result of six creative days of divine utterance. All things can then be said to be the result of an utterance made during a single day.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by JamDat

My point is that God will make something that is aged. I don't care if it was months or years aged. It was aged. I know what the miracle was, but there are other benefits to this scripture too.

He that sat on the throne said, "Behold! I make all things new."

Revelation 21:5

This of course speaks of the re-creation... but why do you think the original creation was made just to appear all aged, scarred and worn out looking?

When I am raised from the dead, will I have the scars, swollen joints and diseased members that I now possess? I wasn't born with scars the first time. I was "new."

Each creation is new. Each created thing is new.

The appearance of age argument is like asking for us to believe that Adam was created as a 30 year old man who also happened to have a scar on his left knee from when he fell off of his bicycle when he was ten years old.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by JamDat

Like I said I'm not as smart as you other people on this thread and this post is way above my head. However I do thank those that entertained my thoughts on the subject.

C'mon JamDat!

It's not rocket science.

The question, again, isn't "What CAN God do?" The question is, "What DID God do?"

You understand that don't you? We're simply asking, "What actually happened?" It's like being a crime scene investigator. Nobody saw O.J. kill his ex-wife and Mr. Goldman, but just about everyone in the world believes that he did.

Why?

Because of the evidence of what DID happen. We are all persuaded by the evidence.

Now, could O.J. have actually been innocent while shape-shifting reptilian aliens framed him for the crimes?

Well, actually "no" to that one. But, we can answer "no" because of the evidence. The same thing with regard to the age of the earth.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Claims like the resurrection, the feeding of the five thousand, the raising of the dead, the healing of the blind? Brother... we're talking about a sacred mystical truth... something that bends the laws of science as you know them. Something that transends both time and space. Something beyond human logic. To see God as defined scientifically is to reduce him to our level and confine him to our own ability and understanding.

Yes, however, with regard to the age of the earth and its geologic history over the past 4,000 years we are simply looking at the earth and recognizing that it exists on the same "level" as us and always has.

What is the testimony of the earth in this matter? What has happened here over the past 4,000, or 6,000 or 4.5 billion years?

These are questions that can be asked and answered "at our level."

[pelathais]

I appreciate what you said (and what I snipped to make this fit a bit better ) about miracles, Chris. I agree and I think that I share similar experiences with you in this regard.

Originally Posted by Aquila

...
Again, I have no issue with applied science. It’s theories that I don’t give much weight to because they don’t take “God” into consideration.

What "applied science" have you seen that "takes God into account?"

Yuri Gagarin (and his evil Soviet paymasters) used "applied science" to launch him into space. He was the first human being to make that journey, apart perhaps from some Biblical characters. When he reached orbital altitude he looked around and declared, "I have looked around and I do not see God."

He then was returned safely to earth and entered the history books.

"Applied science" by it's nature doesn't take any consideration at all of God. The scientists involved may or may not have faith in God, it doesn't matter. It's science. It's either an application of known "laws" or it may be the investigation into the unknown, but it's just science.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You’ve been to the edge of the known universe and proven that there isn’t a firmament?

Dude, don't eat the 'shrooms... you don't want to go to the "edge of the known universe!"

But seriously, yes. As I stated before, the existence of such a massive body as either the "firmament at the edge of the known universe" or the the "watery abyss beyond such a firmament" would exert tremendous gravitational pull and we'd be either aware of it, or we'd be bugs on its windshield.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I love how Jesus said that we had to have faith like children…not intellectuals.

So then, if a person is "smart" or an "intellectual" - what would they do? Why, they'd have faith like a small child... so what's the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Then it’s not “faith”. Faith is the substance of things we hope for, the evidence of things we can’t see or prove. If you want a sense of “certainty” I’d say stick with science and its theories. If you want to experience “faith”, trust the Bible. If certainty is what drives you you’ll never hang when it comes to the Bible.

No, I have "faith" in something that I have not seen - the risen and resurrected Jesus Christ! (John 20:29).

I have no faith in something for which there is overwhelming evidence throughout God's incredible creation that never happened (6,000 year old earth and a global flood 4,000 years ago).

What you're doing can be compared to the other disciples bringing the dead body of the man from Nazareth to Thomas and demanding that Thomas believe in something that the evidence doesn't support.You're bringing me a "dead body" and telling me it rose from the dead.

Instead, in my world of faith; I have found an empty tomb and I believe that Jesus is alive!

Originally Posted by Aquila

You might be able to say that there isn’t any “evidence” of something happening as described in the Bible…but unless you were present at the time of the event, you can’t say with certainty that it didn’t happen.

Did O.J. Simpson kill Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown-Simpson? You weren't there and neither was I, but I am convinced.

Did Ramses II (the Great) have red hair? Does a hydrogen atom have a single proton at its nucleus? Is there ever light on the "dark side of the moon?"

Q:How can we know anything?

A:Evidence.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Not true. I was a Medic and I’ve worked with the handicapped in a clinical medical environment. I have a healthy respect for science and medicine. However, I don’t let their theories jar my faith in the Bible.

Have you have so over compartmentalized your though processes that there appears to be little room for the Bible in the "real world" where you have practiced care giving?

When you just someone's vitals did you trust your instruments? Did you actually "believe" that there was a beating heart within the patient despite the fact that you couldn't see one?

Did you ever snap one of those gas meter things onto someone's finger tip to see if they we getting and processing oxygen? Did you react to your readings? Did you send them to rest, confident that they didn't need some sort of cardiac intervention if "their numbers" were good?

If so, then why can't you accept the findings of a spectral analysis of the uranium decay within a zircon crystal?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, that’s applied and presently observable science. Doesn’t compare to “theories” that exclude the God of the Bible.

You've got major ear wax build up if you think that I have "excluded the God of the Bible." And it does "compare." All of the science concerning the age of the earth is "present science" - visit a Natural History museum. Touch something, even if it says "Do Not Touch!" You're my friend, I'll vouch for you. The stuff is real, and it's really there.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, not a valid comparison.

Denial is more than a river in Egypt, my friend. Does uranium decay at predictable and observable rates? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have a lot of faith in applied science…it’s theories I don’t trust my soul with.

Like the "Theory of Gravity?" Do you realize that we actually have less understanding of gravity than we do of nuclear decay rates that measure the earth's age?

You have demonstrated a poor understanding of what the word "theory" means in science. In the common vernacular it could mean "wild guess;" but a "Scientific Theory" is something that is so reasonably validated by the data that it would be foolish to deny it.

Since we know so little about the "Theory of Gravity" - why not just throwing that one one out the window? Literally.

But then, as they say, "It isn't gravity that kills you... it's the electromagnet bonds that hold the concrete in the sidewalk together below that kills you." But, I guess you do need the acceleration of gravity as well.

Do you also question the "Germ Theory of Disease" as well as the "Atomic Theory?"

Theories seek to explain phenomena. The phenomena are real. The earth is real and the universe in which you and I find ourselves is real. We exists "right now." The uranium in the zircon crystals found in the Acasta Gneisses in Canada are real, they exist right now and you can drive out there to see them, if you want (take me!). They really are over 4 billion years old.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There have been many interesting books written by scientific minds that validate the Bible and the creation story. With interpretations ranging from the Gap-Theory to the Divine Fiat interpretation. One interesting theory was presented in a book titled, Genesis and the Big Bang. This book proposed that as God created the universe time and space moved rapidly with the big bang. This would mean that creation moved “fast forward” in a sense until expansion of space reached a point where time slowed considerably to how we perceive it today. Clearly God’s “day” wasn’t dependent upon the “sun” because there was light before the sun. So the universe’s rapid expansion and it’s effect on time could have allowed for billions of years of development to take place over a period of what we today would perceive as six days. I thought it was an interesting interpretation because it had to do a lot with physics and how light and space effect time.

Even Gerald Schroeder, the author of that book, clearly states that the universe has gone through approximately 13 billion years of time. Ask him if he believes that Jesus rose from the dead, though.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It would be a sad state of affairs for you to doubt God’s Word only to find yourself calling God a liar because you didn’t compensate for the fact that “time” itself isn’t as static as you assume.

In reading the Bible I have yet to find a single place where God lied.

I think it would be a sad state of affairs to call Him a "trickster" or claim that He "lied" in the natural history of the earth and the heavens.

[quote=Aquila;894735]
Here’s an interesting list of points that would demonstrate that there wouldn’t be any true “evidence” of a global flood (opposite of the claims of Scientific Creationists”. I found it interesting. These are the assumptions and conclusions:

1. The Flood inundated the entire surface of the earth.[/quote}
There is no evidence for such an event - ever - but especially no evidence for such an event in the past 4,000 years or so. Ice cores from Antarctica show successive snowfall and layering going back at least 1 million years. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1126115305.htm)

Originally Posted by Aquila

2. The surface of the earth was similar in Flood times to what it is today.

The surface of the earth 4,000 years ago was pretty much the same as today. The major differences were that there appear to have been rivers in the Sahara along with game animals 4,000 years ago (http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Sahara+Desert). These would have been fresh water rivers indicating a different climate in the region than what we see today.

Originally Posted by Aquila

3. Therefore, God must have added some water to the amount of water which is currently on the earth to produce flooding of the highest mountains or there are large undiscovered sources of water below the surface of the earth. (We discussed the possibility of bending time and space to allow waters from beyond our universe’s firmament to inundate the earth.)

For a "Flood Model" to be worked out with existing data we would need to have the flood waters "miraculously appear" and then to have them just as "miraculously" disappear.
[quote=Aquila;894735]
4. Sea level rose 30,000 feet in 40 days, a 750-foot-per day, or approximately 30-foot-per-hour, rise in sea level.

5. Therefore, most of the earth’s surface was covered and protected from erosion within the first two weeks of the Flood.

"Covered" by 30,000 feet of water means the land was subject to erosion; the erosion caused by a 30,000 foot inundation.

Originally Posted by Aquila

6. As a result even torrential rains of the type that must have fallen would not have produced much erosion in solid rock.

But the weight of the water would have caused serious metamorphosis on exposed rock beneath the waves. The wave action would have left "beach shelves." All of the arable soil on the planet would have been lifted as silt and carried to the present sea floors as the waters were "sucked up" in the giant trans-dimensional soda straw/wormhole tunnels that lead to the farthest edges of space.

Originally Posted by Aquila

7. Since the main effect of the Flood was the sea level rising, and since the sea currents would not have produced much erosion, very little sediment was eroded during the phase of rising waters.

See above. It would have taken another "miraculous" intervention to keep any considerable amounts of soil on the continents at all.

Originally Posted by Aquila

8. Most of the plants and animals killed during the rising waters would have floated on top of the declining waters.

Yes, the dinosaur carcasses floating next to the nephilim. Mammals along side the jawless fish. Ediacara with human beings.

Instead, what we find is a progression of different species throughout the geologic column. We never find any evidence of human beings interacting with dinosaurs. We never find their corpses deposited together. The list of such examples is almost endless.

Originally Posted by Aquila

9. Very little sediment was available for deposition.

All of the sediment in the world was available for deposition. Even deep sea sediments would have been churned up by the phenomenal blasts coming from the "wormhole straws."

You seem to want a some sort of tranquil idyll to exist in the seas - something like what we see today at Challenger Deep. That scene however is what we see after more than 200 million years of being undisturbed (or 4K, for you ). What is White Sands National Monument going to look like under almost 30,000 feet of water that fell on it in just a four month period? What will it look like as it drains? Why is it still there?

Originally Posted by Aquila

10. Declining waters would have produced very little additional sediment, because the dominant effect in this phase was the decline of sea level by 30,000 feet in approximately 255 days—a rate of 118 feet per day (about 4.9 feet an hour).
Declining waters would have produced very little additional sediment

Say that again, to yourself. Several times. Sleep on it. Repeat it in the shower in the morning.

"Declining waters would have produced very little additional sediment" because the waters were so massive? Everything would have been sediment.

Originally Posted by Aquila

11. While some dead plants and animals would have been buried in what would today be recognized as diluvial sediments, most of the dead plants and animals were left on the surface of the earth by the declining waters, to be subsequently decomposed.

That would clean up the Ediacara nicely - spineless, soft bodied creatures that they were; but we still find them in Precambrian rocks.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Conclusion would be that the biblical flood would have left little to no evidence of it’s occurrence. I found it interesting and just thought I’d present it here to see what your thoughts are.

Kind of like Elvis? Eyewitnesses mean nothing really. In fact,

Best to let that one one drift off, there.

Covering the earth in 30,000 feet of water would have left plenty of evidence. And, you have yet to deal with the enormous amount of evidence that states the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that it has gone through that history without the aid of Dr. Who's T.A.R.D.I.S. trans-dimensional device (the British phone booth thing).

Originally Posted by Aquila

There are many things you can’t test. The supernatural effect on the laws of science, the bending of time and space to accomplish what God’s Word states, etc. However, you rule out God’s Word based on data observed from a scientific perspective.

In my opinion it’s about one either believes the Bible…or they don’t.

In my opinion, one must either take the Bible seriously or one must treat it like a book of myths and just pretend fables. It is ironic that both atheists and fundamentalists have chosen the latter.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

From what perspective? I’m curious about what your thoughts are regarding the possibility of time expanding and in fact being bent by the expansion of the universe that resulted from the creation.

I don't know what "bending" time is. Maybe it's like saying, "I will meet you for dinner at 5:30" when instead I meet you at "five-thirty-ish?"

On the other hand, the expansion and contraction of time are dealt with in Einstein's Special Law of Relativity (I thought you hated "theories")... when a body approaches another body of sufficient mass (like a black hole) time for that body will "slow" relative to the time being experienced by other bodies in the universe. A similar thing occurs as the body accelerates toward the speed of light.

In all cases the body experiencing the "contraction" of time is seen in relationship to other bodies not experiencing the contraction. For example:

You are on a spaceship (the Millennium Falcon). Before you left Tatooine you and I synced our watches at the space bar in Mos Eisley. Now, deep in space, as you travel at increasing speeds - time "slows down" for you. Since you are also traveling with the two gay robots, time really seems to slow down and you despair.

When you turn off the FTL Drive (faster than light) your watch will show that you passed through a longer period of time than I did back at Mos Eisley where I've been sipping green Slurpees with Boba Fett undisturbed by the gay robots. You and I have experienced time from within two different frames of reference.

As they say, it's all relative.

Schroeder is proposing that we accelerate the entire universe to near (or more than) the speed of light. What this will do (he envisions) is move God to a different frame of reference than our own. Thus, for God it will seem like only a short period of time, but for us it will have been literally billions of years.

"We" (the entire universe) are still traveling on the M. Falcon with the gay robots and having to endure a long journey. Meanwhile, God is in timeless "eternity" where things go along according to His frame of reference.

The most obvious thing here is that Schroeder hasn't really proposed anything different about the universe. The universe has still experienced its "journey" of about 13 billion years and everything that I have tried to say is still correct. It's just that God perceives things differently than we do; but I think that's something everybody already agrees on.

At the end of the day, Schroeder has said nothing. He offers no explanation why the genealogies of those who supposedly have been on the 13 billion year journey only add up to around 6,000 years. We might understand when God pops into our frame of reference, looks at His watch as exclaims, "Look at the time! It's different!" But, why does Methuselah appear to say this too? Schroeder offers no explanation - in fact, he doesn't even seem to have noticed the disparity.

Why, in fact, are you arguing that the time isn't different, when Schroeder does? (The time between God's watch and the earth's). You appear to have been saying that we've just been listening to R2's clicking and buzzing for 6,000 years when our watches show it to have been around 13 billion years. It's one thing to say that God "sees" things differently than we do (and I agree that He does); but you and the Young Earth crowd want to also add that we don't see anything at all.

I disagree. My Creator has made me to be a witness (Isaiah 43:10). I am here. I am real and I exist because the great I AM made it so.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that Adam and Eve were created function adults, perhaps young adults.

Good points. My personal opinion is that they shone brightly with a heavenly “glow” if you will. Upon sinning, that light dissipated and they were left knowing that they were naked and were ashamed. Just my personal opinion.

It’s not a deception if he reveals the truth in his Word. It becomes a matter of who’s report will you believe?

It is deception because your explanation of what the Word says doesn't jive with reality. You have to get the two to match. How can you get "God's watch" to sync with the time on the earth's watch? That's the disparity. You're simply saying, "Ignore the earth's watch!" I won't do that. This is the creation of God. I am a part of this creation, I am desperately intertwined with this creation. I am His creation. I'm not going to scoff at what He has done and at what He has made.

We've got to get the two "watches" to sync up. I know that the earth is real, and I believe that God is real. Some folks deny the reality of our universe in favor of what their minds dream up about God and the Bible. Those folks often end up in chaos and pain, denying both God and the universe. That's something of an aside... but we do have to account for reality, otherwise we might as well eat the 'shrooms and pretend that nothing is real.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Is time “static”? With the expansion of the universe what was the effect on time and space if the universe expanded rapidly and was in full swing rapid creation? I believe time and space would be turned on it’s head.

Time is static in each particular frame of reference. That's Relativity. To experience a different frame of reference you have to leave this one. God is capable of that, in fact He exists simultaneously within this frame and outside of it. He's the One with the crazy watch.

He has given us only one watch in this time frame, and it only keeps one time.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It’s not a deception if you read his account of what he did.

Did what? The part where we read that the Creator tumbled and sanded down all of the zircon crystals in Western Australia before placing them within the sandstones there?

The part where it says something (anything!) about nuclear decay rates?

It doesn't say anything about any of that. I read the Book, more than once. Also, you've still got some work to do with Schroeder's expanding space/time. For Schroeder to be correct we'd have to see the ground beneath our feet experiencing a different time frame of reference than what we're experiencing.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, we don’t know the dynamics of time and space and creation’s effect on it.

Yes we do. For "us" (mankind) to be just 6,000 years old while the asteroids around our planet are 4.5 billion years old; we would have had to have been accelerated to the speed of light. This means that our bodies would have been turned into high energy with infinite mass. I don't think that has happened to the entire human race while we were ambulating about on this planet. Remember, you have to get the two things into two different frames of reference; in this case humanity has to exist in a different time frame than the earth and the solar system. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Schroeder's thought experiments were interesting when applied to God and they were kind of cool in a Kabbalistic sort of way (and he relies upon the Kabbalah greatly), but he fails to make any sort of link up between God's frame of reference and man's. This bugged me while I read his book and most people just dismiss him as a quack today because he doesn't even appear to have noticed his gaffe. He just ends up playing games with Einstein's work hoping that there will be a large enough number of people who never bothered to read up on the matter to generate some sales.

Originally Posted by Aquila

No, the “moral question” is will one believe God’s Word or not?

No, the moral question is, "Will you so badly wrestle with the Scriptures that they don't even make any sense in the real world?"

Where's your "hand and eye basket?" Jesus didn't mince His words when He said you should cut off your right hand if it offends you. Don't you ever pass a basket around to collect the severed hands? Or, do you believe that the Bible actually has a message - even if that message is communicated through metaphor?

Either cut off your right hand, gouge out your right eye or join me. Because we've gone all this time with you not being maimed, I am prepared to accept that you're probably not that far from where I am now.

Originally Posted by Aquila

God isn’t a trickster if he tells you what he in fact did do. For example, let’s say your wife used a wonderful box recipe on Thanksgiving and it was the entire rave. It tasted fantastic and most were thinking she cooked it all from scratch. But she laughed and said, “Nope, it only took me 15 minutes, it was a box recipe!” Was she deceptive? Nope. She’s only deceptive if she doesn’t tell others how she cooked it. But let’s say she clearly tells those present that she cooked it out of a box in 15 minutes, but your son argues, “No. You see the ingredients here. You can taste how wonderful this is. Mom obviously slaved over this recipe for at least a couple hours!” Don’t you think his mom would laugh and say, “Honey, it was a simple 15 minute box recipe.” Though he wasn’t in the kitchen, he continues to say that he knows her cooking and can tell when she cooks from scratch and insists that she in fact did cook from scratch. Who’s telling the truth??? Who’s being deceptive???

I know it tastes like God slaved over this creation for hours…but it was a 15 minute box recipe.

What if your wife put a raw turkey on the Thanksgiving table and told everyone that she had cooked the thing for 3 or 4 hours? The turkey says, "Raw." The fact that your entire family came down with salmonella poisoning and puked their guts out all night says, "Raw."

But, your wife tricked you. That's what I'm talking about. I don't believe your wife would do such a thing, nor do I believe that God has done such a thing with the earth.