Noah and the Ark

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by JamDat

Fine, Jesus made it into the best wine. I'm willing to bet that the best wine is aged. I'm no wine drinker, but come on. Regardless even the worst wine takes time to make. The point is that Jesus did make something that instantly (or pretty quickly, my guess is instantly) was aged. I say "perfectly" aged because that's what Jesus seemed to do (make things whole which I would think to be perfect) while performing miracles.

It was the "best wine" that a lower middle class family who obviously had a problem coming up with any wine at all managed to find in a jar that had been used as a foot bath.

Don't discount the miracle! It was a miracle of provision done to benefit someone who didn't have enough.

But, it was not a reenactment of the creation of the heavens of the earth, nor can we draw any important scientific conclusions from this event - the participants are long dead and the wine is long gone as well.

But... we can do a whole series of detailed series of analyses on the earth and the heavens themselves and draw some important conclusions about what God HAS DONE here.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by JamDat

I don't know why He would do that or if that is even the case. It might be, but I don't know. The world went through a cataclysmic event by God. With the kind of stress that it received it just might be that's why it's looks older than what it does.

That's a good point, Jamdat. However, for the earth to have gone through the kind of "stress" needed to "reset" the atomic clocks in the radionuclides would have required that the rocks themselves become molten - and even then, this would give us a much younger date for the earth, not the much older date that we find.

For radiometric dating to be thrown off at all we would need to actually be inside the core of an active star where elements are being fused or on the bow of a shock wave from a supernova where the heavier elements are fused.

We may be facing this kind of an end - but the Bible doesn't indicate that anything like this has happened since the earth was made 4.5 billion years ago.

Originally Posted by JamDat

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Could it be that when God made the stars they were much closer and after He stretched out the heavens the stars are much further away. However the light was much closer at one point and could explain why it didn't take billions of light years to reach us. Maybe God just does what He does even if we can't understand it.

I think there are many things that God does that we can't understand, however we can reasonably understand the basic facts of the universe.

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

The question is, "What DID God do?"

The fact that there are no stars "close" to the earth other than our own sun is a fortunate circumstance that has allowed us to remain alive at all. Planets in multi-star systems have crazily exaggerated orbits that send them into long, long periods of deep freeze followed by equally long periods of intense burning heat. Our single star allows for a very neat little gravity "well" around which we happily find ourselves alive.

Also, the material within the stars themselves when they are close together will interact. Stars are not solid bodies but giant clouds of collapsed hydrogen gas. If you move another (larger) star past a smaller one you will see a "streamer" of gasses being pulled off of the smaller star as it is drawn toward, and then completely circles the larger star forming an accretion disk.

These accretion disks accelerate the gases to such high speeds and energies that they can give off tremendous amounts of x-ray energies. As the matter falls into the more massive star, that star's own internal nuclear "engine" is pumped into over drive and the whole star could go "supernova;" or there may "only" be a reaction in the chromosphere or near the surface of the star causing an explosion that would kill everything within tens instead of hundreds of light years.

There is no evidence showing that the stars anywhere in our observable galaxy nor any in the literally millions of other cataloged galaxies have experienced such a "stretching" of the space between them in the last 10,000 years.

Such an event would have literally "lit up" the skies and the results would be observable still today - from another galaxy, because we'd all be nothing but carbon atoms if it had happened anywhere around here.

[JamDat]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It was the "best wine" that a lower middle class family who obviously had a problem coming up with any wine at all managed to find in a jar that had been used as a foot bath.

Don't discount the miracle! It was a miracle of provision done to benefit someone who didn't have enough.

But, it was not a reenactment of the creation of the heavens of the earth, nor can we draw any important scientific conclusions from this event - the participants are long dead and the wine is long gone as well.

But... we can do a whole series of detailed series of analyses on the earth and the heavens themselves and draw some important conclusions about what God HAS DONE here.

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.

[JamDat]

Originally Posted by pelathais

That's a good point, Jamdat. However, for the earth to have gone through the kind of "stress" needed to "reset" the atomic clocks in the radionuclides would have required that the rocks themselves become molten - and even then, this would give us a much younger date for the earth, not the much older date that we find.

For radiometric dating to be thrown off at all we would need to actually be inside the core of an active star where elements are being fused or on the bow of a shock wave from a supernova where the heavier elements are fused.

We may be facing this kind of an end - but the Bible doesn't indicate that anything like this has happened since the earth was made 4.5 billion years ago.

I think there are many things that God does that we can't understand, however we can reasonably understand the basic facts of the universe.

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

The question is, "What DID God do?"

The fact that there are no stars "close" to the earth other than our own sun is a fortunate circumstance that has allowed us to remain alive at all. Planets in multi-star systems have crazily exaggerated orbits that send them into long, long periods of deep freeze followed by equally long periods of intense burning heat. Our single star allows for a very neat little gravity "well" around which we happily find ourselves alive.

Also, the material within the stars themselves when they are close together will interact. Stars are not solid bodies but giant clouds of collapsed hydrogen gas. If you move another (larger) star past a smaller one you will see a "streamer" of gasses being pulled off of the smaller star as it is drawn toward, and then completely circles the larger star forming an accretion disk.

These accretion disks accelerate the gases to such high speeds and energies that they can give off tremendous amounts of x-ray energies. As the matter falls into the more massive star, that star's own internal nuclear "engine" is pumped into over drive and the whole star could go "supernova;" or there may "only" be a reaction in the chromosphere or near the surface of the star causing an explosion that would kill everything within tens instead of hundreds of light years.

There is no evidence showing that the stars anywhere in our observable galaxy nor any in the literally millions of other cataloged galaxies have experienced such a "stretching" of the space between them in the last 10,000 years.

Such an event would have literally "lit up" the skies and the results would be observable still today - from another galaxy, because we'd all be nothing but carbon atoms if it had happened anywhere around here.

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.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

So, Science is a shaky foundation? What about outlandish claims of Religious origin?

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.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

So, Science is a shaky foundation? What about outlandish claims of Religious origin? What about the denominal World of Christianity? Who do we trust? How can we trust a system that is floundering in debate, unable to conclude "A Faith" that will unite us all? We claim to have Love and understanding, but within we are cancered by dramatical interpretations that leave people distanced from the Almighty, distanced from each other, and empty with confusion!

The Bible presents a supernatural God. And a consistent message in the Bible tells us that we can’t always trust what we think we see…but rather we are to trust him.

Church today is a complicated maze, everyone coming to a conclusion about God through a Book that can say what we want it to say. Salvation has become a million opinions, a million ideas, and the claim of who is right remains a mystery. Why? Because we can’t go to the place where we can confirm, “Who is Right?” So, we continue to drink from the well of maybes. We tell people, “You just need more Faith”. We keep praying for a healing that never comes. We give people hopes and promises that never come to pass. We place our finger upon a prophecy, as the years pour by without confirmation. We cover our lies, and we blanket the Truth with another "Work Around", instead of just admitting Science has proved us wrong.

I’ve never received a “miracle” (however, divine providence bordering on the bizarre circumstantial developments plague me). I do know of a few people who have received true to life “miracles” that left doctors completely baffled. I’m left with an opinion on miracles. I think that our emphasis on miracles is negligent. No one is entitled to a miracle. However, God does use them on occasion for his purposes. God doesn’t just give us a miracle because we ask it. First, it has to be his will. Second, it has to accomplish a greater purpose other than the miracle itself. Even in the Bible we see “seasons of miracles” then decades if not centuries of dry spells where miracles are hardly found. Typically it confirms a message or a dispensational change of covenant. Essentially, they confirm the message. I think when Pentecost first took off a couple generations ago the message was restored and the fire blazed with miracles confirming. Men and women were truly “hearing directly from God” and the miracles confirmed the fact. Today, men sermonize. They get their points from books or borrow tid-bits from other sermons. Elements are inspired by God… but little true “prophesy” is taking place today. Miracles will naturally wane. Just my opinion here.

You of all people know, Religion has carried off people and burned them at the stake in the name of God. Religion has put people in prison, calling them heretics, banishing the honest as backslidden or evil because they've proven error amongst the hierarchy of Faith. Elders denounce those who step forward to ask “Why”, demanding obedience to those who have a direct line to a divine revelation that lives in a Spectral World that cannot be measured.

By and large those perpetrating those crimes were part of “institutionalized religion”. Those persecuted were typically those of true faith searching the Scriptures. Remember, there is a true church and there is a false church that is nearly psychotic if given total power.

Science has brought accountability to the "Unseen" World, where manipulation has taken advantage of the weak or unlearned. In Centuries gone by, people had to accept dogmas of Religion because they couldn't prove otherwise. Today, the light of Truth regarding our Planet, Solar System, the human body, Nature, Weather, and a host of other scientific discovery has blessed the ignorant with the power of knowledge. This my friend, is a blessing! The God of Ages conforms to His Creation because His breath is seen upon waves of the sea, and His Crown rests upon the highest mountain! We are created in His Image, and my heart confirms His Eternal Godhead by the things that are MADE, not by the things we make up!

I agree to a large extent. I find science a blessing too. However, I often disagree with theoretical science. I think evolution makes sense…the problem I see is that it doesn’t give any room for a miracle working supernatural God that the Bible presents. Science sees no need nor has it any room for the Bible. I believe that most evolutionists would laugh you out of their labs if you proposed anything to do with the Bible. “Higher power” concepts may be entertained by many who are agnostic…but if you give any validity to the Bible I don’t think they’d take you seriously.

I am without excuse when I open my heart to the very Handiwork that is signed by the Greatest Artist, EVER! God made this Earth, and His Glory and Power become more evident when we lift the veil, and SEE the Truth! Real Truth! Its men like Galileo who let God out of Prison! He went past the Ball and Chain of an Unseen World, to confirm, to validate, to show the World of Religion, you're WRONG!

I don’t see how applied science and theoretical science are on equal footing. For example, Galileo’s conclusions are truly based on “real time” observations. However, radio carbon dating, for example, only stands “if” conditions were as we know them today.

Chris, maybe a flat Earth is OK with you, or you feel that greater Truth will offend the dogmas of our Age that bind, but my Faith in God becomes greater when unseen things are proven, and that includes the false ideas I once embraced.

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.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

When YOUR account of the creation and etc. clearly run counter to very real and plain evidence of what I have seen with my eyes and handled with my own hands, then I simply cannot trust you.

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

Fortunately, I happen to also already have a relationship with the Creator - so my faith isn't shaken by your admittedly "wild" speculations concerning origins and the flood of Genesis 6. But what about a child or a young person? What about an adult who is only at the point of considering the claims of the Gospel?

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

When we add to the miraculous nature of our common salvation stuff that clearly and simply didn't happen we hinder people's faith.

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.

AND NOTICE: I didn't say "stuff that could not have happened." I said, "stuff that clearly and simply did not happen."

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.

For you, "science" appears to be some sort of voodoo magic. This tells me that you haven't had any real practical training or experience with hands on science projects.

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.

How do you know that an atom exists? How do you know that (just to choose one type of atom) the vast, vast majority of hydrogen atoms contain a single electron and a single proton? Just one electron.

How do you know when you've uncovered that rare, "one in a billion," hydrogen atom that has an extra neutron? Or, that one in a trillion that has two extra neutrons? How do you know when you have any atomic isotopes? How can you just trust some guy in a lab coat to tell you, "Yup! Them there's "heavy hydrogen."

How can we trust that guy? Atoms are so small. Nobody's even seen a hydrogen atom before - we've "imaged" much larger atoms - but we just have to take the scientist's word that what were looking at is a picture of an atom.

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

And yet, if the Iranians were to announce tomorrow that they had 80 kilos of enriched weapons grade uranium isotopes... would you believe them? If they blew up Tel Aviv and Riyadh, would you believe them?

Again, not a valid comparison.

You believe "science" when it comes to keeping your underarms dry. You believe "science" when a local announcement goes out that everyone in a particular community must boil their water. You seem to pick and choose your science carefully, but you don't seem to have much real world experience with science.

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

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Concerning the age of the earth - I can test that and see what it is.

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.

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.

Concerning the idea that there was a flood that covered the continents just 4,000 years ago, I can test that too.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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

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.

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

9. Very little sediment was available for deposition.

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).

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.

(I'd like to know your thoughts on each point.)

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.

Concerning the claim that a single human being rose from the dead 2,000 years ago? That's a lot harder. I can look for eyewitnesses, and in this case we find many reports - even from the foes of Christianity.

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

It is more than reasonable to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth really did exist (despite the desperate claims of a few to the contrary); but how can I "prove scientifically" whether or not He rose from the dead? I can't test nor prove it scientifically one way or the other.

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.

So the rather constant refrain that keeps pooping up here demanding that we MUST attach a "literal flood" and a "literal 6,000 year old earth" to faith in the resurrection in Jesus Christ just doesn't wash. It's a red herring. Apples and oranges.

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

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The appearance of age argument doesn't explain all the fossils of species that aren't on earth today that apprear to be millions of years old. By the way, I can accept that many things were created mature because it was necessary (for example man and woman would have died as babies)... but fossils that appear to be millions of years old of species that are not around today were not necessary for a functioning earth. So why are such fossils here? It must be to confirm the truth that evolution is a mechanism that God created inherent within life on earth. That is really the only explanation that is left.

In which case why not just take the simpler explanation that God created everything using that mechanism of evolution instead of creating everything to appear exactly like that mechanism had been used?

Because God’s Word wouldn’t be true. I liked what Schroeder had to say in Genesis and the Big Bang regarding the bending of time as the universe expanded. It would allow for time to have passed extremely rapidly from a Heavenly perspective while very slowly from an earthly perspective due to the creative force behind the expansion of time and space. A lot of it is beyond me but I found it fascinating.

Where does theistic evolution leave Adam and Eve? Myth? Legend? Fairy Tale? Those are interesting questions. I know a diehard theistic evolutionist who discounts ALL miracles of the Bible believing that the Bible is strictly “spiritual truths” or “anointed myth” to teach greater truths, not a literal creation, resurrection, or return. Where does it end?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The creation by its very nature shows that it has gone through time.

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.

What if we were to step out of that time machine and "carded" the two naked love birds in the Garden? What if they then pulled out (from where, I dunno) a couple of Driver's Licenses that showed them to be "mid 20's" as you propose? Or would those documents declare their age to be just a few days (however many by the time we go there)?

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

The only "documents" that we'd have to actually date their ages would be their bodies themselves.

Did the "two adults" have freckles? Wisdom teeth? Did they have belly buttons? Scars? Were the plates of their craniums fused? Our hair sample: did it show you what Eve had been eating a month before she was created? What about Adam's?

What was the condition of the telomeres of their DNA? Did it match up with a "mid 20's" adult human being? Or did the DNA show that their cells had been regenerating for only a few days? Was there a series of bacteria colonies in their gut that had lived and died for only a few days - or did you track the genes of the bacteria back over the course of enough generations to equate several years? Twenty-something years?

I know that it sounds like I'm nit-picking - but those are the kinds of things we'd look for to try and determine the age of someone.

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.

Did the trees have rings? The rings are not only evidence of the plant's age, but they provide the structural rigidity needed to support the height of the tree itself. So, in order for the trees to stand up at all the Creator would have had to "give them the appearance of age" and thus deceive us with the appearances. How far would the Creator go with this deception?

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

Would He actually create the "oldest appearing" rocks and make them to be - sandstones? That's what we have today. The oldest rocks are sedimentary rocks. That's right. They are the apparent debris of even older rocks that no longer exist! Inside the zircon crystals of these rocks - locked up within the very matrix of the mineral crystals themselves (so we know they haven't been contaminated) are uranium atoms that have been literally "ticking" away and marking the passage of some 3.5 billion years.

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.

And, the zircon crystals are smooth - like they were tumbled in water for a long period of time before being laid down as sediments.

Why did the Creator go to such incredible detail just to deceive us about the earth's age?

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

Why are meteorites from space older than the other rocks found on the surface of the earth? Always. It sure makes it seem like the earth formed from material in space and then that material was molten (resetting the atomic "clocks") and then reformed and eroded and recycled over a very long expanse of time. Meanwhile, the rocks in nearby space occasionally come crashing down and show that they didn't have their "clocks" reset like the earth's crust had been.

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

Why go to such "nit picking detail" just to make it seem like the earth was old? This is the "moral question" about the appearance of age argument that you and the others have been ducking all along.

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

For me, I had to ask myself, "Who do you serve? The Creator of heaven and earth (the real heaven and earth that you and I find ourselves a part of right now)? Or do I serve Loki, the 'trickster god?'"

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 choose the Creator Who created this world that I find myself in right now. He is my Lord and my God. "Tricksters" beware!

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