Did Noah's Ark Exist?

[buffalo]

Wow - that was a quick turn around! So you agree that we can believe in Evolution and that Genesis wasn’t a historical or scientific treaty then:thumbsup:

not

 

[atheistgirl]

You might not be aware about the salinity of fish. Set your salt balance correct in your aquarium and you can have both salt and fresh water fish in it. Why?

All irrelevant.

Dump hundrends of millions of tons of fresh water in the seas, you change the salinity - those fish that evolved to live in the sea - die.

Dump hundreds of millions of tons of salty water in fresh water, those fish evolved to live in fresh water - die.

Oh wait, I can hear you thinking it right now God dumped salty water in the seas and fresh water in the fresh water lakes, and kept the two divided in the global flood

No global flooding event happened.

Not even the Catholic Church makes this claim.

Sarah x

 

[Della]

All irrelevant.

Dump hundrends of millions of tons of fresh water in the seas, you change the salinity - those fish that evolved to live in the sea - die.

Dump hundreds of millions of tons of salty water in fresh water, those fish evolved to live in fresh water - die.

Oh wait, I can hear you thinking it right now God dumped salty water in the seas and fresh water in the fresh water lakes, and kept the two divided in the global flood

No global flooding event happened.

Not even the Catholic Church makes this claim.

Sarah x

We only have the bibical account to tell us the kind of event it was, so let’s see what it says:

Gen. 7:11c - 12a all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

There is a wide latitude in that for some sort of great storm/earthquake/tsumani, perhaps even a asteriod strike, we just don’t know. It may have been the “perfect storm” of several destructive elements coming together, which would certainly have been quite spectacular and worthy of remembering. Earth has gone through many cataclysms during its lifetime, so we shouldn’t be surprised to read from ancient accounts that they witnessed/lived through such an event. And as we have stated in this thread, the area of this event may not have been global, but big enough to affect all humanity living at the time.

But, of course, the Church’s interest in it, and that of the Jewish people, is the moral/spiritual lessons to be learned from this example of God’s judgment.

 

[atheistgirl]

We only have the bibical account to tell us the kind of event it was, so let’s see what it says:

Well, no, we have archeology, geology and so on.

I have no doubt localized flooding, perhaps on a major scale, has happened throughout time, and would thus be experienced by many cultures over the years.

But a flood that covered the whole of the earth?

Meh.

Sarah x

 

[Farsight001]

You might not be aware about the salinity of fish. Set your salt balance correct in your aquarium and you can have both salt and fresh water fish in it. Why?

But not all fish by any means. There are thousands of species of fish that can in no way live in the same water. So your problem remains.

 

[Della]

Well, no, we have archeology, geology and so on.

I have no doubt localized flooding, perhaps on a major scale, has happened throughout time, and would thus be experienced by many cultures over the years.

But a flood that covered the whole of the earth?

Meh.

Sarah x

There has been world-wide flooding, but not within the life of man. But what I meant is what we know of the biblical account of Noah’s Ark, is what the biblical account tells us. So, we have to use that information to understand what kind of event it was, who it affected, and why it happened. I hope I clarified myself.

 

[buffalo]

Well, no, we have archeology, geology and so on.

I have no doubt localized flooding, perhaps on a major scale, has happened throughout time, and would thus be experienced by many cultures over the years.

But a flood that covered the whole of the earth?

Meh.

Sarah x

Do you think there was not enough water?

 

[johnnyjones]

Key sentence - **there is no **conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation

BINGO! Some Catholics do a foggy reinterpretation hoping quotes will mean something other than what is being conveyed.

 

[atheistgirl]

Do you think there was not enough water?

Oh my, this old chestnut.

Every creationist argument for a literal reading of the OT creation and flood stories has been systematically and thoroughly discredited.

It is to the great credit of the Catholic Church that it is not literalist in it’s reading and interpretation of these, and is not afraid to embrace what science has to teach it.

Unlike some individual Catholics and others of the Christian faith, who are literalist in their interpretation of these events, despite the overwhelming evidence.

Sarah x

 

[Pheonix]

I was taught, in Catholic school, that the Ark was real and the the Flood was global.

I’ve seen you bring up this point up before. I don’t, however, see the significance behind it. May I ask what your Catholic school education regarding the Flood has to do with any of this?

Science has nothing to say about this.

Excuse me? Science has a lot to say on whether or not the Flood was global. After all, whether the Flood was global or not falls under science’s realm of expertise, not the Church’s. The Church can only teach doctrinal or dogmatic truths about faith or morals; the Flood being global or not falls under neither category.

One of the theological truths concerning the Flood is that it was a prefiguring of Christ’s redemptive work. This theological truth can still be valid even if the Flood happened on a more localized scale.

Further, here are some of the problems scientists see with a global Flood:

1. There is no geological or historical evidence supporting a global flood happening at any point in time. You would think that if such a catastrophic event happened, there would be plenty of evidence to support. Yet, the scientific community hasn’t found such evidence after years of geological study. Further, the scientific community rejects the ludicrous pseudo-evidence “Flood geologists” try and bring to the table.
2. God told Noah to bring two of every species of land animal on the Ark with him. If we interpret this “two of every species of animal” to mean every single land animal on Earth, then we have a major problem. Why? Because the seven continents we know of today were most certainly in existence during Noah’s time. Therefore, if Noah lived somewhere in the Middle East, then how did he get the kangaroos from Australia, the polar bears from the North Pole, or the capybaras from South America?
3. According to Scripture, only eight people survived the Flood. How, then, does one explain the incredibly vast increase in the human population?

Bring out the Church documents that say we don’t need to

Conversely, bring out the Church documents that say we cannot believe the Flood was localized or that we have to believe the Flood was global.

The bottom line is that no one is trying to say you have to believe the Flood was localized. The Church has said that we are free to believe the Flood was global, and we’re free to believe the Flood wasn’t global.

Those of us who believe the Flood was on a more localized scale are merely voicing our opinions on the matter. I expect those of us here who reject a literal, global Flood to defend our positions, and I expect those of us here who believe the Flood was global to defend their positions. I fail to see the problem in that.

In my honest opinion, one shouldn’t bring his or her position into a discussion/debate if he or she cannot even slightly defend it.

And a question for you: Why not? Jesus made references to the Old Testament and actual events.

I fail to see how Jesus referencing the Old Testament means those events were historical events. I mean, aren’t there nine Old Testament books that Jesus/the Apostles didn’t quote? Does that mean those books are mere legend?

Further, didn’t Jesus mention the days of creation? That doesn’t mean the days of creation were literally six, 24-hour Earth Days.

Besides, no one is saying that the Old Testament doesn’t contain some historical truth (at least, I’m not saying that). Those of us here who don’t accept a global Flood are merely questioning the veracity of the so-called “global Flood.”

And the people were just too dumb idea is, in itself, dumb.

It’s not intelligence that’s being addressed with this argument, per se; it’s simplicity. Tell me, why did Jesus frequently teach with parables? The reason is because the parables made use of figurative language. Listening to figurative language made it much easier to understand what Jesus was saying than to listen to Him ramble on and on about some theological lecture concerning God.

God is not a simple subject to comprehend. This holds true for science as well; science can, at times, become quite complex.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

How is this pertinent to the discussion? No one here is arguing whether or not Adam and Eve were real people.

 

[edwest2]

The Catechism:

What is truly important is NOT how and when (the domain of science)

but WHY (the domain of faith).

100% false slogan, but I see it used regularly. The Church can define scientific matters.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Sad to see so many Catholics ignoring the outward signs of God’s work right in our own time.

themichigancatholic.com/2011/01/miracle-approved-beatification-set-for-pope-john-paul-ii/

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

While there may not have been a “world wide” flood, there is extensive scientific evidence of major wide sweeping floods in the Nile, Tigris/Euphrates and Indus River Valleys and a number of other regions around the globe (I have no idea where you are finding evidence such floods never occured). Putting that into context, one living in those regions thousands of years ago would have assumed that thier small little corner was the entire world and such a catyclismic event would indeed have “covered the world.”

:dts:

I do not worship the god science, which is conducted by human beings and can be twisted.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Some (not you) think that science is as pure as the driven snow.

Peace,
Ed

 

[triumphguy]

100% false slogan, but I see it used regularly. The Church can define scientific matters.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Sad to see so many Catholics ignoring the outward signs of God’s work right in our own time.

themichigancatholic.com/2011/01/miracle-approved-beatification-set-for-pope-john-paul-ii/

Peace,
Ed

The Church can define how science and faith relate, but the Church will NEVER say X Y or Z scientific theory is wrong per se. Ever. Period.

For instance the Church will never say that Newton’s Laws or Boyle’s Law, or Hooks Law is wrong.

The Church will say that the soul of man does not have a material cause. The Church will not say that humans with souls could not or did not descend from Australopithecus if science indicates that they did.

 

[edwest2]

Could someone show me Church teaching from the last 60 years that says we HAVE to be biblical literalists: ie., that we have to be believe in the historicity and science of Genesis for example.

Also could someone show Church teaching from the last 60 years that says we must ignore science and intellect.

What I could do is make a list of “Things Catholics, Absolutely, Positively, 100%, Are Not Required To Believe” based on all the posts here and on every sub-forum.

"John Paul the II would have none of this:

"To all these "indications" of the existence of God the Creator some oppose the power of chance or of proper mechanisms of matter *. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements, and such marvelous finality [design or purpose] in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without cause. It would be an abdication of human intelligence which would thus refuse to think, to seek a solution for its problems. (General Audience, July 10, 1985.)

"Such a statement could hardly be more antithetical to the materialist project of Neo-Darwinism. This teaching goes back to the Apostolic era (see Romans 1:19-20), and was recently reinforced by the single most authoritative compilation of Catholic teaching, a document published in the 1990s known as the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. In that document, under the major heading “The Mystery of Creation,” and the first subheading “God creates by wisdom and love,” the text begins, “We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

“The new Pope appears ready to make promotion of this long-standing Catholic teaching a higher priority, perhaps overcoming the confusion caused by the media’s overblown treatment of the 1996 statement. Against the notion that scientists must never consider design as an explanation for biological systems, Pope Benedict XVI is urging scientists and the broader culture, rather, to follow the evidence where it leads. There, according to Catholic teaching, it will find a creative intelligence.”

Peace,
Ed*

 

[triumphguy]

You see a car driving down the road.

You can say:
The car is driving itself down the road.
The car is being driven down the road.
The car is being driven but not down the road.

Only one is right.

The Church teaches that the car is being driven down the road.
Atheists say the car is driving down the road.
You seem to be saying the car is being driven down some totally fictional road.

Church teaching insists on the place of God in science. But it does not insist on a magical point of view.

 

[edwest2]

You see a car driving down the road.

You can say:
The car is driving itself down the road.
The car is being driven down the road.
The car is being driven but not down the road.

Only one is right.

The Church teaches that the car is being driven down the road.
Atheists say the car is driving down the road.
You seem to be saying the car is being driven down some totally fictional road.

Church teaching insists on the place of God in science. But it does not insist on a magical point of view.

I have no idea what you are saying.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Oh my, this old chestnut.

Every creationist argument for a literal reading of the OT creation and flood stories has been systematically and thoroughly discredited.

It is to the great credit of the Catholic Church that it is not literalist in it’s reading and interpretation of these, and is not afraid to embrace what science has to teach it.

Unlike some individual Catholics and others of the Christian faith, who are literalist in their interpretation of these events, despite the overwhelming evidence.

Sarah x

There is enough water or not? What is your claim?

 

[buffalo]

I’ve seen you bring up this point up before. I don’t, however, see the significance behind it. May I ask what your Catholic school education regarding the Flood has to do with any of this?

Excuse me? Science has a lot to say on whether or not the Flood was global. After all, whether the Flood was global or not falls under science’s realm of expertise, not the Church’s. The Church can only teach doctrinal or dogmatic truths about faith or morals; the Flood being global or not falls under neither category.

One of the theological truths concerning the Flood is that it was a prefiguring of Christ’s redemptive work. This theological truth can still be valid even if the Flood happened on a more localized scale.

Further, here are some of the problems scientists see with a global Flood:

1. There is no geological or historical evidence supporting a global flood happening at any point in time. You would think that if such a catastrophic event happened, there would be plenty of evidence to support. Yet, the scientific community hasn’t found such evidence after years of geological study. Further, the scientific community rejects the ludicrous pseudo-evidence “Flood geologists” try and bring to the table.
2. God told Noah to bring two of every species of land animal on the Ark with him. If we interpret this “two of every species of animal” to mean every single land animal on Earth, then we have a major problem. Why? Because the seven continents we know of today were most certainly in existence during Noah’s time. Therefore, if Noah lived somewhere in the Middle East, then how did he get the kangaroos from Australia, the polar bears from the North Pole, or the capybaras from South America?
3. According to Scripture, only eight people survived the Flood. How, then, does one explain the incredibly vast increase in the human population?

Conversely, bring out the Church documents that say we cannot believe the Flood was localized or that we have to believe the Flood was global.

The bottom line is that no one is trying to say you have to believe the Flood was localized. The Church has said that we are free to believe the Flood was global, and we’re free to believe the Flood wasn’t global.

Those of us who believe the Flood was on a more localized scale are merely voicing our opinions on the matter. I expect those of us here who reject a literal, global Flood to defend our positions, and I expect those of us here who believe the Flood was global to defend their positions. I fail to see the problem in that.

In my honest opinion, one shouldn’t bring his or her position into a discussion/debate if he or she cannot even slightly defend it.

I fail to see how Jesus referencing the Old Testament means those events were historical events. I mean, aren’t there nine Old Testament books that Jesus/the Apostles didn’t quote? Does that mean those books are mere legend?

Further, didn’t Jesus mention the days of creation? That doesn’t mean the days of creation were literally six, 24-hour Earth Days.

Besides, no one is saying that the Old Testament doesn’t contain some historical truth (at least, I’m not saying that). Those of us here who don’t accept a global Flood are merely questioning the veracity of the so-called “global Flood.”

It’s not intelligence that’s being addressed with this argument, per se; it’s simplicity. Tell me, why did Jesus frequently teach with parables? The reason is because the parables made use of figurative language. Listening to figurative language made it much easier to understand what Jesus was saying than to listen to Him ramble on and on about some theological lecture concerning God.

God is not a simple subject to comprehend. This holds true for science as well; science can, at times, become quite complex.

How is this pertinent to the discussion? No one here is arguing whether or not Adam and Eve were real people.

If you didn’t have geologists claiming no evidence for a global flood no one would have a problem believing it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[triumphguy]

OK Ed: Bluntly put: I’m saying you are quoting Church teaching, but are using it to support a world view that is untenable, anti-intellectual and which does a disservice to the Church’s tradition as a leader in scientific endeavour.

Pope Pius XII wrote that the theory of evolution was not against Church teaching.

John Paul II thought that the theory of evolution was reasonable.

Pope Benedict supports science but warns not to seek materialist answers to questions of the soul and faith.

The Church teaches that the Truth is to be found through reason, and IN creation - and therefore science.

The Documents of Vatican II inform us that not all Scripture is the same. It is not all to be taken literally. Vatican II tells us to use our intellects as we read Scripture.

Finally we are not a sola scriptura Church. Our Truth (Christ) is handed on in the Tradition (tradere to hand on) and teaching of the Church.

Finally Vatican II is not in error.

What Vatican II does not teach us: the theory of evolution is wrong. Genesis is to be taken literally.

 

[buffalo]

What Vatican II does not teach us: the theory of evolution is wrong. Genesis is to be taken literally.

Polygenism cannot be reconciled with original sin. Certain parts of Genesis have been affirmed by the Church over and over.