Did Noah's Ark Exist?

[atheistgirl]

No you most certainly have not. You have repeatedly ignored questions asked of you, repeatedly ignored counter arguments, repeatedly ignored the fact that your sources are not from qualified scholars, repeatedly ignored peoples’ explanations that your sources don’t even come close to what you claim they say, and ignored mathematical disproof of your claims, which are actually completely inconsistent with the sources you provide.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Sarah x

 

[triumphguy]

The Pope is saying what he feels and that it is admisable to accept Genesis as non literal. In addition the cathecism says that the church take Genesis symbolically. But our church is open minded and does not say you can not accept Genesis as literal as many have that have gone before us. I simply show support for the creation account and how it can be reasonably accepted by pointing out the thigs I have from my last post.

We are “challenged” on both fronts. You must lose your knee jerk reaction and stop insisting based seemingly on anything literal that all Catholics who embrace Genesis and other miracles of the OT are desiring another denomination. This is a problem on this forum. When the church has a view that is not a mandate, we are free to consider with our God given brains other outlooks that do not conflict with the magesterium.

Answering a question with a question is not a debate. You skipped over the logical points I made and went right into a non binding Pope question. I apologize if you think I offended you in the past, but I felt wronged as well. I regulary defend Catholic doctrine with scripture, there are just some major things that I lean literal on because I recognize the power of God possibly in a different way than you.

Thank you. I post I agree with. Except for the knee jerk reaction bit.

And I think that evolution shows the power of God, but I understand that the argument you are making is focussed on the fact that if God is God therefore He can do anything.

My argument is that God’s power gave us our intellect as a way of searching for God in and among His creation.

 

[atheistgirl]

My argument is that God’s power gave us our intellect as a way of searching for God in and among His creation.

And I can’t see any value is holding on to a literal interpretation of something that science can show never happened

But as I’ve said several times now, one of the great things I like about the Catholic Church is it embraces science and scientific enquiry, while making room for individuals who don’t

Sarah x

 

[triumphguy]

And I can’t see any value is holding on to a literal interpretation of something that science can show never happened

But as I’ve said several times now, one of the great things I like about the Catholic Church is it embraces science and scientific enquiry, while making room for individuals who don’t

Sarah x

I see the value of those who have those beliefs because they can challenge me in my own faith.

I mean I literally believe that we are eating the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist,

 

[atheistgirl]

I see the value of those who have those beliefs because they can challenge me in my own faith.

I’m not sure how someones faith is challenge by a literal interpretation of something that the person knows from science never happened

To me that’s like someone saying they believe the earth is flat - there are some My faith/belief that the earth is not flat isn’t challenged by those that do believe it’s flat - because it just isn’t.

I mean I literally believe that we are eating the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist,

I understand that’s what Catholics, Orthodox and some groups of others like some Lutherans believe and have done some interesting reading around whether that part of Scripture is meant to be read and believed literally or not. Obviously some do, some don’t.

Sarah x

 

[Farsight001]

If we have human remains in coal strata from 300 million years ago/mya, what does that do for pseudo-scientists that have consistently rejected such hard evidence? Here’s a pic of fingers. Can we ever believe anything science has posited?!? Or wait, should we merely disbelieve the evolution construct that has defrauded and mocked its way into our minds?

I can tell just by looking at the picture (not included because it’s huge) that those are not fingers. Those are normal rocks that have been elongated by various pressures. Probably coal ore. There’s no defrauding about it. It’s the ID advocates that have consistently lied and deceived people into believing things that are not true. Case in point, that those things in the picture are fingers.

As one may have noticed, the ancients weren’t very creative. They hung on to stories, however corrupted, and moderns interpret them, just like Schliemann found Troy. What now? No peer reviewed article said Troy should be there but he found it. Science, real science, is in flux. This finger, and the many other human body parts found in carboniferous strata, should not be there according to the consensus-forcing fascists who control the purse strings of academia. But here it is.

You are talking about history, not scientific processes. History operates under completely different rules and has a completely different structure.

How about a flood 12,000 years ago when something really big happened, like a pole shift that eradicated 40 million animals?

If by pole shift you mean magnetic poles, I fail to see why you think that would be found in tree ring data or why that would eradicate any animals, let alone 40 million.

And the volume of water wouldn’t have to “cover” the Earth like filling a teacup, just douse the earth as giant donut-shaped “waves of translation” would have swept along in tsunami style.

This is not even a coherent statement.

Destruction would have been axial as shown in patterns of animal extinctions.

Axial? Do you even know what that word means? It doesn’t belong there at all.

Mountains would have lifted afterwards as ice caps melted and weight spread to other areas. And what does the evidence show?

Would have, but they didn’t, as evidenced by centuries of geologic data.

Animal skeletons smashed apart, not sinking into hypothetical mire and becoming fossilized whole.

False. In fact, fossils very rarely appear “smashed apart”

So can Noah’s universally-remembered flood have been 12,000 years ago?

Again, no. There is no indication of a world wide flood anywhere in the geologic record. You would have to go back at least 200 million years, where large gaps in the geologic column appear to posit a world wide flood. But there’s still not enough water.

And can the detailed specifications in the Bible for Noah’s Ark be true?

No, actually. The mathematics of a boat that large made of wood are impossible. It would shake itself apart, even in mostly calm water.

Every culture remembers it, so what happens after the Bible is supposedly discredited, will we have to start defacing clay tablets to remove all trace?

This disproves a global flood, not proves it. If there were a global flood and 8 people total lived on earth, then there would be no other cultures around to remember and write of it. We’ve been over this issue in the thread already.

 

[Pheonix]

I can tell just by looking at the picture (not included because it’s huge) that those are not fingers. Those are normal rocks that have been elongated by various pressures. Probably coal ore. There’s no defrauding about it. It’s the ID advocates that have consistently lied and deceived people into believing things that are not true. Case in point, that those things in the picture are fingers.

Just as a little tid-bit of information, I think the picture nordskoven linked to was the infamous “petrified human finger” photo by Carl Baugh. The problem with it is that Baugh hasn’t justified that his picture is of a fossil period, let alone a fossil of a 300-million-year-old human finger. That, and Baugh’s academic credentials have been called into question many times by the scientific community.

 

[triumphguy]

I’m not sure how someones faith is challenge by a literal interpretation of something that the person knows from science never happened

To me that’s like someone saying they believe the earth is flat - there are some My faith/belief that the earth is not flat isn’t challenged by those that do believe it’s flat - because it just isn’t.

I understand that’s what Catholics, Orthodox and some groups of others like some Lutherans believe and have done some interesting reading around whether that part of Scripture is meant to be read and believed literally or not. Obviously some do, some don’t.

Sarah x

The challenge comes from the value they are upholding.

 

[triumphguy]

Just as a little tid-bit of information, I think the picture nordskoven linked to was the infamous “petrified human finger” photo by Carl Baugh. The problem with it is that Baugh hasn’t justified that his picture is of a fossil period, let alone a fossil of a 300-million-year-old human finger. That, and Baugh’s academic credentials have been called into question many times by the scientific community.

Shoehorning “facts” to fit the theory.

There are plenty of fake fossils, arks etc going round the internet which “prove” creationism.

 

[johnnyjones]

And I can’t see any value is holding on to a literal interpretation of something that science can show never happened

But as I’ve said several times now, one of the great things I like about the Catholic Church is it embraces science and scientific enquiry, while making room for individuals who don’t

Sarah x

Yes the church is open and non condemning as to evolution and creation. Obviously I see the literal linkage and the importance of that. As important as scientific inquiry is, there are other components from a theological perspective that must be considered. The catholic church fully endorses the resurrection of Christ which is is a bender of natural law. It seems unlikely you would embrace that “anti-science” occurrence, but we will be “making room” for you when your ready.

 

[atheistgirl]

As important as scientific inquiry is, there are other components from a theological perspective that must be considered.

I understand that, but I don’t see what’s to be had from taking a literal interpretation of something that can scientifically shown not to have happened, when the Church itself doesn’t take this literal interpretation.

Claiming something happened, when it can be shown it didn’t, only discredits.

Science can’t show, or prove, Jesus did not rise from the dead. Or that He did not bring Lazarus back from the dead.

But when science can show no flood, covering the globe to the height of everest and higher, took place, I don’t understand why anyone would continue to maintain it did

It seems unlikely you would embrace that “anti-science” occurrence, but we will be “making room” for you when your ready.

You’re right. I have my doubts

However, it’s nice to know there’s a place at the table for me, but honestly, don’t wait up for me

Sarah x

 

[johnnyjones]

I understand that, but I don’t see what’s to be had from taking a literal interpretation of something that can scientifically shown not to have happened, when the Church itself doesn’t take this literal interpretation.

Claiming something happened, when it can be shown it didn’t, only discredits.

Science can’t show, or prove, Jesus did not rise from the dead. Or that He did not bring Lazarus back from the dead.

But when science can show no flood, covering the globe to the height of everest and higher, took place, I don’t understand why anyone would continue to maintain it did

You’re right. I have my doubts

However, it’s nice to know there’s a place at the table for me, but honestly, don’t wait up for me

Sarah x

I didn’t think science would look at a man beaten beyond recognition laying dead in a sealed tomb for three days and “confirm” his arising with a new imperishable body as a possible natural act. Science is not flawless and is measured by man in a way he has determined is correct. I like science but I don’t hold it to be my god. Could you foresee an alien from another world coming here and saying you’ve been doing some of your gauging wrong.

We are smart, but we are not the beginning and end all, which on this earth it seems Atheism would adhere to. In the spiritual realm greater things happen. The Catholic church knows that and has many (to the laymen) beliefs antithetical to science.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

About the flood, I’ll quote the Catholic Encyclopedia

The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.

My own difficulty comes not from the Idea of a global flood but a human population bottleneck that seems not to have happened.

 

[buffalo]

About the flood, I’ll quote the Catholic Encyclopedia

My own difficulty comes not from the Idea of a global flood but a human population bottleneck that seems not to have happened.

Science and Human Origins

Evidence for a purely Darwinian account of human origins is supposed to be overwhelming. But is it? In this provocative book, three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.

 

[triumphguy]

All those are fine things.
But before those actions, it would make sense to start with the belief that if Jesus said something specific that was important enough to pass along his exact words orally for decades until someone wrote them down…and then it was translated into different languages and interpretations for centuries, bringing us up to today–2000 years later…that we can trust the actual words he said, as he said them, to mean as he said them…without having to agonize forever trying to figure out if he meant something different than what he said.

This is why the bible was brought to the people in the first place a few centuries ago…so we could finally read his exact words for ourselves–or words to the best of the writers’ ability and memory–and see for ourselves what he was saying.

(From what I understand…most people had never even read the bible until the reformation era…and the words spoken in church were Latin and most did not understand?)

From what I’ve read here, it sounds like the people in charge of the Catholic belief list are saying that if you follow the Catholic religion, it’s okay to believe either way whether the Noah story actually happened or not.

But why are they not committing either way?

It is an important point to agree upon, methinks.

Maybe he was making the point that He was the New Ark of the New Covenant and not stating any scientific facts.

Jesus didn’t let scientific fact get in the way of his message. For instance:

The mustard seed is neither the smallest seed nor the biggest shrub.

He withered a fig tree for not bearing fruit when it was not the season.

And when St. Paul says in Galatians 3:28:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female,”

is he being literal?

 

[benjammin]

I don’t see what the big deal is. I feel it did exist. Now was there a flood that covered the whole world, no, but maybe it just covered a certain region of the earth? Also, Noah could have taken every creature to by two that was known to ancient peoples in the middle east. Thats a little more believable and still doesn’t take away from the message of Genesis. Honestly it’s not about the details, its about the message.

 

[Farsight001]

Science and Human Origins

Evidence for a purely Darwinian account of human origins is supposed to be overwhelming. But is it? In this provocative book, three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.

Buffalo, answer the questions asked of you please.

 

[triumphguy]

I do understand what you are saying…but you are using the word “maybe”…which still begs the question…:

Noah’s Ark is a *major *story in the first testament. The church has decided what to believe and what to discard regarding many items, large and small, written in the Jewish bible (for example, no need for circumsicion anymore…no need to separate milk and meat, no need to stone adulterers to death, etc, etc).

So, why no decision on this rather large matter?

Were Catholics indeed “required” to believe that the story was true at one time…but then the ruling on this changed at some point?

Maybe the Church is leaving it to us to figure out.

In Dei Verbum we are told to read scripture mindful of the context it was written in. We were told that some scripture is historical, allegorical, etc etc., but no actual list is given.

So, it’s up to us to use our intellects, and to seek information from those who have more learning than us in order to read scripture.

Our Church doesn’t teach us like kids anymore. She directs us in general directions, but unless it concerns a matter of faith or morals the church seems very circumspect about being definitive.

So my “maybe” is just a response to what seems a definitive view of yours, a view that the church neither promotes nor condemns.

Possibly the Church doesn’t think we have enough knowledge yet (or ever) to make definitive statements about a lot of things, but encourages us to get into the “fray” anyway.

We do however know what we are to hold true.

The Nicene Creed.

Most of the Church’s energy after these facts seems more directed to how we should live the Creed rather than what else is strictly true.

 

[Farsight001]

All those are fine things.
But before those actions, it would make sense to start with the belief that if Jesus said something specific that was important enough to pass along his exact words orally for decades until someone wrote them down…and then it was translated into different languages and interpretations for centuries, bringing us up to today–2000 years later…that we can trust the actual words he said, as he said them, to mean as he said them…without having to agonize forever trying to figure out if he meant something different than what he said.

And? We can trust the words he said. It doesn’t mean the words are to be taken literally though. That’s what the wisdom and study and all that is for, which I thought was obvious.

This is why the bible was brought to the people in the first place a few centuries ago…so we could finally read his exact words for ourselves–or words to the best of the writers’ ability and memory–and see for ourselves what he was saying.

A few centuries ago? Try over 1600 years ago. First English translation 1300 years ago. The literate could always read his exact words for themselves. The illiterate, who were far more common centuries ago, got scripture read to them by the literate, and in mass, and saw stories of scripture depicted in art, most commonly stained glass windows. I think your understanding of the history of the bible is a bit off.

(From what I understand…most people had never even read the bible until the reformation era…and the words spoken in church were Latin and most did not understand?)

Half true. Most people had never read the bible because most people were illiterate. That is why they attended church - to have the bible read to them. And they did, in fact, understand Latin.

From what I’ve read here, it sounds like the people in charge of the Catholic belief list are saying that if you follow the Catholic religion, it’s okay to believe either way whether the Noah story actually happened or not.

That’s exactly what we’re saying. What is important is the greater spiritual truth of the story and how it pertains to the faith.

But why are they not committing either way?

Why should we?

It is an important point to agree upon, methinks.

Why? What makes it important? How does whether or not Noah’s ark literally happened impact the faith or the spiritual truths that it contains?

 

[triumphguy]

BTW here’s a new fossil find:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/208855_427307587311941_926007365_n.jpg