Global flood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter trumpet152
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Rustyxcv:
Just a few more points–
– One poster, way up the string, said that he didn’t want to say that he “believed in” evolution, because evolution was based on scientific evidence and was a matter of fact, or some such thing (please forgive me if I have the particulars wrong). Au contraire, evolution requires a Herculean belief indeed. It’s first premise is that random mutations can produce beneficial superior improvements, that is, that CHAOS in and of itself produces ORDER.
– This requires a much bigger LEAP of faith than anything believed by a devout Catholic (or any other Creationist). The evolutionist also believes (contrary to ALL scientific evidence) in the inevitability of progress in purely naturalistic processes. The laws of thermodynamics MANDATE that absent a higher organizing power (an (name removed by moderator)ut of intelligence, a superior directing force) ALL systems decline, suffer an increase in disorder and malfunctioning, and lose available useful energy.
Click to expand...
I’ll address both of these. I’ve said before that I do not believe in evolution - but I do accept it as the best theory that describes to patterns of life we see today and in the historical record.

I must tell you that you appear to not have a clue in the world as to what evolution really is. Evolution is about adaptation and descent with modification. There is nothing in our understanding of evolution about any “inevitability of progress” or inherent “superiority” of one change over any other. Adaptations can be beneficial, in the sense that they lead to increased reproductive success, and hence more progeny. This is the only sense in which evolution makes things “better”.

Since you’ve gone over this thread from the beginning, I recommend that you spend some time at any of the many links provided by Phil, Tim, rossum and others in order to get an understanding of what evolution really is. And while you’re at it, I also recommend reading “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
God did create the world.

There was a literal Garden of Eden.

There was a literal flood that wiped out everyone, save eight.

There was a literal n Ark.

There was a literal Soddom and Gommorah and it was destroyed by God.

The Bible is true both literally and allegorically.
Click to expand...
Thats what im talking about man! Why would God or the writers intend for the book to be full of myths expressing moral truth? im sorry but i cant except and will not bend on the account of atheism, and science :mad:
 
Joe Gloor 181:
This is absurd to say the least.
You seem to have a problem with your time-line.
Does the fact that modern species of zebra existed before the time of Noah bother you at all?
*How can you possibly square this assertion with the simple fact that the evolution of one species into another takes millions of years as evidenced by the fossil record? *
Click to expand...
Species (as far as I know) have not been observed evolving gradually, one species into another, either in living creatures - or in the fossil record.
 
Javelin 187:
The argument that got me was how could certain species that were indigenous to certain continents or locals have traversed the globe to where Noah was, hung out for a short while, then made it all the way back? I certainly don’t see a kangaroo swimming that far…

As for the hypothesis that a very limited number of “father” species were there, after which they evolved into our many modern species, Joe Gloor was absolutely correct that this is nonsense. Everything I’ve heard about biblically dating Noah places him in the area of several thousand years before Christ. There is simply no evidence that would suggest that macroevolution of the scale you’re asserting must have happened could possibly occur within several thousand years.

Peace,
javelin
Click to expand...
Yes. 🙂
It must be particularly galling to athiestic scientists to find that the biblical accounts have trumped them several times.
Geology, is a very young science - only a few decades old in its modern theories, and which now confirms a few points:
  1. Geology -
    There was on earth early on only one landmass.
  2. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    There was in the beginning only one landmass - and it was fed by rivers from its centre.
  3. Geology -
    The landmass divided and separated as per continental drift theory.
  4. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    The land was divided in the time of Peleg (a name which means just that)
  5. Geology - Cambrian explosion.
  6. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    Creation of life. (no timelines need apply)
  7. Geology - extinction of almost all phyla on earth for no particular reason, in a relatively short period of time.e.g. Two representative creatures side by side in the mud, one dies (extinct) the other lives.
  8. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    Noahs extinction account.
  9. Geology - All worlds species derived from few remaining Phyla - no new phyla created ever again, over last 500 million yrs.
  10. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    Noah preserved ‘Kinds’ of animals, and from those particular ‘Kinds’ the Earth was re-populated.
  11. Geology (biology) -Mitochondrial Eve - historical single common ancestor of humans.
  12. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    Adam and Eve - first parents.
Broadly, and surprisingly, there is agreement to be found in all these, but, attempting to add exact timelines and sequencing that are of our own choosing, (and trying to apply them to biblical accounts), is silly!. Some of these biblical Creation accounts may, (we don’t know), have been revelation, in the same form as St. Peters waking vision on the roof-top was, of all the animals collected in a great cloth. Or, of St Johns visionary Apocalypse. We dont know, or at least I don’t know, how the Creation stories were transmitted to the human creatures entrusted with them.
Did God provide a broad sketch, (but still accurate in its types of events), of his Creation in a visual form like S.Peters vision. Without going into unnecessary and deadly dull detail God may have provided just enough information to give his people a sense of their history, and of their origin. Which is as important for humanity as St. Peters vision was for His Church.
🙂
 
:bigyikes: You want me to read all that. :bigyikes:

“What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts.
The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author’s main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic …” :crying:

All the examples of a biologists definition of speciation event were in regard to plants.
None for animals apart from a couple of flies. 👋

But I’ll read it again later.
 
I Leatherman said:
:bigyikes: You want me to read all that. :bigyikes:
Click to expand...

Yes, I want you to read that. That’s why I posted it.
“What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts.
The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author’s main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic …” :crying:
Click to expand...
You seem to suggest that you have a problem with the fact that the definition of species is not written in stone. Welcome to science! Your alternative is to accept non-scientific definitions. I’m not sure why you would do that if you are examining the science.
All the examples of a biologists definition of speciation event were in regard to plants.
None for animals apart from a couple of flies. 👋
Click to expand...
Do you accept speciation among plants but not animals? What difference does it make? Plants are life, too, you know and evolution is the reason there is such a large diversity of plants on the earth.

A couple of flies are animals. Do you not now agree that change from one species to another has been observed in animals? Or do you need an observed change in every species for you to accept the fact that evolution occurs?

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
javelin:
The argument that got me was how could certain species that were indigenous to certain continents or locals have traversed the globe to where Noah was, hung out for a short while, then made it all the way back? I certainly don’t see a kangaroo swimming that far…

As for the hypothesis that a very limited number of “father” species were there, after which they evolved into our many modern species, Joe Gloor was absolutely correct that this is nonsene. Everything I’ve heard about biblically dating Noah places him in the area of several thousand years before Christ. There is simply no evidence that would suggest that macroevolution of the scale you’re asserting must have happened could possibly occur within several thousand years.

BTW, I remember reading last summer that a group was going up to excavate and search the mountain site where the Ark was supposedly photographed sticking out of the ice and snow. I haven’t heard anything since. Do any of you know anything about it?

Peace,
javelin
Click to expand...
Maybe God transported them in a fiery chariot. 🙂

As far a I know the Turkish government would not give them a permit. The window of climbing is very narrow and the ice and snow conditions have to be such that the Ark is exposed.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
TPJ << So, is it correct for me to assume that you do not believe that God created the world, the universe and all life? >>

God created the world and all life through evolution, and every last bit of scientific evidence points that direction, which evidence the Catholic Church accepts, despite what the Discovery Institute will tell you.

Now about those 200-TON DINOSAURS on Noah’s Ark, and ONE BILLION species on the Ark? Do you really believe that, or do you have an AnswersInGenesis or TrueOrigin or KolbeCenter spin to put on what we know today about species and the history of life? 👍

Phil P
Click to expand...
Once again, I have heard no reversal from the Church of the teaching that Eve came from Adam.
 
I Leatherman:
Yes. 🙂
It must be particularly galling to athiestic scientists to find that the biblical accounts have trumped them several times.
Geology, is a very young science - only a few decades old in its modern theories, and which now confirms a few points:
  1. Geology -
    There was on earth early on only one landmass.
  2. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    There was in the beginning only one landmass - and it was fed by rivers from its centre.
  3. Geology -
    The landmass divided and separated as per continental drift theory.
  4. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    The land was divided in the time of Peleg (a name which means just that)
  5. Geology - Cambrian explosion.
  6. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    Creation of life. (no timelines need apply)
  7. Geology - extinction of almost all phyla on earth for no particular reason, in a relatively short period of time.e.g. Two representative creatures side by side in the mud, one dies (extinct) the other lives.
  8. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    Noahs extinction account.
  9. Geology - All worlds species derived from few remaining Phyla - no new phyla created ever again, over last 500 million yrs.
  10. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    Noah preserved ‘Kinds’ of animals, and from those particular ‘Kinds’ the Earth was re-populated.
  11. Geology (biology) -Mitochondrial Eve - historical single common ancestor of humans.
  12. Biblical account - (thousands of years old)
    Adam and Eve - first parents.
Broadly, and surprisingly, there is agreement to be found in all these, but, attempting to add exact timelines and sequencing that are of our own choosing, (and trying to apply them to biblical accounts), is silly!. Some of these biblical Creation accounts may, (we don’t know), have been revelation, in the same form as St. Peters waking vision on the roof-top was, of all the animals collected in a great cloth. Or, of St Johns visionary Apocalypse. We dont know, or at least I don’t know, how the Creation stories were transmitted to the human creatures entrusted with them.
** Did God provide a broad sketch, (but still accurate in its types of events), of his Creation** in a visual form like S.Peters vision. Without going into unnecessary and deadly dull detail God may have provided just enough information to give his people a sense of their history, and of their origin. Which is as important for humanity as St. Peters vision was for His Church.
🙂
Click to expand...
My current, honest position is that the flood story is not describing a literal event, where a person named Noah built an Ark 450ft by 75 ft, collected two of each living species on the Earth to hide inside it while God sent 40 days and 40 nights of rain and eruptions from the Earth to kill every living thing except those in the Ark, after which a dove flew out and returned with an olive brach, etc… As you seemed to be saying, it is possible to cast this story over the evolution of the world and understand that aspects of the story could relate accurately to actual global events. But that is far different from believing that the spcific story in its entirety described a single chain of events empirically confined to the life-span of one man and his close kin.

As Phil has also pointed out, most people who take the flood account as absolutely literal also subscribe to the “young earth” theory and a timeline that places Noah only several thousand years before Christ (I seem to recall that it is about 5,000, but I could be wrong). As you said above, placing that kind of timeframe on the story is silly. With our ability to analyze and share data nowadays, scientists have uncovered too much data for that to be at all possible. Is it possible, though, that there was a global flood 3, 4, or 5 billion years ago? I don’t know that there is any strong evidence that says it could not have occurred. But only 7,000 years ago? No way.

Peace,
javelin
 
40.png
Rustyxcv:
One last thought---- I promise. Then I’ll shut up.–Rusty
Click to expand...
I appreciate that since all you appear to want to do is bloviate your personal opinions rather than actually engage in a discussion. 👍
 
buffalo << Once again, I have heard no reversal from the Church of the teaching that Eve came from Adam. >>

Eve from the “side” of Adam does appear to be Church teaching, but it would be a miracle and therefore something outside of science. Just as God infusing a soul into an individual would be a miracle, and outside of science. But a Global Flood is something testable by science…

I’m still waiting for the truly Global Flood believers to explain how they handle ONE BILLION species of animals in such a short period of time. How many of those were on the Ark? How did they get to the Ark? How did they get back? When did 99% of them become extinct (after the flood, before the flood, at the flood) ? Seems to be way too many animals to squeeze into such a short time frame of a few thousand years which is one reason why this was rejected by science over 150 years ago.

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
buffalo << Once again, I have heard no reversal from the Church of the teaching that Eve came from Adam. >>

Eve from the “side” of Adam does appear to be Church teaching, but it would be a miracle and therefore something outside of science. Just as God infusing a soul into an individual would be a miracle, and outside of science. But a Global Flood is something testable by science…
Click to expand...
Well we agree that Eve did not evolve. 🙂
 
40.png
javelin:
My current, honest position is that the flood story is not describing a literal event, where a person named Noah built an Ark 450ft by 75 ft, collected two of each living species on the Earth to hide inside it while God sent 40 days and 40 nights of rain and eruptions from the Earth to kill every living thing except those in the Ark, after which a dove flew out and returned with an olive brach, etc… As you seemed to be saying, it is possible to cast this story over the evolution of the world and understand that aspects of the story could relate accurately to actual global events. But that is far different from believing that the spcific story in its entirety described a single chain of events empirically confined to the life-span of one man and his close kin.

As Phil has also pointed out, most people who take the flood account as absolutely literal also subscribe to the “young earth” theory and a timeline that places Noah only several thousand years before Christ (I seem to recall that it is about 5,000, but I could be wrong). As you said above, placing that kind of timeframe on the story is silly. With our ability to analyze and share data nowadays, scientists have uncovered too much data for that to be at all possible. Is it possible, though, that there was a global flood 3, 4, or 5 billion years ago? I don’t know that there is any strong evidence that says it could not have occurred. But only 7,000 years ago? No way.

Peace,
javelin
Click to expand...
next they be saying that noah isnt a real person!. what about adam and eve? what if sombodys interpretaion of some fossil discovery contradicts are first parents? what are you gonna say then? it seems the bible just keeps getting diluted, to make up for bad impresions and to avoid laughter from those who think they know better. I wander when it will loose its taste? 😦 tell me if im wrong.
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
next they be saying that noah isnt a real person!. what about adam and eve? what if sombodys interpretaion of some fossil discovery contradicts are first parents? what are you gonna say then? it seems the bible just keeps getting diluted, to make up for bad impresions and to avoid laughter from those who think they know better. I wander when it will loose its taste? 😦 tell me if im wrong.
Click to expand...
To be human requires both body and soul. Souls don’t fossilize, so no fossil can truly identify the first humans. Fossils can, however, give us a good idea when hominids became human in the physical sense.

Our faith is secure!

Peace

Tim
 
buffalo << Well we agree that Eve did not evolve. >>

Depends on what “from the side of Adam” means. If it was something miraculous, then it’s not scientifically testable. Like the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Resurrection or Ascension, miracles of Jesus in the Gospels, etc. These are not testable by science.

However it is also true all the scientific evidence points to our common ancestry with apes. I don’t ignore that either.

Have you got these books yet: Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, Keith Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, or Darrel Falk’s Coming to Peace with Science?

I’ve already pointed out Benedict XVI’s commentary on Genesis 1-3 where he has no problem with man’s evolution (i.e. Genesis tells us who we are, science tells us how we got here). Too bad he didn’t have Fr. Brian Harrison to correct him, right? :rolleyes: 😃

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
buffalo << Well we agree that Eve did not evolve. >>

Too bad he didn’t have Fr. Brian Harrison to correct him, right? :rolleyes: 😃

Phil P
Click to expand...
Yeah. It is too bad. 🙂 Fr. Harrison correctly points out the Tradition and pronouncements made in the past. Are they wrong?

Or the third option. God inserted Adam in the timeline as a designed human fully mature and then Eve, no matter what was going on at the time. Now this solution fits nicely with Catholic teaching and science. And he could have used the already common DNA found in animals to “perfect” him. So this could give us the illusion of common ancestry.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Or the third option. God inserted Adam in the timeline as a designed human fully mature and then Eve, no matter what was going on at the time. Now this solution fits nicely with Catholic teaching and science. And he could have used the already common DNA found in animals to “perfect” him. So this could give us the illusion of common ancestry.
Click to expand...
Or this solution:
The difference between Man and animal is our soul and our conscience. Yet while we know that all people have souls, children do not have their conscience fully developed and so cannot sin because they do not know right from wrong, good from evil.
Gen 3: 4-7 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."
Could it be that “Adam and Eve” were the first people with souls?
That is what the Bible teaches. Having a soul made them the image and likeness of God.
Animals do not sin. Man, when first given the opportunity, did. And so do we all.
 
IF you believe everything that scientists say, isnt that like saying they are infallible? it seems to me if a scientists interprets some new evidence to be in contradiction to a literal understanding, then we must throw away the literal understanding. Isnt that whats happening? More and more of the bible is turning in to a storys, in order for us to “fit in” to other peoples understanding of the world. Tell me if im wrong. Isnt science( or at least some branches of science) about finding out where we came from, and how everything works? For sombody to use science to do that, but then say science cant put God in a test tube, is flawed. At some point science is gonna become erronous, and will not know it because it is ingnorant and it is claming ingnorance of the reality of god. Scientists do not take in to consideration, that thier may be forces that are not “natural” as we know it, but play a hiden role of driving the natural forces that we know of in nature. Why keep saying Science doesnt adress the supernatural, when this is the problem and no doubt is gonna be the cause of Gods people being lead down the garden path because they want to "Fit in.

Why is it that people dont think the devil will use “science” or rather are interpretation of the world, to fool us as much as are ignorance of scientific truths? WE dont know what reality is, we just munipulate it and give it names, and call are selves inteligent, only God knows what it is.

Im not saying that science doesnt get it wright, But let me just ask you all something. Do you believe that God "literaly parted the sea for moses and his people? If you dont why not?, if you do, then why dont you except that God through his own power, flooded the whole world except for Noah and his familly. Is it because there is no evidence? Why does God have to leave evidence? If he didnt, does that make him a deceptive God? i certanly dont think so, since God doesnt have to explain him self, he simply asks you to believe. If i destroy the whole world then make it back again like it had never been destroyed, and then the desendents of the people i saved start being scientific and start probing, and find no signs of the world being destroyed as it is written in the bible of free soul, then would that make me deceptive, or would that make scientists and philosiphers ignorant of my bible?

To probe existence looking for an awnser to why we exist, is to be ignorant of God since he has already has told us where we came from. To see how things work is a different science which is justifiable Since he didnt tell us that the earth went round the sun, but we have to take God in to consideration. Just because the bible dont meet the human criteria for sceintific understanding, doesnt mean the book is full of storys.

But If im wrong, which could be the case, then alot of Bible including genesis, is ment to be understood as a symbolic"revelation", meaning it isnt happening how it is written. Rather, the intentions of god is given to the recipient as a simple story to express how God feels about us, and how he destroys the wikid and saves the Good. But how come the church hasnt got a strong firm teaching and undestanding of this in the first place if this is the case?, it would have saved us from alot of embarassment. And if storys like the flood are symbolic revelations, then where does real history start? I feel this needs to be sorted out so people who are on the edge of there seats woundering what science is gonna reveal next, can know what parts of the bible are story and which parts are not. It feels like a big mind game. Any way God bless :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top