Global flood?

[freesoulhope]

evolution cannot be proven wrong. thier for it cannot be held as a theory. Every attempt to prove it wrong by saying that its blind of the forces that might drive it, you say or they say science cannot reliy on the supernatural for anwsers about nature. Evolution pretends to be a theory!

you are looking for natural causes, when the world was constructed by a supernatural force, how you gonna find the truth about nature?

 

[buffalo]

freesoulhope:

Buffalo, do you believe that the earth was created in six days?

I would like to, but i need info, and reliable info. I think evolution is a misinterpretation of fossils and reality. but i just cant make up my mind whether to be a pro evo, or a pro creationist. How do i explain the time it takes for light to get to us from the stars? do you have any good undisputable theorys? if so please give me the links man, I need Info, wheres all the information!

Nobody has it, no matter what they believe in. What I have to go by is that Revelation is true and science will always reconcile to it. Sometimes science is just not far enough along.

I believe in micro evolution. Macro may be possible. For man, Revelation says otherwise. I know God created and designed. And creation may be a combination of several theories.
However, Revelation shows God created. So that is my starting point. Exaclty how is being explored.

The other point of intersect is that has to be reconciled is Eve. If she was literally taken from a sleeping Adam’s side than she is not a product of evolution. Adam and Eve may indeed be miracles, and never reconciled by science. Essentially God could have done it any way He wanted. He does not have to satisfy our conditions of inquiry to do so.

There are plenty of sites to go to. Start with cosmology. Relying on the biological arguments alone may limit our insight.

 

[buffalo]

Joe Gloor:

I don’t know exactly what you are asking here. I do not believe in Sola Scriptura. What does the Church definitively say about the geneology of Christ?

start here:

 

[patg]

freesoulhope:

Pat G, What is your position on this subject?

If you mean the flood…

The original myth, which was evident in numerous ancient cultures, probably grew out of the experience of a real flood which devasted much of the local area. As it was told and retold around the campfire, some (maybe children) asked how people and animals survived such a thing. Well, someone must have built a boat and saved some of everything. The author then uses the interaction of God to teach the truths about God getting pretty angry about sinners and also having mercy to save and protect the just. It doesn’t matter whether the event occured or not - the intent of the author is to teach this truth.

The worldwide aspect may have come from questions such as “Why are seashells (fossils) found high up in the mountains?”. Since there was no understanding of the geologic sciences, the only logical answer at the time was that the sea must have been higher than the mountains at some point, so obviously there must have been a massive flood. God must have caused the flood because to the people of the time, God directly caused everything. We know that storms are caused by temperature and pressure variations, disease is caused by germs and the stars and planets follow the laws of celestial mechanics BUT the ancients knew nothing of this and attributed all such things to God’s pleasure or displeasure with their actions.

The church’s document on scripture interpretation, Dei Verbum, requires that we consider the non-literal interpretation:

"The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another."

If you mean treating the bible as literal history, let me again quote from Dei Verbum:

“To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.”

Will people reading our history thousands of years from now assume that New Orleans was experienced a great flood because God was angry with the city or will they understand the formation and movement of hurricanes well enough to view it as a natural and fairly likely disaster?

It doesn’t matter to me if people want to view it literally as long as they don’t miss the intent of the author. It does matter to me when people try to promote the literal view of everything as the official position of church (believe it or be tortured forever…)

 

[buffalo]

patg:

If you mean the flood…

The original myth, which was evident in numerous ancient cultures, probably grew out of the experience of a real flood which devasted much of the local area. As it was told and retold around the campfire, some (maybe children) asked how people and animals survived such a thing. Well, someone must have built a boat and saved some of everything. The author then uses the interaction of God to teach the truths about God getting pretty angry about sinners and also having mercy to save and protect the just. It doesn’t matter whether the event occured or not - the intent of the author is to teach this truth.

The worldwide aspect may have come from questions such as “Why are seashells (fossils) found high up in the mountains?”. Since there was no understanding of the geologic sciences, the only logical answer at the time was that the sea must have been higher than the mountains at some point, so obviously there must have been a massive flood. God must have caused the flood because to the people of the time, God directly caused everything. We know that storms are caused by temperature and pressure variations, disease is caused by germs and the stars and planets follow the laws of celestial mechanics BUT the ancients knew nothing of this and attributed all such things to God’s pleasure or displeasure with their actions.

The church’s document on scripture interpretation, Dei Verbum, requires that we consider the non-literal interpretation:

“The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.”

If you mean treating the bible as literal history, let me again quote from Dei Verbum:

"To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse."

Will people reading our history thousands of years from now assume that New Orleans was experienced a great flood because God was angry with the city or will they understand the formation and movement of hurricanes well enough to view it as a natural and fairly likely disaster?

It doesn’t matter to me if people want to view it literally as long as they don’t miss the intent of the author. It does matter to me when people try to promote the literal view of everything as the official position of church (believe it or be tortured forever…)

If they are just campfire stories, they should be removed from the Bible.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

freesoulhope:

evolution cannot be proven wrong. thier for it cannot be held as a theory. Every attempt to prove it wrong by saying that its blind of the forces that might drive it, you say or they say science cannot reliy on the supernatural for anwsers about nature. Evolution pretends to be a theory!

you are looking for natural causes, when the world was constructed by a supernatural force, how you gonna find the truth about nature?

You are becoming irrational.
You should probably take an elementary science course or a refresher of some kind.
It is a theory because it can’t be proven. It is not a scientific fact which is another option.
The world was ‘constructed by a supernatural force’ to follow certain natural laws. We depend on these laws to remain in effect. The various ‘laws’ of gravity for instance are what we depend on when we walk out of the house that we don’t float off into space. Our bodies depend on certain chemical reactions to stay alive. If our God had the capricious nature of the false gods, one day we could walk out of the house and there would be no gravity. One day the food we eat would not be able to supply our cells with nutrition because the chemical reactions stopped working as they do.
God created a very dependable and orderly universe for us. Science is the examination of that creation.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

start here:

Yes, those are good interpretations, but I don’t believe the Church has stated anything definitively other than that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
Furthermore, St Joseph’s lineage is technically unimportant since he was not Jesus’s real father.

 

[freesoulhope]

whats happening? i believe in the those very laws you speak of. And if evolution is not a fact then, why teach it publicaly like it is.

Im taking over this thread ha ha ha, im taking…burp! Awww maaaaaan!

 

[Joe_Gloor]

freesoulhope:

whats happening? i believe in the those very laws you speak of. And if evolution is not a fact then, why teach it publicaly like it is.

It helps people to feel like they have a firm grasp of reality when someone tells them ‘this is how it is’. Scientific theorys are generally taught as ‘fact’ until they are disproven by new ‘facts’. But the reality is that there is a great deal of evidence that points to the evolution of species. The part of Darwin’s theory that is on shaky ground is the ‘cause’ of evolutionary changes.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

buffalo:

If they are just campfire stories, they should be removed from the Bible.

I don’t think anybody said they were ‘just’ campfire stories, but if you want to ruin your Bible, have at it.

 

[freesoulhope]

Joe Gloor:

The part of Darwin’s theory that is on shaky ground is the ‘cause’ of evolutionary changes.

Why?

 

[Joe_Gloor]

freesoulhope:

Why?

A lot of it doesn’t make sense.
Certain biological improvements appear out of nowhere fully developed which can’t have happened with ‘natural selection’.
Read this Darwin, theory in Crisis

 

[freesoulhope]

Its strange being a human, are reality is alien and strange. but through tv, music, science, fashion among other things, we as “human beings”( except those who have found and excepted God) have devolped a false sense of sercurity and grandguar, and also the idea that we dont need God. Instead some people make up false Gods to suit there desires. Why did it have to be like this

It could all change tomorrow.

 

[freesoulhope]

WHATS THIS?.. INTRESTING! D,N,A, IS THE KEY!

 

[Joe_Gloor]

WHATS THIS?.. INTRESTING! D,N,A, IS THE KEY!

Yes, and discovered by scientists, no less.
We seem to like science that appears to prove us right, but dis-like science that appears to prove us wrong.

 

[Rustyxcv]

Greetings all!
– Good golly, what a rollicking free for all! FreeSoulHope, in your last parenthetical remark did you mean to say “for those who have ACCEPTED God” or “those who have excepted God”[as you wrote]?
– I am not sure what “bloviate” means, but have I been insulted, Mr. Gloor? Should I take offense? Are we supposed to be avoiding character assassinations and personal attacks in these strings? Just curious.
– I wish that you would all forgive me for going on at length when I write. I am from an older generation. I tend to think in paragraphs and pages rather than in sound bites. I also apologize for not being able to cite sources for what I assert. I am only sharing what I have come to know as true. I have learned it in a great many different places, some of them Catholic, some of them Evangelical, some of them scientific, and some of them from insights from the Holy Spirit (I hope and trust!) after meditation, prayer and study (scientific and Biblical) on certain questions.
– Someone pointed out the abandonment of the Water Vapor Canopy Theory by certain creationists. Perhaps. Sometimes the old canopy theory had been expressed in terms of the equivalent of an oceanic mass of water suspended above the sky. This has been rejected. I don’t think that anyone (and certainly not everyone) has rejected the likelihood of a pre-Flood, very dense, earth encompassing, high level cloud cover or vapor blanket.
– I spoke of the possiblity of some kind of human “industrial” activity as a contributing precipitator to the deluge only because most of us have a silly notion of the state of the ancient earth that derives from Rousseau . . . a paradise of bucolic pastoralists and hunter-gatherers blissfully going about their ways leaving the 'natural" environment completely undisturbed. Someone actually did the math (again, I apologize for not being able to cite a source) and found that given the geneologies and the number of people named in Genesis up to the time of Noah, and using typical average rates of reproduction, that the total population of the earth at the time of the Flood was not yet reached again until about 1920.
– There were a LOT of people on the earth before the Flood. God says that they were all practicing evil continually. They were doing SOMETHING. Just perhaps part of that “something” contributed to the catastrophe that killed them all.
–Blessings to all! --Rusty

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

evolution cannot be proven wrong. thier for it cannot be held as a theory. Every attempt to prove it wrong by saying that its blind of the forces that might drive it, you say or they say science cannot reliy on the supernatural for anwsers about nature. Evolution pretends to be a theory!

That is wrong. First, evolution can easily be falsified in numerous ways. For example, if you were to find mammal fossils in Cambrian-aged strata, that would be a serious problem for evolution. If you were to find a mammal with 6 legs (not including deformaties), evolution would be in serious trouble.

Second, your statement that the way to prove it wrong is to claim that supernatural forces are what drive it is not the way to falsify it. You need science to do that since evolution is science, not faith.

Third, evolution is a very valid scientific theory. No pretending needed. The truth is, evolution is both a theory and a fact. That’s right, I said fact.

you are looking for natural causes, when the world was constructed by a supernatural force, how you gonna find the truth about nature?

We know that it is created by a supernatural force because of our faith. Science is the study of nature. Why would that trouble you?

Peace

Tim

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Rustyxcv:

Greetings all!
– Good golly, what a rollicking free for all! FreeSoulHope, in your last parenthetical remark did you mean to say “for those who have ACCEPTED God” or “those who have excepted God”[as you wrote]?

You’ll just have to forgive his attrocious spelling. He’s just a kid.

-- I am not sure what “bloviate” means, but have I been insulted, Mr. Gloor? Should I take offense? Are we supposed to be avoiding character assassinations and personal attacks in these strings? Just curious.

BLOVIATE: To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner.
It’s not a matter of you or your character, it’s simply criticizing the method you use to put forth your ideas. A lot of talk, but no substance.

-- I wish that you would all forgive me for going on at length when I write. I am from an older generation. I tend to think in paragraphs and pages rather than in sound bites. I also apologize for not being able to cite sources for what I assert. I am only sharing what I have come to know as true. I have learned it in a great many different places, some of them Catholic, some of them Evangelical, some of them scientific, and some of them from insights from the Holy Spirit (I hope and trust!) after meditation, prayer and study (scientific and Biblical) on certain questions.

It’s one thing to state your beliefs (admittedly at great length) but you haven’t really responded to any of the questions regarding your posts. Kinda’ rude.

-- – Someone pointed out the abandonment of the Water Vapor Canopy Theory by certain creationists. Perhaps. Sometimes the old canopy theory had been expressed in terms of the equivalent of an oceanic mass of water suspended above the sky. This has been rejected. I don’t think that anyone (and certainly not everyone) has rejected the likelihood of a pre-Flood, very dense, earth encompassing, high level cloud cover or vapor blanket.
– I spoke of the possiblity of some kind of human “industrial” activity as a contributing precipitator to the deluge only because most of us have a silly notion of the state of the ancient earth that derives from Rousseau . . . a paradise of bucolic pastoralists and hunter-gatherers blissfully going about their ways leaving the 'natural" environment completely undisturbed. Someone actually did the math (again, I apologize for not being able to cite a source) and found that given the geneologies and the number of people named in Genesis up to the time of Noah, and using typical average rates of reproduction, that the total population of the earth at the time of the Flood was not yet reached again until about 1920.
– There were a LOT of people on the earth before the Flood. God says that they were all practicing evil continually. They were doing SOMETHING. Just perhaps part of that “something” contributed to the catastrophe that killed them all.
–Blessings to all! --Rusty

The problem is that there is absolutely no scientific basis for your assertions.

 

[Orogeny]

Joe Gloor:

You are becoming irrational.
You should probably take an elementary science course or a refresher of some kind.
It is a theory because it can’t be proven. It is not a scientific fact which is another option.

Evolution is a scientific theory that is supported by a massive amount of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines. It is not a theory because it can’t be proven.

Evolution is a scientific fact. How evolution is occuring is the theory part.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

whats happening? i believe in the those very laws you speak of. And if evolution is not a fact then, why teach it publicaly like it is.

Because it is a fact.

Peace

Tim