If we don't necessarily need to believe in Noah's ark as a historical reality, do we have to believe in Noah's existence?

[niceatheist]

rossum:

That is exactly what science does. Science deliberately confines itself to the material, so mammals are defined in terms of their material bodies: one jawbone, hair, conformation of teeth, lactation. In those material aspects, Homo sapiens is a mammal.

I agree, and that is why the Theory of Evolution is wrong, equating us to a mere Homo sapiens.
(Whoops, wrong thread)
This is in addition to its use of randomness to fill the gaps, which is just so much nonsense.

How is it nonsense? Putting aside your metaphysical beliefs, we can see through the fossil and molecular records that we are great apes. I’m not going to delve into issues about the soul and such, but pretty much everything in human biology is based on the notion of us being primates.

It obfuscates the truth and should not be taught as if it represents the reality of our origins.
(Sorry, for the derailment.)

Save that it is. For goodness sake, the entire reason we use chimps to test cosmetics and medicines is because, physiologically, they are incredibly close to us.

At any rate, I don’t mean to derail this either, but it rather goes to show how you so willfully misunderstand the nature of science, the questions science attempts to answer, how it attempts to answer those questions, and the questions it won’t answer.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. I know many Christians, Catholics even, who accept science, who don’t try to promote clearly absurd interpretations of Genesis or interpretations of Catholic teaching, and who don’t try to malign or minimize science to prop up their own faith. If your faith is brought into doubt by any scientific finding, then the fault, dear Brutus is not in your stars, in yourself (with apologizes to the Bard).

 

[niceatheist]

I thought so, the changes in the bones are related to what we find today. The assumption is that they compare to what we see today. If people aged at ten percent of the current rate, there would be no way of knowing. I’m not saying it happened, but it could have in a God created universe.

I expressed my view about the story of Noah in a previous post. It is far more than a parable as a historical revelation of God’s Word, a prophecy of Christ’s coming and a reminder of God’s love for us and His mercy in spite of what justice/karma demands.

Since we can analyze growth rates in multiple species, and can compare the genes and other factors involved in that, there’s no reason we can’t infer that those rates are the same for ancient species. What you’re doing is basically invoking omphalism.

 

[niceatheist]

You may wish to investigate what actual tests and analyses are conducted to arrive at such conclusions. I would recommend that everyone be at least as skeptical of what is in textbooks as they are about what is professed by the Church.

I have spent 25 years studying evolutionary biology. I’m reasonably familiar with the various techniques used, and I can say they’re a lot more rigorous than what you’re making out. I think it’s very wrong of you to cast false dispersions on scientists and their techniques to prop up your own faith.

 

[rossum]

s/dispersions/aspersions

rossum

 

[niceatheist]

s/dispersions/aspersions

rossum

Thanks! It looked wrong, but the coffee hasn’t started flowing through my bloodstream yet.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

You may wish to investigate what actual tests and analyses are conducted to arrive at such conclusions. I would recommend that everyone be at least as skeptical of what is in textbooks as they are about what is professed by the Church.

I have spent 25 years studying evolutionary biology. I’m reasonably familiar with the various techniques used, and I can say they’re a lot more rigorous than what you’re making out. I think it’s very wrong of you to cast false dispersions on scientists and their techniques to prop up your own faith.

You are claiming to know more about the matter than I do, and suggesting that I am doing this to prop up my faith.

If you are trying to convince me, it would be better if you addressed the points I make rather than focussing on who you think I am and what I am doing. Whatever my role IRL, here I am just another random Internet idiot.

My inference about your motives would be a projection of my own, that of trying to convince you. I will stop. I’ve said what I think; believe what you will.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Aloysium:

You may wish to investigate what actual tests and analyses are conducted to arrive at such conclusions. I would recommend that everyone be at least as skeptical of what is in textbooks as they are about what is professed by the Church.

I have spent 25 years studying evolutionary biology. I’m reasonably familiar with the various techniques used, and I can say they’re a lot more rigorous than what you’re making out. I think it’s very wrong of you to cast false dispersions on scientists and their techniques to prop up your own faith.

You are claiming to know more about the matter than I do, and suggesting that I am doing this to prop up my faith.

Yes, I think it’s probable that I do, and I can think of no other reason to willfully ignore the evidence that to maintain your faith. But tell me, if I’m wrong, do you feel you could accept that the Noahaic account is either a parable or at best simply a recounting of a limited regional flood, and that evolution is how life as we know it came to be, and still be a Catholic?

If you are trying to convince me, it would be better if you addressed the points I make rather than commenting on who you think I am and what I am doing. Whatever my role IRL, here I am just another random Internet idiot.

YOu haven’t really made any points. Just made some vague claims not to trust scientists, and some word salad responses that at best suggest you’re not all that clear on how science works.

My inference about your motives would be a projection of my own, that of trying to convince you. I will stop. I’ve said what I think; believe what you will.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I don’t know how I could, since you basically reject science wholesale by the looks of things. And yes, you’ve said what you believe, I just happen to know what you believe is wrong, or if it is right (that is omphalism is actually the truth), then it is still irrelevant, because scientists must still proceed based on evidence, and can’t factor in that God is a trickster deity.

 

[Aloysium]

This thread is about the historical reality of Noah. I’m just going to go back to the post I made before I participated in its derailment.

The story of Noah is physically, psychologically and spiritually true.

Physically speaking, Noah to my way of thinking, would be an actual person. As opposed to other sacred writings in the world, we have in Christ, God actually entering into His creation to bring it into communion, within Himself. The Bible is historical, in addition to ontological, religious truth. Jesus in that respect is at the centre of time. What follows later, tells of Him; before His entry into time, He was foretold. The relationship between mankind and God, His will and efforts to facilitate our reconciliation with Him are revealed in the person who was Noah. I believe there was a flood that encompassed the world as it was known to Noah and that he did build an ark that would have contained his family and animals. The water would have destroyed those neighbours, who had abandoned God’s ways. Some people ask why God does not get rid of people who do evil. He does not because we all do evil and we are all His children, whom He loves. It would likely have turned out that had He done otherwise, all humanity would have perished - no Jewish people and no community to take their place to receive Jesus.

Psychologically, we are under the influence of very powerful emotions that may conflict with external and internal reality. We have to manage them so as to not harm others and to not hurt ourselves. Around the time of our first communion, which grants the grace to do so, we learn to control those feelings. They go under water, they become unconscious, although the events and stresses of life may awaken them. The story of Noah resonates with what we experience in ourselves as we grow into childhood, accepting our responsibilities.

Spiritually it is a revelation of the cross, as was the scene in the Garden. The wood of the tree from which we appropriated what belonged to God, now embraces us. Christ should have been at the Centre of our garden, our relationship with the world and each other. But here in Noah, He washes away the sin and reconstitutes what should have been in a new Garden, in the temple of the ark and in our hearts.

 

[Orion1963]

Noah did exist and God made a covenant with him. There is enough archaelogical facts that do comfirm that the flood as is written in the bible really did happen. That it was a worldwide flood is up to debate but, there was a flood in the region in the time of Noah. About having enough evidence to support Noah’s Ark, well, just because it haven’t been found at Mt. Ararat, doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist.

 

[niceatheist]

Noah did exist and God made a covenant with him. There is enough archaelogical facts that do comfirm that the flood as is written in the bible really did happen.
That it was a worldwide flood is up to debate but, there was a flood in the region in the time of Noah. About having enough evidence to support Noah’s Ark, well, just because it haven’t been found at Mt. Ararat, doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist.

There are frequently floods. The Nile regularly floods, Mesopotamia was a flood plain, the Indus and Ganjes are vast flood plains, the Aztecs literally built on top of a swamp, Chinese civilization’s origins are along the Yangtze, a river notorious for vast floods that killed millions (and a big reason for the Three Gorges Dam project). The original civilizations, due to the necessities of intensive agriculture to feed the large numbers of people in the city states, were along flood plains, where alluvial deposits and plentiful water made large scale agriculture possible.

As to giant arks capable of carrying all animals, that has all the elements of myth. Now well I’m an atheist, I can say that I could buy that it was included in Genesis as a parable of defying God’s will or of having faith, or even as a sort of prophecy of Christ’s coming, but what I won’t buy is that there was a literal ark as large as depicted in the Bible, or that it in any way could have held the vast assemblage of animals portrayed.

 

[Orion1963]

It will be reasonable to say, that he built some sort of boat to carry his family and livestock. I agree with you, I don’t think an ark of such proportions was ever built.

 

[joeybaggz]

but what I won’t buy is that there was a literal ark as large as depicted in the Bible, or that it in any way could have held the vast assemblage of animals portrayed.
[/quote]

As a practicing RC, I agree with NA’s statement. As the Church allows , I am open to the possibility that there was some kind of flood in Noah’s area, and that he may have built some sort of craft to save his family and possessions (including livestock) and that the story was embellished or amplified to make a spiritual point. I think the story is allegory. Then again…