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]

We have hominid fossil remains going back millions of years, and there is no evidence that any hominid including any member of H sapiens ever lived centuries. We are pretty much the longest licing humans in the history of the world.

 

[Aloysium]

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.

 

[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.

 

[niceatheist]

Are you saying dentition lies? You do understand there are measurable physiolkgal effects that go along with aging which even teeth and other skeletal or fossil remains can reveal?

Why should I be as skeptical of scienc as I am of a series of Bronze Age stories?

 

[Aloysium]

The age of something depends on the rate of change. An analysis that leads to a conclusion involving the age of an object rests on an assumption as to that rate. Of course you know that it hasn’t changed, specifically for human beings. That human beings lived four-score then is because they do so now and that would be proof that they lived four-score then. You might want to think about what constitutes common sense. One should have some idea of why they believe what they do and what lies at the foundations their world view. It is good, if one does have the capacity, to think, “What would the world be like if this-or-that were true and on what basis do I rest any objection.” Very interesting and worth one’s efforts.

 

[rossum]

The age of something depends on the rate of change. An analysis that leads to a conclusion involving the age of an object rests on an assumption as to that rate.

No. It often depends on an observation of the rate. We know that radioactive decay rates, as used in radiometric dating have not changed for 100,000 years because we can observe them from SN 1987A. We know that the speed of light has not changed because we have observed the value of the Fine Structure Constant back about 11 billion years in some very distant quasars.

Scientists always prefer to measure rather than to assume. What measurements do you have to replace your assumptions?

rossum

 

[JoeVig]

finally an answer I can understand and agree with. we get so tied up in knots trying to get evrything broken down into minute facts

 

[Aloysium]

a series of Bronze Age stories

This phrase stuck with me. I find it very significant, revealing of something that seems just outside my grasp. I’m going to try and see what the net will catch.

What we have are stories, rooted in an oral tradition and written down at some point, constituting the opening of a narrative that shaped western culture and the world. That compilation of diverse writings has been the predominant inspiration for the greatest art, architecture, literature, and music. It has had a major influence on politics, economics and the organization of every city and hamlet, at least in Europe, where the church was at their core. It has naturally defined theology and transformed philosophy. The church, which has made those stories available to us, has been instrumental in the development of science. So, how have they come to be considered a mere “series of Bronze Age stories”? I’ll leave the readers to look within themselves for their own personal answer, because that’s where it lies, within ourselves.

This is going to get very religious; atheists may wish to skip the following.

The Ancient One whispers in the silence of the moment, He whose presence brings us to our knees, the infinite power from whom all this arises, and to whom we journey, destined for Holy Unity. The Old Man who created us, walks with us, cares for and guides us, and forgives our transgressions, He who sent His Son, has prepared an eternal banquet for us. But, His portrait as such has grown old and stale. It no longer evokes the sense of mystery that it once commanded. With the story’s loss of meaning, comes a realization, as it did on the day when we were turned out from the garden, that “dust (we) are and to dust (we) will return”. Without the story of who we are and why we are, our reflection is of a mere collection of molecules. But, that sense of mutual wonder that comes when creature meets its Creator, although hidden, yet remains ever present, like burning embers ready to burst into flame.

 

[Aloysium]

Science is all about assumptions. You need them in order to know anything.

We assumed, and still do for all intents and purposes, that there was a state called standing still.
We now know that the only constant in motion through space and time is c.

Here there is a huge assumption that the words we are using have more or less the same meaning to the person with whom we are engaged, as they do when they appear in our own minds as we communicate with ourselves. That’s a huge, not infrequently inaccurate, assumption.

To address your argument, you are using examples that are irrelevant to the issue of whether mankind lived any longer at its origins than they do now. I don’t need measurements to counter measurements that you can’t get to prove your point.

 

[niceatheist]

The only assumption in science is that the universe behave in predictable ways.

 

[rossum]

To address your argument, you are using examples that are irrelevant to the issue of whether mankind lived any longer at its origins than they do now.

Can you tell a baby’s skeleton from a ten-year-old’s skeleton from an adult’s skeleton? The ratios of the different types of skeleton can give a view into the mortality rates of a population. Infant mortality rates relative to adult mortality rates for example.

Tooth wear rates are another clue. We can see what the teeth were made of, we still have the actual teeth. We can compare how worn the old teeth are compared with wear rates in modern peoples with a similar nomadic herder or primitive agricultural lifestyle.

How worn would the teeth on an 800-year-old man be?

Do you have a Bible quote about how hard Noah’s teeth were?

You are the one with assumptions; I am the one with relevant data. Noah’s age is as much a myth as Puannum’s 840 years in the Sumerian King lists.

The flood story is a parable; you need to ignore irrelevant details.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

I know a couple of people who in spite of their less than optimal dental hygiene, have never had a cavity in their lives. Others, probably because they had trouble from childhood, take meticulous care of their teeth. In spite of this, it’s an ongoing struggle for them, and in later years some have spent tens of thousands on their mouths. if one were to examine their remains, dying at the same age, one would have been naturally assumed to be older than the other given the difference in wear and tear.

The issue with living to an older age has to do with physical resilience and slowness of the sort of decomposition that occurs in our bodies during our life time. There also appears to be some genetic delimiter to life; we are built to live only to a certain age. These could have changed between now and then.

It would also make sense that there exist stories of ancestral longevity in other cultures, given that we are talking about one humanity.

I’m not arguing for one side or the other, but find the question interesting. We obviously will believe what we do and will go as far as we limit ourselves in the pursuit of knowledge. Before we finally dement, that is.

 

[Aloysium]

The flip side of the assumption that a rational universe exists is that our reason can grasp it.
Which makes sense although it may remain a mystery as to why it is so.

There are numerous assumptions we make in any experiment, especially when statistical analyses are involved.
In this case, we assume that the data we collect represents the population we are investigating.
Most research involves some sort of assumption, but the problem is with unrecognized assumptions, aka bias.

 

[niceatheist]

A lot more goes into an analysis than assumptions. Mammals, indeed all vertebrates have certain teeth and growth patterns, usually dictated by numerous genes. I get that you’re trying to find some gap to park your literalism view Genesis into, but what you’re really doing is deeply misunderstanding science to create uncertainties where they don’t exist. At the end of the day, however you view it, to me it looks like little more than omphalism; in other words, God hid the evidencr

 

[Aloysium]

I wish you could actually understand what I was saying rather than arguing with what you think I am saying.

I will here claim that we are not mammals although we look like them.
With science in mind, I would say that we are better described as frames of reference, with our existence consisting of a past-present-future and the capacity to project that anywhere in space and time.
We are relational beings, who utilize science to connect with the physical universe.
These are traits that define our nature, our DNA is what our spirit, that which truly makes us human, utilizes in constructing ourselves as physical beings.

You cannot possibly do science, since everyone knows uncertainty is part and parcel of the game.
Additionally, it is clear that the more one knows the greater is the awareness of the mystery of things.

I’m not going top play the authority card, just attend to what I say and I will try to be clearer.

If you are here simply to confirm your atheistic belief system, and if you think science will help you, you’re in the wrong place.

 

[niceatheist]

You’re trying to claim science makes unnamed assumptions. You can’t really describe these assumptions, but it appears that anything that goes against your literalism view is an assumption.

The reality is that scientists hate assumptions, and do everything they can to eliminate them.

As to us not being mammals, yes I’m afraid we are. Maybe you mean in some spiritual sense, but physically we are mammals; warm blooded vertebrates with mammary glands that give birth live young. We are built like other mammals, share the large majority of our genome with them,; we are mammals.

 

[joeybaggz]

I personally believe Noah was a real person but I have my doubts on whether or not the ark was a historical reality, which seems to be a valid interpretation according to the RCC. How to reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions?

A good priest I know once clarified that true history of salvation begins with Abraham. Everything that comes before is prehistory, recorded after about 600 years of being handed down orally from generation to generation.
Scripture uses all kinds of genres to tell the story of salvation history. But no matter what the genre (prose, history, poetry, song, legend, etc.) all the Bible is inspired by God to bring us to an understanding of creations, the creator, and His place and our place in that creation. Are the stories of Eden, Babel, and the floor, exact versions of what occurred?
Maybe, maybe not (probably not from my own personal view) But the lesson of those stories is what we do and must believe to understand the progression of events that led to the reality of Jesus and His word, His teaching, and His Church. Our present day RCC has its roots in the history of the personages in Scripture and in the Jewish Tradition. The seemingly contradictory positions are reconciled in the understanding that “the moral of the story” is what is inspired and what we Christians and the RCC teaches and believes. Individually, we are free to believe how literal or how allegorical the stories are, but the persons about who the stories revolve, (Adam,Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Lot, Noah, and his family) are real in some way or another, if not exactly how we were taught to see them when we were 7 and in Sunday School.

 

[Aloysium]

Unfortunately, we are failing to communicate.

Let’s just take your assumption that we are mammals.
You define us thus, purely on superficial appearance; pretty much what science does.

I’m not sure how an atheist understands the word “spiritual”.
So, I will put it to you that what we truly are has more to do with what a scientist might understand as “frames of reference”.
A person who is into literature would understand the concept of “hero”, and know us to be the hero of the narrative that constitutes our existence.
An artist or musician may tune into reminders of the exuberance that comes with the creation of beauty.
A person dedicated to their family would realize that we love one another; we provide a reason to live for each other, to act courageously, to be patient, to give of ourselves totally for the good of the other.
It’s these sorts of things that define mankind.
The sad fact is that we can reduce ourselves to behaving like animals, but given what it means to be human, we can never become animals, but rather demonic.

 

[rossum]

Let’s just take your assumption that we are mammals.

You define us thus, purely on superficial appearance; pretty much what science does.

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.

If you want to discuss the immaterial aspects, then find a theologian, not a scientist.

All subjects limit themselves. I would not go to a Bulgarian language specialist to discuss aspects of the history of the French Revolution. Science deals with the material.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

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