Noahs' Ark True of False?

[edwinG]

PhilVaz:

MJoy << I also believe creating a universe is not possible. Which is why I believe in the global flood (if you catch my “drift” ; pun intended) >>

Sorry I don’t. So you are saying the global flood, and all the scientific objections I brought up, are supposed to be explained by thousands of miracles that are not mentioned in Genesis?

Like the reason the kangaroos went from Australia to the Ark, and back from the Ark to Australia is that “God guided them that way.”

And the reason that macroevolution and speciation occured 10,000 times faster than Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins would even dream, is that “God guided evolution that quickly.” From 2 of each “kind” to approx 2 million species in a couple thousand years. Now you sound like a theistic evolutionist. And a fast one.

And the Green River Formation requiring 20,000,000 (million) years to form, was just a miracle that God did in one year of the Flood? Limestone, chalk, sedimentary deposits thousands of feet thick, all miracles? The ordering of the fossils in the exact evolutionary order (fish, then amphibs, then reptiles, then mammals, then homo sapiens, etc) we find them? Another miracle?

And there were approx 2,100 animals (from dinosaurs to foxes to insects) on every acre of land on earth just before the Flood (since all animals, save the two of each kind, died in the global flood) ? A bit crowded I would think. Another miracle?

Creation of the universe from the “singularity” of the Big Bang is one thing (a single miracle, God created the heavens and the earth, etc), but invoking thousands of miracles to explain the history of the planet and the formations of earth is not biblical nor scientific. But that’s what you have to do with a global flood.

A local flood is exegetically plausible (see Hugh Ross, Glenn Morton above) and scientifically feasible. In other words it fits both faith and reason.

Phil P

Hi Phil,
Pretty interesting stuff. Can you help me some more. Do you believe that Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that Mary was a virgin. Did Jesus heal people, like blind from birth gaining sight, limbs growing back etc. Is your "belief’ based on scientific evidence or do you have some point at which you discard science for “belief”
If you have some belief based on “belief” can you explain the dividing line and how you drew it.
Christ be with youhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
walk in love
edwinG

 

[PhilVaz]

EdwinG << Do you believe that Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that Mary was a virgin. >>

Sure, those things can’t be scientifically tested. I accept them on faith. I accept the Nicene Creed.

A global flood is a different issue. It can be tested scientifically. A world full of water around 4000 to 5000 years ago would leave evidence. We don’t see that in the formations I mentioned, nor in the ordering of the fossils and distribution of animals we see today.

<< Did Jesus heal people, like blind from birth gaining sight, limbs growing back etc. Is your "belief’ based on scientific evidence or do you have some point at which you discard science for “belief” >>

I discard neither. Some things can be tested by science, some cannot. Usually it is transubstantiation that is brought up at this point. But even the Church says this can’t be detected by science. You won’t see anything when you put a host under a microscope (God forbid). The Eucharist is accepted on faith, same with Virgin Birth, the Trinity, and the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels. I accept them. There are Eucharistic miracles though.

Now deal with the scientific objections to a global flood, something that can be tested and has been falsified by geology for 200 years. The flood was slightly larger than a breadbox, but smaller than the Atlantic Ocean.

Phil P

 

[Ghosty]

I’ll leave Phil to this, since he is more than capable of presenting the ample scientific evidence on his own, but I’d like to address the “Did the fish drown” question.

The actual answer would be “Yes, they would have” because the salinity and ph change presented by a global flood would likely make the waters uninhabitable for most ocean life. Unless 2 of every kind of fish and other ocean species was aboard the ark in specially prepared holding tanks, complete with ph balancing chemicals and filtration, these animals would indeed perish.

 

[Maccabees]

Sudenly Finding Nemo has whole new meaning!

 

[Steve_Andersen]

twf:

PhilVaz: I’d like to discuss this more with you, but not at the moment. (Partly because I plan to go to bed fairly soon).

Steve: Of course parables can tell truths. My point was that Jesus and St. Peter clearly believed that the flood actually happened. So did the Church Fathers. Whether you believe it was global or local, you must believe that it happened in one way or another. I’m not a ‘literalist’, as you put it. I know that Scripture uses allegory…but not always. When Jesus refers to a historic event to drive a point home, then that historic event happened. When Jesus tells a parable, it did not necessarily happen. We must interpret Scripture how it was written. If the author refers to something as a historical happening, then it was indeed a historical happening. I didn’t say that we should take parables literally, but in the case of the Flood, it is referred to as an actual historic event. (By Jesus, St. Peter, the author of Job, and by the Church Fathers). As well, if you do not even believe in a local flood that destroyed mankind, then how do you explain the “Flood myths” from around the world (and as far away as the Aztecs in Mexico).

God bless.

Just because someone mentions an event in their writings isn’t proof that they believed the event happened literally as described.

If I said a certain task made me feel like Sisyphus pushing his rock up the hill that isn’t an indication that I believe in the Greek gods; it is just a cultural/literary allusion. Jesus and St Paul were addressing audiences who knew the story of Noah so referencing it made sense. (You’ll notice neither one referenced the Aztec flood story)

As to there being similar stories from many cultures.…well in rains and floods in most places where people live. There are also stories of war, love, revenge, jealousy, and other basic human experiences from all over the world.

The Epic of Gilgamesh after all is really nothing more than the first buddy road movie.

Humans behave in certain ways and that fact that certain archetypal stories appear everywhere shouldn’t be surprising. Nor should the fact that God, knowing how our brains work, would communicate to us in stories that we could understand and remember.

To me there are two points to the Noah story

(1) It addresses the question “why does God allow Evil in the world?” by explaining that God tried once and found the results not satisfying and this sets the stage for why He chose the method He ultimately did to redeem the world. Related to that is an object lesson that we as individuals should not try to radically cleanse the world around us.

(2) Noah was saved because of his faith in God as well as through his works (he built the boat after all and didn’t rely on faith alone to scoop him out of the waters)

Beyond that arguing over how many maggots he brought on the Ark or how platypuses got back to Australia is kinda pointless and, in my eyes diminishes the story.

PS I’ve seen anti-Christian web sites where the fact that stories of virgin births or women being impregnated by gods appear in many cultures is used as “proof” that the NT was made up or just no different than any other mythos. So citing myths of other cultures can cut both ways.

 

[Bill_Rutland]

Hi Philip,

In all charity brother you seem to be looking down your nose at your creationist brethren (of which I am one). I get this all the time from Catholics who think that just because I accept what the Bible says that I am somehow unenlightened and naive. Somehow being “scientific” makes one very wise and from that lofty pedestal casts judgment on the great unwashed who believe what God had said. Please forgive me if I sound a bit defensive, but I have had my fill of those who look down their noses at those who believe the Bible (sorry for the strong words).

I was speaking with a seminary student a while back (now he is a priest) who told me that the Gospels were not written by the men who’s names they bear. He spoke of the “Lukian community” writing in the name of Luke many years after the events, “expressing their spiritual hopes” and that the stories were not necessarily true. He could tell me all about the difference between the “historical Jesus” and the “Jesus of faith,” the documentary theory and higher criticism, but could not answer simple theological questions.

Then I went to a *Little Rock Scripture Study * teacher’s class sponsored by our diocese, on the first day of the class the lady teaching (who made sure we knew she had degrees in patristics and theology) stated, “We are not Protestants, we do not take the Bible literally.” She went on to tell us how the multiplication of the fishes and loaves was a “miracle of sharing,” how Adam and Eve did not exist, that there was no flood, that the Red Sea did not part and the walls of Jericho did not fall. Finally I raised my hand and asked, “If I cannot believe the Bible when it tells me that God parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus walked on water, then how can I possibly believe it when it tells we that what I receive on Sunday morning, that looks and tastes for all the world like bread and wine, is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?” She told me that I was confusing “facts with truth.”

Phillip, you cannot be true to your “scientific” position and truly Catholic at the same time. It is not scientific to believe that a virgin can conceive, that a man can heal the blind and lame with just a word, raise the dead, or rise from the dead. At some point you have to depart from what your science tells you is true and believe God’s word. At some point, like my example of the Mass, you must even depart from what your senses tell you is true. Again in all charity brother you would not make a very good scientist either.

All of the so-called evidence that you give is based on a *uniformitarian * pre-supposition which you have not proven and cannot be proved. For instance you state:

the “evolutionary” ordering of the fossils found throughout the geological strata (fish before amphibians before reptiles before mammals, etc), a global flood would mix up the order considerably, or sort by “weight” which we definitely do not see.

The fact is Phillip this “evolutionary ordering” is a fiction which exists no where in the world expect in text books on evolution. The fossils are “out of order” and is exactly what you would expect from hydraulic sorting. Now I must tell you that I am not a big fan of Whitcomb and Morris because they blindly cling to their theory as much as the evolutionists do.

The principal that I follow is where I cannot reconcile the Scriptures and Science, I believe the Scriptures. If that makes me unscientific, then so be it. But, my friend, you cannot be scientific either without rejecting the basic tenants of Christianity. You simply choose to draw the line of faith in a different place than I do. Sorry if I came across too harsh, if I did please know that it is out of frustration and not because of any malice toward you.

PAX CHRISTI

Bill

 

[SP38]

If the flood is questioned as being something that really happened, then what about the part about all future generations descending from Noah’s 3 sons and their wives. How is that explained? Abram (renamed Abraham) is a descendant of Noah’s son Shem. (according to Genesis 11:10-26). Did they make it all up? Just another family story passed down from generation to generation.

 

[Ghosty]

Bill: I don’t believe he’s saying that miracles don’t occur, nor is he saying that science is the basis for all belief. Rather he’s saying that reason and faith are both truth, which is what the Church itself teaches, and that the two can’t contridict. Where they contridict it is a failing in human understanding, not in truth. Phil isn’t proposing that the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith are two different people, but rather that in cases where science clearly demonstrates a certain reading of a story false when multiple interpretations are possible and allowed by the Church, then the interpretation that fits both faith and reason should be defered to. It’s not a matter of accepting one over the other, but rather reconciling our understandings of them to eachother.

There are people who take faith as the end-all of Truth, and they are missing out just as much as those who take science as the end. Both groups deny the greater knowledge that is given to us by God, and reject the full Truth. There is a reconciliation of science and the Flood account that falls within orthodoxy without writing the entire thing off as completely a myth.

 

[Orogeny]

Hi, Bill. I know this was to Phil and he can answer for himself, but there are a couple of things I would like to address.
Bill Rutland:

Hi Philip,

In all charity brother you seem to be looking down your nose at your creationist brethren (of which I am one). I get this all the time from Catholics who think that just because I accept what the Bible says that I am somehow unenlightened and naive. Somehow being “scientific” makes one very wise and from that lofty pedestal casts judgment on the great unwashed who believe what God had said. Please forgive me if I sound a bit defensive, but I have had my fill of those who look down their noses at those who believe the Bible (sorry for the strong words).

I won’t look down my nose at you for that. I have no problem if you want to be a literalist.

Phillip, you cannot be true to your “scientific” position and truly Catholic at the same time. It is not scientific to believe that a virgin can conceive, that a man can heal the blind and lame with just a word, raise the dead, or rise from the dead. At some point you have to depart from what your science tells you is true and believe God’s word. At some point, like my example of the Mass, you must even depart from what your senses tell you is true. Again in all charity brother you would not make a very good scientist either.

So, you ask that we not look down our noses at you for your position and then you turn around and state that one cannot be Catholic and a scientist? What would your definition of a “good scientist” be?

All of the so-called evidence that you give is based on a *uniformitarian *pre-supposition which you have not proven and cannot be proved.

So, disprove uniformitarianism and I will give some credence to your statement.

The fact is Phillip this “evolutionary ordering” is a fiction which exists no where in the world expect in text books on evolution. The fossils are “out of order” and is exactly what you would expect from hydraulic sorting. Now I must tell you that I am not a big fan of Whitcomb and Morris because they blindly cling to their theory as much as the evolutionists do.

With all due charity, that is flat wrong. You need to check your facts (and not some apologetics site) on this.

The principal that I follow is where I cannot reconcile the Scriptures and Science, I believe the Scriptures. If that makes me unscientific, then so be it. But, my friend, you cannot be scientific either without rejecting the basic tenants of Christianity.

Wrong

You simply choose to draw the line of faith in a different place than I do. Sorry if I came across too harsh, if I did please know that it is out of frustration and not because of any malice toward you.

PAX CHRISTI

Bill

I can’t accept your apology to Phil be cause I am not Phil. For my part, I will say that your statements are eerily similar to those directed toward me by fundamentalist protestants who were explaining that I was going to hell for being a geologist who accepts the evidence of an old earth.

I don’t know why some people cannot separate faith and science. I don’t have a problem doing that because my faith is not based on science. I will never try to change your faith based on scientific arguments, but I will try to get you to change your understanding of science based on scientific evidence.

Peace

Tim

 

[carol_marie]

I can promise all of you this… if, after three years of studying the Catholic Faith and coming “this close” to making the switch from fundamentalist to Catholic the fact that many Catholics (and according to my Priest the CCC) can disregard the authenticity of the Bible, it’s over for me. I’ll cross over to your side with Mary, the Eucharist, the Apostolic succession, infant baptism but I’m NOT leaving the Bible behind. And this is what blows me away… Genesis is an ENTIRE BOOK in the Bible…it’s refrenced throughout the NT and you can toss it all aside… but there’s ONE verse in the NT where Jesus says, Behold your Mother and you base an entire Marian doctrine around that. Go figure. Try as I might… I don’t get you sometimes.

 

[Orogeny]

carol marie:

I can promise all of you this… if, after three years of studying the Catholic Faith and coming “this close” to making the switch from fundamentalist to Catholic the fact that many Catholics (and according to my Priest the CCC) can disregard the authenticity of the Bible, it’s over for me. I’ll cross over to your side with Mary, the Eucharist, the Apostolic succession, infant baptism but I’m NOT leaving the Bible behind. And this is what blows me away… Genesis is an ENTIRE BOOK in the Bible…it’s refrenced throughout the NT and you can toss it all aside… but there’s ONE verse in the NT where Jesus says, Behold your Mother and you base an entire Marian doctrine around that. Go figure. Try as I might… I don’t get you sometimes.

Hi, Carol Marie. I don’t want you to disregard the authenticity of Bible!:bigyikes: If I have come across that way, please accept my most sincere apologies.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Here is a site: Noah’s Ark Search

Space.com

Image

Has anybody discovered the Ark

It will be real interesting for all the doubters of a world wide flood if indeed they find the Ark at 15,000 feet up the mountain.

 

[patg]

carol marie:

I can promise all of you this… if, after three years of studying the Catholic Faith and coming “this close” to making the switch from fundamentalist to Catholic the fact that many Catholics (and according to my Priest the CCC) can disregard the authenticity of the Bible, it’s over for me. I’ll cross over to your side with Mary, the Eucharist, the Apostolic succession, infant baptism but I’m NOT leaving the Bible behind. And this is what blows me away… Genesis is an ENTIRE BOOK in the Bible…it’s refrenced throughout the NT and you can toss it all aside… but there’s ONE verse in the NT where Jesus says, Behold your Mother and you base an entire Marian doctrine around that. Go figure. Try as I might… I don’t get you sometimes.

The Church teaches that the bible teaches truth - the truth of our moral and spiritual relationship with God. It is the fundamentalists who wrongly assert the the bible also teaches science, biology, history, and pretty much everything else.

This truth is taught in many ways using many literary forms - poetry, fiction, allegory, parable, myth, and maybe even history.

 

[bengal_fan]

Ghosty:

… in cases where science clearly demonstrates a certain reading of a story false when multiple interpretations are possible and allowed by the Church, then the interpretation that fits both faith and reason should be defered to.

the problem with this statement is “clearly”. (that is why i’ve highlited it). i can’t think of anywhere that science has “clearly” rendered an interpretation of scripture false. (i know some might bring up galileo and the earth being the center of the universe but that is not in scripture that i can find). yes, there is some evidence that makes certain interpretations tough to explain but it goes both ways. i have two uncles, both geologists. one is a strict evolutionist (the earth is 4.4 billion years old) and the other is (not quite as young earth as ken hamm but still…) is a young earth creationist. they both studied at the same universities and did their doctoral work a few years apart and have reached very different conclusions. neither has a problem reconciling their faith with their beliefs on human origin and the age of the earth. i guess i’m saying that you can’t say that science has rendered anything “clearly” in that many scientists disagree with one another.

Orogeny:

So, disprove uniformitarianism and I will give some credence to your statement.

why should he have to disprove anything? his is the older viewpoint so you should have to prove your position. for most of human existence, man has believed in young earth creationism. it is only in the past couple hundred years that has changed and it is still upon evolutionists to prove their position not for creationists to disprove evolution.

 

[Orogeny]

why should he have to disprove anything? his is the older viewpoint so you should have to prove your position. for most of human existence, man has believed in young earth creationism. it is only in the past couple hundred years that has changed and it is still upon evolutionists to prove their position not for creationists to disprove evolution.

If one is going to make an argument based on science, one must understand science. Uniformitarianism has been accepted for a long time because there has been no evidence against it. It’s counterpart, catastrophism, has a large amount of evidence against it.

As far as proving evolution, I must mention that science doesn’t prove things. Science is the process of observing and explaning. If the observations change, the explanation must account for the changes. Sometimes, a better explanation for existing observations comes along and is accepted. Explanations are only accepted within the scientific community after thorough discussion and debate (peer review).

For most of human existence, man thought the sun revolved around the earth. Is that your current belief? Probably not, so you must be careful about making such an argument.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

If one is going to make an argument based on science, one must understand science. Uniformitarianism has been accepted for a long time because there has been no evidence against it. It’s counterpart, catastrophism, has a large amount of evidence against it.

As far as proving evolution, I must mention that science doesn’t prove things. Science is the process of observing and explaning. If the observations change, the explanation must account for the changes. Sometimes, a better explanation for existing observations comes along and is accepted. Explanations are only accepted within the scientific community after thorough discussion and debate (peer review).

For most of human existence, man thought the sun revolved around the earth. Is that your current belief? Probably not, so you must be careful about making such an argument.

Peace

Tim

Careful here - from a theological standpoint believing the earth was primary was not wrong. Science was never part of the thinking. It had to do with man’s primacy through Revelation.

Anthropic coincidences and quantum physics support the fact that very minor variances in the makup of the universe would not render life.

 

[Erich]

PhilVaz:

Toni << But if God said the sky is really green I for one would believe. >>

You wouldn’t make a very good scientist then

It all depends on the meaning of the word ‘green’.

Oops, my bad, I should have posted this in one of the Politics threads… I now return you to the regularly scheduled Noah’s Ark thread already in progress…

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Careful here - from a theological standpoint believing the earth was primary was not wrong. Science was never part of the thinking. It had to do with man’s primacy through Revelation.

This is not just a theological issue. The idea that the sun revolved around the earth was not just a religious idea. However, my point is a rebuttal to his assertion that because a young earth was historically accepted, I need to prove that it is not.

Anthropic coincidences and quantum physics support the fact that very minor variances in the makup of the universe would not render life.

I’m not sure what you think I believe, but let me remove any doubt. God created everything.

Peace

Tim

 

[bengal_fan]

Orogeny:

For most of human existence, man thought the sun revolved around the earth. Is that your current belief? Probably not, so you must be careful about making such an argument.

my point exactly. and the way we realized this was wrong was through hundreds of years of observation. not to mention that it was always put upon the believers in a heliocentric galaxy to prove their position. we cannot “observe” evolution and there will always be disputes about the fossil record and it is always on the “new” theory to prove (or offer the most evidence) for it’s case.

 

[buffalo]

bengal_fan:

my point exactly. and the way we realized this was wrong was through hundreds of years of observation. not to mention that it was always put upon the believers in a heliocentric galaxy to prove their position. we cannot “observe” evolution and there will always be disputes about the fossil record and it is always on the “new” theory to prove (or offer the most evidence) for it’s case.

Since our frame of reference is limited we cannot truly observe that the earth revolves around the sun. To do so, we would have to have a vantage point outside our solar system.