Noahs' Ark True of False?

[Orogeny]

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

Evolution can be and has been observed.

and there will always be disputes about the fossil record

Depends on what you mean by disputes. If you mean disputes like Bill refered to in an earlier post, that is not a dispute, that is a denial. If you mean disputes on specific details regarding fossils, then you are correct. That’s called science.

and it is always on the “new” theory to prove (or offer the most evidence) for it’s case.

Agreed. By the way, which theory are you refering to here? Uniformitarianism or evolution? The vast, vast majority of scientists who have studied these issues agree that they are the best way to explain the evidence. If you have evidence that the theories are wrong or if you have a better explanation of the existing evidence, please step forward and publish your ideas in a peer-reviewed publication so that the debate can begin. Making a statement of denial as Bill did doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Evolution can be and has been observed.

That’s news to me. I thought to pass the test of science it had to be observable consistently.

 

[Orogeny]

Buffalo,

I’m sure you have seen these before:

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html#observed-speciation

nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Peace

Tim

note: edited to add another link

 

[SherryLynn9]

edwinG:

God said of all the people who ever lived, only Noah, Job and Daniel proved God fearing.
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

You forgot Enoch.

 

[SherryLynn9]

carol marie:

I’m currently in RCIA and was told the same thing about the book of Genesis including Adam & Eve… all stories PROBABLY not to be taken literally. I believe the book of Genesis recorded actual historical events so I’ve chosen NOT to believe what the Priest said in the RCIA class… I guess that makes me a cafeteria Catholic?

Father Mariush told me that because several pagan (sorry I can’t remember his exact wording he didn’t say pagan) accounts of the flood predated the Genesis accounts that it was probably recorded so that mankind would know to respect God and serve him. It is my opinion for what it’s worth that just because their account of it pre-dates our record doe not mean 1) it isn’t true. It just means God didn’t move one of His people to write it down until He was ready for them to.

 

[SherryLynn9]

carol marie:

I’m currently in RCIA and was told the same thing about the book of Genesis including Adam & Eve… all stories PROBABLY not to be taken literally. I believe the book of Genesis recorded actual historical events so I’ve chosen NOT to believe what the Priest said in the RCIA class… I guess that makes me a cafeteria Catholic?

I have a question regarding Eve and Mary being the 2nd Eve. If the creation story is just a story and Adam and Eve are only figures, then how can we refer to Mary as the 2nd Eve.

 

[buffalo]

SherryLynn9:

I have a question regarding Eve and Mary being the 2nd Eve. If the creation story is just a story and Adam and Eve are only figures, then how can we refer to Mary as the 2nd Eve.

Hmmm! some of the modernist stuff just don’t jive.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

That’s news to me. I thought to pass the test of science it had to be observable consistently.

“observable consistently” is a little ambiguous. The fact that observable phenomena consistently exist is not enough. Science demands that each observation be consistent with the theory. This is a strong test, and one that evolutionary theory has either passed or has been modified to pass.

 

[carol_marie]

SherryLynn9:

I have a question regarding Eve and Mary being the 2nd Eve. If the creation story is just a story and Adam and Eve are only figures, then how can we refer to Mary as the 2nd Eve.

Or Jesus the 2nd Adam ?? also

 

[PhilVaz]

Bill Rutland, I’ll address a few of your points. Most of it is not relevant to the idea of a global flood.

Bill << 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. >>

I’ll just quote the Catechism here.

1. Faith and science: “…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” [Vatican II GS 36:1]
2. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…
3. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin…

Now what do you think this means?

I think it means there is no conflict between honest science and faith because God is the creator, ruler, and sustainer of both: the things of the world and of faith derive from the same God; science has splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age of the cosmos and the development of life; and religion, faith and revelation provide us with the meaning of our origins which is beyond the proper domain of natural science.

John Paul II also has a more recent encyclical on “Faith and Reason” and I suggest you look into that as well.

continued in part 2…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Bill << 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. >>

Thanks, but the story of the seminary student, though interesting, doesn’t apply to me since I accept the authorship of the Gospels. Such things as Higher Criticism, the Documentary Hypothesis, the “historical” vs “faith” Jesus doesn’t apply to me. I am not some radical liberal modernist, but I do recognize Scripture as containing different genres of writing (poetry, myth, narrative, parables, and historical).

Bill << “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.” >>

Well the Church has revealed, and Scripture teaches the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. “This is My Body” is accepted on faith. It is not something that can be scientifically tested under a microscope, and to do so would be irreverent and sacrilegious as I’ve said.

And No, I haven’t looked into all the miracles of the Old Testament, but having done a little bit of study on the “Global Flood” geology of creationists which they say is based on Genesis 6-9, I find it very bad science, and poor exegesis. Something like a global flood about 4000 to 5000 years ago can be scientifically tested, and “catastrophism” lost out about 200 years ago, based on the observations and experiments of geological science.

Bill << 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. >>

But I didn’t say those were scientific. I suggest you read Peter Kreeft/Ron Tacelli’s chapter on the Resurrection of Christ, and I will mail you a two CD set (Best of PhilVaz) containing many William Lane Craig debates. He proves that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation of some key elements: the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus alive after his death witnessed by hundreds, and the very origin of the Christian faith. These all lead to the conclusion that “God raised Jesus from the dead” as the best explanation, as opposed to other explanations (the apostles were hallucinating, they stole the body, they went to the wrong tomb, etc).

So Craig’s apologetics takes both a historical and very scientific approach and demonstrates the resurrection of Christ. I would also look into his apologetics on the Big Bang and the Cosmological Arguments. Science can be a big help in Christian apologetics. What do you have to say to that?

Bill << At some point you have to depart from what your science tells you is true and believe God’s word. >>

Not necessarily, if you mean “believe God’s word literally all the time.” So you believe the snake spoke in the Garden of Eden? Do you believe the seven-headed dragon rising out of the sea in the book of Revelation is literal? Do you accept that God is a bird with feathers since it says “under his wings shall we trust” in the Psalms. There are literary genres we must take into account when reading the Bible. So No, we cannot simply “believe God’s word” since we need to interpret it carefully.

continued in Part 3…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Bill << 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. >.

It is good evidence, it is not so-called, and the uniformitarian understanding has prevailed for 200 years based on thousands of observations, tests, and experiments of the professional scientific community (geologists, etc). So maybe you can throw out all of science the last 200 years, I cannot. Faith and reason cannot conflict. God created both His world and His word.

Bill << 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. >>

Incorrect, and pounded into the ground by TalkOrigins. The fossils are delicately sorted in the standard evolutionary order as I’ve said, and the geological column is found several times over on the earth. Some places include

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

So the young-earth creationists have been lying to you about that. Believe the truth, not the lies.

Here is the entire geological column in North Dakota

Bill << 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. >>

Not only does it make you unscientific, it makes you unCatholic. See the Catechism above, paragraphs 159, 283, 284.

Bill << But, my friend, you cannot be scientific either without rejecting the basic tenants of Christianity. >>

So you are saying, if you want to be a scientist, don’t even think about Christianity. You have to be an ATHEIST if you major in geology, biology, or astronomy in college and have a career in science. ONLY ATHEISTS do science or can be successful at it. Is that right? First, there is the entire history of science which consisted almost entirely of Catholic Christians. Second, today there are a few thousand people who may disagree with you, and they got the faith and scientific credentials to prove it

The American Scientific Affiliation, Science in Christian Perspective

Radiometric Dating, by a Christian "Uniformitarian"

Bill, your entire post is exactly what is wrong with the “creationist” movement. Bad errors in logic, bad errors in fact, bad science, bad theology, sweeping generalizations, forcing a dichotomy between reason and faith, and basically making God out to be a Liar, a Trickster, a Deceiver.

Okay your turn.

Phil P

 

[Ghosty]

Phil already addressed where science has ruled out certain interpretations of Scripture, espescially the global flood, but I want to point out one important fact. The Big Bang Theory is the leading model of the Universe, and has been consistently demonstrated time and time again, much to the frustration of many atheist scientists. Why is this frustrating? Because it was developed by a Catholic Priest and physicist who almost perfectly synthesized Faith and Reason. The Big Bang Theory, properly understood, is almost entirely theistic, requiring an outside force from the universe to kick off. Ironically, people who reject the Big Bang Theory are rejecting the best scientific “proof” for God ever demonstrated, and one that is completely orthodox and scientific.

 

[wanerious]

Ghosty:

Phil already addressed where science has ruled out certain interpretations of Scripture, espescially the global flood, but I want to point out one important fact. The Big Bang Theory is the leading model of the Universe, and has been consistently demonstrated time and time again, much to the frustration of many atheist scientists. Why is this frustrating? Because it was developed by a Catholic Priest and physicist who almost perfectly synthesized Faith and Reason. The Big Bang Theory, properly understood, is almost entirely theistic, requiring an outside force from the universe to kick off. Ironically, people who reject the Big Bang Theory are rejecting the best scientific “proof” for God ever demonstrated, and one that is completely orthodox and scientific.

Ok, I’ll nitpick a little. I know lots of astronomers, some agnostic/atheistic and some not. None are terribly frustrated by the Big Bang theory or its possible theological implications. The theory is mostly concerned with the physics of the expansion after the initial Creation. It simply has nothing to say about how the initial energy came into being. I certainly wouldn’t say that the theory is theistic, only that theism holds possible interpretations for phenomena outside the theory’s domain. Having said that, personally I leave room for God there at the Beginning, but future understanding may reveal natural insight into the initial origin. I would never base my belief in God upon phenomena that are only poorly (or not at all) understood.

 

[Prester_John]

I am often amazed at the lengths to which skeptics will go to preach their creeds, and the zeal with which they do so, compells me believe my father was right when he once remarked that that the only religious person with more zeal than a saint is a skeptic.

But far be it from ME to rock the boat, pardon the pun;as far as I am concerned, Noah was a historical person, he really did build an ark, it did not look like a barge or a box, but resembled a canoe, and rather than drive it straight into an active volcano he beached her 17 miles to the SSW of Mount Arrarat, near Mt Cudi, to be rediscovered after an earthquake in 1949 by a farmer named Reshit, as told by a marine salvage expert and merchant mariner Captain named David Fasold, and accepted as genuine by the government of Turkey.
Oh by the way - I’ve actually been there.

 

[PhilVaz]

Prester << rather than drive it straight into an active volcano he beached her 17 miles to the SSW of Mount Arrarat, near Mt Cudi, to be rediscovered after an earthquake in 1949 by a farmer named Reshit >>

All right, all right, I cry UNCLE. They found the Ark! They found the Ark!

Now what does that say about a GLOBAL FLOOD? Um, nothing. The evidence against it from geology still stands.

The Ark, assuming it is from Noah and his family, would still only be evidence of a local flood. And here is some exegetical proof from the Genesis text:

The Waters of the Flood by Hugh Ross

Why the Flood is not Global by Glenn Morton

Deal with both the science and the Bible, and maybe your discovery of an Ark in Turkey means something.

Phil P

 

[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

Hi Phil,
I really thank you for your answer and I ask again for your patience. So far my understanding of what you are saying is this " You have a clear understanding in your mind where and how science can or can’t be applied to your belief."

Have I understood you? Mind you I do feel that if you asked a scientist if you could grow a limb back he would say No .LOL

And another point also, where Jesus said if you had faith you could ask this mountain to move and it would be gone. Do you believe this or is it scientifically impossible.

So I suppose another question is " is your belief limited in some areas by science?

Phil, I do think your position here is a benefit to all of us, as it helps us to examine ourselves. I am , and surely many others are benefiting. Please see my motives as sincere.
Christ be with you
walk in lovehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG

 

[PaulDupre]

twf:

I’m, more or less, a ‘recent special creationist’, so the following links reflect this, but I’ll share them anyway, even though I know people will be jumping on me any minute here. I also want to say, as a disclaimer of sorts, that the following pages are Protestant, so I do not necessarily endorse or agree with everything that may be said.
God bless.
Tyler

Though I am a God-directed evolutionist, I would certainly not “jump on you” for espousing a view that is completely acceptable in Catholic thought and teaching. Though I don’t agree with your view, I think it is a pious and admirable one.

By the way, I accept the biblical account of Noah and the great flood and as true.
Grace to you,
Paul

 

[edwinG]

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.

Hi Ghosty,
I realise that those people who believe in the science of some events that leave them wondering are sincere people looking for the truth. And yes God is a spirit of meat and potatoes. Straight from the shoulder. But we are so so small.
Now the problem is that science wants to prove every thing from the laws of the earth. Like gravity, you stay up to late and you are tired, stress will end up in sickness, eat too much and you will be fat. Yes these laws are true, to earth. Now we are in the kingdom of God also and ( I wont go to far here on this thread) so we in effect are in two worlds, each having different laws. In the kingdom of God , the law is of faith. This spiritual world has infinitely more authority than the earthly world. faith /gravity sickness/faith etc. Jesus has overcome the world. The more you give up this world , the more emptying you do, the more room you have to fill up on faith. As a Christian you are in 2 worlds and you have this opportunity. Give up this world and live by faith. That is live in the kingdom of God.
Christ be with youhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
walk in love
edwinG

 

[edwinG]

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 believe that Mary wanted to live in Jerusalem with the apostles and not in Nazareth. Jesus publicly announced this so she would not be tainted with the sin of a woman living with a man. How lovingly kind He was to think of her whilst dying from pain.
Christ be with youhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
walk in love
edwinG