That’s for sure. First, you pay $50 or more for it, then you read the writings of the bible are fake, and then you read Brown say that in the next edition, most of this edition will be thrown out.
Hi SherryLynn9
I go with the local or “regional” flood theory.
Hi Phil ,EdwinG << You have a clear understanding in your mind where and how science can or can’t be applied to your belief. >>
Now we’re getting a little off the topic of Noah, the Ark and the Flood. But No, I don’t have a clear understanding about how science can be applied to all the miracles in the Bible, just the global flood idea. That one requires, not just one miracle, but thousands of miracles as explained above. Miracles not mentioned in the Bible.
EdwinG << 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 >>
With that comment, No you misunderstand. The miracles of Jesus can’t be proved or demonstrated by science. They must be accepted by faith. However, modern miracles can and are tested by the Church first with science, and a rigorous scientific process if I understand, before the Church says “Yes, here we have a miracle.” For example, the appearances at Fatima.
But in this thread we are talking about Noah’s flood, global, local, or total myth. Stick to the subject.
To sum up, my questions to the global flood theorists who have participated in this thread are
(1) How did the Kangaroos get from/to Australia to/from Noah and the ark? Did they swim the oceans? And a bonus question (b) How did the Penguins and Polar Bears get from/to the South/North Pole to/from Noah and the ark? And how many billions of ice cubes did Noah bring on the ark to keep them happy? And another bonus (c) Did Noah bring a T-Rex dinosaur, or at least a couple of “baby” T-Rex onto the ark (for those of you who are young earth) ?
(2) How did the Green River Formation in Wyoming form with its 20,000,000 (million) Varve layers in one year of a global flood?
(3) How did evolution produce – from 2 of each “kind” of animal Noah brought on the ark – the 1.5 to 2 million species we have today in just a few thousand years? (Assuming the global flood is dated around 4000 to 5000 years ago)
We’ll start with those. If you take the story literally and globally, explain these.
Phil P
The Big Bang Theory is Theistic insofar as it requires an uncaused cause. Atheists and agnostics try to come up with answers for this that don’t require an intelligent force, but the fact remains that an uncaused cause is practically built into the equation. Whether intelligent or not, whether intentional or not, something outside the universe as we know it must have caused the Big Bang, and that’s what I’m refering to.
Hi Edwin,
Really? Gee Phil I must have missed the encyclical which defined evolutionary uniformitarianism as a de fide teaching of the Church. Now that I got that out of my system let’s talk.
The fact is that the “uniformitarian understanding” has undergone tremendous change, especially in the 20th century. This is evidenced by Gould’s punctuated equilibria which is rapidly replacing Darwinism and neo-Darwinism (which as you know is based on the uniformitarian principal). In fact Catastrophism is making a come back in scientific circles as it is realized that geological change is often violent and rapid, and not slow and placid.
As stated, I am not a young earth Creationist. But having said this, if God chose to do it in six literal days, it would not make Him into a “Liar, a Trickster, a Deceiver,” on the basic principal that God does not do things because they are good, they are good because God does them.
First off the Hebrew word for the creature which spoke to Eve does not mean “snake” but “dragon.” Whether Satan appeared to Eve as a dragon or it is used in a metaphorical sense I do not know. As for the seven headed dragon, I think we can say that this is most likely metaphorical also. The “under his wings shall we trust” most likely refers to the wings of the golden seraphim which sheltered the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. I agree that we need to interpret Scripture carefully and this means not demanding that it conform to our “scientific” presuppositions.
and much of the speculation is very interesting. I just don’t want anyone’s faith shaken because the Ark story is so improbable. Whether you believe it literally or otherwise, Jesus Christ is Lord either way and the Ark is a fruitful meditation on Christ’s passion and His church in any interpretation of the Ark.
It doesn’t. It simply does not address the issue of the initial energy density.
And I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I’ll continue to nitpick that it is wrong to ascribe theism to the Big Bang theory when it is elements outside of the theory that may necessitate a deity. There is a distinction between what the theory describes and what may have happened earlier.
That’s some poor exegesis. Jesus is God. He has no “needs” to announce the care of His mother. His Holy Spirit would move Mary to where she should be.
Bill Rutland said:
.
No, the big bang theory is like a hot potato. If you ask why and what was before it leads you outside of materialism. This is right smack into God.
Perhaps, but it also leads you outside of the Big Bang. Scientific theories attempt to explain a set of observable phenomena. The origin of the initial energy density is not a phenomenon that the standard model attempts to explain.
If you theorize the Big Bang from quantum physics then you introduce an observer into this scenario. You ultimately leave materialism and enter consciousness. This defeats materialism and you run smack into God.
I don’t understand. The Big Bang was not formulated from quantum physics, but rather from watching the large-scale motions of distant galaxies. It is true that any physical theory must be consistent with predictions of quantum theory, but the introduction of an observer does not change the predictions of the theory. Rather, it may be invoked as a possible interpretation of the mechanism of the theory, which is a philosophical matter. I don’t follow your string, since leaving materialism and entering consciousness also necessarily involves leaving Big Bang predictions. Again, I don’t see how the Big Bang leads you to God any more than any other theory does. It just deals with an earlier epoch than most.
Hi SherryLynn9,
Here it is:
The predictions of quantum physics are probabilistic. The only time you know the actual outcome is if you can observe it.