Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Brian_Millar]

Nonsense. You just don’t get it, do you. There would be a massive amount of easily identifiable evidence of a global flood. That evidence doesn’t exist. What scientific evidence would we expect to find that could verify the virgin birth? The resurrection? There is none. Therefore, those things cannot be refuted scientifically other than to say that they cannot have occurred naturally. Which, of course, is the point - they were supernatural events. Miracles.

The flood sediments being absent could also be a miracle. But if God purposely removed evidence that would point to a global flood, He is deceiving us and I reject that completely.Go ahead and be holier than thou, Brian. Your faith is weak compared to mine. You can’t even picture God using nature to create. I have absolute faith that He did just that. I pity people who are so myopic on this matter that they make saints of themselves in their own minds.

You, my friend, will be in my prayers.

Peace

Tim

Tim, are you really reading what you are saying here objectively at all? Man, you are just dilusional, I’d be very afraid of your current position with God at this stage, you have exaulted yourself, your soul is in peril at this very moment. All I can tell you is repent.

 

[peary]

**Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, *Humani Generis *36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. **

 

[Abbadon]

Tim, are you really reading what you are saying here objectively at all? Man, you are just dilusional, I’d be very afraid of your current position with God at this stage, you have exaulted yourself, your soul is in peril at this very moment. All I can tell you is repent.

Orogeny has a point though, I doubt your idea of God would deceive. Does he?

I’m going to assume no. Therefore he would not have purposefully removed the evidence of a global flood, like Orogeny said.

I think you should answer Orogeny’s very valid point…

 

[Abbadon]

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, *Humani Generis *36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

How does the church decide these things? Is it just the pope that states it or is it a democratic process, where high ranking leaders would vote on ideas presented?

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, are you really reading what you are saying here objectively at all?

Yes.

Man, you are just dilusional, I’d be very afraid of your current position with God at this stage, you have exaulted yourself, your soul is in peril at this very moment. All I can tell you is repent.

One of the great things about knowing God is that I don’t worry about opinions from self-annointed saints.

I strongly suggest you take a real close look at Matthew 7:1-3.

Peace

Tim

 

[peary]

How does the church decide these things? Is it just the pope that states it or is it a democratic process, where high ranking leaders would vote on ideas presented?

The Magisterium makes its decisions on the Faith which it upholds from the time of the Apostles. It isn’t just the pope; it’s the whole teaching body - the bishops, with (name removed by moderator)ut from theologians. There is nothing in what I posted that I can see is arguable.

 

[Philipp]

Tim, are you really reading what you are saying here objectively at all? Man, you are just dilusional, I’d be very afraid of your current position with God at this stage, you have exaulted yourself, your soul is in peril at this very moment. All I can tell you is repent.

Again you are right on target. I’ve offered evidence after evidence to support the idea of a major world-wide flood: (1) the sedimentary rocks are in his face (2) C-14 dating of fossils in the sedimentary rock and clay strata indicate only 1000’s of years in age, not giga years. (3) NASA has similar evidence for a massive flood on Mars. Yet Orogeny Tim} denys there is evidence on earth where 80% of the earth is water.

But he is not alone in his “delusion”. I sent the following letter to the editor of our local newspaper but they won’t print it because it is NOT main-stream science. You see, the censorship must be maintained even if they appear dilusional. Evolution is a multibillion dollar a year academic business — their religion of long ages and descent from a common ancestor is being rejected by 50 % of the American people and they are frustrated and can only resort to sarcasm and redicule.

Letters to the editor: Subject: Footprints in Stone

Upon returning from an early July vacation including a public excavation for fossil dinosaur and human footprints in Texas, I found many letters to the editor on the origin-of-life controversy. I respond to the latest letter (Steven Bornstein, July 11) who challenged someone for data that would support Intelligent Design (ID) or Creation. The following should help all readers grasp the monumental significance of these fossil footprints in stone:

(1) Where? Glen Rose Cretaceous limestone/clay formation (Central Texas) allegedly 110 million years old; yet, direct C-14 dating of purified burnt and carbonized wood ranged from 12,800 to 38,420 C-14 years BP.

(2) Measurements? Human ones (8, 11, 14 & 16 in. long series) often show five distinct toe tips. Aspect ratios are always the same as the modern human foot (except slide-ins). Dinosaur ones have three long distinct toes (mostly Acrocanthosaurus, C-14 dated at 23,760 +/-270 RC years BP) and both left trails.

(3) How? Impressions of both species are often side by side or in each other’s prints in the original limey mud and, like concrete, quickly turned to stone followed by clay deposition.

(4) Quantity?: More than 100 “pristine” human footprints (one distinct hand print, 1982) and 100’s of dinosaur ones have been excavated under tons of top rock in a river ledge stratum.

Four points: (a) It is impossible to fake these lab and field evidences. (b) The study of origins IS controversial and Evolution is simply an hypothesis like ID and Creation. (c) Academia should stop indoctrinating our children with Darwinian Naturalism and teach the controversies such as can be found by searching the Internet for: Fossil human footprints with dinosaurs, the age of the earth, C-14 dating of coal and diamond, Guy Berthault (sedimentology), and Dennis Swift (dinosaur depictions). (4) Practice what is preached by the 1976 NAS proclamation on freedom of enquiry by removing censorship and promoting open discussions on origin issues.

Sincerely,

PS: Mr. Bornstein asked for data. Thus I have made this letter as short as possible (only 350 words). So why not let Bornstein and your readership know about these key issues within the origins controversy. Don’t they have a right to know since the subject of origins is concerned with the key questions of life: (1) Who am I? (2) Where did I come from? (3) Why am I here? Where am I going?

 

[Orogeny]

Again you are right on target. I’ve offered evidence after evidence to support the idea of a major world-wide flood: (1) the sedimentary rocks are in his face (2) C-14 dating of fossils in the sedimentary rock and clay strata indicate only 1000’s of years in age, not giga years. (3) NASA has similar evidence for a massive flood on Mars. Yet Orogeny [Tim} denys there is evidence on earth where 80% of the earth is water.

1) Wrong. Sedimentary rocks are the single biggest piece of evidence AGAINST a recent worldwide flood. If you knew anything about geology, that would be incredibly clear to you and you certainly wouldn’t use that to support your ideas. 2)You have intentionally mislead people with your bogus C14 testing. You should stop that. 3) Mars? What does that have to do with the flood of Genesis? Are you suggesting that the same flood occurred on Mars as well?

I deny that there is any evidence of a recent worldwide flood. What does 80% have to do with anything?

But he is not alone in his “delusion”. I sent the following letter to the editor of our local newspaper but they won’t print it because it is NOT main-stream science. You see, the censorship must be maintained even if they appear dilusional. Evolution is a multibillion dollar a year academic business — their religion of long ages and descent from a common ancestor is being rejected by 50 % of the American people and they are frustrated and can only resort to sarcasm and redicule.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But he is not alone in his “delusion”. I sent the following letter to the editor of our local newspaper but they won’t print it because it is NOT main-stream science. You see, the censorship must be maintained even if they appear dilusional.

So you’re smarter than the pope in theological matters, smarter than all the scientists in scientific matters. Yet, you have trouble spelling delusional. :whacky:

There must be some better way you could apply your talents than fringe science and theology on the internet. Have you looked into spiritual direction?

 

[buffalo]

The inspired author did not have take account of a long tradition of interpretation that treated the Flood as historical & universal; again, we have to. This has nothing to do with atheism, & everything to do with facts about the sort of place the world created by God really is. We simply don’t have the luxury of ignoring what is known about the world. To do so is not faith, but intellectual cowardice & obscurantism
.

I guess neither did God when He inspired the authors to write His word. He didn’t figure His truth in word needed to stand the test of time.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny has a point though, I doubt your idea of God would deceive. Does he?

I’m going to assume no. Therefore he would not have purposefully removed the evidence of a global flood, like Orogeny said.

I think you should answer Orogeny’s very valid point…

This God the deceiver is nonsense.

If you look back at the development of science how many times have we been deceived? We observed and came to wrong conclusions many many times. Was God deceiving us because some things are just tough to figure out and require iterations of refinement, or is it the simplicity of man that is the limit?

 

[buffalo]

Neil_Anthony;3933234 Yet:

Wow. - What a thoughtful post. A super debating point to be sure.

 

[tnystrom]

Letters to the editor: Subject: Footprints in Stone

Upon returning from an early July vacation including a public excavation for fossil dinosaur and human footprints in Texas, I found many letters to the editor on the origin-of-life controversy. I respond to the latest letter (Steven Bornstein, July 11) who challenged someone for data that would support Intelligent Design (ID) or Creation. The following should help all readers grasp the monumental significance of these fossil footprints in stone:

(1) Where? Glen Rose Cretaceous limestone/clay formation (Central Texas) allegedly 110 million years old; yet, direct C-14 dating of purified burnt and carbonized wood ranged from 12,800 to 38,420 C-14 years BP.

Side by side human diosaur footprints ere exposed as a hoax quite a while ago.

What once looked like Fred taking Dino out for “walkies” turns out to be a nothing.

Henry Morris’ son, John Morris, once wrote a book about the infamous human and dinosaur footprints running parallel to one another in the Paluxy riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas. That book was called Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs and the People Who Knew Them! (Creation Life Publishers, 1980).

Upon closer investigation, scientists discovered that the smaller footprints running beside the larger dinosaur tracks were also made by dinosaurs, albeit smaller ones. They were three-toed reptile tracks, eroded just enough to coarsely resemble “human” footprints. Besides, those smaller footprints were three feet long, revealing an animal who stood over twenty feet tall, but the ICR retorted that they were Nephilim footprints (the “giants” in the days of Noah, Genesis chapter six).

In addition, many well-defined, fossilized human footprints were sold around that site, but scientists quickly saw that those were fakes. During the 1930s, when the dinosaur tracks were first discovered, a bunch of Glen Rose residents sculpted fake footprints and sold them to tourists.

Six years after publication, John Morris acknowledged this dilemma in the ICR’s January 1986 Impact newsletter called “The Paluxy Mystery.” This is significant because the Institute for Creation Research almost never admits to errors.

Yet on February 25, 1996, Charlton Heston hosted a pseudo-documentary called Mysterious Origins of Man that resurrected the Fred Flintstone hoax all over again! skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=49

Just an interesting item. I am out of this discussion as it is no longer a debate, but it is moving to personal name calling. I refer to Tim being called delusional and also those of us who do not agree with Brian are seen as unbelievers and going to hell.

 

[Orogeny]

This God the deceiver is nonsense.

I agree. God is not a deceiver. The evidence is very clear on this - there has been no recent worldwide flood.

If you look back at the development of science how many times have we been deceived? We observed and came to wrong conclusions many many times. Was God deceiving us because some things are just tough to figure out and require iterations of refinement, or is it the simplicity of man that is the limit?

This isn’t something that is tough to figure out. The evidence of a global flood would be massive and absolutely obvious. Look at the mess in Iowa right now following a comparatively extremely minor flood. Look at the evidence left by the Missoula Floods. Again, those were a meer trickle compared to the flood described in Genesis.

If, in fact, a worldwide flood did occur and miraculously no evidence was left behind, God would have to be a deceiver. Since He is not, the lack of evidence means that the flood as described in Genesis did not occur.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

I agree. God is not a deceiver. The evidence is very clear on this - there has been no recent worldwide flood.This isn’t something that is tough to figure out. The evidence of a global flood would be massive and absolutely obvious. Look at the mess in Iowa right now following a comparatively extremely minor flood. Look at the evidence left by the Missoula Floods. Again, those were a meer trickle compared to the flood described in Genesis.

If, in fact, a worldwide flood did occur and miraculously no evidence was left behind, God would have to be a deceiver. Since He is not, the lack of evidence means that the flood as described in Genesis did not occur.

Peace

Tim

Actually I was making a broader point, because this argument comes up a lot. I think it is an invalid argument, for it assumes God is under some kind of constraint to make things obvious to man.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Something to think about, this is in reference to the post about how we are raised into the belief of Darwinism from the get go and why it’s so hard for many of these people to see through the fog on this issue.

My employer has a rather nobel cause for his operation, it is to end racism. He mentioned a study they ran in the 60’s, where children were presented with two dolls, one of them dark skinned, the other light, and were asked a series of questions about them. Keep in mind, the dolls were both identacle except for skin color. The children being asked these questions were from various races.

They were asked questions such as which doll is smarter, which one is better, which one will grow up to become wealthier, etc. The percentage of the answers always pointed towards the lighter skinned dolls having the advantages. Keep in mind the context of the children, regardless of race, they all gave the lighter skinned dolls the positive traits and rejected the darker ones.

We then see what is going on with this issue as adults and in many cases, have tried to end that nonsense type of mentality, for we all know, race has no bearing along any of these matters at all. This same thing is going on with what we are teaching in school about darwinism. If you ask the average grade school student these same questions in regards to an individual that believes in creation over evolution, you will get similar results, for the most part, in favor of the evolutionist, and they will likely proclaim that the creationist is backwards in their thinking.

This in turn translates to now an adult thinking the same way, thus this debate we see here. Posting the links to the evidence is ignored by the opposing sides, posting clear messages as to the recent discoveries made are again ignored, posting raw unadulterated logical arguments are not rebutted, and we here the same parrotted statements, as if to say, they messages were not posted in the first place, or they choose to simply ignore them all together and simply repeat the same thing over and over again.

My point here, we really need to educate the children along this debate rather then let the secular world dictate what they learn for it is cutting their existances short and I as a parent would be insulted if my child was forced to learn and accept something that was clearly wrong and ultimately, against God himself. My boss’s angle on the matter of racism is along those lines, to educate children about tolerance, about the ubsurdity of judging someone based upon skin color. He is doing this in opposition to the current market, which if you go into a toy store, the dolls you will find will be light skinned and on rare occassions, you will find a dark skinned one, but it’s just the same mold, different color, wouldn’t you think these players would address the physical characteristics as well? Well, they simply do not, for they do not understand the negative impact they are making, the same context as to what is taught in science class about evolution, the flood, about God himself.

I guess I was lucky later on in life, I ran into a good teacher and he set me straight, for I too used to believe in evolution. If I can turn away from that nonsense as an adult, surely others can as well.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

My point here, we really need to educate the children along this debate rather then let the secular world dictate what they learn for it is cutting their existances short and I…

Not just the children, the Pope too! Would you be willing to set up a remedial education class for the Pope on scriptural exegesis and biology? You get the material ready and I’ll email His Holiness to see when he’s available for you to show him the TRUTH.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Not just the children, the Pope too! Would you be willing to set up a remedial education class for the Pope on scriptural exegesis and biology? You get the material ready and I’ll email His Holiness to see when he’s available for you to show him the TRUTH.

Neil, I hate to break the news to you, but the Pope is a human being, he goes to confession just like the rest of us, if he was infallable, he would not need to do so. The debate here, you are misinterpreting what he’s teaching in the first place regardless.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

the Pope is a human being, he goes to confession just like the rest of us, if he was infallable, he would not need to do so

I see…
Well try explaining this quote from the current pope:

Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. … To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

 

[peary]

If, in fact, a worldwide flood did occur and miraculously no evidence was left behind, God would have to be a deceiver. Since He is not, the lack of evidence means that the flood as described in Genesis did not occur.

Peace

Tim

There wasn’t a “worldwide” flood per se. As I posted before, there were several massive and destructive floods that consumed whole areas throughout the earth immediately following the ending of the last ice age. Practically every country today in the northern hemisphere has some type of flood mythology. The Chinese document an early deluge around 5000 BC that wiped out two-thirds of its civilization. Stories abound in both Indonesia and Australia among the aborigines; you have various geologically-proven floods in the Persian Gulf, a flood that consumed the Tigris-Euphrates river valley (and from where the story of Noah originated), around the Black Sea area, a deluge that inundated Turkey, Greece and Egypt, etc. All of these occurred roughly in the same time period - between 12,000 - 6000 BC. A period of massive flooding after the last ice age is geologically validated, but one which covered the entire planet and wiped out all living things, no. It just isn’t there in the planet’s geology.