Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Contarini]

Some here have difficulty believing the Flood occurred, but have no difficulty believing that God became man, was crucified for our sins, and was resurrected three days after his death.

Of course I have difficulty believing it. Where do you get the odd idea that I or anyone else would not have difficulty believing in the Incarnation and Resurrection? Do you see no distinction between having difficulty with something and disbelieving it?

I see no good reason to think that the Flood story needs to be read as a historical narrative. It is part of a series of stories about the origins of human sinfulness and God’s attempts to get through to human beings and make covenants with them.

As for the difficulties mentioned, they are different. The Incarnation and Resurrection are clearly intended to be read as miracles–divine interventions into human history. The Flood story is a divine action, but the mechanics used are presumably intended to be read as natural: the “windows of heaven” are opened and the “fountains of the deep” are unlocked. This seems to presuppose that there is/was a lot of water up above the sky (the creationists get the “canopy theory” from this, but there’s no indication in the text that this water was held to have been all used up), and also stores of water underneath the earth. It sounds like a basically scientific explanation. We are not presumably expected to believe that God miraculously created ex nihilo a vast quantity of water and then made it vanish again when it had done its job. Yet that is what a literal interpretation in terms of modern science requires us to believe. The Resurrection poses no such difficulties. That story is about the transformation of matter, not simply about one kind of matter being transferred from one place to the other (which is how the Flood is described).

Miracles are not acts of arbitrary power. They are in accord with reason. If you don’t believe that, you don’t believe in the God of classical Christian theism.

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

Of course I have difficulty believing it. Where do you get the odd idea that I or anyone else would not have difficulty believing in the Incarnation and Resurrection? Do you see no distinction between having difficulty with something and disbelieving it?

Do you see that every post isn’t about you, Edwin?

I merely noted that there are two camps of those who find it difficult to believe The Flood occurred. Isn’t it odd that the religious camp have no trouble believing in the Incarnation or the Resurrection, although their source is the same?

I see no good reason to think that the Flood story needs to be read as a historical narrative. It is part of a series of stories about the origins of human sinfulness and God’s attempts to get through to human beings and make covenants with them.

Well, that’s a relief!

Wait, you’re not Pope.

As for the difficulties mentioned, they are different. The Incarnation and Resurrection are clearly intended to be read as miracles–divine interventions into human history. The Flood story is a divine action, but the mechanics used are presumably intended to be read as natural: the “windows of heaven” are opened and the “fountains of the deep” are unlocked. This seems to presuppose that there is/was a lot of water up above the sky (the creationists get the “canopy theory” from this, but there’s no indication in the text that this water was held to have been all used up), and also stores of water underneath the earth. It sounds like a basically scientific explanation. We are not presumably expected to believe that God miraculously created ex nihilo a vast quantity of water and then made it vanish again when it had done its job. Yet that is what a literal interpretation in terms of modern science requires us to believe. The Resurrection poses no such difficulties. That story is about the transformation of matter, not simply about one kind of matter being transferred from one place to the other (which is how the Flood is described).

All of the above is woolgathering. A God who can create the universe from nothing, which Big Bang cosmology confirms, can make it rain.

Miracles are not acts of arbitrary power. They are in accord with reason. If you don’t believe that, you don’t believe in the God of classical Christian theism.

Edwin

The reasons for The Flood were provided. Beyond that, you haven’t bothered to craft an argument, as usual.

And I’ll take your evidence for the bolded portion, please. This isn’t even Anglican dogma.

 

[Orogeny]

(8) through (13) are radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bone bioapatite and organic components, the same as for the above magafauna; all lived at the same time period. There is NO 65 million years between man and dinosaur and therefore NO evolution of man. Pristine human footprints have also been found repeatedly with Dinosaur footprints in alleged 100 million year old strata over the last 25 years in Texas limestone thus confirming C-14 data for their bones. Dinosaur depictions are world wide as noted on many web sites.

Even your fellow YECs would disagree with you here. From : answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

“Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.”

Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However, there is much other evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted—see Q&A: Dinosaurs.

Conclusions: The time-line for dinosaur/megafauna is the same, based on C-14 dating of the bones themselves [total organics and carbonate replacement of bone phosphate during the life of the beasts give the same age range - no contamination]. — These all important radiocarbon dates for fossils support the contentions that (1) the 65 million years of alleged evolution between man and dinosaurs does not exist and
(2) C-14 dating supports other lines of evidence that man and dinosaurs coexisted in time such as depictions of Brontosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Torosaurus and Crylophosaurus with the last two on Jewish temples. There are other types of dinosaurs world-wide that even Carl Sagan admitted exist and
(3) Challenges the age of 600 million years for the geologic column and descent of all life forms from common ancestors. In other words: Dinosaurs, saber tooth tigers, mammoths, mastodons, bison and sloths all lived at the same time based on radiocarbon dating of their bones alone. There is also ample scientific evidences that demonstrate that even the above radiocarbon dates may be too old. Depictions from only 100’s to 1000’s of years ago and human population calculations also show modern man [post flood man including Neanderthals] lived with the dinosaurian survivors of the Deluge.

If dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna and/or humans coexisted, why don’t we find their fossils in the same stata?

Peace

Tim

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

I think you should read the Bible again Edwin, Maybe you missed what i was pointing to…
The Nephilim race turned man into slaves and ate all the animals, Then once the food had run dry they ate humans, THAT i would say was the point of God doing the Ethnic cleansing…
You think that God would have just left his creation to the evil Nephilim breed that the fallen angels created??
If you look further ahead to a man called goliath! He was 1 of 5 brothers who was left from this breed of Nephilim…

I agree with whiteknite about the “sons of God”. If you read the book of Enoch it describes this pretty well. The Watchers (who were angelic creatures) had children by human women and begat an ungodly hybrid seed. The result was the Nephilim and other “ims” recorded before the flood and after.

As whiteknite pointed out, they were so large that they ate everything in sight and eventually started cannibalizing. They were ONE reason God sent the flood. I realize the book of Enoch isn’t part of accepted Scripture by either Protestants or Catholics, but it makes a lot of sense to me. The most recent copy I bought has an in-depth intro that discusses the validity or non-validity (as it were) of this book.

Peace…

MW

 

[whiteknite]

But there and throughout the OT the reason given is behavior, not an intrinsic racial taint.

Edwin

Edwin:- Read this and see what we are talking about…
I’m not saying your wrong just not educated on the subject
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
We can never stop learning…

Wђιτєкηιτє

 

[Brian_Millar]

This thread looks like it’s really taking off here, it’s strange though, the argument has turned into evolution verses creation yet again and is technically off topic of sorts, but it just keeps coming up and the usual debate ensues.

Along the measurment of the mountain’s gaining height. The problem exists with how current science does not take into account sudden changes in the earth mantle, it seems pretty constant, but like an earthquake for example, that happens dramatically and quickly. The earth tends to change in bursts and what current science is relying upon is mainly in between these bursts, then mis-applying a theory to it, in this case, thinking the mountain ranges are always a constant and can be measured. Well, you can measure how slowly they are currently moving and guestimate a prediction to the past, the same with plate techtonics, but clearly, it’s a flawed perspective.

 

[Orogeny]

This thread looks like it’s really taking off here, it’s strange though, the argument has turned into evolution verses creation yet again and is technically off topic of sorts, but it just keeps coming up and the usual debate ensues.

Along the measurment of the mountain’s gaining height. The problem exists with how current science does not take into account sudden changes in the earth mantle, it seems pretty constant, but like an earthquake for example, that happens dramatically and quickly. The earth tends to change in bursts and what current science is relying upon is mainly in between these bursts, then mis-applying a theory to it, in this case, thinking the mountain ranges are always a constant and can be measured. Well, you can measure how slowly they are currently moving and guestimate a prediction to the past, the same with plate techtonics, but clearly, it’s a flawed perspective.

What are you talking about? There is not theory behind measuring the height of mountains. You measure them. Period.

You seem to be implying that you have some special knowledge of the mantle that scientist (I assume geologists and geophysicists) don’t have. Please share. I would love to see your evidence.

Peace

Tim

 

[Teflon93]

This thread looks like it’s really taking off here, it’s strange though, the argument has turned into evolution verses creation yet again and is technically off topic of sorts, but it just keeps coming up and the usual debate ensues.

Along the measurment of the mountain’s gaining height. The problem exists with how current science does not take into account sudden changes in the earth mantle, it seems pretty constant, but like an earthquake for example, that happens dramatically and quickly. The earth tends to change in bursts and what current science is relying upon is mainly in between these bursts, then mis-applying a theory to it, in this case, thinking the mountain ranges are always a constant and can be measured. Well, you can measure how slowly they are currently moving and guestimate a prediction to the past, the same with plate techtonics, but clearly, it’s a flawed perspective.

You’re right, Brian.

There is a big problem with some of the models employed, one of which is that they don’t adequately account for the catastrophes that dot eons.

In statistics, we separate change into two categories—natural change (common cause variation) and unnatural change (special cause variation). The latter have well-defined causes—an earthquake, for example. The former do not, and represent more gradual change, such as erosion by wind or water.

The danger is when one mistakes the one for the other.

When statisticians try to predict from data, they do so bearing two principles in mind:

1. One can never predict beyond one’s data set (extrapolate from the historical data to the future) due to the probability of special cause variation striking again;
2. One can predict reliably only from the last point of special cause variation, due to the tendency of this catastrophic change to fundamentally alter the process being studied.

Let me provide a climate example.

An asteroid struck the Earth approximately 65 million years ago, a major catastrophe.

If we were biologists living 66 million years ago, and if we had catalogued a good deal of the species alive back then, what predictions might we have made for what the world would be like 64 million years ago?

Clearly, were we to extrapolate from available data 66 million years ago, we’d predict the Age of the Dinosaurs to continue another 2 million years. We would never presume that a tiny little oddity called a mammal to dominate the biosphere, nor that the mighty dinosaurs would disappear from the world.

Tim has great faith in measurement, and apparently has a time machine, since the only way to be sure of such measurements is to take them over the long (in this case, geologic) haul.

The problem with such things is that every measurement system has inherent variation in it, and this variation tends to invalidate results the further backward and forward one goes beyond one’s data set.

Another problem is that when we talk about things like climate and geological history, we’re actually employing different measurement systems with wide variability. The error is quite large, and honest researches tend to show great big margins of error in their results (though the press doesn’t tend to report these).

Beware when anyone claims to know much of anything about the ancient world; they are likely far beyond the available data to make such claims. We have very narrow windows through time at the moment; the ancient past is only slightly more explicable to us than the far future.

 

[drpmjhess]

Tim has great faith in measurement, and apparently has a time machine, since the only way to be sure of such measurements is to take them over the long (in this case, geologic) haul…

We know that the rate of rise of the Himalaya is 5mm per year, or 5 meters per thousand years. Assuming that a literal Noachian flood took place 4,000 years ago, the Himalaya were then 65 feet lower, or 28970 feet high. Thus God had to produce and remove 28,970 feet of water. Not an impossible miracle, of course.

 

[Teflon93]

We know that the rate of rise of the Himalaya is 5mm per year, or 5 meters per thousand years. Assuming that a literal Noachian flood took place 4,000 years ago, the Himalaya were then 65 feet lower, or 28970 feet high. Thus God had to produce and remove 28,970 feet of water. Not an impossible miracle, of course.

How do we know the rate of rise of the Himalayas? Is it a constant rate? For what period of time is the rate constant?

What method was used to calculate the rate, and off of what baseline?

 

[drpmjhess]

How do we know the rate of rise of the Himalayas? Is it a constant rate? For what period of time is the rate constant? What method was used to calculate the rate, and off of what baseline?

You’ll have to ask a geologist – I’m a Catholic theologian, not a scientist. The Catholic geologists at my university tell me that the Himalayas are rising because the Australasian plate is ramming India northward into Asia, thrusting the mountain belt upward at a rate of about 5mm per year. Insofar as my theology research and teaching relate to observable reality, I base it upon what the best of current science tells me, not on the speculations of maverick “flood geologists” and “Young Earth Creationists” who are not taken seriously by their profession.

Petrus

 

[Brian_Millar]

I’m looking at the continents and clearly see they are moving away from each other, you are now saying that this is not the case. If this is so, then they are shifting back and forth, this makes putting a time line based upon them not possible unless you have a system that takes this into account, of which at present, we have none.



I’ve read somewhere about how the planet actually flexes, going into an egg shape and back to a sphere as well, this throws more wrenches into the works. Did the planet expand and contract as well? You would think it does, we know it’s accumulating debree from space, so it does have a larger mass then what it originally started out with, but that’s a side element, yet if you think about it, logically it must be expanding, as pressure from the mantle presses down, it forces the superheated magma to rise to the surface through the path of least resistance, this in turn solidifies as a more porus substance helping to form islands and mountain ranges.

Now, taking the above into context, we have all of this water causing more pressure pushing the mantle downwards, this is a sudden event geologically, this causes the above system to come into place in short order creating rapid expansion and in turn, a place for the waters to settle, ie. the modern oceans as we know them now.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m looking at the continents and clearly see they are moving away from each other, you are now saying that this is not the case./QUOTE]

Some continents are moving away from each other, and some toward each other, and some crustal plates are sliding sideways with respect to other plates. Orogeny (mountain building) and subduction occur at plate boundaries.

 

[Teflon93]

You’ll have to ask a geologist – I’m a Catholic theologian, not a scientist. The Catholic geologists at my university tell me that the Himalayas are rising because the Australasian plate is ramming India northward into Asia, thrusting the mountain belt upward at a rate of about 5mm per year. Insofar as my theology research and teaching relate to observable reality, I base it upon what the best of current science tells me, not on the speculations of maverick “flood geologists” and “Young Earth Creationists” who are not taken seriously by their profession.

Petrus

Petrus-

I’m not being doctrinaire, here, just pointing out that when we here such things, we should be a bit skeptical. The fact is that when tectonic plates rub up against one another, we don’t get nice, gradual rise. We get fits and starts, and some catastrophic movements we call earthquakes.

Nor am I advocating the views of the young earth crowd or the “flood geologists”, whatever they may be.

The fact is that our knowledge of the ancient past is really, really limited, and unfortunately some scientists are wont to extrapolate well beyond the data. And no wonder—it’s bloody hard to prove anything!

If you think economics is “the dismal profession”, try statistics—it’s sobering to see how hard it is to deal with measurement error when you’re talking about things like tree rings and radioactive decay.

Hats off to the folks who continue to find innovative ways to probe the ancient past, but we need to keep asking, “What are your assumptions?”

Thanks for providing the Himalayas example—it’s a good one for the misuse of the mean.

 

[drpmjhess]

Petrus-I’m not being doctrinaire, here, just pointing out that when we here such things, we should be a bit skeptical. The fact is that when tectonic plates rub up against one another, we don’t get nice, gradual rise. We get fits and starts, and some catastrophic movements we call earthquakes.

Skepticism is good. My point was that the biblical literalists – of which Catholic Answers has its share in the form of converts from Fundamentalist Protestantism – exhibit gross ignorance of geology when they argue for a global flood and an Earth that is only 6,000 years old.

Petrus

 

[peary]

**Theoretically, as I said before, as the last Ice Age dispersed about 10,500 BC, there were great glacial floods all over the northern hemisphere. In fact, we know one that occurred in the northern United States that covered westward to the Pacific from the midwestern area. I don’t think one has to go through all sorts of jargon about tectonic plates, the expansion and contraction of the earth, etc. to figure out that human beings were placed in dangerous situations when the glaciers began to melt. The fact is, many many ancient cultures in the northern hemisphere have oral and written traditions about great floods which covered the earth - not necessarily the entire planet, but, at least, what they considered their universe of existence. The story of Noah probably originated from these traditions. **

 

[drpmjhess]

[BThe fact is, many many ancient cultures in the northern hemisphere have oral and written traditions about great floods which covered the earth - not necessarily the entire planet, but, at least, what they considered their universe of existence. The story of Noah probably originated from these traditions. **

Quite right. And most civilizations have arisen in river valleys that are subjected to periodic catastrophic flooding. Hence,stories about the ur-ancestor and his boat that saved all life.

Petrus

 

[Philipp]

Quite right. And most civilizations have arisen in river valleys that are subjected to periodic catastrophic flooding. Hence,stories about the ur-ancestor and his boat that saved all life.

Petrus

In my post page I provided a list of C-14 dates that supported the co-existence of dinosaurs and man. This chronology data was used to show that the Moses survival story appears to be a more valid explanation why many species appeared suddenly in the fossil record. It might be called The “Abrupt Appearance” theory.

Here are the references to those data as requested:

(1) (1) La Brea Tar Pit Series of Los Angeles, CA [Rainer Berger and W. F. Libby, UCLA Radiocarbon Dates VIII Radiocarbon volume 10, No 2, 1968, p. 402 to 403 [four of 12 femur bones are listed below with the youngest and the oldest age detected]. Note that these bones were in ancient petroleum which if not removed could give an incorrect C-14 age as quoted here: “Dense mid-shaft bone of femur of Smilodon californicus (saber tooth tiger) was used. Free amino acids were dated after liquid chromatography of collagen hydrolysate prepared according to procedures modified from Ho (1965) by T.Y. Ho. This procedure permits complete removal of petroleum contamination. NaOH treatment for possible humic acid contamination was included in a few samples.”

(2) pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-2-143.pdf Harrington, C.R. and R. Morlan. 2002. Evidence for human modification of a late pleistocene bison (bison sp.) Bone from the Klondike District, Yukon Territory, Canada. Arctic, Vol. 55 No 2 (June 2002) pp. 143-147.

(3) L.Agenbroad, J. I. Mead, and L. Nelson Eds.) Megafauna and Man: Discovery of
America’s Heartland. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Inc. Scientific
Papers, Volume 1. pp. 118-122. Hot Springs.

(4) Vasil’Chuk, Yurij, J. M. Punning, and A. Vasil’Chuk. 1997. Radiocarbon ages of mammoths in Northern Eurasia: Implications for population development and late quaternary environment. Radiocarbon 39(1):1-18.

(5) Vartanyan, S. L. 1995. Radiocarbon dating evidence for mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic ocean, until 2000 BC. Radiocarbon 37(1):1-6. packrat.aml.arizona.edu/Journal/v37n1/vartanyan.html
(6) Stuckenrath, R. Jr. and J. E. Mielke. 1970. Smithsonian Institution radiocarbon measurements VI. Radiocarbon 12(1): 193-204.

(7) Long, A. and P. S. Martin. 1974. Death of American ground sloths. Science 186(4164): 638-640.

(8) to (12) Fields, W. and H.R. Miller, J. Whitmore, D. Davis, G. Detwiler, J. Ditmars, R. Whitelaw, and G. Novaez, 1990, The Paluxy footprints revisited, in Walsh, Robert E. and Christopher L. Brooks, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Volume II, Technical Symposium Sessions and Additional Topics. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, p. 155-175. ---- Comment: The first three dinosaurs were tested for C-14 on conventional Beta counters as was Smilodon saber tooth tigers. The last two dinosaur bone samples were from the same dinosaur, Acrocanthosaurus, with different bone fragments tested on AMS at two different labs which gave concordant as well as more accurate RC dates with good precision. Preliminary C-14 testing on a conventional beta counter gave dates of >36,500 and >32,400 which were confusing. “Long counts” on Beta were unknown to the sample submitters at that time in 1990 so at the advise of the lab director, AMS was used for more accuracy and precision.

(13) Miller, H.R., J.R. Michaels, and M.M. Miller, 2006. Pioneering C-14 dating of Wyoming Amber and its Implications for a Young Earth and Global Catastrophism Vol. 43, CRSQ, page 91. See next post for authors scientific credentials.

Moses got it right

 

[Philipp]

As requested here is the background to the individual coauthors of the above references # 8-13 in my previous post: They are two chemists, an archaeologist, a geologist, a cultural anthropologist, a casting specialist, a physicist, a biology professor, an engineer who designed the nuclear powered engine room for the first ocean going freighter, a high school science teacher and a professional photographer.

The main detractor of these fossil human footporintst with dinosaurs who has NEVER excavated a pristine fossil human footprint with a dinosaur one [to any one’s knowledge], as most of the above coauthors have, has a biology degree and as I understand is a computer programmer. I’m unsure if he will ever be able to see the difference between a dinosaur footprint and a human one because he’s also a evolutionist but I bet that each of you WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO; just go to the web site www.creationevidence.org and visit the last link on the MENU on left side of home page.

Keep in mind that these footprints and the strata has been thoroughly studied for the past 25 years and that a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering has performed both lab and field studies that show these strata were laid down by the transport of huge quantities of sediments twice/day during what is considered the FLOOD OF NOAH. The original mud would have been 12 inches thick with the “fine clays” deposited last which then protected the footprints from being eroded before the second tide brought in another 12 inches of strata. We can see 5 or 6 strata looking up from the river. The llana Uplift of granite rock several miles or so away could have provided the last refuge for these several species including man according to these studies.

The Alvis Dyrk Cretaceous footprint is one of over 100 human ones uncovered in the past 25 years of which there are a series of footprint trails with prints having lengths of ~8.5 inch, 11.5 inch, 14 inch discontinuous ones, a 16 inch long one and even a 21 inch sequence which I and my team happened to see one week after excavation in 1983 On July 6, 1983 we undercovered a mate to the 11 inch long one shown in the Alvis Dyrk print under what was called the “coffin rock.”

One last comment: drpmjhess wrote that “When fascism arrives in the United States it will be wrapped in the flag of the United States and the cross.” Or something to that effect.

Rather I would say that: When Orwellian complete mind control arrives in the United States it will be wrapped in the flag of the United Nations, the religion of Darwinian evolution and the Chinese Communist program of one child per family. The religion of Darwin is already here and it is the intention of all varieties of evolutionists to try and abolish the Story of Noah and the flood (Ark) from the minds of men.

 

[drpmjhess]

The religion of Darwin is already here and it is the intention of all varieties of evolutionists to try and abolish the Story of Noah and the flood (Ark) from the minds of men.

Evolution is science, not religion, and where have you read that evolutionists try to abolish the story of Noah and the flood?