Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Philipp]

Since no one seems to take issue with Catholic Apologetics and Dr. Wiseman’s analysis showing that Moses must have written Genesis based on his own historical observations while perhaps visiting Egyptian libraries and during his 40 years of travels I suggest other supporting evidences for the flood of Noah and the need for the Ark as Moses so wrote:

THE MECHANICS OF SEDIMENT DEPOSITION CHALLENGES THE LONG AGES FOR THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN FROM THE CRETACEOUS TO THE CAMBRIAN. A common argument against the flood of Noah involves varves — rock formations with alternating layers of fine, dark, and coarse light sediment. Annual changes are assumed to deposit bands with light layers in summer and dark layers in winter. It is reported that some rock formations contain hundreds of thousands of varves, thereby ‘proving’ the earth is much older than suggested by the flood story. But, the assumption that each couplet always takes a year to form is wrong. Recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis can deposit banded rock formations very quickly. The Mount St Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!

 

[Philipp]

LABORATORY STUDIES OF HOW SEDIEMENTS FORM CONFIRM FIELD OBSERVATIONS: When sedimentation was studied in the laboratory, it was discovered that fine bands form automatically as the moving water transports the different sized particles sideways into position. Surprisingly, the thickness of each band was found to depend on the relative particle sizes rather than on the flow conditions. A layered rock (diatomite) was separated into its particles, and when redeposited in flowing fluid, identical layers formed.
Other laboratory evidence confirming the above observations by scientists of The Institute for Creation Research and their references comes from two articles in the scientific journal Nature in vol. 386, 27 March 1997. The authors of (#1) and (#2) references for which I give the abstracts below seem to think they made a great discovery when this has been shown by others Like ICR and other American scientists (1965 in sediments of a Colorado disaster) French (1980’s) and German (1895 in Bay of Naples coring) scientists before them.

(#1) “Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures” Hernan A. Makse . , Center for Polymer Studies and Physics Department Boston University, Boston MA and scientists from Bar Han University Israel and BP Exploration Operating company Ltd, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex UK.
ABSTRACT: “Granular materials segregate according to grain size when exposed to periodic perturbations such as vibrations. Moreover, mixtures of grains of different sizes can also spontaneously segregate in the absence of external perturbations when such a mixture is simply poured onto a pile, the large grains are more likely to be found near the base, while the small grains are more likely to be near the top. Here we report another size-separation effect, which arises when we pour a granular mixture between two vertical plates: the mixture spontaneously stratifies into alternating layers of small and large grains whenever the large grains have larger angle of repose than the small grains. We find only spontaneous segregation, without stratification, when the large grains have smaller angle of repost than the small grains. The stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches: during each avalanche, the grains separate into a pair of static layers, with the small grains forming a sublayer underneath the layer of large grains.”
(#2) ”From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides” by Jay Fineberg.
ABSTRACT: A mixture of two different types of grain can undergo spontaneous stratification simply be being poured. This surprising behaviour may be significant in fields from pharmaceuticals to geology.” ---- Figure 2 of this paper shows a photograph of the long runout rock slide that wiped out the town of Frank in Alberta, Canada in 1903. After an initial one kilometre fall, the slide traveled more than four kilometres across the valley below, and was finally stopped by the opposite slope. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH DARWIN AND LYELL’S CLAIMS.

 

[Philipp]

ICR–Much is often made of the Green River varves, in Wyoming, USA. But these bands cannot possibly be annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments. It is unthinkable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment. Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. It is often claimed that the fish and birds remained in prime condition at the bottom of the lake because the water was highly alkaline and this preserved their carcasses. Yet highly alkaline water causes organic material to disintegrate, and that is why alkaline powder is used in dishwashers! [Ed. note: some skeptics have claimed that alkali merely ‘cuts grease’, evidently ignorant of the elementary chemistry involved, i.e. base-catalyzed hydrolysis of polymers, which would do the opposite of preserving the fish.] Another problem for the varve explanation is that the number of bands is not consistent across the formation as it should be if they were annual deposits.

CONCLUSIONS OF THIS LITTLE EXCERCISE IN SEDIMENT FORMATION-------(1) The geologic column of supposed 600 million years is NOT a measure of time. (2) The position of a fossil very low in the geologic rock strata like trilobites etc does NOT support the idea of descent from a common ancestor. They were just buried first as they sea bottom dwellers. (3) Evolution is therefore based on false assumptions.
MOSES GOT IT RIGHT; DARWIN AND LYELL GOT IT WRONG.

 

[Orogeny]

CONCLUSIONS OF THIS LITTLE EXCERCISE IN SEDIMENT FORMATION-------(1) The geologic column of supposed 600 million years is NOT a measure of time.

It is clearly a measure of relative time. None of those studies refute that fact.

(2) The position of a fossil very low in the geologic rock strata like trilobites etc does NOT support the idea of descent from a common ancestor. They were just buried first as they sea bottom dwellers.

Of course they died first. They lived a long time before their descendants. If what you say is true, why is the fossil record so consistent?

(3) Evolution is therefore based on false assumptions.
MOSES GOT IT RIGHT; DARWIN AND LYELL GOT IT WRONG.

You don’t even understand what evolution is, much less what it is based on.

Peace

Tim

 

[Philipp]

Today, 4:28 am
Orogeny
Senior Member Join Date: August 17, 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,623

Re: Story of Noah who belives it to be real?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipp
CONCLUSIONS OF THIS LITTLE EXCERCISE IN SEDIMENT FORMATION-------(1) The geologic column of supposed 600 million years is NOT a measure of time.

It is clearly a measure of relative time. None of those studies refute that fact.
Quote:
(2) The position of a fossil very low in the geologic rock strata like trilobites etc does NOT support the idea of descent from a common ancestor. They were just buried first as they sea bottom dwellers.

Of course they died first. They lived a long time before their descendants. If what you say is true, why is the fossil record so consistent?
Quote:
(3) Evolution is therefore based on false assumptions.
MOSES GOT IT RIGHT; DARWIN AND LYELL GOT IT WRONG.

You don’t even understand what evolution is, much less what it is based on.

Peace

Tim

(1) These sedimentology studies DO show that the top layer is not necessarily younger than the one below and the ones many 100’s or even 1000’s of feet below the top strata are not necessarily way older than the top rock strata deposited originally by rapid flowing waters. They could have been deposited in days, weeks or months of each other. Therefore scientists are not justified in saying that the designated Cretaceous strata is millions of years younger than the Jurassic, the Jurassic millions of years younger than the Devonian and so on down to the Cambrian supposedly 600 million years old.

(2) The above is born out by the facts that (a) carbon 14 ages for dinosaur bone organics and bone apatite from the Creatceous and the Jurassic designated strata are 2000 TIMES YOUNGER than the 70 to 150 Million years assigned to them (b) Our human ancestors of 500 to 2000 years before the present (BP) have accurately depicted world-wide the modern paleontological depictions of dinosaurs SO THEY MUST HAVE SEEN THEM ALIVE. (c) The once controversial dinosaur and human footprints together in alleged 100 Million year old Cretaceous limestone in the middle of the Paluxy River TX have been confirmed repeatedly as valid by the discovery of many PRISTINE fossil human and dinosaur footprints well above the river bottom under tons of cretaceous rock including three distinct trails. Fossils wood in the Paluxy strata are as young as dinosaur bones tested by the C-14 method - in the 1000’s of years BP. THE FOSSIL RECORD IS THEREFORE CONSISTENT IN FAVOR OF ABRUPT APPEARANCE THEORY BUT NOT THE MACROEVOLUTION THEORY commonly taught by academia.

The implications of (a) successful, direct C-14 testing of dinosaur bones, (b) accurate archaeological depictions of dinosaurs world-wide by our post-flood ancestors and (c) obvious coexistence of fossil human and dinosaur footprints together and human ones in supposed even more ancient strata without dinosaur prints simply destroys the theory of macroevolution and supports the story of Noah and the Ark as revealed to Moses and posted in Genesis 6-9, Hebrews 11:7, Peter 2:5, Peter 3:3-6, Matt 24: 36-39, Luke 17: 26-30. Moses is

Two major additional points: (a) Certainly some strata can form by TWICE DAILY tides such as seems to have occurred in the upper strata of the Glen Rose Formation where human and dinosaur footprints have been discovered together so I would agree with you when you say in (1) that strata formation can occur as a function of “relative time” but the relative time in this case is obviously in terms of hours not 1000’s of years; that alone rules out macroevolution, or descent of man and mammals from a common ancestor. (b) Certainly MICRO-evolution has occurred, or to minimize the confusion falsely created by atheistic evolutionists by equating macro with micro it is more honest to say that there have been changes within a given kind or species over time BUT THAT IS NOT DESCENT FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR WHICH IS TAUGHT IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AS A FACT [or should it be called The Big Lie?]

(3) I don’t think I need comment much on the remark regarding my not knowing what evolution is all about. The aforementioned lab and field studies speak for themselves and they are just some of the cutting edge scientific evidences that have surfaced in the past 25 or so years. I therefore urge that everyone take a few minutes to examine these web sites in particular www.KolbeCenter.org which is Catholic, www.omniology.org and for creationism.org/swift/index.htm which provide evidence of dinosaur and man coexistence. Visit www.creationevidence.org for the Alvis Delk footprints which is the actual fossil ichnite of a dinosaur footprint pushing the then mud into the arch of an eleven inch long human footprint impression [one of seven prints of that series].

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

how exactly did the 600 years old Noah and his family gather the 1,190,200 known species of invertebrates, 5416 species of mammals, 5743 species of amphibians, 9917 species of birds and appx. 8163 species of reptiles, - and each species with its many different families and subgroups? And this in only seven days?
And of humans there were only four pairs: Noah (hardly particularly fertile when 600 years old), his wife and their three sons and their wives.

**By telepathy, perhaps ? **​

**The problem with denying uniformity - as the later Henry Morris does in “The Genesis Flood” (it’s the backbone of his book’s argument) - is that there is no reason left why that should not be the correct answer. If the world worked in a completely different way before the Flood from the way in which it works now, then anything may have happened; that it does not now do so, ceases to be an objection. **

Maybe Noah had a TARDIS; maybe the Ark was a TARDIS

More seriously:

**Noah may have been no more decrepit at 600 than a man dying at 70 would be when 40 or 50 - bearing in mind that Noah dies at 950. He would have lived less than 2/3 of his life-span when the Flood came. **

**This, if true, would create problems - for 10 generations of patriarchs from Adam to Noah having lots & lots & lots of offspring over the centuries would have increased the population a very great deal. **

One would have

• 1656 years from creation of man to the Flood
• minus the first 130 of Adam’s years = 1526
• minus the last 500 of Noah’s life before the Flood
• **which comes to 1026 years **
• for 10 patriarchs to increase & multiply
  **All those “sons and daughters”, many (all ?) of whom would also have been having children of their own, would bring forth a lot of people. **

**How would the animal waste be cleared away ? That is a lot of animals to tend - especially if there are just eight people to do the tending. If one includes all those that had not become extinct, such as the dodo, the number increases. Elephants produce gigantic turds - are we to believe they had not smell If so - on what evidence ? **

**Turds, great or small, produce gases - how would it be possible to live in so confined an environment, without the animals falling sick ? And what about the microbes & so on that carry infections from turds to animals or people: are they among the animals counted onto the Ark ? How would food be stored for so many & such various animals; & stored in conditions that would keep it fresh, untainted, & in sufficient quantity to last the full duration of that experience ? **

What about the gestation periods of the different mammals ? The implication is that not a single animal was pregnant or born - is this plausible ? If any were pregnant or born, they would need tending too. In so confined & malodorous an environment, which there is no reason to suppose was as hygienic as a well-equipped modern hospital or operating theatre, how could this have been done ?

The sound of so many frightened animals, many of them in an environment completely different from that to which they were accustomed, must have been a nightmare in itself.

The narrative in Genesis does not cope with questions like these - it implies a static knowledge of animals & their care, as though all that signified was their being counted onto the Ark. The practicalities that must have followed their embarcation don’t get a look-in. Whatever the sense in which this narrative is true, it cannot be intended as a faithful record of real events. It must therefore be true in some other way.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I read it in the Book of Enoch " His hair was white and fine as snow".

**See Daniel 7 for that too **​

I know the Book of Enoch isnt in your Bible but all the same i was reading it for education…

:knight1:

 

[juliamajor]

I think many people read Genesis but really don’t understand it.for some reason people get caught up in the whole creationist thing,or worry about details that have little or no import.What is the point of the story? What is it’s meaning? In light of other Creation myths of the mid East how and why is this one different? Creation stories are generally what we start our kids on when we teach bible.Then we stop there- at a child’s perspective.We have learned the basics when we were milk fed- as a grown up it’s time of solid food.Too many lean on what they learned as a child in CCD and then go no further- too bad. there is much more there if you only look for it…PS Michael- I’ve got to say I like the TARDIS idea and the gaseous turds!! LOL

 

[Orogeny]

(1) These sedimentology studies DO show that the top layer is not necessarily younger than the one below and the ones many 100’s or even 1000’s of feet below the top strata are not necessarily way older than the top rock strata deposited originally by rapid flowing waters. They could have been deposited in days, weeks or months of each other. Therefore scientists are not justified in saying that the designated Cretaceous strata is millions of years younger than the Jurassic, the Jurassic millions of years younger than the Devonian and so on down to the Cambrian supposedly 600 million years old.

No, they show that particle sorting occurs under different conditions. They do not in any way refute the fact that deeper sedimentary rocks are older than shallower sedimentary rocks.

For example, did any of those studies produce a carbonate beneath a shale beneath a carbonate? No, but we do find that in nature. How can that be?

(2) The above is born out by the facts that (a) carbon 14 ages for dinosaur bone organics and bone apatite from the Creatceous and the Jurassic designated strata are 2000 TIMES YOUNGER than the 70 to 150 Million years assigned to them

Only if you either don’t understand carbon dating or you are intentionally misusing the method to justify your beliefs.

You ignored my link to Christian scientists that refute your C-14 claims. Why is that?

(b) Our human ancestors of 500 to 2000 years before the present (BP) have accurately depicted world-wide the modern paleontological depictions of dinosaurs SO THEY MUST HAVE SEEN THEM ALIVE.

Yep, and there is tons of evidence for alien beings in Aztec temple drawings. Just ask the great Eric von Daniken.

(c) The once controversial dinosaur and human footprints together in alleged 100 Million year old Cretaceous limestone in the middle of the Paluxy River TX have been confirmed repeatedly as valid by the discovery of many PRISTINE fossil human and dinosaur footprints well above the river bottom under tons of cretaceous rock including three distinct trails.

Nope. Those “human” prints are dinosaur prints. If you were honest, you would admit that. Even your fellow YECs admit that.

Fossils wood in the Paluxy strata are as young as dinosaur bones tested by the C-14 method - in the 1000’s of years BP. THE FOSSIL RECORD IS THEREFORE CONSISTENT IN FAVOR OF ABRUPT APPEARANCE THEORY BUT NOT THE MACROEVOLUTION THEORY commonly taught by academia.

Sure they do. If you misuse the technique and the data.

The implications of (a) successful, direct C-14 testing of dinosaur bones, (b) accurate archaeological depictions of dinosaurs world-wide by our post-flood ancestors and (c) obvious coexistence of fossil human and dinosaur footprints together and human ones in supposed even more ancient strata without dinosaur prints simply destroys the theory of macroevolution and supports the story of Noah and the Ark as revealed to Moses and posted in Genesis 6-9, Hebrews 11:7, Peter 2:5, Peter 3:3-6, Matt 24: 36-39, Luke 17: 26-30. Moses is

All that shows is that you will go to any length to justify your position. Unfortunately for you, there are people on this forum that understand the science and won’t accept your deceit.

Two major additional points: (a) Certainly some strata can form by TWICE DAILY tides such as seems to have occurred in the upper strata of the Glen Rose Formation where human and dinosaur footprints have been discovered together so I would agree with you when you say in (1) that strata formation can occur as a function of “relative time” but the relative time in this case is obviously in terms of hours not 1000’s of years; that alone rules out macroevolution, or descent of man and mammals from a common ancestor.

How can the fact that sediments are deposited in tidal surges twice daily rule out evolution? Do you seriously think that scientists don’t know that sedimentation occurs constantly in some environments?

(b) Certainly MICRO-evolution has occurred, or to minimize the confusion falsely created by atheistic evolutionists by equating macro with micro it is more honest to say that there have been changes within a given kind or species over time BUT THAT IS NOT DESCENT FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR WHICH IS TAUGHT IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AS A FACT [or should it be called The Big Lie?]

There is a big lie alright, but it is not what you are suggesting.

Evolution is evolution. Micro leads to macro regardless of how much you deny it.

(3) I don’t think I need comment much on the remark regarding my not knowing what evolution is all about. The aforementioned lab and field studies speak for themselves and they are just some of the cutting edge scientific evidences that have surfaced in the past 25 or so years. I therefore urge that everyone take a few minutes to examine these web sites in particular www.KolbeCenter.org which is Catholic, www.omniology.org and for creationism.org/swift/index.htm which provide evidence of dinosaur and man coexistence. Visit www.creationevidence.org for the Alvis Delk footprints which is the actual fossil ichnite of a dinosaur footprint pushing the then mud into the arch of an eleven inch long human footprint impression [one of seven prints of that series].

You don’t need to comment on it because your statements make it completely clear that you don’t know what you are talking about.

You have ignored the posting I made regarding your C-14 results. Why is that?

Peace

Tim

 

[Brian_Millar]

Once the animals boarded, they hibernated, no need to do much tending there. Why would God make this task an impossible one, of course he has everything covered, just as he does with everything, it’s only man that questions the how element.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Once the animals boarded, they hibernated, no need to do much tending there. Why would God make this task an impossible one, of course he has everything covered, just as he does with everything, it’s only man that questions the how element.

Yes, God does have everything covered - that does not mean that the animals hibernated; nor that the narrative is a record of real events.​

If they all did so - why do they not all do so now ?

Or: if some did, & others not, which ones ? And what reason can be suggested for the difference ?

It is not good reasoning to explain an uncertainty by positing something even less certain to account for it.

The USA may have been settled by Romans in 300 BC; there may even be POVs within which that is plausible as a statement of fact, & is a plausible explanation for various features of US life. The reason no historian suggests it, is that there is no known reason to believe it to be the case - not because there is a conspiracy to suppress it. What’s more, it is an unnecessary explanation - although state Capitols could be used as evidence for its validity, they can be explained without resorting to such an idea; the explanation by Roman settlement, has nothing to do; it accounts for things which can be accounted for quite differently, & in a satisfactory manner. So it is useless.

As with that example, so with the voyagers in the ark. To take the text as a narrative of what happened raises issues which need to be accounted for by those who interpret the text in this way. To insist it is a record of real events raises a lot of issues, which need accounting for; in a plausible way. One implausible account for the collection of the animals would be that the animals travelled from their respective areas through a rip in space to the Ark; this explains how they were collected, but it creates difficulties of its own, of a sort which disqualify from being a serious explanation. It is no use being able to explain something, if the explanation is itself implausible. Hibernation has its attraction as an explanation; but if it is correct, why do not all animals hibernate ? That they do not, does not make that explanation plausible.

One cannot AFAICS argue from a theological fact, such as a Divine attribute - in this instance, the Providence of God - to an historical reality. This is because they are applicable to different subject matters; they are incommensurable - there is no proportion between them, just as there is no proportion between bodily size & moral excellence. If there were, it would be possible to say that a tall Saint “must be” more virtuous than a short one - which is absurd.

A second reason: the set of objects subject to Divine Providence is very great; nothing created is outside it. So the fact of its exercise does not specify which particular object is being affected by it in a specific way. That God rules all men does not tell us in what particular manner God is acting in a particular man; only that He is acting in all men including each particular man. So the argument from the fact of Providence does not tell us how God was acting toward those animals

If OTOH the Flood narrative is not a record of real events, then there are no animals to account for. The text can remain true - but not as history.

 

[Philipp]

I remember faking something like this in third grade!

 

[Philipp]

Philipp:
Is the above comment by Petrus [drmpjhess ] adding anything to this discussion of evidences for or against this topic? If there is anyone faking anything on this thread it is not those who are showing evidences against the fairy tale of evolution.

Would Orogeny or anyone else like to explain to me how a dinosaur could have made the human footprint in the photo noted in the web site below [and on page 17 of this thread]? Note that the second toe is a 1/4inch or so longer than the big toe. I saw two people in sandles at a hospital today with that exact same toe confirguration. About one in ten people have that second toe longer than the big toe according to scientists who have studied human feet. I have a biology teacher friend who’s second toe is 1/2inch longer than the big toe. Look at your own feet, you may be one of those luckey one in ten, Ha.

The point is that this print is NOT a fake like Orogony and his stooges claim they are — made by dinosaurs — come on give us a break! Were the dinosaurs wearing fake human feet? Did erosion cause those toes to appear? If erosion caused the toes how come the dinosaur footprint pushed mud into the arch of the human footprint impression??? TE’s are irrational and just can’t admit evolution is a stupid hypothesis - not even a theory. Pride cometh before the fall. For the details of the prints go to or visit page 17 of this thread.

75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=24

I’ve been challenged to respond to some alleged explanation why the C-14 dating of dinosaur bones is invalid. I’ve answered that question many times. If Orogony would like to repost the reference I’d be happy to reexplain.in case I missed something.

If anyone wants to challenge the details of how Noah may have gotten all those species on board you might try John Woodmorappe’s book “Noah’s Ark a feasibility study”, I suspect it occurred to Noah as it did to his Creator that it would be wise to take baby animals on board to reduce the weight and needed care as well as perhaps let them hibernate as mentioned by another post and ignored by this thread’s TE’s.

Me thinks you hopelessly lost TE’s can’t see the forest for the trees. Of course Woodmorappe is an admitted creationist and therefore subject to all sort of misrepresentations and of course the usual rebuttles to neutralize the positive effects that might benefit this discussion. Oh yes he has also written a book on geochronology which supports my contentions that RC dating of fossils including diamonds, dinosasur bones, coal etc comes closer to the true ages for the earth and fossil burial sites. Moses is You TE’s ignore him and belittle the teachings of our church fathers and Lateran councils on origins and the flood at your own risk.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Yes, God does have everything covered - that does not mean that the animals hibernated; nor that the narrative is a record of real events.​

If they all did so - why do they not all do so now ? .

It was speculation, but the most logical one in my book. If he can manage to get them to board the ark, I think he can cover the rest of the logistix just fine, afterall, he’s not restricted by anything at all, of which we clearly are.

Why do they not do so now, there is no purpose for them to do so now, it was just for that one event.

Keep in mind, looking at what is current on this earth in no way reflects upon how things were working in ancient times, the planet was different on many levels.

 

[peary]

Aren’t you guys getting far away from the purpose of this simple thread?

 

[Philipp]

Aren’t you guys getting far away from the purpose of this simple thread?

The question was “The Story of Noah who believes it to be real?”
67% said they believed it to be real, that it was history. That being so why not provide “reasons to believe” before the TE’s brainwash the believers into joining their club? I think what I and others who believe in scripture are doing here in this thread could be called Catholic Apologetics. catholicapologetics.info/

It was Darwin’s theory of descent from a common ancestor ~hydrogen to swamp gas, the first life forms to worms to fish to rodents to ape like creatures or whatever they “believe”] along with Lyell’s geological assumptions that inspired attacks on church doctrine. Their’s and modern science continued speculations have confounded the belief in Genesis 1-11 as written by Moses [with the inspired word of God] that has been around since the early formation of the church.

Thus (1) it is only logical to present scientific data and offer speculations from whatever source from the last 25 or so years that would defend Catholic [Christian] doctrine from the speculations of evolutionary atheists and their theistic evolutionary counterparts (2) it is unfortunate that the Catholic church hierarchy and academia were so caught up in accepting evolutionary theory that they chose to ignore the writings of Fr. Patrick O’Connell and other Catholic scholars in the 1960’s. So now there is NO debate within the Catholic church and academia regarding origins accept here on CA and other blogs.

Thus Catholics have to rely primarily on the good scientific research of non-Catholic believers in the story of the Ark and the flood. When we do this we open ourselves to be called fundamentalists.

However that is no longer the case. Again I repeat go order the book, “The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11” from Amazon or Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation if you want to know the truth. There is a chapter on DOCTRINE SIXTEEN - ALL THE RACES OF MEN ON EARTH TODAY DESCENDED FROM THE THREE SONS OF NOAH. The author, Fr. Victor P. Warkulwiz has picked up were the ignored Fr. O’Connell left off. www.kolbecenter.org

The fossil human footprints with dinosaurs and those in other strata SUPPOSEDLY 100’s of millions of years old along with DIRECT dating of the fossils themselves [C-14] support doctrine 16 noted above. These footprints are thought to be those WHO MISSED THE BOAT. I pray that St. Lawrence of Brindisi who wrote on Genesis 1-11 etc under Pius V will inspire everyone on this thread to reexamine the subject of origins in the light of this new book so that “you don’t miss the boat.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

The story of Noah has true literal historical elements, as well as figurative elements. The figurative elements are necessary to emphasize the spiritual level of meaning of the story (such as salvation through the Church, and only through baptism). One need not conclude that all persons on earth are descended from Noah and his family. There may well have been many persons on earth who survived the great flood. The statements in the story about the depth and extent of the flood, and about the ark being the sole source of salvation from the flood are figurative elements.

The story of Noah need not be seen as either entirely fictional or entirely literal. Those are not the only two options.

 

[Orogeny]

Would Orogeny or anyone else like to explain to me how a dinosaur could have made the human footprint in the photo noted in the web site below [and on page 17 of this thread]?

Sure. No dinosaur did. A dishonest “archeologist” did.

Note that the second toe is a 1/4inch or so longer than the big toe. I saw two people in sandles at a hospital today with that exact same toe confirguration. About one in ten people have that second toe longer than the big toe according to scientists who have studied human feet. I have a biology teacher friend who’s second toe is 1/2inch longer than the big toe. Look at your own feet, you may be one of those luckey one in ten, Ha.

Wow, that proves it is real. I don’t suppose the “archeologist” could have possibly faked that too.

The point is that this print is NOT a fake like Orogony and his stooges claim they are — made by dinosaurs — come on give us a break!

OK, I’ll give you a break as soon as your “archeologist” submits the print to a credible university for verification. Once real scientists agree, I’ll give you a break. Until then, sorry, no break.

Were the dinosaurs wearing fake human feet? Did erosion cause those toes to appear? If erosion caused the toes how come the dinosaur footprint pushed mud into the arch of the human footprint impression??? TE’s are irrational and just can’t admit evolution is a stupid hypothesis - not even a theory. Pride cometh before the fall. For the details of the prints go to or visit page 17 of this thread.

I’ll admit that those prints were not the product of erosion. They are the products of dishonest people trying their hardest to support their weak faith and to fool like-minded people into dismissing the overwhelming real evidence of an old earth and evolution.

I’ve been challenged to respond to some alleged explanation why the C-14 dating of dinosaur bones is invalid. I’ve answered that question many times. If Orogony would like to repost the reference I’d be happy to reexplain.in case I missed something.

Here is the link I posted earlier. There are several parts, including a reply by Snelling and others. The things I would like you to reply to are specifically the parts about radiocarbon dating and the fact that the scientists who are opposing RATE’s results are Christians, not atheists pushing an agenda. Specifically, explain how your testing doesn’t have the same problems that RATE’s data has.

I believe (although it may have been someone else) I asked you about having your data peer reviewed and published by a mainstream scientific journal. Your conclusions are irrelevant if they are not based on proper sampling and testing and your word alone that they are is not accepable. The burden of proof is on you.

asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm

Me thinks you hopelessly lost TE’s can’t see the forest for the trees. Of course Woodmorappe is an admitted creationist and therefore subject to all sort of misrepresentations and of course the usual rebuttles to neutralize the positive effects that might benefit this discussion. Oh yes he has also written a book on geochronology which supports my contentions that RC dating of fossils including diamonds, dinosasur bones, coal etc comes closer to the true ages for the earth and fossil burial sites. Moses is You TE’s ignore him and belittle the teachings of our church fathers and Lateran councils on origins and the flood at your own risk.

Woodmorappe deserves to be ignored. I don’t have any fear based on my acceptance of fact.

Peace

Tim

 

[juliamajor]

Once the animals boarded, they hibernated, no need to do much tending there. Why would God make this task an impossible one, of course he has everything covered, just as he does with everything, it’s only man that questions the how element.

The problem is that you are going literally by the text- if you do that then there is no wiggle room. Either it states that they hibernated or it doesn’t. To say anything else is (gasp!) interpreting it. You can’t take this story literally then turn around and add something not there…Taking Noah as history is foolish- it was never meant that way.Compare it to other Creation stories of the area and you’ll see more clearly the point the writer was trying to make.(try Atraharsis or Gilgamesh and compare with Noah) good hunting

 

[costruire]

This is just a poll. No debate here. I’m simply interested in the statistics of who believes it is real and who thinks it was just a story.

Like someone else said earlier, I prefer straight belief over “logic-chopping”, and whether that makes me a fool in other peoples’ eyes is inconsequential. So yes, I believe it happened as it is described in the Bible.