Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Orogeny]

Ok, with all due respect this leads me to some ideas on why your Catholicism is questioned so often. You are in a tiny minority – an orthodox Catholic believer in a field dominated by atheists. But I’ve asked you why so many scientists are atheist and you don’t know, or you blame the YEC position for causing them to be atheist…

My Catholicism is questioned by most on these threads simply because they require all “true Catholics” to support the YEC position, not because of my ideas.

The Catholic Church supported YEC for centuries (not taught formally but supported). This would mean that when the Church opened to evolution, all those Catholics would become atheist. But that didn’t happen.

What? That doesn’t reflect what I said at all. There are plenty of protestant faiths that don’t care what the Church teaches or supports. When one is told over and over that the earth was created as described in Genesis and that any belief otherwise is un-Christian, there is a conflict when that person finds out that there is overwhelming evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that the universe and the earth are old and that life has evolved. If that person believes what they have been taught, then the choice is to abandon faith or reason. That is a false choice, but not understanding the faith side, that person will have to decide. The vast majority would choose reason it would seem.

What does it say something about, if not science?

I never questioned my faith, nor was I ever challenged by my professors or the subject matter regarding my faith. How can that be if science is the cause for the high number of non-believers?

How is it that a ridiculous number of atheists collect in the field of science, but that fact alone doesn’t say anything about the science (or philosophy of science) that they’re attracted to?
This does not line up with reality. Again, if you want to convince ordinary people I think you should reflect on this point. People see that a vast majority of scientists are atheist. They talk to a Catholic scientist (yourself) about this and you say that the atheism has nothing to do with the field of science. But you also don’t have much of an idea or opinion on why a disproportiate number of scientists are atheistic.

I don’t understand why anyone is an athiest. My understanding of the problem isn’t relevant. You claim that it is science that causes athiesm. If that is true, shouldn’t the Church be vigorously opposing science? Do you oppose science?

By the way, I did give you an opinion as to why such a large number of scientists are non-believers.

Yes, but why relish a tiny number of Christian scientists - many who actually sound just like the atheists (never talking about God’s role, taking liberal-modernist views of the Bible and Catholic doctrine, and ridiculing the belief of the Church)?

Um, why wouldn’t you? That sounds like you write us off because we are a “tiny minority” (which I don’t believe is an accurate description on the number of scientists who accept God).

An orthdox Catholic, as I see it, should be outraged that science is dominated by unbelief and hatred of God.

Well, I guess I should be happy that your idea of orthodoxy isn’t the rule for all of us.

But all the Catholic-Darwinists I’ve seen on CAF are not outraged. They accept it as “normal” that there are so many atheistic scientists – and some of those Catholics never have even mild criticism of the atheistic culture of science.

Your requirement of outrage is your own. Is outrage a good apologetics tool?

I don’t think this is a good thing, but I"m also not suprised for reasons I gave. You don’t distinguish your position from atheistic-science very clearly. Obviously, a believer in God will have to view evolution differently than an atheist.

Of course you are not surprised. I don’t agree with what you consider to be a good Catholic (I’m not outraged), therefore, I’m not a good Catholic. Others don’t consider me to be a good Catholic because I don’t accept a literal reading of Genesis and others because I don’t accept fake footprints as evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Every YEC/creationist has their reason to think of themselves as better Catholics than I am.

Peace

Tim

 

[Veritas41]

this is backed up outside the Bible – many cultures around the world have stories of a great flood

 

[Orogeny]

I would substitute “doctrinaire-evolutionist” for “scientist”. Or perhaps “believer in scientism” for “scientist”. Those are incompatible with Catholicism.

Of course you would.

True, but you’ve really offered no explaination for this incredible phenomenon. How is it possible that you don’t think about this all the time.

Is that a serious question?

Your field is dominated by people who hate God

That is not my experience and I have seen no studies that show that science is dominated by people who hate God. Can you provide a reference?

and who spread atheistic teachings in order to destroy the faith of millions.

Is this Ed or reggie?

But you take a defenisive posture and state that science is innocent.

It is.

That might be fine but what about the serious problem that is avoided here? Why do atheists flock to Darwinism? Why are they fed in a scientific culture that is friendly to them and is dominated by them? What effect to they have on the scientific culture – the attitudes of science and education?

Then you need to be arguing with God-hating scientists rather than with me. Why question my faith when I have stated on numerous occasions that I am Catholic when there are so many God-haters out there?

Reggie, I really don’t know why so many scientists are un-believers. You clearly do, or at least you have convinced yourself that science is the reason, yet there are plenty of faithful scientists out there. How can that be if science is what creates un-believers?

Well, I’m glad you’re there and you deserve credit and support for being a faithful Catholic in a difficult environment. But I would wish that your faith was better distinguished from atheistic-Darwinism in a way that would be easier to recognize.

In other words, instead of a carte blanche defense of Darwinism all the time – admit upfront that there are serious problems (as Cardinal Shoenborn did). Some theories of evolution are incompatible with Catholicism.

What are the problems you have? I have asked before and you just replied that I am obviously one who denies there are problems.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Reggie, I really don’t know why so many scientists are un-believers.

Ok, just to return to this one point.

70% of scientists are atheists. This is compared to about 4% of the American population who are atheist.

I note your response to this fact. You don’t know why so many scientists are unbelievers. You said that before and really offered no insight on it.

I would contrast this to your defense of evolution, for example, which you respond to quite passionately. You don’t hesistate to provide various answers and defenses of evolution – it’s a topic you’ve explored and you have strong opinions about.

On the question as to why your profession has this kind of disproportionate representation of atheists – you really don’t offer any thoughts and you seem to want to avoid the topic.

Ok, I won’t push you on this any more.

I appreciate your replies to my questions and comments.

 

[reggieM]

That is not my experience and I have seen no studies that show that science is dominated by people who hate God. Can you provide a reference?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=256054

 

[Orogeny]

Ok, just to return to this one point.

70% of scientists are atheists. This is compared to about 4% of the American population who are atheist.

I note your response to this fact. You don’t know why so many scientists are unbelievers. You said that before and really offered no insight on it.

Perhaps that is because I don’t have any insight on it?

I would contrast this to your defense of evolution, for example, which you respond to quite passionately. You don’t hesistate to provide various answers and defenses of evolution – it’s a topic you’ve explored and you have strong opinions about.

Perhaps that is because I know something about evolution and my defenses are against false claims?

On the question as to why your profession has this kind of disproportionate representation of atheists – you really don’t offer any thoughts and you seem to want to avoid the topic.

As I noted, I don’t have any insights into this issue. Believe it or not, we scientists don’t sit around and discuss this issue.

Besides, I have already offered you a possible reason for at least some of the unbelievers among scientists and it was not taken seriously. Not a game I wish to play.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=256054

Not evidence of anything other than some scientists do hate *religion, *but that isn’t what I asked for. I asked for evidence to support your claim that most scientists hate God. After all, how can an athiest hate that which doesn’t exist?

And you must have missed this post on the same topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3909937#post3909937

Peace

Tim

 

[Philipp]

Good. Keep going. You are doing great!

You do know, though, that we are speaking of geology, not evolution, right? How many arches have ever been formed? Has arch formation ended? Does it take millions of years to create an arch? Do you have a clue?Then the “simple math” is correct only in that it will fool simple people. Looks like it has succeeded.Nice!They are also anti-Catholic and anti-science, but hey, if they support your literalist position, don’t worry about the details.What does my geology education have to do with that issue? Can’t you make your case scientifically…oh yeah, you can’t. Never mind. I understand why you felt like you needed to bring this up.

I support all life from the moment of conception. Embryonic stem cell research is murder. But as usual, someone who is more Catholic than I assumes that because I, like the Church, don’t deny that there are truths to be found by science, I must not really be a believer. Sorry to dissapoint Phillipp.

By the way, have you heard back from the ASA yet?

Peace

Tim

Thank you, I most certainly will keep going but not at the frequency that I’d like. I’m having too much fun doing actual research then wasting time trying to bring you up to date on current edge research.

Modern Geological observations and the mechancics of sedimentary deposition as well as many other fields of science demonstrate that those long ages for biological evolutions to have occurred are not there. I see no problem in trying to connect the two, geology and biological MACROevolution. When I see the relatively high frequency of your “falling arches” I just add that to the growing list of other long age supports needed or life to form from non-life or a hypothetical intelligent designor or creator who started it all with a worm or whatever the latest concoction might be. .

The ASA is also anti-Catholic by and large just as is AIG and Martin Luther was; at least there were very few Catholics in it when it got started according to what I have read. However let me know who the Catholics are in the ASA and I will send them a copy of my paper for their review after it is completed and I’ve first submitted it to a non religious or secular technical journal for their peer review.

However I’m pleased that we agree on the rights of the unborm. Maybe our votes in the up-coming US presidential election might count this time. Three cheers for Denver Bishop Chaput et al.

 

[Orogeny]

Thank you, I most certainly will keep going but not at the frequency that I’d like. I’m having too much fun doing actual research then wasting time trying to bring you up to date on current edge research.

I’m looking forward to your published work.

Modern Geological observations and the mechancics of sedimentary deposition as well as many other fields of science demonstrate that those long ages for biological evolutions to have occurred are not there.

I’ll wait for you to substaniate that claim. No doubt that will be an easy task, right? Oh, by the way, if you plan to use Berthalt as a source, please don’t waste our time. In fact, if you do decide to cite Berthault, I will accept that as your acknowledgement that you really don’t understand even freshman-level geology.

I see no problem in trying to connect the two, geology and biological MACROevolution. When I see the relatively high frequency of your “falling arches” I just add that to the growing list of other long age supports needed or life to form from non-life or a hypothetical intelligent designor or creator who started it all with a worm or whatever the latest concoction might be. .

Collapsing arches don’t have anything to do with evolution or the age of the earth. Anyone who understands basic geology knows that. But make that argument if you must. It just confirms my perception of your knowledge.

The ASA is also anti-Catholic by and large just as is AIG and Martin Luther was; at least there were very few Catholics in it when it got started according to what I have read. However let me know who the Catholics are in the ASA and I will send them a copy of my paper for their review after it is completed and I’ve first submitted it to a non religious or secular technical journal for their peer review.

Why? You only trust Catholic scientists?

Which publications will you be submitting to?

However I’m pleased that we agree on the rights of the unborm. Maybe our votes in the up-coming US presidential election might count this time. Three cheers for Denver Bishop Chaput et al.

Agreed.

Peace

Tim

 

[Philipp]

I’m looking forward to your published work.I’ll wait for you to substaniate that claim. No doubt that will be an easy task, right? Oh, by the way, if you plan to use Berthalt as a source, please don’t waste our time. In fact, if you do decide to cite Berthault, I will accept that as your acknowledgement that you really don’t understand even freshman-level geology. Collapsing arches don’t have anything to do with evolution or the age of the earth. Anyone who understands basic geology knows that. [Philipp–what’s your opinion amongst so many! I would want to know what others say beside Heinike; give me more atttack references; I have his.]

But make that argument if you must. It just confirms my perception of your knowledge. [Philipp–I’m primarily a chemist but even a chemist has the same feet as most geologists and I have placed my feet inito fossil human footprints that were in the same strata with dinosaurs human toes and all; and, it does not take a geologist to see that something is wrong with your science.

Again the C-14 dating of all fossils substantiates these observations and supports the sedimentology studies, id est: (1) In rapid moving water sediments and mud flows segregate based upon particle size and density and (2) A geologist can not say for sure that the top strata is always the most recently deposited strata as you proceed downstream. Catastrophic mud flows like Mt. St. Helens or the one in Colorado in 1956 or so showed laminations giving the appearance of many 1000’s of years in age but in fact happened simultaneously. Other strata like the upper limestone layers of the Glen Rose “Cretaceous” limestone containing fossil human and dinosaur footprints could only have been protected by twice daily tides in which there was a quiet period between heavy tides when the clay deposited into the footprints before they were eroded away by teh next incoming tide carrying huge amounts of sedement.

For one minute forget the controversy over the human footprints in the Paluxy River strata how else can would you explain the existence of dinosaur footprints on five or six consecutive strata?

Why? You only trust Catholic scientists? [Philipp —I didn’t say I only trusted Catholic scientists, I just want to see if they are all as dogmatic as you! Pity the church if they are!]

Which publications will you be submitting to? [If and when that day happens you’ll be given the reference].

Please give me a name of just one Catholic scienitist in the ASA
Since you are so enamored with them are you one of them?

Agreed. [glad we agree on the right to life]

Peace

Tim

Are you a member of the ASA? If so I’ll send a copy to you after publication. If not I’ll at least let you know which publication.

Have you ever published anything in the geologic or other journals? If so may I have the references; neither of us knows all there is to know about geology and the principles of sedimentology so I’d like to see your contributions to the advancement of science. Maybe there are other prinicples we can agree upon besides the knowledge that life begins at conception and requires legal protection under the US constitution.

Other sedimentologists/geologists have observed the same mechanics of depostion in the formation of strata (both field and laboratory) as has Guy Berthault. I’ve listed them on this blog several times even to presenting some of their abstracts from their papers. I can only conclude that you deride him because he has drawn certain conclusions that are most damaging to the “old Principles of sedimentology” to which Lyell and Darwiin and you yourself so devoutly accept.

 

[Orogeny]

Are you a member of the ASA? If so I’ll send a copy to you after publication. If not I’ll at least let you know which publication.

Nope. The name of the publication is fine.

Have you ever published anything in the geologic or other journals?

Nope.

If so may I have the references; neither of us knows all there is to know about geology and the principles of sedimentology so I’d like to see your contributions to the advancement of science. Maybe there are other prinicples we can agree upon besides the knowledge that life begins at conception and requires legal protection under the US constitution.

I’ve never published, but then again I have never claimed to have done research either.

I don’t know everything about sedimentology. I know plenty enough, though, to know that what Berthault is claiming is bunk. Anyone who has had basic geology should be able to see his errors in interpretation of the results.

Other sedimentologists/geologists have observed the same mechanics of depostion in the formation of strata (both field and laboratory) as has Guy Berthault.

Yes they have. That is a big reason that Berthault is full of himself. He claims to have discovered something that no geologist has ever known, but in fact, geologists have known about that phenomenon for a long time. They are discernable in the field.

I’ve listed them on this blog several times even to presenting some of their abstracts from their papers. I can only conclude that you deride him because he has drawn certain conclusions that are most damaging to the “old Principles of sedimentology” to which Lyell and Darwiin and you yourself so devoutly accept.

Are you familiar with a man named Pierre Julien? If not, look him up (hint: he is connected with this discussion). If so, would it surprise you that he disagrees with Berthault’s conclusions?

By the way, even Creation Ministries International (CMI), the organization that spawned Answers in Genesis (AiG), has rejected Berthault’s interpretation of the experiments.

creationontheweb.com/content/view/1552

Peace

Tim

 

[shambles]

The story of Noah is not a story about a boat ride with animals.
Whether it literally happened as described or not is immaterial to the lesson of the story.

Since there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood within the past few millennia and even absolutely less evidence for a recent genetic bottleneck in all living terrestrial species, in appears likely that (barring a whole bunch of handwavium on God’s part) the event did not happen as is often interpreted.

Chances are, this following quote from the Quran will be scientifically proven at some point,
`(Thus it was) till, when our commandment came to pass and the OVEN gushed forth water. We said: load therein two of every kind, a pair (the male and the female), and thy household, save him against whom the word hath
gone forth already, and those who believe. And but a few were they who believed with him.
And he said : Embark therein! In the name of Allah be its course and its mooring. Lo! my lord is forgiving. merciful.
And it sailed with them amid waves like mountains, and Noah cried unto his son-and he was standing aloof-O my son! come ride with us, and be not with the disbelievers.
He said:I shall betake me to some mountain that will save me from the water. (Noah) said: This day there is none that saveth from the commandment of Allah save him on whom he hath mercy. And the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned.
And it was said: O earth! swallow thy water and o sky! be cleared of clouds! and the water was made to subside. And the commandment was fulfilled. And it (the ship) came to rest upon (the mount) Al-Judi and it was said: a far removal for wrong doing folk!
And Noah cried unto his lord and said: My Lord! Lo! my son is of my household! Surely thy promise is the truth and thou art the most just of judges.
He said: O Noah! Lo! he is not of thy household; lo! he is of evil conduct, so ask not of me that whereof thou hast no knowledge. I admonish thee lest thou be among the ignorant.
Thats a few verses from the Quran. Chapter-12- Hud. Verses 40-46

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Actually, Buffalo is good at trampling heresy.

They might be - if they were not extinct ​

 

[buffalo]

They might be - if they were not extinct ​

Ouch! Are you recommending changing my username to Bison?

Actually, I feel quite alive. A Buffalo (bison) needs purpose. It is quite fulfilling trampling heresy.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

There are so many different versions of the same story. It’s only logical that it happened at some point-- perhaps not *exactly *how the Bible told it, but the basic idea or event, anyway.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ouch! Are you recommending changing my username to Bison?

Actually, I feel quite alive. A Buffalo (bison) needs purpose. It is quite fulfilling trampling heresy.

No - just hoping you were alive to your position ​

 

[hugh_miller]

Ouch! Are you recommending changing my username to Bison?

Actually, I feel quite alive. A Buffalo (bison) needs purpose. It is quite fulfilling trampling heresy.

Hi ya Buffalo. Keep those hooves sharp and keep on your trampling ways. I’m always glad to help where I can. So here is a link to an interesting paper on an “extinct” bison and my use of it in a paper that I’m told has been accepted for publication.

(18) Beta 33192. The age of bone collagen from 8.3 gm of this Alaskan Bison Bone was 30,810 +/- 975 RC years BP, almost identical to that of 30,890 +/- 200 RC years BP for a *Triceratops *dinosaur femur bone and that of the Hadrosaur dinosaur bone fragment from the Colville River Alaska. The reference (Harrington and Morlan, 2002) is reported here because of the concordance of the two dates between megafauna and dinosaurs. The bison is from the so-called Pleistocene period from the Yukon in Canada but has the same RC age as the *Triceratops *from the Cretaceous in Montana. See http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-2-143.pdf.

The conclusion is simply that dinosaurs and megafauna lived together at the same time. And dinosaurs did not beccome extinct 12 M years ago like paleo guys claimed in 1924 or 65 M years ago like they now claim. [even the ages for evolution are evolving at a tremendous rate of millions of years/year ]

When then did Noah float his boat? Now that would make a good question. About 4500 years ago if you’re a strict protestant fundamentalist or never if you are a strict evolutionary fundamentalist. But most of us on this thread seem to agree that it did happen whether a huge local flood in the Middle East [History channel] or whether the flood was a cataclysmic world wide one as scripture says.

But scripture simply can’t be ignored as it clearly states that it was a world-wide flood covering the highest mountains [caveate: Mountains of that period might have been only hundreds of feet high - Greater Mt. Ararat in Eeastern Turkey is covered with evidences of a flood including pillow lava which means, like many volcanoes, it could have risen during the flood and could have continued to rise after Noah landed on it; anyway it makes for good healthy speculation. At least it make better sense to speculate on the flood of Noah than the speculations about which critter we evolved from during the time of the dinosaurs which time does not even exist.

Chronologically speaking we don’t really know just how accurate is C-14 dating. Most scientists I’ve read suggesst that the dates are too old. However, any RC dates under 50,000 RC years means that the fossils being tested are NOT millions of years old such as dinosaurs and that bison which when you read the article you will find that man was breaking open the bones to get at the healthy bone marrow. Happy reading.

pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-2-143.pdf
for the Bison

creationontheweb.com/content/view/4650/
C-14 for diamond which is supposedly even perhaps billions of years old.

Like I suggested in past responses, Evolution fizzles while Moses Sizzeles

 

[tobinatorstark]

It is real and by God’s grace Noah did what was expected of him

 

[Orogeny]

Hi ya Buffalo. Keep those hooves sharp and keep on your trampling ways. I’m always glad to help where I can. So here is a link to an interesting paper on an “extinct” bison and my use of it in a paper that I’m told has been accepted for publication.

Great! Which publication? I would like to get a copy when it is published.

(18) Beta 33192. The age of bone collagen from 8.3 gm of this Alaskan Bison Bone was 30,810 +/- 975 RC years BP, almost identical to that of 30,890 +/- 200 RC years BP for a *Triceratops *dinosaur femur bone and that of the Hadrosaur dinosaur bone fragment from the Colville River Alaska. The reference (Harrington and Morlan, 2002) is reported here because of the concordance of the two dates between megafauna and dinosaurs. The bison is from the so-called Pleistocene period from the Yukon in Canada but has the same RC age as the *Triceratops *from the Cretaceous in Montana. See http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-2-143.pdf.

Nowhere in that article does the term triceratops occur. More made up stuff Hugh?

The conclusion is simply that dinosaurs and megafauna lived together at the same time. And dinosaurs did not beccome extinct 12 M years ago like paleo guys claimed in 1924 or 65 M years ago like they now claim. [even the ages for evolution are evolving at a tremendous rate of millions of years/year ]

You can always publish your data Hugh. In a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Chronologically speaking we don’t really know just how accurate is C-14 dating.

It’s very accurate.

Most scientists I’ve read suggesst that the dates are too old. However, any RC dates under 50,000 RC years means that the fossils being tested are NOT millions of years old such as dinosaurs and that bison which when you read the article you will find that man was breaking open the bones to get at the healthy bone marrow. Happy reading.

Nope. You just don’t bother to learn anything about the method you want so incredibly desperately to discount.

Of course, you also want to rely on it to support your position. Interesting, no?

Regarding C14 and diamonds, see asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

Peace

Tim

 

[Mark_Renaud]

The story of God’s Flood at the time of Noah is true.
Jesus himself even referred to it. There is no reason, either biblically or scientifically to doubt the truth of Gods Word.
Thanks for letting me answer. Mark Renaud