Wasn't there an actual ark?

  • Thread starter Thread starter athenaluvsdoves
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Bible is inerrant: the question is, what was the intention of the author of Genesis when he described the history of Noah’s ark? Was his intention to tell an allegory or was it meant to be actual history?

I’d personally rather fall towards a too-literal interpretation of the bible than a too-liberal one 😉 Better safe than sorry: interpreting it literally and you can’t go wrong, since you get both the moral message and its description of history. Of course that’s also the traditional interpretation.
Righteo… You know as well as I do that the laws of physics worked just the same. You also know that the laws are consistent so that if conditions are different that you get different results.
Click to expand...
Miracles are be definition events that break the “laws” of physics as science understand them, aren’t they?
 
Jack_245814 said:
The Bible is inerrant: the question is, what was the intention of the author of Genesis when he described the history of Noah’s ark? Was his intention to tell an allegory or was it meant to be actual history?

I’d personally rather fall towards a too-literal interpretation of the bible than a too-liberal one 😉 Better safe than sorry: interpreting it literally and you can’t go wrong, since you get both the moral message and its description of history. Of course that’s also the traditional interpretation.

Miracles are be definition events that break the “laws” of physics as science understand them, aren’t they?
Click to expand...
God does not have to break the laws to perform a miracle. He can use bot natural means as well as supernatural. He can intervene at the quantum level, too.
 
William_inquire said:
Right and you won’t. Just imagine what that would entail if the entire academic community had to acknowledge the Ark. Since the story is about God’s judgement on people, to acknowledge it as a factual story would force people to deal with being sinful. IF only dealing with acknowleging sin was such a simple matter.

Vastly lesser consequences would be a change from Uniformitarianism to Catastrophism. (both operate on the idea that laws of physics are the same at all times.) Secondary consequences to that would be that this pillar of Darwinistic evolution would come under fire. You cannot have people with academic careers built on this take a change in course.

by the way there are seashells on Mt Everest at the summit, so the the question isn’t whether the land that there was covered with water, but only when and how those changes took place.
.
Click to expand...
there are seashells in the Himalayas because that range came into existence when the plate carrying the indian landmass collided with the asian plate, part of the sea floor that wasn’t subducted got thrust upwards when the continents folded. about 55 mya for the initial phase of mountain building.

but what’s your point?
 
buffalo said:
As we know now the laws are not deterministic as once thought.
Click to expand...
so does it bother you to learn that the universe may be, at its essence, a process of random events predictable only through an analysis of probabilities?
 
William_inquire said:
Righteo… You know as well as I do that the laws of physics worked just the same. You also know that the laws are consistent so that if conditions are different that you get different results.

About those Panels… you’d have to have some pretty dim bulbs on them IF the particpants wouldn’t realize that the point of the Flood was that God was judging men.
Click to expand...
do you accept the possibility that ye arke might have been powered by several marine diesel engines? and if not, why not?
 
Wirraway said:
so does it bother you to learn that the universe may be, at its essence, a process of random events predictable only through an analysis of probabilities?
Click to expand...
I like the fact that the observer can work at the quantum level acting with purpose.
 
Wirraway said:
what exactly does that mean? how about an example?
Click to expand...
Stand at the edge of a pond. What determines whether you can see the bottom or the reflection off the surface? The photons action is determined by the observer. The wave collapses.

The double slit experiment shows the difference an observer makes.
 
buffalo said:
Stand at the edge of a pond. What determines whether you can see the bottom or the reflection off the surface? The photons action is determined by the observer. The wave collapses.

The double slit experiment shows the difference an observer makes.
Click to expand...
I’m familar with that experiment. the word use to be “measurement”, but the better way of understanding is “interaction”. do you understand that its not the conscious measurement by the observer that forces the system into one state or the other, but the interaction with any system, conscious or not?

and that there is no way to predict which gate the photon’s path will take? and even if it passes through one gate (with the other closed) there’s no way to predict where it will hit the detector,
 
Wirraway said:
I’m familar with that experiment. the word use to be “measurement”, but the better way of understanding is “interaction”. do you understand that its not the conscious measurement by the observer that forces the system into one state or the other, but the interaction with any system, conscious or not?

and that there is no way to predict which gate the photon’s path will take? and even if it passes through one gate (with the other closed) there’s no way to predict where it will hit the detector,
Click to expand...
Right, the only way you can be sure of what happened is to observe it.

Entanglement is the latest.

Research has been done where a recording of random clicks were made on a right track and on the left. The tape was not played. The observer was asked to think the left track had more clicks. When the track was played, sure enough the left track had more clicks. (i do not remember the details, but this is the general gist.)
 
buffalo said:
Right, the only way you can be sure of what happened is to observe it.

Entanglement is the latest.

Research has been done where a recording of random clicks were made on a right track and on the left. The tape was not played. The observer was asked to think the left track had more clicks. When the track was played, sure enough the left track had more clicks. (i do not remember the details, but this is the general gist.)
Click to expand...
fascinating stuff, isn’t it? its so counterintuitive and contrary to sense experience.
 
Wirraway said:
that kinda makes speculation a dry well.
Click to expand...
If we knew it to be true, then we could apply it to future events.

Do you ever get the feeling that the current financial situation is effected by perception, thus making it worse?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top