Justifying Noah's Ark

[Alexrkr]

Does anyone here take the story of Noah's Ark literally? Can you (the LITERAL interpreter) answer these questions?

1. How did Noah get all the animals on the planet? We are still discovering many species of animals and insects. Did Noah explore the entire planet? What about microscopic life? How did Noah know about those? If God just bring them to Noah?

2.How did Noah build the Ark? He, as well as his family, would had to have attained all the material, process it all and build a very large boat with primitive tools. Wasn't it only 8-10 people doing this? Is this really feasible? Did god at least give them all the material?

3.How did he fit all the animals on the boat? Millions of species of animal wouldn't have fit.

4.How did he know the environments to recreate? Some animals and insects have specific environments they live in. How did Noah know the specifics and how did he recreate them?

5.How did he take care of so many animals? How did he and the others have enough time to feed every single animal? Or clean their cages? How did he keep track? How could he get sleep? Some animals eat in the day, others at night.

6.Where did he store all the food and water and how? The food would take up an incredible amount of space.

7.How did he know the specific diets of all the animals? Some animals can only live off of certain foods. How did he get all the food that may only be regional? How did he know? How did he keep track?

8.How was disease kept in check? Animals carry diseases, how did Noah and the family stay safe? How did they keep other animals from getting sick? They came from all around the world into this one boat.

9.How did they sleep and not go deaf? I could imagine it being very load in the boat this not only could keep Noah from ever getting any sleep but other animals which could be an issue.

10.Where did all the water from the flood come from and where did it go? If we are to believe everything was covered in water that would mean there was 5 miles worth of water covering the entire earth.

11.How did the fish live? Many fish live in specific habitats like coral reef, if 5 miles of water were to be added on top of the reefs they would have been crushed. Also if the rain that fell were fresh water many salt water fish would have died. If salt water somehow fell (how is that possible) all the fresh water species would be gone.

12.How could plant life grow again? The ground would be soaked with salty water.

13.How did they breathe? The atmosphere would be so saturated with water you'd drown if you tried to breathe. If they were so high up because of 5 miles of water they couldn't breathe because there wouldn't be enough oxygen (ask anyone who's climbed everest)

14.How did they stay warm? Being so high the temperature would have been far below freezing if not below 0*F. How did they keep every animals warm, let alone at the temperature some specifically need?

15.How did no animal die? If one did that species would be extinct.

16.After the flood how did all the animal get back to their habitats? Did god do that too?

17.What did they eat once off the boat? All the vegetation would be ruined. And carnivores couldn't eat until the pair of its prey have offspring, which in most cases would be far too long.

18.Noah and his family would have to have committed incest in order to repopulate the earth. How was this allowed?

19.Why is there no record of this flood happening in the scientific record?

20. Why did no one document this flood happening? The Egyptians, the Chinese etc?

21.If they all died shouldn't why are still Chinese people and etc?

22.Why are there so many different ethnicities and cultures? This couldn't happen in a few thousand years. How come there is no record of everyones migration from where ever Noah landed to there location?

23.Shouldn't they all be Christians?

24. Why does the scientific record point to Africa being the origins of man hundreds of thousands of years ago and not Noah a few thousand? This is shown Archeologically, Paleontological, genetically and climatological. All independently shown to be true as well as cross referenced.

25.Why did god create everything when he knew he was going to have to destroy it anyway?

26.Wasn't the point to get rid of sinners? So why are there still sinners? Even if you answer the question god could too. So knowing that there would still be sinners what was the point of the flood?

27.Was everyone a sinner? What about all the people around the world that didn't know about this particular god? How can they be punished for something they couldn't possibly know? What about children and babies? Not to mention the Billions of animals?

28.Even if you said god helped this way and that way for all the questions seemingly unanswerable, why did god do it in such an inefficient way that required his help throughout? Why didn't he just snap his fingers and say "All the sinners are gone". A little easier, no?

 

[sfodz]

To Alexrkr:

I guess the first thing to note is that I'm not overly knowledgeable or interested in origins science or events, and so I'll reference quite a bit to Creation Ministries International (a premier creationist organisation). The thing about asking so many question is that many are repetitive in nature and the answers redundant.

In answer to the first twelve or so questions, while additional information can be found on the Creation Ministries International website (in the FAQ section).

Chapters...

12 <available at: creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf>,
13 <available at: creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf>, and
14 <available at: creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf>
​

... of The Creation Answers Book cover questions like: where did all the water come from and go, how did all the animals fit on the ark, and how plants, fresh and salt-water fish could have survived respectively. Additional information is availble on the FAQ section of their website.

Suffice to say that the ark was very big and stable at about 137x23x13.7 metres, which is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep; Noah and company had a long time to build it (over a hundred years); and about 16,000 animals were needed with foodstuffs and water making up an estimated 25% of the ark's total volume (see chapters 12-14 above). One other interesting thing to note is that many great ships that were equal in size to the ark were built around 200 BC, such as the Leontifera (Pierce, 2000), which could have been a massive 120-150 metres long. It is definitely feasible, therefore, to presume that Noah and company could have created the ark in a hundred or so years as per God's instructions.

Anyway, like I said above, you can check that out at your convenience. I'll be mostly dealing with the questions that aren't directly related to science and the origins debate as I believe that it is best to read information relating to science and the origins debate directly from those who are in the 'know' and deal with that stuff daily.

13.How did they breathe? The atmosphere would be so saturated with water you'd drown if you tried to breathe. If they were so high up because of 5 miles of water they couldn't breathe because there wouldn't be enough oxygen (ask anyone who's climbed everest)

There is no Scriptural reason to presume that there were tall mountains (like the Himalayas). The Bible talks about hills, so in my opinion, maybe a couple of hundred metres give or take. In fact, it isn't until during and/or after the Flood that God causes the mountains to rise and the valleys to fall (due to massive tectonic plate movements). In fact, many of our highest mountains have fossils of sea creatures at their tops, which indicates that they were once under the sea (Batten, 1996:36).

Dr Don Batten (1996:36) points out that even if the flood waters rose to nine kilometres high, the air that was in that nine kilometres of former atmosphere would simply be pushed out and would have sat at nine kilometres above the Earth's former surface.

18.Noah and his family would have to have committed incest in order to repopulate the earth. How was this allowed?

It wasn't outlawed by God until the time of Moses, which didn't happen until sometime later...

Further more, consider that there would have been a lot fewer genetic mutations at this point in human history.

19.Why is there no record of this flood happening in the scientific record?

There is, take Uluru for example (Snelling, 1998). If Uluru really were millions of years old as it is commonly argued, then, for instance, the fresh feldspar cystals would have completely decomposed into clay. Even the vast existance of fossils indicates a global flood. More examples can be found on the Creation Ministries International Geology and Fossil FAQ section if you are interested.

20. Why did no one document this flood happening? The Egyptians, the Chinese etc?

Many cultures have, for example the Australian Aboriginals (Coates, 1981; Coates & Douglass, 1982) and the American Indians (Johnson, 2004), among many others.

21.If they all died shouldn't why are still Chinese people and etc?

Because, obviously, the Chinese civilisation, like all of us who now exist, developed after the Flood from Noah and his descendants.

23.Shouldn't they all be Christians?

Why should they be? The notions of Christianity were not around until only two thousand years ago. If you meant to ask, "Shouldn't they all believe in the Judeo-Christian God?" then once again you have to consider how sinful man is. Consider the Israelites just shortly after God had rescued them from oppression at the hands of the Egyptians when Moses had been up at Mount Sinai for a while they not only created but worshiped the golden calf and gave it credit for their deliverance when they had seen with their own eyes the Lord's work.

It really, therefore, shouldn't surprise us that so many different religions and schools of thought have arisen.

24. Why does the scientific record point to Africa being the origins of man hundreds of thousands of years ago and not Noah a few thousand? This is shown Archeologically, Paleontological, genetically and climatological. All independently shown to be true as well as cross referenced.

It should be noted that:

Facts do not 'speak for themselves'; they are read in light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective inforation, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation. (Gould, 1978:161-162).
​

In other words, it isn't the factual evidence (i.e. the fossils themselves or whatever) that lead evolutionists to that conclusion, rather, it is their presumption that influences their interpretation of the evidence and causes them to reach a conclusion in-line with their worldview. Hisitorical science isn't as objective as you seem to believe it is (see Batten, 2002 fore example). It's the interpetations more so than the evidence itself that creationists and evolutionists debate over.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are other interpretations of the evidence that are more consistent with the evidence than evolution. For more information on fossils and geology, I would advise you to go to the Fossils and the Geology FAQ section of the Creation Ministries International website.

25.Why did god create everything when he knew he was going to have to destroy it anyway?

I'm not God and so can't speak as to His intentions. Suffice to say, He did not destroy everything as we are still here. Perhaps He did what He did to give us a fresh start and because He loves us and wants to restore us back to Himself (which He foretold in Genesis 3 during the announcement of His punishment). Who knows the plans and ways of God?

26.Wasn't the point to get rid of sinners? So why are there still sinners? Even if you answer the question god could too. So knowing that there would still be sinners what was the point of the flood?

No, the point was to get rid of those sinners and give mankind a fresh start under Noah and his descendants. Even just from reading the Bible, those people of that time must have been exceptionally evil (Grigg, 1995:39-41) for God to regret having created them and forced to wipe them out (see Genesis 6:5, 11, and 12, for example) ... in my opinion they got what they deserved.

27.Was everyone a sinner? What about all the people around the world that didn't know about this particular god? How can they be punished for something they couldn't possibly know? What about children and babies? Not to mention the Billions of animals?

I love what Calvin said on this issue: It's like a judge who is about to punish a criminal for the sake of infamy orders to demolish his house as well. It is then easy to infer how great it's crime when the punishment is extended to brute even creation (Grigg, 1995:39-41).

28.Even if you said god helped this way and that way for all the questions seemingly unanswerable, why did god do it in such an inefficient way that required his help throughout? Why didn't he just snap his fingers and say "All the sinners are gone". A little easier, no?

I think that it was much in the same way that when people are executed for there crimes publically, it acts as a large deterrent. The judgement of the Flood looks forward to a future time when Jesus will return and judge with fire. I guess it serves as a powerful witness that we will be held accountable for our sins before God.

References:
Batten, D. (1996). Did Noah Need Oxygen Above The Mountains? Creation 18(3):36.
Batten, D. (2002). 'It's Not Science'. Accessed 4 October 2008 from: creationontheweb.com/content/view/2480
Coates, H. (1981). Aboriginal Flood Legend. Creation 4(3):9-12.
Coates, H., & Douglas, W. (1982). Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories. Creation 5(1):6-9.
Gould, S. (1978). 'The Validation Of Continental Drift' in Ever Since Darwin. Burnett Books, pp. 161-162.
Grig, R. (1995). Noah's Flood - Why? Creation 17(3):39-41.
Johnson, B. (2004). American Genesis: The Cosmological Genesis Of The Indians. Accessed 4 October 2008 from: icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=108
Pierce, L. (2000). The Large ships Of antiquity. Creation 22(3):46-48.
Snelling, A. (1998). Uluru And Kata Tjuta: A Testimony To The Flood. Creation 20(2):36-40.

Note: Most of the above references can be found on the Creation Ministries International website (FAQ section), the Institute Of Creation Research website, or other places online.

Also, The Creation Answers Book index is here: <creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/>.

 

[Alexrkr]

To Alexrkr:

I guess the first thing to note is that I'm not overly knowledgeable or interested in origins science or events, and so I'll reference quite a bit to Creation Ministries International (a premier creationist organisation). The thing about asking so many question is that many are repetitive in nature and the answers redundant.

In answer to the first twelve or so questions, while additional information can be found on the Creation Ministries International website (in the FAQ section).

Chapters...

12 <available at: creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf>,
13 <available at: creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf>, and
14 <available at: creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf>
​

... of The Creation Answers Book cover questions like: where did all the water come from and go, how did all the animals fit on the ark, and how plants, fresh and salt-water fish could have survived respectively. Additional information is availble on the FAQ section of their website.

Suffice to say that the ark was very big and stable at about 137x23x13.7 metres, which is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep; Noah and company had a long time to build it (over a hundred years); and about 16,000 animals were needed with foodstuffs and water making up an estimated 25% of the ark's total volume (see chapters 12-14 above). One other interesting thing to note is that many great ships that were equal in size to the ark were built around 200 BC, such as the Leontifera (Pierce, 2000), which could have been a massive 120-150 metres long. It is definitely feasible, therefore, to presume that Noah and company could have created the ark in a hundred or so years as per God's instructions.

Anyway, like I said above, you can check that out at your convenience. I'll be mostly dealing with the questions that aren't directly related to science and the origins debate as I believe that it is best to read information relating to science and the origins debate directly from those who are in the 'know' and deal with that stuff daily.



There is no Scriptural reason to presume that there were tall mountains (like the Himalayas). The Bible talks about hills, so in my opinion, maybe a couple of hundred metres give or take. In fact, it isn't until during and/or after the Flood that God causes the mountains to rise and the valleys to fall (due to massive tectonic plate movements). In fact, many of our highest mountains have fossils of sea creatures at their tops, which indicates that they were once under the sea (Batten, 1996:36).

Dr Don Batten (1996:36) points out that even if the flood waters rose to nine kilometres high, the air that was in that nine kilometres of former atmosphere would simply be pushed out and would have sat at nine kilometres above the Earth's former surface.



It wasn't outlawed by God until the time of Moses, which didn't happen until sometime later...

Further more, consider that there would have been a lot fewer genetic mutations at this point in human history.



There is, take Uluru for example (Snelling, 1998). If Uluru really were millions of years old as it is commonly argued, then, for instance, the fresh feldspar cystals would have completely decomposed into clay. Even the vast existance of fossils indicates a global flood. More examples can be found on the Creation Ministries International Geology and Fossil FAQ section if you are interested.



Many cultures have, for example the Australian Aboriginals (Coates, 1981; Coates & Douglass, 1982) and the American Indians (Johnson, 2004), among many others.



Because, obviously, the Chinese civilisation, like all of us who now exist, developed after the Flood from Noah and his descendants.



Why should they be? The notions of Christianity were not around until only two thousand years ago. If you meant to ask, "Shouldn't they all believe in the Judeo-Christian God?" then once again you have to consider how sinful man is. Consider the Israelites just shortly after God had rescued them from oppression at the hands of the Egyptians when Moses had been up at Mount Sinai for a while they not only created but worshiped the golden calf and gave it credit for their deliverance when they had seen with their own eyes the Lord's work.

It really, therefore, shouldn't surprise us that so many different religions and schools of thought have arisen.



It should be noted that:

Facts do not 'speak for themselves'; they are read in light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective inforation, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation. (Gould, 1978:161-162).
​

In other words, it isn't the factual evidence (i.e. the fossils themselves or whatever) that lead evolutionists to that conclusion, rather, it is their presumption that influences their interpretation of the evidence and causes them to reach a conclusion in-line with their worldview. Hisitorical science isn't as objective as you seem to believe it is (see Batten, 2002 fore example). It's the interpetations more so than the evidence itself that creationists and evolutionists debate over.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are other interpretations of the evidence that are more consistent with the evidence than evolution. For more information on fossils and geology, I would advise you to go to the Fossils and the Geology FAQ section of the Creation Ministries International website.



I'm not God and so can't speak as to His intentions. Suffice to say, He did not destroy everything as we are still here. Perhaps He did what He did to give us a fresh start and because He loves us and wants to restore us back to Himself (which He foretold in Genesis 3 during the announcement of His punishment). Who knows the plans and ways of God?



No, the point was to get rid of those sinners and give mankind a fresh start under Noah and his descendants. Even just from reading the Bible, those people of that time must have been exceptionally evil (Grigg, 1995:39-41) for God to regret having created them and forced to wipe them out (see Genesis 6:5, 11, and 12, for example) ... in my opinion they got what they deserved.



I love what Calvin said on this issue: It's like a judge who is about to punish a criminal for the sake of infamy orders to demolish his house as well. It is then easy to infer how great it's crime when the punishment is extended to brute even creation (Grigg, 1995:39-41).



I think that it was much in the same way that when people are executed for there crimes publically, it acts as a large deterrent. The judgement of the Flood looks forward to a future time when Jesus will return and judge with fire. I guess it serves as a powerful witness that we will be held accountable for our sins before God.

References:
Batten, D. (1996). Did Noah Need Oxygen Above The Mountains? Creation 18(3):36.
Batten, D. (2002). 'It's Not Science'. Accessed 4 October 2008 from: creationontheweb.com/content/view/2480
Coates, H. (1981). Aboriginal Flood Legend. Creation 4(3):9-12.
Coates, H., & Douglas, W. (1982). Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories. Creation 5(1):6-9.
Gould, S. (1978). 'The Validation Of Continental Drift' in Ever Since Darwin. Burnett Books, pp. 161-162.
Grig, R. (1995). Noah's Flood - Why? Creation 17(3):39-41.
Johnson, B. (2004). American Genesis: The Cosmological Genesis Of The Indians. Accessed 4 October 2008 from: icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=108
Pierce, L. (2000). The Large ships Of antiquity. Creation 22(3):46-48.
Snelling, A. (1998). Uluru And Kata Tjuta: A Testimony To The Flood. Creation 20(2):36-40.

Note: Most of the above references can be found on the Creation Ministries International website (FAQ section), the Institute Of Creation Research website, or other places online.

Also, The Creation Answers Book index is here: <creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/>.

Do you have a legitimate source? Creation Ministries is not a good source of info. Most of the claims they make are completely unsupported.

Your comment about science is a little scary. It is indeed very objective. The scientific method is used to weed out results found through bias opinion (hence why the Creation Ministries site doesn't have anything published). You are also talking about a number of scientific fields and individuals somehow conspiring to make it look as though it all makes sense and works together cohesively. It isn't perspective or opinion, its supported.

There is no evidence of a global flood scientifically or historically. The peoples you sited must have lived through the flood to have historically written it down which would have made the flood pointless.

Again its a consensus among the scientific community that the universe and the world is billions of years old, that life has evolved, that the Himalayas are millions of years old, and that a global flood never happened. In almost every field of science (as well as historical record) the bible is contradicted. How can anyone ignore that or act as though it doesn't matter? I would suggest that you and others get your info from legitimate sources, not CREATION MINISTRIES (bias much) whom I have found not only greatly misinforms but blatantly lies.

Your post has greatly saddened me in regard to the human intellect.

 

[sfodz]

... how utterly predictable. If only I got paid $1 for everytime I have heard ignorant and unsupported rhetoric... I will respond to a few points brought up, but I've in this place before and I know that any continued correspondance would be pointless and a waste of my time.

I find it strange that you can't seem to see the differences between operational science and historical science, when evolutionists like Steven Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr are well aware of it:

Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented (Mayr, 2001:13).
​

The experiments that are done in the present that relate to the past often tend to be very limited and require a decent amount of assumptions to fill in the ever present gaps. The further in the past you go, the more assumptions are required and the higher chance for a unscientific factors (such as a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof) to influence their work and ultimately their findings.

Yes, Christian creationists start off with their own assumptions, namely that God exists, the Bible is the authoritive Word of God and as such can be trusted, so they already believe that God created in six days about 6,000 years ago. This is their 'worldview'.

Atheistic scientists, on the other hand, start off with several assumptions of their own: namely that God doesn't exist, that the Bible isn't the Word of God, and that nature is all there is. This is their 'worldview'.

Scientists of the agnostic persuasion or other religions have their own presumptions that make up their worldview ... no one is immune or fully objective in the origins debate.

As such, an atheist, no matter how long he looks at a piece of scientific evidence (such as a rock or fossil) can never come to the conclusion that it is consistent with a biblical framework, such as the global flood. Why? Because he has already ruled that out as being false even before he starts his scientific work.

It is for this reason a creationist and an evolutionist can look at the same scientific evidence yet reach different conclusions that are both consistent with their own worldview.

One way of thinking about it is that the worldviews are very much like glasses and when we look at the evidence we are seeing it through glasses that change and determine how we view and interpret it. This is even evident amongst evolutionists themselves, regarding bird evolution, for example. Two opposing groups can look at the one fossil and one of them will say, "No it's a bird" while the other says, "No it's a reptile". Well, what it is? The evidence cannot say two completely different things ... it is not the evidence which speaks, but the interpretations and it is these that clash.

The peoples you sited must have lived through the flood to have historically written it down which would have made the flood pointless.

Or, more logically, they are, like you and I, descendants of Noah and his family and know of the flood because such an event was passed on down through the generations via verbal or written means, depending on the culture.

I would suggest that you and others get your info from legitimate sources, not CREATION MINISTRIES (bias much)

Heh, and do you honestly think that evolutionary sites like Talk Origin don't have an agenda and bias? Like I mentioned above, everyone has a bias in historical science (relating to the origins issue), so it isn't a question of who is bias and who isn't ... rather, whose bias is the best bias to be biased by?

Bias has no real part at all to play in operations science ... I mean, whether you believe that God created the world or not has little impact on creating environmentally friendly technology and fuels, the science of atoms, medicine, phyics, and so on. It is because knowledge about operations science comes from observation, experimentation, and is repeatable, but as Ernst Mayr said, such things cannot directly apply to evolution. Assumptions, influenced by our presumptions or worldviews, are needed to fill in the gaps or unkowns, for example, a common assumption in geology is the uniformitarian principle.

whom I have found not only greatly misinforms but blatantly lies

Then you should have dealt with the arguments put forward rather than attack the character and reputation of Creation Ministries International, without any support at all I might add...

If you are going to try and burn someone's reputation, it's generally advisable, if not required, to present some evidence that would substantiate your view. Another example is your parting shot at my work, again, unsubstantiated by evidence.

References:
Mayer, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. Basic Books: New York, NY. pp. 13.

 

[ebia]

Do you have a legitimate source? Creation Ministries is not a good source of info. Most of the claims they make are completely unsupported.

Your comment about science is a little scary. It is indeed very objective. The scientific method is used to weed out results found through bias opinion (hence why the Creation Ministries site doesn't have anything published). You are also talking about a number of scientific fields and individuals somehow conspiring to make it look as though it all makes sense and works together cohesively. It isn't perspective or opinion, its supported.

There is no evidence of a global flood scientifically or historically. The peoples you sited must have lived through the flood to have historically written it down which would have made the flood pointless.

Again its a consensus among the scientific community that the universe and the world is billions of years old, that life has evolved, that the Himalayas are millions of years old, and that a global flood never happened. In almost every field of science (as well as historical record) the bible is contradicted. How can anyone ignore that or act as though it doesn't matter? I would suggest that you and others get your info from legitimate sources, not CREATION MINISTRIES (bias much) whom I have found not only greatly misinforms but blatantly lies.

Your post has greatly saddened me in regard to the human intellect.

When you post an OP asking 28 separate questions, each of which would take a page or so to answer adequately directly, and you rule out all answers except from biblical literalists, what sort of response did you expect? Of course you are going to get references to one or another creation science organisation - that's the only plausible way for someone to attempt to answer that many questions.

If you really want someone's individual answer you need to pick one or maybe two questions. If your intention is to prove creationism ludicrous this is not the appropriate forum - this forum is for genuine questions, not debate or apologetics.

 

[marktheblake]

Does anyone here take the story of Noah's Ark literally? Can you (the LITERAL interpreter) answer these questions?

many of your questions are invalid.

1. How did Noah get all the animals on the planet?

like this one, according to Geneses Noah didn't get any animals.

Did you read the scripture carefully before you framed these questions?
It does not seem like you have.

2.How did Noah build the Ark?

Unless you can provide factual evidence that the Ark could not have been built then there is no issue.

Why do you assume that your questions invalidate the Flood account?

Some of your questions are reasonable, but the simple fact that nobody knows the answer does not prove a thing.

 

[Alexrkr]

... how utterly predictable. If only I got paid $1 for everytime I have heard ignorant and unsupported rhetoric... I will respond to a few points brought up, but I've in this place before and I know that any continued correspondance would be pointless and a waste of my time.

Your arrogance comes from a very unstable base and I wouldn't tempt others to pick at it. But this is the road you chose. You're right though that this won't go anywhere. I'll present logical evidence and conclusions based on it as well as well supported scientific theories and you will refer to a site whose contributors rarely have credentials in any scientific fields and whose "research" is laughable at best. You'll go crying and whining about how I was unfair and bias and close-minded. Thats predictable.

I find it strange that you can't seem to see the differences between operational science and historical science, when evolutionists like Steven Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr are well aware of it:

Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented (Mayr, 2001:13).
​

The experiments that are done in the present that relate to the past often tend to be very limited and require a decent amount of assumptions to fill in the ever present gaps. The further in the past you go, the more assumptions are required and the higher chance for a unscientific factors (such as a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof) to influence their work and ultimately their findings.

Ridiculous. You are speaking as though only one scientist comes up with ideas when it comes down to "Where does the evidence point us?" They go there on reasonable assumptions but never make the evidence fit their "worldview"

Yes, Christian creationists start off with their own assumptions, namely that God exists, the Bible is the authoritive Word of God and as such can be trusted, so they already believe that God created in six days about 6,000 years ago. This is their 'worldview'.

Atheistic scientists, on the other hand, start off with several assumptions of their own: namely that God doesn't exist, that the Bible isn't the Word of God, and that nature is all there is. This is their 'worldview'.

Scientists of the agnostic persuasion or other religions have their own presumptions that make up their worldview ... no one is immune or fully objective in the origins debate.

What do you have to support this? Darwin was Christian but struggled when the evidence pointed him away from his previous "worldview". Many scientists are religious as well but that doesn't seem to stop them from seeing what the evidence points to. The scientific method as I had said weeds out theses factors because not all scientists think the same way. If you were correct no one would get anything don't because they would be divided among "worldviews"

As such, an atheist, no matter how long he looks at a piece of scientific evidence (such as a rock or fossil) can never come to the conclusion that it is consistent with a biblical framework, such as the global flood. Why? Because he has already ruled that out as being false even before he starts his scientific work.

Wrong again. Just because you can't see something outside of your view doesn't mean no one can. Its called perspective. The problem with most creationism isn't that the evidence can seen differently to different people but that it contradicts basic scientific principles and laws, it contradicts itself and they do lie to make it fit. All of which I will point out in a bit.

It is for this reason a creationist and an evolutionist can look at the same scientific evidence yet reach different conclusions that are both consistent with their own worldview.

No, creationists make it fit their worldview, scientists make it fit science, which creationism tends to contradict.

One way of thinking about it is that the worldviews are very much like glasses and when we look at the evidence we are seeing it through glasses that change and determine how we view and interpret it. This is even evident amongst evolutionists themselves, regarding bird evolution, for example. Two opposing groups can look at the one fossil and one of them will say, "No it's a bird" while the other says, "No it's a reptile". Well, what it is? The evidence cannot say two completely different things ... it is not the evidence which speaks, but the interpretations and it is these that clash.

Are you suggesting that the scientists want it to be a bird or want it to be a reptile? Bad analogy me thinks. Plus the reason its hard to tell which one it is because evolution is a gradual process so its hard to cut things up into categories because things tend to blur. This is a categorical issue that WE define. Not an issue of evidence and what it points to in regard to scientific principle. They agree that evolution is true, they agree that this fossil is yet another transitional, they agree its millions of years old etc. and so on. Its like Pluto.

Or, more logically, they are, like you and I, descendants of Noah and his family and know of the flood because such an event was passed on down through the generations via verbal or written means, depending on the culture.

How quickly do you suppose they were able to procreate and migrate? Lets say at least one hundred generations. Thats far to long after alleged flood for contemporary sources.

Heh, and do you honestly think that evolutionary sites like Talk Origin don't have an agenda and bias? Like I mentioned above, everyone has a bias in historical science (relating to the origins issue), so it isn't a question of who is bias and who isn't ... rather, whose bias is the best bias to be biased by?

Bias has no real part at all to play in operations science ... I mean, whether you believe that God created the world or not has little impact on creating environmentally friendly technology and fuels, the science of atoms, medicine, phyics, and so on. It is because knowledge about operations science comes from observation, experimentation, and is repeatable, but as Ernst Mayr said, such things cannot directly apply to evolution. Assumptions, influenced by our presumptions or worldviews, are needed to fill in the gaps or unkowns, for example, a common assumption in geology is the uniformitarian principle.

I think its you who doesn't understand science at all. Given, you have found a clever way of fooling yourself into thinking creationism is legit and just another "worldview" but you are still very mistaken.

Then you should have dealt with the arguments put forward rather than attack the character and reputation of Creation Ministries International, without any support at all I might add...

If you are going to try and burn someone's reputation, it's generally advisable, if not required, to present some evidence that would substantiate your view. Another example is your parting shot at my work, again, unsubstantiated by evidence.

I read through the chapters you provided and it has given nothing to support its claims except that "The bible says this, so this must be true in order for it to be compatible, therefor it is true!" Where are the studies and supporting evidence? Scientists don't have such bias. Most of what they said wasn't what you were describing through most of your post, difference of perspective. It was unsupported claims through biblical interpretation.

How about this. Where is the RESEARCH and EVIDENCE that shows the Earth and universe is as young as you think? I've looked and can only find the likes of what you have shown me. Why do you believe every scientific finding and evidence says otherwise. Thousands of years and billions of years isn't a matter of perspective. Why are dozens of dating methods wrong? Why do the genetic record, archeological, geological, climatological, paleontological and numerous other scientific fields all point to the "evolutionist worldview" through their independent findings? Why do they all cohesively work together?

I would suggest watching youtube videos from these users: Thunderfoot, Andromedaswake, Potholer54 "made easy series", Aronra. Bias, absolutely but what they say is scientifically supported look it up if you like.

I'll be honest, I'm not going to be changing my mind anytime soon if pathetic attempts likes what you have done are the only arguments being made. You need to look up what science and critical thinking is because you have shown a fundamental lack of both in a single post. Good Job.

 

[Alexrkr]

When you post an OP asking 28 separate questions, each of which would take a page or so to answer adequately directly, and you rule out all answers except from biblical literalists, what sort of response did you expect? Of course you are going to get references to one or another creation science organisation - that's the only plausible way for someone to attempt to answer that many questions.

If you really want someone's individual answer you need to pick one or maybe two questions. If your intention is to prove creationism ludicrous this is not the appropriate forum - this forum is for genuine questions, not debate or apologetics.

I am trying to point out creationism's ludicrous nature. But I wanted to also see what someone would say. Curiosity not debate.

 

[Alexrkr]

many of your questions are invalid.



like this one, according to Geneses Noah didn't get any animals.

Did you read the scripture carefully before you framed these questions?
It does not seem like you have.



Unless you can provide factual evidence that the Ark could not have been built then there is no issue.

Why do you assume that your questions invalidate the Flood account?

Some of your questions are reasonable, but the simple fact that nobody knows the answer does not prove a thing.

Why don't you answer the questions. If they seem a little off like question 1 you can still answer the question, no? How did the animals get to boat? What evidence do you have to support this? How are ALL the questions invalid? Which ones? Why? Care to explain the truth then?

It would be you who claims such a thing happened that would need to answer these questions in order for someone to believe who doesn't already. Someone reasonable would see such shortcomings as invalidation. We do tend to only see such problems if we were to take fairy tales as truths. Which is what I believe you are doing.

 

[XChristian]

Pointless. Since no one alive today was alive back when these events did or did not occur, anyone can theorize what did or did not happen. Yes?

 

[Alexrkr]

Pointless. Since no one alive today was alive back when these events did or did not occur, anyone can theorize what did or did not happen. Yes?

Your not suggesting that scientific evidence can't show one way or the other are you? The problems of it cannot be ignored. Plus I've already said I want to see what someone would say to it. I want to see the mental gymnastics. Its more about behavior than argument.

 

[artybloke]

Yes?

No. Events that happen a long time ago leave behind evidence. If there ever were a world wide flood, it would leave a layer of deposition and fossils behind it and we would be able to assess that information and come to the conclusion that it happened.

No such evidence exists.

By the way, Alexkr, you still haven't responded to ebia, who, like me, doesn't buy into the fundamentalist myth that you have to believe everything in the Bible was intended to be taken literally. The fact is that the literalists are a minority of Christian, albeit a very vocal lot. Most of us don't take the Bible as literally as you obviously seem to want us to do.

 

[marktheblake]

Why don't you answer the questions.

Cos there is way too many and some are easily answered if you actually read the text yourself.

How did the animals get to boat?

They walked, flew, crawled just like they normally get around.

What evidence do you have to support this?

I have looked at animals and I have made observations how they transport themselves naturally. Based on my observations and my experience I have concluded that they did not catch the No. 21 Bus.

How are ALL the questions invalid? Which ones? Why? Care to explain the truth then?

Because you do not appear to be honestly asking these questions, going by your subsequent anti-creation sentiment, this shows you are only interested in grandstanding your presupposition, not Noahs Ark itself.

If I am wrong, just get John Woodmorappe's book, "Noahs Ark: a Feasibility study" he has covered it all.

It would be you who claims such a thing happened that would need to answer these questions in order for someone to believe who doesn't already

No I dont make any claim, Jesus Christ (and God) claims this, and I trust his word. I am just the mailman, I didnt write the letter.

You appear to be the one wanting to make the claims (that it didnt happen).

If you want to have a serious discussion on the text of the Flood account, start by applying some textual criticism, and suspend your belief for a second or two. Consider it for what it is and than frame your questions in the inadequacies that you see within it. Then a reasonable discussion can be had.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Like others have said, if you want to use real science then there is no evidence at all. Not only that but there are a myrid of things pointing against it. Genetics alone should be enough to convince anyone who knows anything about science. If you take 2 humans from opposite sides of the world and lock them in a national forest with no other humans allowed in and force them to "repopulate" you will end up with a HUGE number of birth defects simple because your gene pool would fit in a dixie cup. This is the same reason incest is so bad, if you breed with a close relitive your genes look a lot alike and the incidences are horrible defects skyrockets.

As a Christian you have 2 routes here. You can believe that it all really did happen and God's had guided it (got all the animals, gave them magic genes, made them not need food or water, allowed a boat of impossible dimensions to actually float...) and then covered up all the evidence to test your faith. Or you can believe that it either never happened, or was VASTLY exagerated but was included in the bible anyways.

I personally have yet to see any evidence that holds up to any scrutiny at all and this among other things pointed me to the way I am today.

 

[ebia]

Like others have said, if you want to use real science then there is no evidence at all. Not only that but there are a myrid of things pointing against it. Genetics alone should be enough to convince anyone who knows anything about science. If you take 2 humans from opposite sides of the world and lock them in a national forest with no other humans allowed in and force them to "repopulate" you will end up with a HUGE number of birth defects simple because your gene pool would fit in a dixie cup. This is the same reason incest is so bad, if you breed with a close relitive your genes look a lot alike and the incidences are horrible defects skyrockets.

As a Christian you have 2 routes here. You can believe that it all really did happen and God's had guided it (got all the animals, gave them magic genes, made them not need food or water, allowed a boat of impossible dimensions to actually float...) and then covered up all the evidence to test your faith. Or you can believe that it either never happened, or was VASTLY exagerated but was included in the bible anyways.

Or you can believe that it's a story with a point, probably based in a real historical localised event but not written to describe that event historically, but to explain why God cannot simply wipe out evil.

 

[PastorJim]

Your arrogance comes from a very unstable base

The irony is that this statement comes from somebody who just dismisses any evidence that doesn't agree with him.

 

[Matthewj1985]

The irony is that this statement comes from somebody who just dismisses any evidence that doesn't agree with him.

With the evidence comes from groups who have proven track records for telling outright lies I really can't say that I blame him. The mere fact that instead of publishing papers (like real scientist do) these creationist groups make youtube videos and put up websites (where they conveniently censor all other views) is a big point in and of itself. If creation were science it would have just as many papers published as mainstream explanations for who we are and how we got here.

 

[seashale76]

Look, another debate thread on this board.

 

[Lpe04]

ahhhh, too many questions I was hoping for one

 

[newbeliever02072005]

MOD HAT ON


Closed for staff review


Mod Hat Off