Making Waves Over Noah’s Flood.

Newsday ^ | January 14, 2003 | By Robert Cooke

[DannyTN]

"simply because most of the modern sciences are only 300 years old or whatever isn't reason enough to doubt the conclusions reached by scientific inquiry."

It germain because they are having to extrapolate out to a long period of time (6000 yrs - 6 million years) given a relatively short amount of time (50 years-200 years). That forces them to make all kinds of assumptions.

Well, there's nothing in the fossil or geologic records to suggest The Flood actually occurred ..." It's my understanding that fossils of sea creatures have been found at the top of some of the highest mountains.

In order for fossils to form, the animal must be trapped in clay or mud, otherwise it would decompose. Thus the fossil record itself is potentially evidence of a flood.

http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm10.htm

http://www.sixdaycreation.com/feb.html "Jesus spoke in parables and analogies. Why couldn't The Father?

When Jesus spoke in parables he frequently explained the meaning of the parables. You would expect to see the same thing out of the Father. It's just not likely that God would not use language that clearly indicates a parable instead of history.

Speed of light not constant, "I'm unaware of (surely not!), that particular hypothesis was shown to be untrue."

This is from August 2001. I've not seen any articles disproving it. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

[DannyTN]

I do believe in a 7 day creation, for I believe God is powerful enough to do create the heavens and earth in 7 days, and I see no reason for Him to take longer. It's just I'm not expert enough to be certain that that is the only way the scripture can be interpreted.

On the other hand, I don't want to make the same mistake that the Catholics did with Gallileo and hang an argument on one word. A word that turned out to be badly translated.

However, having said that, I don't think the scientists have done a very good job of making their case. They do not seem to have been very open minded in considering the possibilities and have in fact seem very antagonistic to the account recorded in scripture. There is far too much cirular reasoning for my taste.

Fortunately more and more scientists are starting to question some of the assumptions that have been made in the scientific community.

[DannyTN]

"As George Carlin says: If you sin, God will condemn you forever to the eternal hell fires where you will burn in agony forever and ever and ever and ever — but HE LOVES YOU!."

Sounds ludicrous at first glance doesn't it. Until you stop and think what is sin and what are the consequences of sin? Well we can look around today in this age of freedom and see the results of sin. Murders, hatred, abortions, unwanted children left to fend for themselves, the breakup of families, adultery, hurt and pain everywhere you look.

How can God being a God of Justice not judge sin. He told us plainly before Adam ever sinned that the penalty would be death.

But God loves us? Well, he doesn't love all the things we do, but He loved us enough to pay the penalty for our sins. He died so we don't have to. There's just one little catch. You have to plea, you have to agree to the substitution. If you don't you are in continued rebellion against God and that's the one sin that will still send you to hell. But if you do, you are home scott free.

Not really a bad deal when you think about it. God really does love us. Why more people don't take Him up on His offer is really beyond me. I guess it sounds too good to be true.

[DannyTN]

"My biggest problem is that the size of the Ark is specifically given, yet there is no way that Noah could have possibly fit all the animals into that size of a boat. "

Perhaps this will clear that up. The math does seem to indicate the Ark was sufficient.

Here are two sites that claim to do the math on fitting the animals in the ark. I expecially like the first one "The Great Dinosaur Mistake"

http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm3.htm

http://www.sixdaycreation.com/april2001.html

[pby]

In re to your reply:

1. Divine guidance is evident.

2. Genesis Chapter 1 contains no poetic prose. It contains only historic prose. Genesis is not a scientific tretise; However, it is accurate in its historicity. (Prove that God did not create everything in six literal days)

All the best to you as well.

[DannyTN]

"It says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and that water covered the whole earth."... "The person who documented that event had satelite photos? Or was the earth flat at that time and he made a visual determination? " The problem here goes beyond the visual observation. It was prophesised to Noah that the whole earth would be flooded thus the need to build the ark to accomodate animals. And it was reported that all land animals died. Thus if you could discount any part of the account, you might as well discount the whole account. Of course reverse logic can be used to say, if the prophets prophesized Jesus, and no one disputes these books were written before Jesus. Then is it not reasonable to assume that the works of Moses, also a prophet and among those prophets who prophesied the coming of Jesus, are accurate?

[Junior]

It helps if there is supporting evidence. Otherwise, why should someone believe it to be true?

[DannyTN]

"Moses may have authored Genesis, but its original version, like Homer's Epic of Troy, was oral, rather than written"

Given that Moses was raised as a prince under Pharoah, it is likely that Moses learned to write. There are numerous commands in the first five books of the bible where God tells Moses to write. And then you have the whole 10 commandments thing, where God did the writing, but obviously intended to give the tablets to someone literate.

I think it is more likely that Moses did write the first five books of the bible with the exception of his own death, which obviously was added for him. On the other hand Moses was a prophet, and therefore it's possible that Moses even wrote that part too.

[RaceBannon]

Read Genesis again, then, for it says the ENTIRE EARTH, the WHOLE EARTH, not just a local flood, that is the key here.

There may be interesting stuff about sediments proving Noah's flood, but to localize it is dead wrong. Else, there is no reason for you and me to see a rainbow and believe in God's promise!

[saint]

Serious answer:

Actually, I can accept 6000 years since the first created day. But that starts at the separation of light and dark which is in verse 4 of Genesis 1. So the first day started at verse 4.

Now we have to say how much time transpired in verses 1-3. In verse 1 God created the heavens and the earth. How much time then passes until verse 4 when the first day is created? For all we know verse 2 could have transpired over eons. We don't have a clue. Everybody assumes that the first day was at the beginning of time. I don't understand this assumption nor do I see any support for it.

[DannyTN]

I agree with you. I don't think it was localized at all. It wouldn't make sense to gather animals for a localized flood.

[DannyTN]

"So the first day started at verse 4." God makes the stars in vs 14 and the Sun and moon in vs 16. In chapter 2, it starts Gen1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Gen2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done So when you consider that I think there is justification for the assumption to think all of creation occured within the 7 days. Is it possible we've misread it. Maybe. There's at least one group out there that thinks that there was a creation before this one so that then Gen 1:1 starts off saying "In the beginning...", it's only the beginning of this creation. I think that's a bizarre theory, yet, I'm not sure I can say 100% absolutely not.

[jeremiah]

Bingo, right here...... I think the oceans are also the result, there was much less water on the ground, it was under the earth as suggested by "the fountains of the deep were opened" quote in the Bible. So the flood was a combination of water from above, and the much smaller oceans rising etc. There is lots of evidence, the Grand Canyon for instance, millions of years of passage, or a catastrophe of biblical magnitude?

[jeremiah]

Do you quote Carlin often? If you do, you are a rare conservative. George is a raving nutter, and a flamin' pinko to boot.

[jeremiah]

Why is it important for you to post among your replies, lengthy discussions and the citings of sources? Few if any care enough to delve into this depth, and those that do, are better served with a link. Save some bandwidth. Of course I may be shouted down, but there must be some, likely most of us here hate to run into a roadblock such as you put on this thread at #32.

[fella]

"I don't see anything wrong with critical analysis."

I believe that it was Mark Twain that said "Man is the only animal with reason, in fact he is the only animal that can reason himself right into the wrong conclusion.".

[DannyTN]

I believe that it was Mark Twain that said "Man is the only animal with reason, in fact he is the only animal that can reason himself right into the wrong conclusion.".

Lol, good point.

Perhaps I should have said, "There is nothing wrong with critical analysis as long as you are not arrogant and stupid about it and think yourself smarter than God."

Proverbs 28:26 - He who trusts in his own mind is a fool; but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered

Genesis 8:21 - ... for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth...

[DannyTN]

"It helps if there is supporting evidence. Otherwise, why should someone believe it to be true?"

That's an excellent question.

Some evidence has been offered already specific to the flood including evidence specific to the fossil record, that the size of the boat was sufficient for the cargo, etc.

But there are other reasons for believing the scriptures are true. Two primary evidences of God's involvement are miracles which demonstrate God's power and prophesies which can be authenticated over time which demonstrate God's foreknowledge.

There are numerous prophecies that can be reliably dated and their fulfillment noted. Some of which are being fulfilled in our time.

The evidence for various miracles are the testamonies of people who saw them. And some records of miracles are in secular works, such as the darkness in the final hours of Jesus' death on the cross.

Many of the prophets referred back to the books of Moses treating them as authentic. Therefore if you can accept Jesus or any of the later prophets as being true prophets, you can effectively use their reference as an authentication stamp of prior works.

[RightWhale]

Baby animals.

Seed packets.

[Junior]

Some evidence has been offered already specific to the flood including evidence specific to the fossil record, that the size of the boat was sufficient for the cargo, etc.

There is no fossil evidence for the Flood. At all. As for the Ark being of sufficient size, I ran the numbers on the beast a year or two ago on these threads and there isn't sufficient room for a tenth of the animals that would be required to have one or seven pair of each species (no one has yet defined a "kind" so we'll ignore it).

Also, at 135 meters long (450 feet) the Ark is too large to be structurally sound. No wooden ships ever exceeded 90 meters (300 feet) as wood cannot handle the stresses associated with being waterborne. The Scriptural Flood has all the earmarks of a localized event that has been exagerated through story-telling over many generations.