Noahs Ark

[Stu]

•There's no evidence of a global flood.
•There's no way all the species would fit on the ark.
•There's no way the plants would survive.
•There's no way the carnivores would be able to sustain their population if they and the herbivores were brought in as pairs (you need a much larger herbivore population to sustain the carnivores).
•There's no way the animals would have spread across the continents, particularly to the western hemisphere. They were separated by that point.

Ok some questions about Noah's ark. Unless you don't believe it was global Idk, tell me what you think about it and what your beliefs are.

You obviously haven't looked at all the evidence then.
Easier to remake the Bible around your own paradigm I guess.

For goodness sake read Genesis 6:7 and particularly Genesis 7:4.

In Genesis 6:7 it says

And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

In Genesis 7:4 it says

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

That is EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE. Not every living substance in an isolated place. EVERY living substance off the face of the earth.

If you want to change what is said in the Bible then by all means rewrite what it says in the Bible, but don't pretend that the Bible says anything other than ALL creatures that move along the ground and birds of the air.

What's a little sad about OECists is that they unwittingly have diluted the Bible to the point at which they cannot argue with anyone attempting to dilute other parts of the Bible (be it Jesus' position, salvation or history according to the Bible).

There are many sources out there but I found these couple videos to be quite comprehensive in terms of evidence for a global flood. Give them a watch and decide for yourself.

A Universal Flood
Science today denies a universal flood, as it would destroy the continuity of the fossil record in the geological column. In this video, evidence for precisely such a universal phenomenon is presented with fascinating video material from modern day catastrophes on a smaller scale. The origin of the petrified forests and their flood implications are also discussed.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZrxogY9Pnc[/youtube]


Watch the following video from about the 32:00 minute mark:

The Earth in Time and Space
In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed. The catastrophic origin of the geological column is presented in full multimedia format. Evidence for rapid water deposition of the layers of the geological column, canyon formation, erosional features, and paraconformites (missing time zones) are discussed together with their age implications. The standard geological view is contrasted with the Biblical view, enabling the viewer to make a choice between the two...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMU1soRrtJk[/youtube]


You can find more videos in the 8 part series here.

[PaulSacramento]

To be frank, it's not an issue that I feel I have sufficient time or expertise to study. I know that there are widely published PhDs in such fields as geology who are convinced that the GF not only fits with science but is the best explanation of the evidence as we have it (Andrew Snelling with AiG--who I posted two videos from earlier in this thread--to take one of many examples I could cite). At the same time, I know there are other equally educated PhDs who disagree. That is an area where I'm not qualified to comment on. I can say that I think the historical v. observational science distinction is correct and the arguments I've seen against it tend to be straw men. As such, I think that distinction accounts for a lot of the so called evidence against a GF, for such evidence is really seems to just beg the question in that it assumes that catastrophism is false. Then from that assumption, it reads the evidence in such a way to disprove catastrophism, when the same evidence can be read in a catastrophic light.

But, again, I am perfectly comfortable saying that I am not a scientist. My training is in philosophy, history, and theology. I, then, am fine appealing to the authority of those scientists with whom I find agreement on philosophical, historical, and theological agreement.

As to where I place it, I can only speak theologically. It seems to me that we are biblically warranted to place the Flood anywhere from 50,000-4000BC, probably at neither extreme. I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find out that it happened ~35,000 years ago, but I can hardly be precise for the simple reason that the text is not.

Excellent response, thank you.

[PaulSacramento]

As such, I think that distinction accounts for a lot of the so called evidence against a GF, for such evidence is really seems to just beg the question in that it assumes that catastrophism is false. Then from that assumption, it reads the evidence in such a way to disprove catastrophism, when the same evidence can be read in a catastrophic light.

But its begging a question initself, the sceintists who believe in GF, start with that assumption too and just look at evidence to prove catastrophisM.

Frankly, when you argue scriptures, you can say the scriptures are correct and you want to go with that and that is fine. But when you are arguing for a science question like a global flood, appealing to scriptures is fallacious for that would imply question begging, since you would already believe a GF. And the scriptures and science won't match and then its a problem.

Ultimately what you are saying basically has no effect either way. It simply does not matter what you hold to begin with, what matters is do you have evidence and does that evidence provides enough warrant to dissmiss a position? Does the evidence leads to assume that there is no GF or that the evidence is assumed to be of a LF...you think its the latter but scientifically its the the former and not the latter. Rich may not have done a solid job of it, infact I agree with you supporting a LF from the scriptures is more problematic.

If a rock has no date stamped on it, microdateing methods used on it would give a date. Some poeple find radiocarbon not trustworthy, even thought it gives very good ranges, but besides that there are plenty of other dating methods and almost all tell the same thing. And contrary to belief its not that the rock gave a 10k year old date and scientists try to fit it back a million years. When the majority of dating methods give a close enpough range than we know for certain that its that old.

It should be noted that dates are NOT based only only ONE method of dating.
When scientists establish a date RANGE it is based on a few different methods that all agree.
Carbon dating is only one method used.

[PaulSacramento]

To me, far more important that IF it happened ( I believe did) and what degree it was global ( I believe it was either a very broad "local" flood but not global), is WHY it happened and I think, IMO, that is the point of the flood story:
Why God brought forth a flood.

[jlay]

As such, I think that distinction accounts for a lot of the so called evidence against a GF, for such evidence is really seems to just beg the question in that it assumes that catastrophism is false. Then from that assumption, it reads the evidence in such a way to disprove catastrophism, when the same evidence can be read in a catastrophic light.

But its begging a question initself, the sceintists who believe in GF, start with that assumption too and just look at evidence to prove catastrophisM.

Frankly, when you argue scriptures, you can say the scriptures are correct and you want to go with that and that is fine. But when you are arguing for a science question like a global flood, appealing to scriptures is fallacious for that would imply question begging, since you would already believe a GF. And the scriptures and science won't match and then its a problem.

Ultimately what you are saying basically has no effect either way. It simply does not matter what you hold to begin with, what matters is do you have evidence and does that evidence provides enough warrant to dissmiss a position? Does the evidence leads to assume that there is no GF or that the evidence is assumed to be of a LF...you think its the latter but scientifically its the the former and not the latter. Rich may not have done a solid job of it, infact I agree with you supporting a LF from the scriptures is more problematic.

If a rock has no date stamped on it, microdateing methods used on it would give a date. Some poeple find radiocarbon not trustworthy, even thought it gives very good ranges, but besides that there are plenty of other dating methods and almost all tell the same thing. And contrary to belief its not that the rock gave a 10k year old date and scientists try to fit it back a million years. When the majority of dating methods give a close enpough range than we know for certain that its that old.

Not following your rock example or what you are arguing for or against. If a rock is say, 5,000 years old or 1 million years old. How does covering it in water change its age?

[WannaLearn]

•There's no evidence of a global flood.
•There's no way all the species would fit on the ark.
•There's no way the plants would survive.
•There's no way the carnivores would be able to sustain their population if they and the herbivores were brought in as pairs (you need a much larger herbivore population to sustain the carnivores).
•There's no way the animals would have spread across the continents, particularly to the western hemisphere. They were separated by that point.

Ok some questions about Noah's ark. Unless you don't believe it was global Idk, tell me what you think about it and what your beliefs are.

You obviously haven't looked at all the evidence then.
Easier to remake the Bible around your own paradigm I guess.

For goodness sake read Genesis 6:7 and particularly Genesis 7:4.

In Genesis 6:7 it says

And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

In Genesis 7:4 it says

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

That is EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE. Not every living substance in an isolated place. EVERY living substance off the face of the earth.

If you want to change what is said in the Bible then by all means rewrite what it says in the Bible, but don't pretend that the Bible says anything other than ALL creatures that move along the ground and birds of the air.

What's a little sad about OECists is that they unwittingly have diluted the Bible to the point at which they cannot argue with anyone attempting to dilute other parts of the Bible (be it Jesus' position, salvation or history according to the Bible).

There are many sources out there but I found these couple videos to be quite comprehensive in terms of evidence for a global flood. Give them a watch and decide for yourself.

A Universal Flood
Science today denies a universal flood, as it would destroy the continuity of the fossil record in the geological column. In this video, evidence for precisely such a universal phenomenon is presented with fascinating video material from modern day catastrophes on a smaller scale. The origin of the petrified forests and their flood implications are also discussed.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZrxogY9Pnc[/youtube]


Watch the following video from about the 32:00 minute mark:

The Earth in Time and Space
In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed. The catastrophic origin of the geological column is presented in full multimedia format. Evidence for rapid water deposition of the layers of the geological column, canyon formation, erosional features, and paraconformites (missing time zones) are discussed together with their age implications. The standard geological view is contrasted with the Biblical view, enabling the viewer to make a choice between the two...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMU1soRrtJk[/youtube]


You can find more videos in the 8 part series here.

Have you read any of the posts?