Noah's Ark?

[adstrinity]

Originally Posted by Orogeny

Nope. Just the opposite.

Nope. Wrong.

Nope. Try again.

Nope. Fourth wrong.

It could be an explaination, but since there is no evidence that that is the case, there is no rational reason to believe it.

You mean tectonic plates? There is not nearly enough water on the earth to come close to covering it as described.

Peace

Tim

And you better listen to him, Meggie, I'm sure he was there and saw how these things happened first hand so he knows for sure. It's obvious he knows what he's talking about. LOOK at all the detailed evidence he gave refuting you!!!

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by Meggie

Where did that water come from?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...ood-waters.asp


also read "The world that Perished"

If you read closely, AIG doesn't answer the question. Obviously, according to them, it didn't come from the sky. As they correctly noted, the volume of water in the atmosphere necessary would have created such high temperatures that all life would have perished, including Noah. So it didn't come from the sky.

It must have come from the ground. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for it to be there in the first place. So they postulate (extra-biblically, I might add) that catastrophic plate tectonics cause the flood. Unfortunately for them, science, specifically physics and geology, disagrees. The energy generated by such large-scale movement of tectonic plates would have, again, overhelmed life on earth, Noah included. They quote Steve Austin as saying that the sea floor rose 6,500 ft because of the heat generated by the rapid plate movements and that is what caused the flood. Why was the heat only relegated to sea floor lifting. Where did the latent heat go?

Where is the evidence of these massive, catastrophic events that occurred within man's history? Why do we still have oceans? Where did the water go after the flood? Why is there NO geological evidence of a one-time global flood when floods leave masses of evidence of their existence?

These arguments are not biblical. If you want to say that Noah's flood really happened and that it was truly global because the bible says so, you can't reach outside of the bible to explain it. Just claim that it was a miracle and don't try to use science to explain it.

Peace

Tim

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by adstrinity

And you better listen to him, Meggie, I'm sure he was there and saw how these things happened first hand so he knows for sure. It's obvious he knows what he's talking about. LOOK at all the detailed evidence he gave refuting you!!!

You mean, like the evidence of the original claims?

How about this. You give me some evidence that what Meggie claimed happened. We can then discuss evidence.

It's kinda hard to discuss that which doesn't exist .

Peace

Tim

[tuopaolo]

Originally Posted by RyanL

It is my understanding that this is not required by the Church to be taken in a literalist sense. Obviously, the Bible is not a historical textbook (as such), nor is it a text on evolutionary biology. I believe we are free to see Noah's ark as an allegorical story, and not 100% accurate history. While inerrent, it must be understood to be what it is - the guideplan of God's revelation of Himself and the lamppost unto our feet, lighting the way to our salvation. If I am wrong, PLEASE CORRECT ME, as I am trying to hold firm to the teachings of the Church and want to obey the Magisterium.

Peace in Christ,
RyanL

Ryan, what extreme liberals say notwithstanding, the Magisterium teaches that everything that is affirmed in Scripture is affirmed by the Holy Spirit Himself. Everything means everything. Since the Holy Spirit can neither deceive nor be deceived, this means that everything that is affirmed in Scripture is without error -- regardless of the subject matter.

So, if one interprets a particular affirmation as being metaphorical in nature, that is OK as long as one recognizes the affirmation as being true and without any error. So for example if there were an affirmation in scripture that said, "It was raining cats and dogs" -- one could interpret that as being metaphorical (which it obviously is) and understand it to be affirming that it was raining heavily -- an affirmation that is true and without error. What is not permitted is to say that an affirmation in scripture is in error with respect to history but true with respect to its spirtiual meaning as explained above. So if one were to interpret the affirmations in scripture regarding Noah and the Flood as being metaphorical in nature and still true and without error, then that would not of itself contradict the Church's doctrine. But if one were to say that some affirmations in scripture regarding Noah and the Flood were in error but that the spiritual meaning still remains true, then that would contradict the Church's doctrine.

It's also important to maintain an orthodox Christology.

I don't know whether the magisterium has taught specifically on Noah and the Flood, but I suspect it must have touched on it over the centuries. I do know that recognizing a real Noah and the real Flood covering the whole earth is the historic, traditional Catholic position. This site has a nice question and answer page:

http://www.kolbecenter.org/q_and_a.html
"7. Does the church teach that the flood of Noah was a real historic event or a myth?"

But it's under construction so no answer is provided yet.

Here's the main page though:
http://www.kolbecenter.org/

[Kevin Walker]

Originally Posted by Orogeny

Nope. Just the opposite.

Nope. Wrong.

Nope. Try again.

Nope. Fourth wrong.

It could be an explaination, but since there is no evidence that that is the case, there is no rational reason to believe it.

You mean tectonic plates? There is not nearly enough water on the earth to come close to covering it as described.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

I think you better go back and review your ancient history. There are several references to a massive flood found in the writings in Ur, Babylon, and Egypt. So independent historical sources indicate that something large and wet did happen. You cannot simply dismiss the flood!

More and more aspects of the Bible are being historically proven by the hard work of archeologists and non-religious historians. The Bible seems to be a curious mixture of historical fact, allegory, and metaphor. According to outside literature, some sort of flood did happen.

[Meggie]

Originally Posted by Orogeny

You mean tectonic plates? There is not nearly enough water on the earth to come close to covering it as described.

Peace

Tim

Well, umm....did the Tsunami have no affect on you...see the massive wave caused by one, tinsy, tiny earthquake (in comparision to what would of happened if the contanants shifted)



About the icecaps freezing....there is theory to support that...its called the bering straight....

[Dph]

Where did all the water come from?? Hmmm Let's see...


"In God, everything is possible"
- Jesus Christ.

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by Kevin Walker

Hi Tim,

I think you better go back and review your ancient history. There are several references to a massive flood found in the writings in Ur, Babylon, and Egypt. So independent historical sources indicate that something large and wet did happen. You cannot simply dismiss the flood!

I haven't dismissed the flood. But there is absolutely no physical evidence of a global flood. You cannot have a flood of the proportions of the flood of Genesis and not leave physical evidence.

Flood stories abound because civilizations grow in areas that tend to be prone to flooding. It is not unbelievable that there was a very large local flood that those stories are based on. But I will repeat - there is no phyisical evidence of a global flood.

Peace

Tim

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by Meggie

Well, umm....did the Tsunami have no affect on you...see the massive wave caused by one, tinsy, tiny earthquake (in comparision to what would of happened if the contanants shifted)

Of course the tsunami had an effect on me, but that has nothing to do with the flood of Genesis. That was one tiny earthquake only if you have no concept of the power of earthquakes.

Oh, and by the way, that itsy bitsy earthquake and tsunami left lots of physical evidence.

There is NO evidence that there has been a major shifting of the continents on the order you are suggesting over the period of the last 10,000 years. Trust me. That would be very easy to determine if only we were still alive.

About the icecaps freezing....there is theory to support that...its called the bering straight....

Not sure what you are talking about here, but yes, there are icecaps and there is a Bering Strait, but it is not a theory. You got me there.

Peace

Tim

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by Dph

Where did all the water come from?? Hmmm Let's see...


"In God, everything is possible"
- Jesus Christ.

True, but unless God is a great practical joker that has hidden the evidence for a global flood, there was no global flood.

Peace

Tim

[Kevin Walker]

Originally Posted by Orogeny

I haven't dismissed the flood. But there is absolutely no physical evidence of a global flood. You cannot have a flood of the proportions of the flood of Genesis and not leave physical evidence.

Flood stories abound because civilizations grow in areas that tend to be prone to flooding. It is not unbelievable that there was a very large local flood that those stories are based on. But I will repeat - there is no phyisical evidence of a global flood.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

Global Flooding is a relevant term. Six thousand years ago the world consisted of the Fertile Cresent; two thousand years ago the world consisted of the Mediteranean basin; one thousand years ago the world consisted of Europe and Asia Minor; etc......

In the eyes of the authors of the Old Testament, the Flood was global in proportion. Archeologists have found evidence of a great flood in the region of Mesopotamia in the form of out of place plant spores and the layering effect of large areas of sandstone, which could only have occured in the presence of a large volume of moving water. So a flood larger than that of Jonestown, PA could have been expanded in the telling and became global.

I agree basically with what you said except the historiographic mistake of being present minded. Six thousand years ago the scholars didn't know the earth was round with other continents on the other side of the ocean, if they knew of an ocean besides the Med.

[Orogeny]

Hi, Kevin.

I don't discount a local or regional flood. There have been studies in the Black Sea area that may have identified a major, catastrophic flood. That flood may be possible candidate for the event that spawned the stories such as those found in Genesis or the Gilgamesh epic.

A regional flood is not what has been claimed in this thread. That is also not what many fundamentalist protestants believe. Unfortunately, what I have read on this thread is a verbatum recitation of claims from fundamentalist web pages.

Peace

Tim

[Zooey]

Originally Posted by Dph

Where did all the water come from?? Hmmm Let's see...


"In God, everything is possible"
- Jesus Christ.

[abu kamoon]

For those who wonder about where the water came from, you need to read a book called THE BIBLICAL FLOOD AND THE ICE EPOCH, by Donald Wesley Patten. Mr. Patten's book is the only one that makes any sense when you consider the frozen wolly mammoths found in polar regions. There is no natural mechanism that could explain how animals of that size could be quick frozen.

Believers in evolution claim that the climate changed. This is even more irrational than the evolutionary theory. The only way that we could quick freeze these animals today is to emerse them in liquid nitrogen, or some other liquid close to absolute zero. The book gives a scenario of an ice ball or comet passing close to the Earth. When it got to a point known as Roche's Limit, the gravity of Earth caused it to break apart. It rained down on the Earth, water and super-cooled ice.

The gravity exerted by the ice ball also casused the crust of the Earth to fracture releasing subterrainian water. Dynamic forces released by these fissures eventually caused the crust to buckle, which in turn gave us our present mountain ranges. The water eventually settled in the lower region and became the oceans.

Contrast this with the monkey to man, fossils deposited over "millions of years", and a climate change that quick froze animals with tropical vegetation in their mouths, and tell me what is harder to believe.

ابو كمون

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by abu kamoon

For those who wonder about where the water came from, you need to read a book called THE BIBLICAL FLOOD AND THE ICE EPOCH, by Donald Wesley Patten. Mr. Patten's book is the only one that makes any sense when you consider the frozen wolly mammoths found in polar regions. There is no natural mechanism that could explain how animals of that size could be quick frozen.

Believers in evolution claim that the climate changed. This is even more irrational than the evolutionary theory. The only way that we could quick freeze these animals today is to emerse them in liquid nitrogen, or some other liquid close to absolute zero. The book gives a scenario of an ice ball or comet passing close to the Earth. When it got to a point known as Roche's Limit, the gravity of Earth caused it to break apart. It rained down on the Earth, water and super-cooled ice.

The gravity exerted by the ice ball also casused the crust of the Earth to fracture releasing subterrainian water. Dynamic forces released by these fissures eventually caused the crust to buckle, which in turn gave us our present mountain ranges. The water eventually settled in the lower region and became the oceans.

Contrast this with the monkey to man, fossils deposited over "millions of years", and a climate change that quick froze animals with tropical vegetation in their mouths, and tell me what is harder to believe.

ابو كمون

It is hard for me to believe that anyone would fall for that!

By the way, just for the sake of accuracy, no credible scientist claims that wooly mammoths were "quick frozen", items entering the earth's atmosphere heat up rather than cool down and evolution (which isn't the topic here) doesn't claim monkeys to men.

Peace

Tim