Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2019 5:55 AM
23 online now:
(23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,107 Year: 7,143/19,786 Month: 1,684/1,581 Week: 63/443 Day: 3/60 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Why is a Literal Ark Important?
AustinG
Member (Idle past 3311 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 1 of 22 (505131)
04-07-2009 11:13 PM


Just as warning, this post will be an informal regurgitation of some ideas of mine. If I don't make sense, just ask for clarification : ).

Something has been bothering me. There is so much debate about the Flood Story and Noah's Ark, and I think it clouds the issues. Most folks on the creation side of the argument go on as if Noah had no help from God. Honestly, Noah's Ark doesn't Occur without the help of God. There is no way 2 of every animal can fit onto a ship. The Ark would not have landed on Mount Ararat; it would have been bigger than Mount Ararat itself. Think about it. I don't care how many "kinds" there were (I want to throttle Kent Hovind right now for coining that rediculous word).

If you want to believe in the Flood Story, fine, but it has to happen something like this:

God tells Noah to build an ark, Noah builds the Ark, and since Noah obeyed, God helped Noah just as he helped Abraham, and gave the inside of the Ark infinite space. God kept all the food stuffs filled,just as Jesus filled the baskets of fish and bread, until the waters subsided.

Oh yeah, and God poofed and unpoofed the water. Simple as that. Can anyone prove me wrong?

See, the thing about God, Noah, Jesus, and all that stuff is, it requires faith. To try and explain it all with simple, earthly science only cheapens it; plus, you make yourself look like an ass.

Look, what I'm saying here is, God gave you senses and reason so that you may percieve and make sense of the world (i.e. science), so use those God-given eyeballs, like mainstreem scientists have, and accept reality like God intended.

Now, I'm not saying accept every theory or hypothesis blindly, but quit supporting crack pot ideas about the world. Use your head; God gave it to you for a reason.

So, nevermind all this debate about "kinds". Intelligent Design may have some truth to it. Think of God as a potter. Instead of poofing everything into existence (I'm sure he got bored of poofing after an eternity or two) He/She/It molded everything. Evolution could be Gods way molding and shaping his favorite (most obnoxious) creation, mandkind (and womankind for you ardent femenist out there). Its intelligent, its design, and its evolution...

Questions? Comments? Complaints?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phage0070, posted 04-08-2009 4:22 PM AustinG has responded
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 04-08-2009 5:17 PM AustinG has responded
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 04-08-2009 9:35 PM AustinG has not yet responded
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 2:49 AM AustinG has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12596
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 2 of 22 (505155)
04-08-2009 8:25 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 22 (505186)
04-08-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
04-07-2009 11:13 PM


AustinG writes:

Look, what I'm saying here is, God gave you senses and reason so that you may percieve and make sense of the world (i.e. science), so use those God-given eyeballs, like mainstreem scientists have, and accept reality like God intended.


The problem here is that if you do not take the Bible literally in all areas then you are hard-pressed to justify taking it literally in certain areas. Sure, a literal ark is impossible according to what we know about science, but that also applies equally well to Jesus's miracles such as returning from death. If it is reasonable to use our brains and reasoning to figure out what is real in the ark story, why not do the same in every other part of the Bible?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 04-07-2009 11:13 PM AustinG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AustinG, posted 04-08-2009 8:54 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1329 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 4 of 22 (505191)
04-08-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
04-07-2009 11:13 PM


Hi AustinG,

Your views in this post are very similar to how I viewed the Flood and other Genesis events prior to my deconversion.

There are, unfortunately, several issues with such an approach.

Something has been bothering me. There is so much debate about the Flood Story and Noah's Ark, and I think it clouds the issues. Most folks on the creation side of the argument go on as if Noah had no help from God. Honestly, Noah's Ark doesn't Occur without the help of God. There is no way 2 of every animal can fit onto a ship. The Ark would not have landed on Mount Ararat; it would have been bigger than Mount Ararat itself. Think about it. I don't care how many "kinds" there were (I want to throttle Kent Hovind right now for coining that rediculous word).

If you want to believe in the Flood Story, fine, but it has to happen something like this:

God tells Noah to build an ark, Noah builds the Ark, and since Noah obeyed, God helped Noah just as he helped Abraham, and gave the inside of the Ark infinite space. God kept all the food stuffs filled,just as Jesus filled the baskets of fish and bread, until the waters subsided.

Oh yeah, and God poofed and unpoofed the water. Simple as that. Can anyone prove me wrong?

The most glaring issue is your final question: "Can anyone prove me wrong?"

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. Unfalsifiable ideas are easy to conceive of - one that has been popularly discussed here recently is the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, but others include ghosts, fairies, goblins, etc. The problem is that unfalsifiable ideas cannot ever be tested, and can never be verified. The burden of proof rests not on your opponent, but on you, because you are the one making a claim. It's impossible to prove a negative, except by proving a contradictory assertion to be true. A person who insists that the Flood actually happened needs to be able to support that assertion with evidence. Otherwise, all unfalsifiable assertions are just as valid - including those which contradict your assertion.

You claim that the Flood happened, and that the mechanics surrounding its occurrence were miraculous, flagrantly violating any and all inconsistencies with magic. You claim it;s true because I cannot prove you wrong.

But what happens when I claim that the Flood never happened, and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually created the world as-is, with all memories and records (including the Bible, which He wrote for fun) last Thursday, through magic? You can similarly not prove me wrong.

How do we determine whether an idea is an accurate representation fo reality, or simply a figment of one's imagination?

The answer, of course, is objective evidence. If you cannot provide objective evidence to back your claim, then your claim is likely not an accurate representation of reality. When a claim is specifically engineered to eliminate the possibility of any evidence even existing, as with your rationalization of teh Flood story, the likelihood that the claim accurately represents reality diminishes even further.

There are other issues with your scenario, however.

Even if the water is "poofed" by God, what physical evidence would be left behind? Did God "poof" away all of the corpses left behind by the death of everything not on the Ark? Why does all of the physical data we have match up with an old Earth, with no evidence of any global Flood, "poofed" water or not? Why do we observe layers being deposited on a yearly basis even today that stretch back to long before the Flood is supposed to have happened? Did God "poof" all of teh old-Earth evidence into existence to confuse us?

The more miracles you invoke, the more you beg the question: why should I believe you?

See, the thing about God, Noah, Jesus, and all that stuff is, it requires faith. To try and explain it all with simple, earthly science only cheapens it; plus, you make yourself look like an ass.

I agree that Christian apologetics is an embarrassment. But how else do you rationalize these things?

The Flood either happened or it didn't. If the physical evidence tells us that it didn't happen, why should we assume that the disparity is miraculous, rather than agreeing with the conclusion supported by the evidence?

If you were a juror in a murder trial, would you follow the evidence presented, or would you have "faith" that your snap determination at the beginning of the trial is correct regardless of additional input?

Why is "faith" less ridiculous in a religious context than in a legal trial?

Look, what I'm saying here is, God gave you senses and reason so that you may percieve and make sense of the world (i.e. science), so use those God-given eyeballs, like mainstreem scientists have, and accept reality like God intended.

Now, I'm not saying accept every theory or hypothesis blindly, but quit supporting crack pot ideas about the world. Use your head; God gave it to you for a reason.

Indeed. But what happens when the evidence does contradict the Bible, as in basically all of Genesis and Exodus? Scientific evidence shows us that the Earth is not 10,000 years old, but is rather billions of years old. Scientific evidence shows us that life was [i]not[i/] created in 7 days, but rather evolved slowly over millions and millions of years into the diverse variety we see today. Scientific evidence tells us that no global Flood actually happened.

Nobody expects these things to be taken "blindly." The evidence can easily be examined by anyone willing to learn about geology, biology, physics, and the other sciences, and apply the well-tested theories we have developed and rely upon every day in our technology to the stories in the Bible.

You can test any of the many scientific theories that lead us to these conclusions any time you like - that's one of the most important parts of the scientific method: reproducibility. All you need is knowledge of a given theory and the appropriate equipment, and you can test its accuracy for yourself. In the case of those of us without access to laboratories, there are independantly verified and peer-reviewed scientific journals that detail exactly how we have calibrated and verified the accuracy of various radiometric dating techniques, how we have observed sediment layers in the present day and how pre-existing and identical layers stretch back thousands or even millions of years, how we have observed the motion of the continents, etc.

What happens when these well-tested and highly accurate theories contradicts the Biblical account? You suggest that we should use our eyes and brains and accept reality, but what happens when reality is incompatible with the Bible?

Your approach seems to involve inserting "magic!" into the equation, positing that an all-powerful deity need not be constrained by such things. But again - the more you introduce miraculous exceptions to the way we know the Universe works, the less plausible your assertion becomes as an accurate representation fo reality. When you have no evidence to support your claims, you're no different from me claiming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made everything last Thursday.

So, nevermind all this debate about "kinds". Intelligent Design may have some truth to it. Think of God as a potter. Instead of poofing everything into existence (I'm sure he got bored of poofing after an eternity or two) He/She/It molded everything. Evolution could be Gods way molding and shaping his favorite (most obnoxious) creation, mandkind (and womankind for you ardent femenist out there). Its intelligent, its design, and its evolution...

Questions? Comments? Complaints?

You illustrate the weakness of "faith." You are confident in your beliefs without having any reason to produce that confidence. When presented with evidence that contradicts your beliefs, you do not change your conclusion - you "reinterpret" the evidence by adding miracles and alternative interpretations to support the belief you held from the start.

This is not a reliable method to construct an worldview that accurately represents the real world. It's the way children debate over comic book superheroes and fairy tales. Concepts unbound by objective evidence are nothing more than pure fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 04-07-2009 11:13 PM AustinG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AustinG, posted 04-08-2009 8:48 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
AustinG
Member (Idle past 3311 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 5 of 22 (505202)
04-08-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rahvin
04-08-2009 5:17 PM


I'm actually agnostic (leaning towards deist). All the scientific evidence is against any world wide flood, so I go with that.

My point was not to argue for the flood scientifically or any other way. I was just pointing out that if I world wide flood did occur and Noah indeed saved two of every animal the only way to explain it is with the "poof theory". Anyone who trys to explain it scientifically is being....well...ignorant. I hate to say that, but since this is an informal discussion on my part...I will.

I havn't seen anyone trying to scientifically explain how Jesus turned water into wine...or hell...how he rose from the dead for that matter. These are miracles, and for people of faith, they don't need to be explained. How his the flood story any different? If it did indeed happen, it was a mircale, plain and simple, and cannot be explained with earthly techniques.

Anyone who trys to explain miracles with science is only displaying their insecurities with their own faith.

Do you see what I mean?

p.s. Is your name from TWoT Series?

Edited by AustinG, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 04-08-2009 5:17 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
AustinG
Member (Idle past 3311 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 6 of 22 (505203)
04-08-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phage0070
04-08-2009 4:22 PM


quote:
The problem here is that if you do not take the Bible literally in all areas then you are hard-pressed to justify taking it literally in certain areas. Sure, a literal ark is impossible according to what we know about science, but that also applies equally well to Jesus's miracles such as returning from death. If it is reasonable to use our brains and reasoning to figure out what is real in the ark story, why not do the same in every other part of the Bible?

'
Point taken. Let me adjust my topic title to "Why is a scientific explanation of the Ark Important?"

Edited by AustinG, : No reason given.

Edited by AustinG, : No reason given.

Edited by AustinG, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phage0070, posted 04-08-2009 4:22 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 22 (505204)
04-08-2009 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
04-07-2009 11:13 PM


This is why I think that if there is a god atheists are a lot closer to this god than theists are. Atheists see the world as is intended by the creator while theists see the world as some kind of magical fairy tale.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 04-07-2009 11:13 PM AustinG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 04-08-2009 9:57 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 8 of 22 (505205)
04-08-2009 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
04-08-2009 9:35 PM


World religions
This is why I think that if there is a god atheists are a lot closer to this god than theists are. Atheists see the world as is intended by the creator while theists see the world as some kind of magical fairy tale.

Of which there are approximately 4,300 extant versions.

(Most religious practitioners disbelieve 4,299 of those. Atheists disbelieve just one more.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 04-08-2009 9:35 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 907 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 9 of 22 (505212)
04-09-2009 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
04-07-2009 11:13 PM


Point of Fact
AustinG writes:

I don't care how many "kinds" there were (I want to throttle Kent Hovind right now for coining that rediculous word).

Hello AustinG.

Welcome to EvC.

FYI: Kent Hovind did not coin the term "kinds." The expression comes directly from the Bible itself.

quote:
Gen 8:19 - "Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, [and] whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark."

And prior to that:

quote:
Gen 1:12 - "And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."

And so on, throughout the first chapter of Genesis and beyond.

Please do not make the mistake which so many others have made: of debating a biblical issue without reading the relevant text (in this case the first page of the first book of The Book). Or does your Bible use a word other than "kind"?

BTW. Both "genus" and "species" are Latin Words which may be translated "kind."

In fact, at Genesis 1:12, where the word "kind" appears twice, the Latin Bible gives it as "genus" in the first instance, and "species" in the second.

I hope such mysterious complexity does not discourage you from a hobby in Bible study. It is a truly marvelous, and for me eternally fascinating, word puzzle.

:)


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 04-07-2009 11:13 PM AustinG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by bluescat48, posted 04-09-2009 8:10 AM doctrbill has responded
 Message 12 by AustinG, posted 04-09-2009 7:47 PM doctrbill has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2332 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 10 of 22 (505232)
04-09-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 2:49 AM


Re: Point of Fact
In fact, at Genesis 1:12, where the word "kind" appears twice, the Latin Bible gives it as "genus" in the first instance, and "species" in the second.

So then can I assume that Noah had 4 elephants, since they are from different genera, 2 African and 2 Asian?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 2:49 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 10:07 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 04-10-2009 7:19 AM bluescat48 has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 907 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 11 of 22 (505245)
04-09-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by bluescat48
04-09-2009 8:10 AM


Re: Point of Fact
bluescat48 writes:

So then can I assume that Noah had 4 elephants, since they are from different genera, 2 African and 2 Asian?

I suppose that would be reasonable if one insists on applying conventions of modern science to the poetry of ancient legends. And if that is what one wishes to do, then I submit he had rather 8 elephants: 2 African, 2 Asian, 2 Mammoth, and 2 Mastadon. Even that would, perhaps, be a conservative estimate for I am under the impression that there is fossil evidence of many different kinds of elephant.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by bluescat48, posted 04-09-2009 8:10 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by onifre, posted 04-10-2009 4:57 PM doctrbill has responded

  
AustinG
Member (Idle past 3311 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 12 of 22 (505286)
04-09-2009 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 2:49 AM


Re: Point of Fact
quote:
FYI: Kent Hovind did not coin the term "kinds." The expression comes directly from the Bible itself.

By coined, I mean popularized.

quote:
Please do not make the mistake which so many others have made: of debating a biblical issue without reading the relevant text (in this case the first page of the first book of The Book). Or does your Bible use a word other than "kind"?

I don't pretend to have read the whole Bible. I have, however, read Genesis.

quote:
BTW. Both "genus" and "species" are Latin Words which may be translated "kind."

Semantics only cloud the issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 2:49 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 9:43 PM AustinG has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 907 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 13 of 22 (505294)
04-09-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by AustinG
04-09-2009 7:47 PM


A Semantic Issue
By coined, I mean popularized.

You realize the difference now. Yes?

Semantics only cloud the issue.

So you understand why you were misunderstood. Yes?

And Hey, Semantics ARE the issue. Every question of interpretation IS a semantic issue; including whether or not to take it literally.

Semantic
ADJECTIVE:
Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language. American Heritage Dictionary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by AustinG, posted 04-09-2009 7:47 PM AustinG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 04-09-2009 10:41 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 22 (505297)
04-09-2009 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 9:43 PM


Re: A Semantic Issue
doctrbill writes:

So you understand why you were misunderstood. Yes?


Only to some degree. I understood what he meant. Everyone else here understood what he meant. I'm sure you understood what he meant, too. By picking on this very irrelevant little part of his whole statement, you really did cloud the issue.

It's like I say "man, president Bush really messed things up when he invaded Iraq..." and you come in and say "Bush didn't invade Iraq, how could one man invade an entire country?" All you just did is draw people's eyes away from the main point onto a very insignificant technicality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 9:43 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 15 of 22 (505315)
04-10-2009 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by bluescat48
04-09-2009 8:10 AM


Re: Point of Fact
bluescat48 writes:

So then can I assume that Noah had 4 elephants, since they are from different genera, 2 African and 2 Asian?

are they not related?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by bluescat48, posted 04-09-2009 8:10 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 04-10-2009 7:29 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 22 by bluescat48, posted 04-20-2009 8:24 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019