Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Noah's Ark Found In Turkey?
Okay, how did that 8-foot tall, Väinö Myllyrinne, find a coat that was too long for him?

Most of the tall people photographed were unable to walk or stand. The physics of bone structure requires the cross section to be much greater than the ratio of normal-sized people, and beyond a certain point, the human skeletal system cannot work. Yao Ming may have been the only one photographed who was arguably healthy and able to move athletically.
Just wait until you see the leg bones of these guys. Everything is symmetrical. Everyone here is going to be astonished when they see these skeletons.

Tait,can you post the photos for me if I send them to ya?
The theme about flood myths I subscribe to is the one put forward by geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer. Essentially, it goes like this:

Most flood myths formulated during prehistoric times when, due to receding ice ages, various parts of the world would become submerged in water. If you trace by culture, you find that those cultures that have flood myths had at one point in their prehistoric history lived in areas that became submerged during the end of an ice age. For instance, according to Oppenheimer, Mideasterners are mostly descended from people who had migrated out of the Indian subcontinent after the end of an ice age, when India became submerged. At the same time, people who didn't once live in submerged areas don't have flood myths; for instance, there are none in sub-Saharan African cultures.
Don't know if that theory holds water, because the people who migrated out of ice age floods moved to the very places that didn't have such flooding.
It is ironically amusing that so many cultures with flood legends are claimed to have come from areas that experienced "localized" flooding. How many cultures have to be cited before we admit the greater likelihood is that the flood was global?

It is like the so-called dinosaur "graveyards," where bones from millions of dinosaurs and other creatures are found all jumbled together, unmistakably from the action of some water catastrophe, and yet it is claimed that these water catastrophes were merely localized events. How many such graveyards have to be found before we admit the greater likelihood that the water catastrophe that produced them was global?

Again, as for the allegation that the Genesis Creation account was metaphor or allegory--the burden of proof is on those who claim this to prove FROM THE TEXT that it should not be taken literally. There is nothing in the text that gives us any leave to take it as anything other than a literal narrative of actual events. You have to impose your own bias on the text to make the interpretation that the Genesis Creation account, or the Flood account, are not literal.

If you believe the divine inspiration of the Bible, then consider the testimony of the rest of the Bible about the Genesis Creation account. For example, consider the text of the fourth commandment, written by the finger of God Himself on stone: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (NKJV) To deny this is to allege God is a liar.

If the Genesis Creation account were not literal, then the Sabbath would make no sense as a memorial of Creation.

Here are some texts in the New Testament where the Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood are taken literally: Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24; Romans 8:19-22; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Revelation 14:7. Here are the words of Jesus Christ Himself, where He takes the Genesis record literally: Matthew 19:4-6; 24:37-39; Mark 10:6; 13:19; Luke 17:26, 27.

The entire narrative of the Old Testament takes the Genesis account literally.

The Apostle Paul even makes the Genesis Creation account the basis of the Gospel and the principle of Salvation in Christ: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive....And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45-47)

Thus the most fundamental core of Christianity--the Gospel itself--is lost if the Genesis account is not taken literally. Humanity was constituted a race of sinners in Adam, in accord with Genesis 3, and Jesus Christ saved us by becoming a New Adam for our race.

If Genesis is not literal, then we are not a race of sinners, and Christ could not be our Savior. There is no escape from this iron-clad logic. In the end all Christians must choose between Christ and a denial of the Genesis Creation account as literal truth. There is no room in the theology of Justification by Faith for theistic evolution, nor for any kind of denial of the Genesis account of Creation.

This is why one of the final warning messages to the whole world in the time of the end is a call to return to Creationism: "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Note the citation from the fourth commandment.)

I agree to an extent here with your logic,I would warn you to observe what you've accused the skeptics of. Beware of your own biases.

Every human has them,I do and you do.

Just saying,no human can avoid biases.

Not to argue with your specific ideas,just the attitude toward these folks.

Some Scripture IMO clearly is NOT to be read as literal info,yet I know Christians who would accuse me of being for the devil in so saying. I've been accused of such,I know.

Strictly relating to a global flood,I think the physical and societal tradition evidence would weigh in the balances and be assumed to be accurate.

The apparent sudden destruction of all the super huge animals we don't know of anymore is a point of reference,I have to say before I cared about spiritual things the notion 1 big comet blasted Arizona and all dinosaurs globally died then is less believable to me.

Fish fossils on most mountain peaks,global flood makes more logic than all those peaks just happened at various times in the last billion years to have shot up through water. Just the odds make the flood more plausible explanation,IMO.

All the human traditions widespread is a point of reference.

The various explanations such as Anon posited make less reasonable sense to me than assuming there was a global flood,but,I have an acknowledged bias I admit.

One other thing. I've asked the "naturalists" how they knew if the earth's surface was as covered,the same or less covered with water back then. No one answers.

I think the flood itself made the earth much closer to what we know now than what it was. I think the continents probably were seperated then or moreso by the flood,I think the surface waters of today are probably higher % coverage than then.

Because of the quantity of water from the great deep was added to the earth's surface and that hydraulic violence probably exacerbated continental shift,things like the grand canyon,etc. Total speculation on my part,my biases,etc.
WmLambert Wrote:Don't know if that theory holds water, because the people who migrated out of ice age floods moved to the very places that didn't have such flooding.

True, the theory makes the assumption that cultural beliefs stay with a people for a very long time. Oppenheimer is arguing that they kept the flood myths with them thousands of years after they had left the flooded areas.

Hard to believe, yet Oppenheimer's genetic research shows that, genetically at least, settled populations haven't changed much since Mesolithic times. Considering that, its not a far stretch to see how cultural myths and beliefs could also stay with a people for a very long time.

BTW the theory also has belief in a "Great Flood" - only this flood happened in India, where the ancestors of later Mideasterners first lived.
Every Monsoon season in India has a great flood.
Maybe the Indians called it the great "Tsunami".
Palladin, yes, we are all subject to biases. The only reasonable way to avoid biases is to consider the whole testimony of the Bible, all texts that speak on related subjects lined up side-by-side. I do not believe any objective person can read the many, many references in the Old and New Testaments to the Creation and Flood accounts being literal truth, and not conclude this is the over-all teaching of Scripture. The fourth commandment especially is conclusive. It is absolutely explicit in saying God created the earth in six days, and this was written by God Himself, directly. This is given as the reason why the seventh day is specified as the Sabbath, in accord with Genesis 2:2, 3. What bias is involved in giving due weight to this evidence? Either you accept the Bible as divinely inspired (especially where it talks about Creation and the Flood), or you must deny it is divinely inspired. Sorry, but there is no middle ground logically possible.
According to the Bible, how long ago Earth was created?

The question isn't inspiration to me,most Christians accept that. The question is did Yahweh inspire Moses to write the exodus from Egypt (or flood)literally or for a metaphor/allegorical idea to teach from that angle.

The parables are not literal,yet they hold tremendous information in them. I share your general view,but,you and I could debate specific things that we would disagree on as well. We're all so weak and limited Ron and we all believe in Christ,so I don't want the skeptics to feel I caused divisiveness is all.


It doesn't give us an indication. Some Christians and Jews(I am among this group) believe the Genesis 1:1-3 account has an obvious "gap" between verse 1 and verse 3,in other words in that time the universe is created,it has some chaos thrust upon it and in verse 3 it is restored.

It would take too much time to explain why,it's very involved with both the exegesis of the Hebrew and a verse in Isaiah. Point being IF my side is right,the Bible wouldn't indicate an age for the earth,but,it would for mankind.

Mankind has to be within about 7500 years if the Bible is literal and accurate. Other believers disagree with this philology/exegesis and think the earth is 7500 years old. I don't think those folks can withstand scholarship using the initial languages though.
The attempts made to date events in Genesis mainly involve adding up the ages given for patriarchs. The problem with that is that genealogies in the Bible can be show to skip some generations, going from son to grandson and vice-versa. I can go along with the biosphere of earth being as old as 7,500 years. But it is probably only a little over 6,000 years.

I agree that the Genesis creation account relates only to the creation of life on earth--making earth habitable for man. The physical earth, solar system, and the rest of the universe, existed before Creation Week on earth. At the start of Creation Week, the text says in verse 2 of Gen. 1: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." So something was there already--a formless earth, "the deep," and "the waters."

Here is something very few people seem to have noticed. In Hebrews 9:11 we are told: "But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation." (NKJV) Notice that the sanctuary in Heaven was said to be part of a creation prior to this one. So Heaven where the temple of God is, existed before Creation Week on earth.

That said, I believe the rest of the universe is only about ten to twelve thousand years old. I see no need to believe the universe is billions of years old. The problem of the speed of light and the distant stars has several possible explanations. But in Creation, God wanted there to be light first of all. (Gen. 1:3.) God would have created the universe in such a way that light from all its most distant points would already be reaching every other part of the universe, because He did not want to create a dark universe, where you had to wait four years for light from the next nearest star, and billions of years for light from the most distant stars and galaxies, to reach the earth. Just like the trees He created in Eden appeared to be mature trees, hundreds of years old, the instant they were created. That is the reality He spoke into existence.

Also, we are told that God knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10). So He knew from the start that Lucifer would invent sin, and the sin problem would have to be faced and resolved in such a way as to make sure sin never arises again (see Nahum 1:9). So, God being the kind of Person He is, would get down to dealing with sin immediately. I don't think the God I know would have waited billions of years with the sin problem hanging over his heard, still to be faced. It is hinted that He created Lucifer first of all His created intelligent beings--Lucifer was the first angel. This is a possible implication of the fact that Lucifer is called: "star of the morning, son of the dawn!." (Isaiah 14:12; NASB.)
I have no clue how old earth is,I do know there are valid questions about the use of carbon 14 dating beyond 50K years. No one can know if anything is older than that,it's all speculation at that point.

Carbon 14 isotope increases with ultra violet ray exposures,yet the depths of the earth have higher densities of it which also makes it of questionable reliability,there should be none left below if earth is as old as science suggests.

Or maybe all that stuff below is being regenerated rapidly? Only science sure doesn't teach that.
That's the thing about science and the pursuit of knowlege.
The more we learn, it only tends to create more questions than it actually answers.

And it doesn't really help us that science is relatively new... at least in terms of how long humanity existed.
Quote: “A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” --Milton Friedman
relax. it's only the internet!
Palladin, carbon 14 is not produced by ultraviolet light, it is produced by cosmic radiation striking nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere and knocking out a proton to produce carbon 14, which has two extra neutrons compared to normal carbon 12. The extra neutrons make it unstable, so the carbon 14 undergoes radioactive decay.

The chief objection to carbon 14 dating is that it depends upon the correctness of the arbitrary assumptions that carbon 14 has always been produced at the same rate that it is at present, and that the conditions (mainly rain) that bring carbon 14 down to the ground to be ingested by living organisms, have always been the same as today. But if the Genesis model of the earth is correct, and there were "waters" in some form above the atmosphere, then the nitrogen atoms would have been shielded from the cosmic ray bombardment that turns nitrogen atoms into radioactive carbon 14 atoms. Also the Genesis account says that before the Flood it did not rain, and rain is one of the mechanisms that brings carbon 14 down into the lower biosphere, for plants to take in--which plants are then eaten by animals. Therefore any organic samples tested for carbon 14-carbon 12 ratio that came from organisms that lived prior to the Flood, would have had virtually no carbon 14 at all in their makeup--not because they were vastly old, but because little or no carbon 14 was being produced or brought down to earth by rain to be ingested by living organisms then.
Palladin Wrote:I have no clue how old earth is,I do know there are valid questions about the use of carbon 14 dating beyond 50K years. No one can know if anything is older than that,it's all speculation at that point.

Carbon 14 isotope increases with ultra violet ray exposures,yet the depths of the earth have higher densities of it which also makes it of questionable reliability,there should be none left below if earth is as old as science suggests.

Or maybe all that stuff below is being regenerated rapidly? Only science sure doesn't teach that.

Patrick, C14 dating is fairly accurate, from times going back to 7000-50,000 years before present. These dates are usually given as let's say, "25,000 years BP(Before Present), plus or minus ten percent. That means that the confirmed dating would be within a range of 22,500 to 27,500 BP, because the rate of breakdown, with C14 is not consistent. Therefore the "plus or minus" part to this. What some within the Creationist community, such as Ron, would have you believe is that scientists refuse to take this discrepancy into account. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And the truth is that the overwhelming majority of Christians, who follow this, have no problem wedding science with theology. I have talked with many different ministers, of different mainstream denominations, and specifically asked their personal opinions with regards to Creationism vs Science. And almost all of them privately state that they do not believe in the former.

The biggest problem is that the Creationist movement is so vocal, creating far more noise than anything else. And we all know which wheel gets the oil first. Unfortunately, most of the mainstream Christian community are quite embarrassed by all this friction, and know that stepping in on it will create more waste of effort than they care to be saddled with, since there is so much on the plate of Christians today. Therefore, it is left to the loudest, and most vocal, who appear to be winning the argument.

Here is someone, who is attempting to reconcile the argument, in favour of the fact that science and theology really do fit nicely into each other's perspective. Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian minister, sees things as I do. To him, the two do not contradict each other, but compliment instead. His article, A Christian Case For Evolution: We're Not in Kansas Anymore, is well worth reading.

Quote:Science and Religion are Companions in the Search For Truth; Not Enemies

In Kansas and many other states some Christians are fighting to restrict what teachers can teach about evolution, describing it as "merely a theory," and attempting to substitute an ersatz "creation science" in its place. On a practical level these efforts may backfire. As in the case of trying to prevent students from seeing some movies, television shows, or websites, there is nothing more likely to inspire interest in the theory of evolution among the students of Kansas or any other state than suggesting it is a dangerous, tempting and forbidden topic – on a par, for example, with sex. But more important, Christians should be encouraging the study of science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular. Far from presenting a threat to faith, science can reinforce and strengthen it. It has worked that way for me. Here's why.

As a Christian I find that the most objectionable aspect of trying to suppress knowledge about the origins of life on this planet, not to mention the creation of the universe itself, is what such efforts say about God.

Over the past several hundred years, scientists have opened the frontiers of the human imagination by revealing how vast this universe truly is. Rather than seeing our cosmos as a rather limited system with the earth at its center, heaven above and hell below, we now understand that this planet is only one among a multitude, that our sun, rather then being the principal light that "rules the day," is actually only one among billions of such stars. Our appreciation for the vastness of space has expanded beyond the wildest imagination of our ancestors living only a few short decades ago. Likewise, our appreciation for the magnitude and mystery of time has grown exponentially. Rather than seeing time itself bound by what some students of the Bible asserted was an absolute limit of some several thousand years since creation, we now see that the history of the cosmos is measured in the millions of years, and likewise the future stretches forward beyond what any prophet is capable of seeing. This was perhaps the most important single contribution that Charles Darwin made to our understanding of life on this planet. Forget the ruckus about the apes, Darwin's great achievement was to place the history of all living things into a context of profound change taking place over a vast expanse of time. Before Darwin people generally saw life on this planet as rather static; things did not change very much from the moment of creation several thousand years ago. After Darwin, we have come to see our past, like our future, stretching out before us farther than we can imagine, and all of time, past, present and future is full of change and surprise. Life is not confined to a narrow slice of several thousand years in which most things remain the same; rather life is active and dynamic, constantly changing and evolving. And once one sees what a vast and boundless cosmos this is, it is literally impossible to revert to a more simplistic view.

Along with these ever expanding horizons of space and time that science has opened up for all of us, we have recovered a richer and I must say deeper understanding of the nature of God.

Rather then seeing God as a monarch sitting on a throne in heaven and manipulating events here on earth like some supernatural puppet master, we now have a far deeper appreciation for the greatness of the God who could have conceived such a vast and dynamic cosmos in the first place. With every increase in our understanding of the complexity of the universe, we have a correspondingly deeper appreciation for the majesty, the grandeur and the glory of God. In this, we are not coming up with something radically new. Rather we are only rediscovering something very old, that more original, awareness that the wonder of this world and everything in it is a reflection of the still greater majesty of God. As the psalmist put it long ago: "The heavens are telling the glory of God and the firmament proclaims God’s handiwork."

Of course with our growing awareness of the complexity of life and the corresponding mystery of God, there is also, for many people, a growing sense of anxiety, and perhaps even fear. There is a hunger for a world that is simpler, safer, saner than the one we now inhabit. It is out of such fear and such anxiety that fundamentalist movements grow, not only within Christianity, but within Islam, within Judaism, within every culture and religion. And it is out of such fear that strategies of repression and censorship are born. Including the recent efforts in Kansas and several other states to suppress, restrict, or censor what science teachers can teach.

The deep irony in all this is that the good folks who promote "creation science" think they are honoring God when, in fact, they are encouraging ignorance of God's Creation. The problem is, of course, that once the genie of science gets out of the bottle, it is simply impossible to stuff her back in. Despite all the effort to reduce human knowledge to what is comforting and familiar, the facts simply will not cooperate. And once you see that God is big enough to encompass all that we see and all that we know, a smaller deity is simply no longer credible. Or as Dorothy said to her faithful dog, "Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore."

For those interested in reading more, there is a chapter in my book, God and Science, dealing with Charles Darwin, evolution, and its positive contribution to Christian understanding.

The sad truth is that we Christians are treated, by the Fundamentalist Movement, worse than they treat nonbelievers. And I am certain the reason why is that we are the very thing that can, and will, completely undercut the force of their faith.

And this only adds ammunition to the growing numbers of Urban Atheists, who would rather lump all Believers into one bag. And THAT is why I so highly resent being thrown into a "one size fits all" when my faith is known by nonbelievers. In other words, to the mainstream observer "Evolution" is wedded to Atheism, and "Creationism" is wedded to Christians. And nothing could be more untrue. And not only that, but that is simply conceding the very argument to the opposition.

As you well know, this very avenue of attack is constantly being used by the political left, when lovers of Liberty attempt to make their case against Big Government, and Collectivism. The Tea Party is constantly treated as though they are Kooks, and dangerous to the country, when nothing is further from the truth. But they are highly vocal, and as I stated before, the squeaky wheel always gets the oil first, because they are the loudest.

Anyway, Pastor Henderson, has written a book on this very issue, G-d and Science. I haven't had a chance to obtain it yet, but there are three chapters, and an introduction, which is there for anyone to read. As I stated, I cannot really comment on this, until I have had a chance to read what he says, but anything that tries to reconcile the two parties, is a good thing.

And here is the great leap which takes one from one side of the debate, to the other. And that is: there is a difference between one's physical body, and one's spiritual soul. If/when one is able to comprehend this, then the rest is easy to see.


Correct,cosmic rad,not ultra violet,my mistake. Not sure,but,that would still preclude more of it being miles below the earth's crust though wouldn't it? Shouldn't it have decayed away by now instead of being dense or can cosmic rad reach down below as well?


I agree on the 50K years. Beyond that C14 isn't reliable.

My view of this pastor and you is the same. You guys are synthesizing what you understand of anthropology and science along with your understanding of our faith.

I don't do that for a couple of reasons.

1)I don't KNOW anything to synthesize,I cheated to graduate HS,I already told you that.

2)Even if I did,I would take the position that I cannot have a reliable equation to make findings you're confident in because there are variables that I/we/science/anthropolgy cannot know.

1 example would be the polemic Bicycle posted about the flood.

The author cannot know how much water covered the earth in say 5000 BC before the flood(total guess on time here).

He cannot know what quantity of water was available underground because he didn't even know that we know now there is a body of water under China the size of the Arctic Sea.

He actually ridiculed such an idea,so he most have written his polemic before that was discovered. Real scientific polemic wasn't it,John? Yet Bicycle used it as a scientific basis for disagreeing with the flood story.

See how his equation then has to be developing a false result?

Thus,he cannot develop a reliable formula that states it would take X amount of water to cover the earth and 40 days of hard rain+the vapor canopy+ a limited amount of water hydraulically exploding out from the earth cannot cover the earth's land mass.

I am not interested in an argument about point 2,it's just my opinion.

I acknowledge you may be right,my desire was never to act like I know and you are ignorant. I hold this opinion of a more literal Biblical view is all.

My point was you do not know I am ignorant in my assumptions that man is not as knowledgable as we might think is all.

AM made a valid point,we change our views all the time based on the next piece of info we find.

The big bang theory,IMO,corroborates the instant creation in Genesis 1:1. Science cannot "find God",but,it sure can find His handiwork as the pastor states.

I just disagree on the accuracy of some of academia's findings is all.

I accept evolution as a fact within a species,I don't see it as extensive as you do because I have to see the living examples of it in the human,animal and plant kingdom and don't.

Anyway,I do not think of myself as superior to you as a fellow believer,never have.

That's why I don't consider myself a fundy.

I do believe the Bible is more literal than you do,but,I realize that the desire of Jesus in prayer to The Father was that all His people be unified as He and The Father are and as such,I am way more concerned with what we agree on as opposed to disagree on.

If I had it to do over again,I would have found a lot more common ground with FittobeThaied than I did back then. I just don't have it to do over again.
WmLambert Wrote:Every Monsoon season in India has a great flood.

Yeah, but Oppenheimer was talking about the entire continent being submerged for a prolonged(decades at least) period of time. The idea is that a great flood happened gradually that submerged the continent over the long-term and forced the people living there to leave(it was not a sudden flood that would surprise and kill everyone, but a gradual rising of sea level).
Palladin, to be more precise, cosmic rays (mainly high energy protons) strike atoms in the atmosphere which then triggers a shower of neutrons, which then impact nitrogen atoms (each consisting of seven protons and seven neutrons) and displace a proton, leaving an atom with six protons (carbon) but eight neutrons (making it unstable).

By the way, have you heard about the wooley mammoth that C14 testing determined had limbs that were ten thousand years older than other parts of the body? C14 testing is a lot less neat and consistent than most people realize. Many fudge factors have been invented to make the results seem sensible. Always, assumptions are being made that presume gradualism's supposed vast ages are correct. Then those results are used to prove the assumptions! Too many people let themselves be snowed under by this circular reasoning, just because it is so massive.

John L, truth, and the absolute, independent reality of the universe, are not subject to majority vote.

I repeat, any Christian who believes in evolution and vast ages for the earth, at some point must be compelled to choose between this false science, and Christ. Because if Genesis cannot be taken literally, then the human race is not sinful, and there is no need for a Saviour, and Jesus could not have saved us by becoming the New Adam for our race. No matter what anyone prefers to believe, this logic is inescapable. It is not subject to majority vote.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)