Creation questions

Marcia wrote,

Marcia,

How does Jesus' references to the story of Noah’s Ark suggest that He believed that it was a literal account of an historic event? And how can you take it as “as an historical narrative that is literally true” in the light of the these considerations that I have been posting,

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Are you basing your interpretation of Gen. 6-8 upon the facts, or upon something else?

 

Marcia,

The story of Noah is not presented as a parable nor as an allegory but as an actual account (especially with Jesus' references to it later). So I take it as an historical narrative that is literally true.

It's a epic-type narrative regarding a "national hero" figure, set in the past, bearing alot of similarity to known near eastern myths - that (in literary terms) screams out "nonliteral account".

That doesn't mean you cannot disagree with those points - but this is the (for what it's worth) accepted literary critical evaluation of the flood account.

And yes the flood account is given reference in the NT. But then what would you expect Jesus to say about him? The theological value of the story is intact regardless of its actual factuality.

And if I said to you, "it's gonna be like the days of Noah..." you'd know what I meant. And that meaning would not be altered based on whether or not you knew my opinion regarding the historicity of the Noah account.

 

Marcia,

How does Jesus' references to the story of Noah’s Ark suggest that He believed that it was a literal account of an historic event? And how can you take it as “as an historical narrative that is literally true” in the light of the these considerations that I have been posting,

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Are you basing your interpretation of Gen. 6-8 upon the facts, or upon something else?

</font>[/QUOTE]I must say that you have a vivid imagination but that is a requirement for your philosophy.

 

Yeah! and all 3,000,000 evolved from nothing!!

 

Taxonomy is relevant at every point in history. Our taxonomy: phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, sub-species, was unknown to Adam and to Moses. So was the entire science of genetics, but the two sciences (taxonomy and genetics) are inter-related).

For example in Adam, and consequently in Noah and his three sons, there was (in their blood) enough variety in the gene pool to bring out what is observed in the entire human race today. We all descended from Noah. From him (his genes) came all the different races. Certainly there were some other factors that entered into the equation later on, like inter-marriage among one clan. We see that today in certain groups of people that have avoided marrying outside of their own clans or ethnic groups (some of the Mennonites or Amish).

God created the whales the Bible says. It doesn't say how many he created and how many kinds. We don't know how many kinds there were then, and how many exist today. There is such a thing as cross-breeding.

God created dogs, etc. But each one after its own kind. Read Dr. Morris Genesis Record, and you will find the solution to your 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals. The fact is that Noah built an ark and took two of each kind. He didn't have to take two of those kind that didn't need to be on the ark (whales for example). Again, I beg of you to read Dr. Morris's work)
DHK

 

1. When reading a biblical text, if there is no indication that it is a parable or allegory or a vision or a poetic metaphor, it is taken as a real event.
2. Jesus is referring to Noah in the context of the last days and what signs will precede his return; therefore, if one takes Jesus' return literally, it is a sound conclusion that he is not referring to a myth or allegory within the same passage where he speaks of a coming real event.
3. There is no indication in the text that Jesus does not consider Noah a real person or the flood a real event.
4. The burden is on someone trying to prove Jesus did not think Noah was real since there is no indication of this in the text.

Jesus speaks of it this way:

 

Additionally, Noah is given as a real person in the geneology of Christ:

I respectfully disagree with Charles that the account of Noah is an epic. It is given as a real story. And since Jesus refers to it the way he does, as a real event, and since Noah is given in the geneology of Jesus, the evidence is for Noah and the flood being real.

 

Please read through this thread before continuing to post replies to subjects that have already been addressed. Henry Morris had almost no formal education in the biological sciences and was woefully ignorant of the very basics of those sciences. On the other hand, I have a very extensive knowledge of several of the biological sciences, as do tens of thousands of other biologists world-wide, and we can authoritatively say that Morris simply did not know what he was talking about. Had he read as much as a high school textbook in biology, he would have known that his ideas were simply unfounded.

Thought for the day,

If one wants to learn about biology, should he consult a hydraulic engineer or a biologist who is a professor of biology at a university known around the world for its contribution to the science of biology? Personally, I would consult the professor of biology rather than the hydraulic engineer who has made a fool of himself in the academic world.

 

Well it's bedtime here in WV!



Let me reiterate that I am not against the young earth stance. I fully respect it and the reverence for scripture that underlies this stance.

What I am against is the elevation of a young earth and a literal Genesis 1-11 to sine qua non status in Christianity. And I am against what I see to be the unnecessary and counterproductive invective against scientific thought, which I perceive to be a stumbling block to those believers with inquisitive minds.

Good night all.

 

Marcia wrote,

As a conservative Christian, I agree that under the circumstances that you have outlined above, a biblical text should be interpreted in a literal manner. However, the very nature of Genesis 1-11 strongly suggests to many of those who have studied ancient literature that we are dealing here with epic tales rather than historic events described in a literal manner. From my point of view, however, a much stronger signal that we are dealing here with epic tales rather than historic events described in a literal manner is the fact that these stories are in conflict with the knowledge that God has imparted to us through other sources, especially the biological sciences. I have studied very many attempts to reconcile the story of Noah’s ark with well established biological facts, and all of these attempts betray either a very serious lack of knowledge of basic biology, or deliberate deception on the part of the creationist in question. More often than not, deception rather than ignorance is decidedly involved. I am a biologist and I know these things for a fact. I realize that I have more education in the biological sciences than anyone else in this thread and what is painfully obvious to me is not obvious at all to others, and perhaps I have not been as patient with them as I should have been, but the facts remain the facts regardless of the tone in which they were presented.

Jesus described his future return as a literal event and He illustrated an aspect of that return using a story that was well known to his listeners. Whether the story is a literal account of an historic event or not is irrelevant to what Jesus was teaching.

There is no indication one way or the other.

There is no burden upon anyone to prove anything. However, since the evidence against Genesis 1-11 being a literal account of historic event is overwhelmingly great, it should be assumed that Jesus was simply using the story of Noah and the Ark to illustrate his teaching about His second coming with no implication that the story is a literal account of an historic event. Liberal scholars, however, take a VERY different approach to this matter.

 

Not quite true. Gen. 7:2-3 "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

 

I would disagree because there are actual clam shells in the hills of Texas. I have seen shells with my own eyes as a kid in the gravel we dug from a mountain when we dug gravel from a hill high above the valley floor in Washington where my family lives.

 

I don’t know if you found fossils of clams or actual clam shells. If you found actual clam shells, they were probably freshwater clam shells of much more recent origin than the time of Noah. They are very plentiful in many places where there is fresh water, or where there has recently been fresh water for a prolonged period of time, and in areas near fresh water where the clams were dropped by birds and other predators that eat clams.

Here is a question for you:

If enough water was added to the earth to cover Mt. Everest, would the earth become so heavy that it would lose its orbit?

 

I don’t know if you found fossils of clams or actual clam shells. If you found actual clam shells, they were probably freshwater clam shells of much more recent origin than the time of Noah. They are very plentiful in many places where there is fresh water, or where there has recently been fresh water for a prolonged period of time, and in areas near fresh water where the clams were dropped by birds and other predators that eat clams.


Here is a question for you:

If enough water was added to the earth to cover Mt. Everest, would the earth become so heavy that it would lose its orbit?

</font>[/QUOTE]I thought that you said that you are better qualified than Drs Morris and Witcombe? Yeh, right! With your stupid questions like this one here, and your humanistic reasoning that I read from your posts, you only display your ignorance on the facts. You claim that the Book the Genesis Flood is out of date. Have you or Chris Meadows ever read it? I have, and have no doubt that the evidence it contains is accurate, and yet to be disproven by the doubters like yourself and Chris.

As I have said before, I restate. This thread is nothing less than an attack on the historial accounts of Genesis chapters 1-11. NONE of the "evidence" that either you or Meadows provides is factual, but shows your bias against what Scripture says. So you are on to queationing the Biblical testimony of Noah's Ark? Through your knowledge, or rather, lack of it, you think that you can prove that it is not a literal acount? There is not one shred of Biblical evidence to suggest that it is not literal, just as the account of the Tower of Babel, which I assume you also take as not being literal?

All you are doing here is attacking the Authority of Scripture, and doing so with no actual evidence of your own. To argue, for example, that Noah's Ark is not literal, or the flood was not world-wide, is nothing more than "arguing to the wind", since your can never be able to actually disprove any of the accounts of Scripture. All you can do is assume that what you say is correct. As you do not believe that the Bible is completely error free, you take pleasure in trying to prove that it does contain errors. People like you have come and gone, but the testimony of Scripture goes on, and the vast majority of truly born-again believers, accept what Scripture says, not because some fool like you says that it is accurate, but, because it is the Holy Spirit Who is the author, and NOTHING that He has ever said can be anything but the Truth

 

All that you are doing here is attacking the Charles (not Chris) Meadows and me, and doing so with no actual evidence of your own. We have personally posted numerous facts that support our interpretations, but all you are doing is telling us how stupid and ignorant we are. I will leave it up to our readers to decide for themselves who is stupid and ignorant, and who is not; and who loves the word of God enough to commit their very lives to the study of it, and who has so little regard for the word of God as to repeatedly cast insults upon the very people who regard it so highly.

 

That has to be rubbish, Craig. I have 3 science A levels (that's our exams we do at 18, a lot more specialised than your high school diploma) and have also studied science (a general course involving Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Geology) at first year University level, the equivalent of half a year's full time study (our degrees are three years, in general, not four, so it's a little more than half a year in US terms), and also genetics at second year University level for the equivalent of 1/4 of a year's full time study.

Now that is not a lot, I readily admit - my main subject, what you'd call a major, was Music - but it is certainly above high school diploma level - and I can't see these glaring errors you are talking about.

Now if you want to argue that if he had had a degree in Biology he would have realised his ideas were unsound, that is different, but not a high school textbook. You are really trying to run him down here for no reason other than your own bias.

At which University are you a professor, Craig?

Liz

 

That has to be rubbish, Craig. I have 3 science A levels (that's our exams we do at 18, a lot more specialised than your high school diploma) and have also studied science (a general course involving Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Geology) at first year University level, the equivalent of half a year's full time study (our degrees are three years, in general, not four, so it's a little more than half a year in US terms), and also genetics at second year University level for the equivalent of 1/4 of a year's full time study.

Now that is not a lot, I readily admit - my main subject, what you'd call a major, was Music - but it is certainly above high school diploma level - and I can't see these glaring errors you are talking about.

Now if you want to argue that if he had had a degree in Biology he would have realised his ideas were unsound, that is different, but not a high school textbook. You are really trying to run him down here for no reason other than your own bias.

At which University are you a professor, Craig?

Liz </font>[/QUOTE]Nice one Liz

Craig and the others on this board who are in the habit of running their opposition down, do so because they know that what they believe in is complete nonsense, though they keep on believeing their lies. If they are really serious about what they are arguing for, then they can find anwsers at two very good web sites which have articles by those who do know what they are talking about, and have a greater respect for the Word of God.

They can find real evidence here:

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

At the end of the day the Word of god will remain True, even though the likes of Craig are bent on trying to disprove it.

 

Craig,

Just how did they make the calculations regarding animal weight and the Ark? I am not aware that we had a list of what animals existed in Noah's day. Much less their size and weights.

 

I'm going to bow out now guys.

My wife's sister is getting married in Tennessee this weekend and it's time to hit the road.

Have a blessed and safe Memorial Day weekend.

And pray that I don't hit bad notes on the violin trying to play the "Canon in D" (I'm still nervous!).