Noah's Ark: Figurative or Literal?

Intrepid wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
What effect? Shock and awe? As GWB found out, s & a isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I am shocked that you would put GWB in the same category as God.

I hold each in equal esteem. Laughing

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

you can't have both dinosaurs AND the ark. it's one or the other. if there was ark, there were no dinosaurs - those are just a fiction made up by evolutionists. . .

How's that?

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

neologist wrote:

vikorr wrote:

I'm presuming that the dinosaurs couldn't all fit in...

As for whether dinosaurs were alive at the time of Adam and Eve or during the days of Noah, consider the command God made to Noah to cover the ark inside and out with tar. (Genesis 6:14)

Possibly old dinosaur soup?

I've often wondered Christianities explanation for the lack of dinosaurs alive today...by Christianities aging of the Earth - every dinosaur died out within a few thousand years of God creating them. Every fossil was a creature that died, got buried, raised up by the earths forces all in those limited thousands of years? (...or however many years it is since written records & datable drawings came into vogue, minus the 6000years much of Christendom claims is the age of the earth...or is it 13,000 years old to JH's? or a different number?)

Yore spelling is uneak, to say the leest.

Sufficient to say that the 'days' mentioned in Genesis are most certainly not literal days, especially, since day seven has not yet been recorded as having ended.

0 Replies

well, because earth is only some 6,000 years old if we are to take the bible literally.
dinosaurs are not.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

well, because earth is only some 6,000 years old if we are to take the bible literally.
dinosaurs are not.

Explain how the earth could be only 6000 years old. You don't really believe the creative days were literal 24 hour days, do you? Why then would Genesis 2:4 lump the entire creative period into a single 'day'?

BTW, the seventh day has not yet been recorded as having ended.

0 Replies

nope, not me, i am a heathen, not even baptised.

sorry, somebody who believes it for real will have to explain, i'm just throwing in the arguments i tend to hear. devil's advocate.
IF i were to believe earth is 6,000 years old, I could not at the same time believe dinosaurs existed.... is all i'm saying.

0 Replies

Vikorr,

I agree about it being "unworkable", probably because tribalism is innate (as implied by primate studies). However, in terms of "responsibility" is it not incumbent on atheists to "tell it like it is" ...i.e. to vocally "stand up and be counted" ?

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

nope, not me, i am a heathen, not even baptised.

sorry, somebody who believes it for real will have to explain, i'm just throwing in the arguments i tend to hear. devil's advocate.
IF i were to believe earth is 6,000 years old, I could not at the same time believe dinosaurs existed.... is all i'm saying.

Same here.

0 Replies

Quote:

However, in terms of "responsibility" is it not incumbent on atheists to "tell it like it is" ...i.e. to vocally "stand up and be counted" ?

Hi Fresco,

Athiests should express their views, and work for a more rational world. This is one of the great benefits of having atheists in the world.

I don't know that I would have used the word 'responsibility' there, but it can certainly be taken on and viewed as a responsibility.

In terms of 'telling it like it is', and 'standing up to be counted', both phrases carry connotations that I don't think are healthy, though respectfully stating ones position, asking respectful questions are fine, commendable, and even necessary.

In terms of respecting others, it reminds not only of the innate equality of our opinions (whether right or wrong), but I'm brought back to the thought that we are attached to that which we are fighting, and 'the more force we apply, the greater the force we are resisted with'.

Respect both meets the needs, and avoids the pitfalls Very Happy

0 Replies

Quote:

Yore spelling is uneak, to say the leest.

Why Neo, I never thought I'd see you insulting other people. Apart from it breaking one of the core commandments, it seems out of character for you (though given, I don't know you all that well).

For some reason I have no idea how to spell Christianity's Very Happy

Doh, and JW's , not JH's ! Laughing

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

like ancient civilizations of Nineveh, SUmeria, Inca (they seem to have built their habitats in areas that were stable when they were built, but are underlain by tectonic evidence of the mountains rising (stuff like compression faults and very tight folds).

So how does the existence of a human civilization (cities, settlements, etc in a given mountainous geographic area) prove that the mountains they lived in were millions of years old instead of much younger?

0 Replies

Quote:

So how does the existence of a human civilization (cities, settlements, etc in a given mountainous geographic area) prove that the mountains they lived in were millions of years old instead of much younger?

Well, the tectonic features associated with mountain building are much older than the civilizations because the civilizations occur in relatively undisturbed areas above these fault zones

1Faults associated with mountain building are older than the civilizations above

Youve insisted (by etension of your argument) that the mountains are POST FLOOD

2If flood occured 6000yBP, then mountains are younger (according to you)

Now, lets take one of these civilizations. The Inca. Their civilizations along with the Moche, lie in "Post Flood "Andes mountains

3The Inca civilization extends into fairly recent historical time dont you agree?, so the necessary work of the mountain raising would have to be startlingly quick no? Howcome theres no reports by the Spaniards or Inca legends of entire mountain ranges appearing out of nowhere , or massive fult bounded foldbelt coming ashore and colliding with mountain forelands ? Howcome civilizations came and went inrelative safety from tectonism of a scale you wish to invoke?(Earthquakes are rare though cyclic occurences), In Inca Quippus they record only several earthquakes from the time of the Moche to the end of the Inca Empire (Thats over 1500 years). (Its not like there was continuous evidence of noticeable mountain building at such superfast rates)

All this is what your "revised ", argument re: fossils in oceanic sediment at the tops of mountains , implies.

The standard tectonic models show that magnetic data, radiological data, sedimentary age data, structural data, stratigraphy, geomorphology, all coalesce to form a story that mountain building varies in ages from 60 to leass than 6 million years BP (for widely separated mountain ranges). AND, no evidence of a worldwide flood exists in any of these highlands.
The structural evidence (tear folds, compressionally formed minerals, faults and displacement of sedimentary beds) all show that the sea floor sediments were raised and then deformed over periods of time in the tens of millions of years , not thousands as you say.

SO youve worked yourself into a dillemma of proportions , and you dont even seem to be aware of it.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Yore spelling is uneak, to say the leest.
Why Neo, I never thought I'd see you insulting other people. Apart from it breaking one of the core commandments, it seems out of character for you (though given, I don't know you all that well).

For some reason I have no idea how to spell Christianity's

Doh, and JW's , not JH's !

Hehhe. Sorry. Ribbing was intended to be gentle

0 Replies

Fair enough Very Happy

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:
nope, not me, i am a heathen, not even baptised.

sorry, somebody who believes it for real will have to explain, i'm just throwing in the arguments i tend to hear. devil's advocate.
IF i were to believe earth is 6,000 years old, I could not at the same time believe dinosaurs existed.... is all i'm saying.
Same here.

Count me in too. Smile

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
like ancient civilizations of Nineveh, SUmeria, Inca (they seem to have built their habitats in areas that were stable when they were built, but are underlain by tectonic evidence of the mountains rising (stuff like compression faults and very tight folds).

So how does the existence of a human civilization (cities, settlements, etc in a given mountainous geographic area) prove that the mountains they lived in were millions of years old instead of much younger?

Read the Genesis, real life:

The Bible wrote:

3) Genesis 7. The Holy Bible: King James Version.
...the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth,...

2) Genesis 8. The Holy Bible: King James Version.
...4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ar'arat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth...

Since the mountains were covered with the flood, they must have existed prior to the flood.

0 Replies

oooh, good one, farmer. I want to see how he twists and turns to try to argue his way out of that one.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

pauligirl
Quote:
When did this flood take place?

According to RL, mountains were emplaced as post flood tectonics. I know, hes got imself in a bit of a logical bind ere. Post flood means that anything contemporaneous with mountain building was post flood, like ancient civilizations of Nineveh, SUmeria, Inca (they seem to have built their habitats in areas that were stable when they were built, but are underlain by tectonic evidence of the mountains rising (stuff like compression faults and very tight folds).
Rl wanted an argument to state that "oceanic sediment" was raised post flood because he envisiomed a world that was low in relief so that the present amount of ocean and ice cap water could account for a flood if there wasnt so much damn relief around.

Ah, the hypothesis of "continental zip."

.......they rely primarily on the hypothesis of vast subterrenean waters beneath the earth, and they imagine that the "pre-Flood" earth didn't have any tall mountains but was much flatter, and with much smaller oceans. So during the Flood, the waters below were released and rose up and covered all the dry land and highest "mountains" (or mole hills, since there were no very high mountains in their pre-Flood scenario), and the continents zipped along instead of drifting over vast eons and colliding with one another. Their hypothesis of "continental zip" means the continents crashed into one another and formed the tall mountains, including the Himalayas in one year. But that hypothesis has problems too, since it also generates too much heat to make the continents move that fast, due to the friction beneath them. And such extreme continental zipping motion and accompanying heat, besides making Noah's ark capsize from unbelievably tall tidal waves, and making the oceans so hot the contents of the ark would boil, would also liquify all the rock beneath the continents instead of leaving the evidence we do see of distinct lines of slow sea-floor spreading that currently exist from the middle of the Atlantic to the shores of North America. So creationists like Baumgartner admit they need a miracle to deal with the heat and to account for the distinctive lines which are evidence of slow sea-floor spreading, not continental zip. Either way, miracles are always needed. God made it "look" like slow-sea floor spreading by mirculously controling the heat released by continental zip.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/flood_evidence.html

I still want a date for the flood. Not to be confused with a date for the prom.

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

I still want a date for the flood. Not to be confused with a date for the prom.

great speed-dating idea

"Nice to meet you! What's your....bblublublubbb."

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
like ancient civilizations of Nineveh, SUmeria, Inca (they seem to have built their habitats in areas that were stable when they were built, but are underlain by tectonic evidence of the mountains rising (stuff like compression faults and very tight folds).

So how does the existence of a human civilization (cities, settlements, etc in a given mountainous geographic area) prove that the mountains they lived in were millions of years old instead of much younger?

Read the Genesis, real life:

The Bible wrote:

3) Genesis 7. The Holy Bible: King James Version.
...the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth,...

2) Genesis 8. The Holy Bible: King James Version.
...4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ar'arat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth...

Since the mountains were covered with the flood, they must have existed prior to the flood.

And exactly how high does it say the mountains were?

And does this language even prove the mountains existed then? Not really.

I'll give you an example. In describing glaciers and their aftermath , we read:

Quote:

The largest of the glacial lakes, Lake Agassiz, covered northwest Minnesota, parts of North Dakota and the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario.

from http://www.greatriver.com/Ice_Age/glacier.htm

Now just exactly does the author mean when saying this lake covered parts of MN, ND, etc?

We all know that these areas were not known by those names until a few hundred years ago.

Did the lake really cover 'Minnesota'?

'Minnesota' was not in existence, but the land we now call 'Minnesota' was.

In the same way, the flood is said to 'cover the mountains'. It could mean simply that it covered the area that now contains mountains, or more likely that smaller hills existed which were later uplifted further into what we now see as very large mountains. These hills might have been the tallest features of the landscape in that day, but it doesn't mean that they were necessarily as tall as they are now.

In fact, the context indicates this:

Quote:

19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Interesting how you snipped the quote to exclude the 'high hills' just a few words prior.

In fact the Hebrew word for 'mountain' and 'hill' is the SAME word. It probably refers to a hill, not a mountain.

If it referred to a mountain, the adjective 'high' would be rather redundant, wouldn't you say?

But go ahead and keep quoting things stripped of their context. I'll be glad to keep pointing out your attempts.

0 Replies

Noah's Ark: Figurative or Literal?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know