PDA

View Full Version : Question about Noahic flood



Ciscokid
Dec 31st 2007, 07:56 AM
If Noah had two wolves on the Ark [most likely the two members of the Canine family would have been wolves], how did we get all the dogs, jackals, foxes, coyotes, dingoes etc that we see today?

Keeping in mind these animals have been around for a long time so 4000 years or less is a blink of an eye in terms of speciation.

Athanasius
Dec 31st 2007, 08:06 AM
If Noah had two wolves on the Ark [most likely the two members of the Canine family would have been wolves], how did we get all the dogs, jackals, foxes, coyotes, dingoes etc that we see today?

Keeping in mind these animals have been around for a long time so 4000 years or less is a blink of an eye in terms of speciation.

Why are we assuming there were only wolves?
I'm going to have to say that Noah brought jackals, foxes, coyotes, dingoes and dogs on the ark as well.

DNA does hold a lot of genetic code (it stores a lot of history).
It's easy for divergence to occur in a small period of time because of environment and natural breeding within species.

Ciscokid
Dec 31st 2007, 08:21 AM
Why are we assuming there were only wolves?
I'm going to have to say that Noah brought jackals, foxes, coyotes, dingoes and dogs on the ark as well.

DNA does hold a lot of genetic code (it stores a lot of history).
It's easy for divergence to occur in a small period of time because of environment and natural breeding within species.


This was a response I was expecting because it seems to easily solve the problem. It only creates another one. If what you say is true, then Noah needed all the "sub" kinds of each and every animal. Did he also have many different pairs of the feline family [which is HUGE]?

Once you start down this path then Noah would need a boat the size of a city to hold all these animals.

Also, the Bible specifically says "kinds"...meaning one pair of ONE kind of animal...not many pairs of one kind.

ServantofTruth
Dec 31st 2007, 09:23 AM
God needed just Adam and Eve to gets the billions of 'different' people on this earth. Scientists have narrowed dna down to 3 people - how long till they are clever enough to get it to 2 or 1? So i see no problem in 2 of each animal making as many types as we see today - infact comparing to the human example, i would find it very odd if they hadn't developed to be so many and so different.

Ciscokid
Dec 31st 2007, 01:45 PM
God needed just Adam and Eve to gets the billions of 'different' people on this earth. Scientists have narrowed dna down to 3 people - how long till they are clever enough to get it to 2 or 1? So i see no problem in 2 of each animal making as many types as we see today - infact comparing to the human example, i would find it very odd if they hadn't developed to be so many and so different.


The problem isn't whether we can get can get all the "different" members of the canine family from two wolves. It's how we got them in just a couple thousand years or so [with only one original pair].

Paul_born_again
Dec 31st 2007, 03:26 PM
Hi Ciscokid,

This article may interest you:
A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_25June2001.asp)

(the red letters are Richard A. Meiss', (Ph.D) response).

edit: fixed link

ServantofTruth
Dec 31st 2007, 06:27 PM
Ciscokid - My next point would be that God needs zero wolves to get all the different types. Also he doesn't need time thousands of years or one second. God being outside of time and space, can enter any moment and all moments at once.
It's NOT a matter of creation, the flood and then evolution. God has been active in every second since creation and always will be! Jesus was God 'breaking through' in a very visible way. A birth by holy spirit, not physical relations. Miracles - water to wine, curing the sick, raising the dead, multiplying food. Not magic, but a God who wrote the rules of nature/ science, proving he can in a moment re-write them!
Perhaps you should be thinking - why did he need 2 wolves and so much time? May my words open your mind and heart to Jesus Christ.
May i ask you how much of the bible you have read? Are you willing to continue reading and ask us more questions? I hope in 2008 we can all become your good friends. God bless, Servant of Truth.

Saved7
Dec 31st 2007, 09:58 PM
If Noah had two wolves on the Ark [most likely the two members of the Canine family would have been wolves], how did we get all the dogs, jackals, foxes, coyotes, dingoes etc that we see today?

Keeping in mind these animals have been around for a long time so 4000 years or less is a blink of an eye in terms of speciation.


I see you have been stuck on this whole flood thing for some time...:hmm:
Have you ever just for a moment considered the theology of creation and the flood and passing through the red sea, and baptism? Maybe you are so busy looking at physical things that you want to find impossible, but you should be looking at what it was all about in the first place. The noahaic flood goes far deeper than just cleansing the earth of sin. It is representative of the new creation that is born from the old creation, which was born out of water....


Gen 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=2&version=kjv#2)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.
Gen 1:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=3&version=kjv#3)And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=4&version=kjv#4)And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=5&version=kjv#5)And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=6&version=kjv#6)¶And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen 1:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=7&version=kjv#7)And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen 1:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=8&version=kjv#8)And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=9&version=kjv#9)¶And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.


Gen 1:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=10&version=kjv#10)And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.



Gen 1:26 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=26&version=kjv#26)¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

the creation of man was on the 6th day....the last of His creation...or was it?

Read was Jesus said about a grain of wheat falling to the ground and dying, and read about the baptism and new creation.

I'll leave you to your thoughts.:)

Athanasius
Dec 31st 2007, 10:07 PM
This was a response I was expecting because it seems to easily solve the problem. It only creates another one. If what you say is true, then Noah needed all the "sub" kinds of each and every animal. Did he also have many different pairs of the feline family [which is HUGE]?

Once you start down this path then Noah would need a boat the size of a city to hold all these animals.

Also, the Bible specifically says "kinds"...meaning one pair of ONE kind of animal...not many pairs of one kind.

Not at all, if you believe, like Richard Dawkins, that DNA is archival, then you have within sets of DNA the ability to produce many different varieties of things. Coming from the thousand(s?) of years between the Fall and the Flood, this isn't unheard of.

The only thing needed for these dormant genes to activate?
The right conditions.

Ciscokid
Jan 1st 2008, 11:07 PM
Hi Ciscokid,

This article may interest you:
A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_25June2001.asp)

(the red letters are Richard A. Meiss', (Ph.D) response).

edit: fixed link


After reading this it all boils down to "possiblities". Mathematical possibilities. It's mathematically possible [chance] that Africa will average a foot of snow.....but will it?

I highly doubt if we put two wolves on a large island, came back to visit 2500 years later or so there would be jackals and hyenas. That is more evolution than most biologists believe in.

Ciscokid
Jan 1st 2008, 11:08 PM
Not at all, if you believe, like Richard Dawkins, that DNA is archival, then you have within sets of DNA the ability to produce many different varieties of things. Coming from the thousand(s?) of years between the Fall and the Flood, this isn't unheard of.

The only thing needed for these dormant genes to activate?
The right conditions.


Such as...

Speciation is a pretty slow process...2000 years is not very long at all. Wolves with different color coats or different features...yes. Wolves -> Hyenas....not so much.

Ciscokid
Jan 1st 2008, 11:11 PM
Ciscokid - My next point would be that God needs zero wolves to get all the different types. Also he doesn't need time thousands of years or one second. God being outside of time and space, can enter any moment and all moments at once.
It's NOT a matter of creation, the flood and then evolution. God has been active in every second since creation and always will be! Jesus was God 'breaking through' in a very visible way. A birth by holy spirit, not physical relations. Miracles - water to wine, curing the sick, raising the dead, multiplying food. Not magic, but a God who wrote the rules of nature/ science, proving he can in a moment re-write them!
Perhaps you should be thinking - why did he need 2 wolves and so much time? May my words open your mind and heart to Jesus Christ.
May i ask you how much of the bible you have read? Are you willing to continue reading and ask us more questions? I hope in 2008 we can all become your good friends. God bless, Servant of Truth.


Invoking miracles when there are "gaps" in an argument does not offer anything. It's just another way of saying "I don't know". It's ok to just say that. :hug:

Saved7
Jan 1st 2008, 11:39 PM
Invoking miracles when there are "gaps" in an argument does not offer anything. It's just another way of saying "I don't know". It's ok to just say that. :hug:


where there are ASSUMED gaps, could very well be a failing of man to understand....or just simply accept the idea of miracles. After all, we ARE talking about God, are we not? therefore, it would be natural to assume one of the two situations, a failure of man's "great" and INFINITE :rolleyes: intellect, or a miracle.:saint:

Studyin'2Show
Jan 1st 2008, 11:55 PM
Invoking miracles when there are "gaps" in an argument does not offer anything. It's just another way of saying "I don't know". It's ok to just say that. :hug:Why not? Darwinian evolutionary theory has tons of 'gaps', into which they insert 'time' as the magic ingredient. As to the timing for speciation, the majority of modern dog breeds have come about in just the last few centuries so 4000+ years seems like plenty of time to me. :D

God Bless!

Athanasius
Jan 2nd 2008, 12:10 AM
Such as...

Speciation is a pretty slow process...2000 years is not very long at all. Wolves with different color coats or different features...yes. Wolves -> Hyenas....not so much.

Coming from an evolutionary standpoint, you accept that the chances of life rising spontaneously to be 10^40,000:1. So, let's not talk about 'not so much' when a point disagrees with our preconceptions.

That said, hyenas and wolves are different.
If we were to talk about Noah, he would have brought on wolves, and hyenas (or whatever two species which interbred to create wolves or hyenas)
Wolves and hyenas aren't branching evolutionary paths.

chisel
Jan 2nd 2008, 06:17 AM
After reading this it all boils down to "possiblities". Mathematical possibilities. It's mathematically possible [chance] that Africa will average a foot of snow.....but will it?

I highly doubt if we put two wolves on a large island, came back to visit 2500 years later or so there would be jackals and hyenas. That is more evolution than most biologists believe in.

Hi Ciscokid,

Both special creation and evolution deals with possibilities since no laboratory could recreate the origin of the universe. You'd need a lab the size of the universe. Similarly we can't go back in time and observe Noah's flood.

Why don't you watch a program on origins and count how many times the following words occur: "Could have", "May have", "Possibly", "Might have", "Perhaps"...

Heck, I'll just show you




Here are few headlines from the ScienceDaily website

Life On Earth May Have Originated As The Organic Filling In A Multilayer Sandwich Of Mica Sheets

Clay Material May Have Acted As 'Primordial Womb' For First Organic Molecules

scientists have shown that parts of the Krebs cycle can run in reverse, producing biomolecules that could jump-start life



If you want to be objective then you should also request concrete evidence for the theories on origin...

You state that you doubt wolves would turn into Hyenas and Jackals if left for 2500 years.
So basically you don't believe in evolution(although this isn't makro-evolution but rather just variation of the same kind) over a short time, yet you believe it must have happened over a long period of time?

What are the possibilities of rocks turning into human beings if you leave them for millions of years?
What are the possibilities of nothing exploding, producing everything?

markedward
Jan 2nd 2008, 06:24 AM
If Noah had two wolves on the Ark [most likely the two members of the Canine family would have been wolves], how did we get all the dogs, jackals, foxes, coyotes, dingoes etc that we see today?

Keeping in mind these animals have been around for a long time so 4000 years or less is a blink of an eye in terms of speciation.Who said there were only two wolves?

Anyway... this reminds me of an experiment of some sort that took place in Russia. Basically, people kept breeding this wild "Russian Silver Foxes," and after so many generations, the foxes not only became naturally domesticated (they inherently seeked human contact), but their physical appearances changed. After just a few decades, these foxes began to show change in the colors of their coat, growing spots, curling tails, floppy ears, etc. It didn't happen in all of the foxes that came out of those generations, but the fact that such radical changes came about in under a half-century is amazing.

Give it a few thousand years, and who knows how different they could look? Even if it was just two wolves (Are wolves "unclean?" If they were considered to be "clean" animals there would have been seven, not just two), it's not too farfetched to say that maybe God "encoded" the capability for the canine family to experience such radical changes? So given enough time and, depending on the variables of climate (temperature, weather, etc.), wild vs. domesticated (and treatment, if they were domesticated), male vs. female, dominant vs. recessive genes, etc., couldn't it be possible for all canines to have descended from the two original canines God made?

After all, God made just two original humans to populate the whole earth, and now we have people who have pale skin, brown skin, tan skin, red skin, yellow skin, blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes, blonde hair, black hair, big eyes, little eyes, freckles, etc. We accept that that much diversity was packed into the genes of just two people, why not the same deal for dogs or cats or pigs or birds or whatever?

Athanasius
Jan 2nd 2008, 06:31 AM
To quote Dawkins,
Given infininte time, anything can happen (and did!).

What I'm getting at is the notion that DNA is archival.
Scientists may suggest it holds the information of past evolutionary changes. . .

I would suggest it holds data put there by God which allows for the drastic number of different species around today.

daughter
Jan 2nd 2008, 01:39 PM
The problem isn't whether we can get can get all the "different" members of the canine family from two wolves. It's how we got them in just a couple thousand years or so [with only one original pair].
You can go from one breed of dog or cat to another in only a few hundred years. I'm not sure what the problem is?

RoadWarrior
Jan 2nd 2008, 03:31 PM
If Noah had two wolves on the Ark [most likely the two members of the Canine family would have been wolves], how did we get all the dogs, jackals, foxes, coyotes, dingoes etc that we see today?

Keeping in mind these animals have been around for a long time so 4000 years or less is a blink of an eye in terms of speciation.

Hi CK,

This is one of those interesting (read controversial) questions that gets people spinning in their posts! I'm wondering about you, though, and why this seems to be very important to you? I notice that you have been on the board for a while, yet you seem to still be seeking Christ. Or not?

The story of Noah has some very important spiritual truths to impart to those who want to hear them. Being hung up on how God did things keeps a wall between you and Him, and keeps you from understanding the deeper message that is in the Noah story.

I was like you in similar ways before I accepted Jesus as my savior. I questioned (challenged) many points in the Bible. It's amazing how my view of the Bible changed when my spiritual condition changed. I began to understand it for the first time in my life.

The Bible is not a science book, but a spiritual book. It is God communicating with His children. The story of Noah in particular shows an important thing about God saving people from the coming disaster. He wants us to know that there is safety in Him, even while the world becomes more evil and ends up being destroyed.

The cross of Jesus is the ark for Christians, if you can receive that. Jesus died for us so that we can be safe in Him.

You are the head of a family, and what you do with this information is more important than how God created diversity in the dog/wolf family. Are you leading your children into the safety of the ark, or are you taking your chances in the coming firestorm? It won't be a flood next time, you know.

Ciscokid
Jan 8th 2008, 11:37 PM
Hi CK,

This is one of those interesting (read controversial) questions that gets people spinning in their posts! I'm wondering about you, though, and why this seems to be very important to you? I notice that you have been on the board for a while, yet you seem to still be seeking Christ. Or not?

I debated whether I am allowed to respond to questions or not. I assume I am allowed. The reason why the flood story is very important to me is because: 1) Its a claim in the Bible that is "outlandish" [tried to find a word not offensive but conveyed the unbelievers viewpoint] and 2. It's a claim that would have real, tangible, physical evidence.

My other thought is, if you visited a town where you noticed all the residents believed the earth is flat....would you feel compelled to discuss this with them?

I believe when I first joined the board I was a Believer. Today I am not. I left the Christian faith about 6 years ago or so.



The story of Noah has some very important spiritual truths to impart to those who want to hear them. Being hung up on how God did things keeps a wall between you and Him, and keeps you from understanding the deeper message that is in the Noah story.

But before I start believing in God, it would make sense that I can FIRST believe a simple flood story alleged in Genesis [which is supposedly a literal truth handed down from God to Man].



I was like you in similar ways before I accepted Jesus as my savior. I questioned (challenged) many points in the Bible. It's amazing how my view of the Bible changed when my spiritual condition changed. I began to understand it for the first time in my life.

Spiritual condition or spiritual conditioning? Please understand my statement is not a mocking one. I was once a believer. Religion is VERY powerful, it can get a man to love his enemies and it can get a man to destroy the innocent.

I think you and I are both skeptical, only perhaps I'm more consistent? I'm skeptical of the claims in the Koran, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Book of Mormon [and others but this will suffice] AND the Bible. I simply don't give the Bible special privileges.



The Bible is not a science book, but a spiritual book. It is God communicating with His children. The story of Noah in particular shows an important thing about God saving people from the coming disaster. He wants us to know that there is safety in Him, even while the world becomes more evil and ends up being destroyed.

Just so that I understand you properly...are you stating that the flood story is a non-literal story intended to impart a spiritual lesson? Honestly? That makes a LOT more sense to me.

*snip for brevity*



You are the head of a family, and what you do with this information is more important than how God created diversity in the dog/wolf family. Are you leading your children into the safety of the ark, or are you taking your chances in the coming firestorm? It won't be a flood next time, you know.


I allow my children to form their own beliefs. The Koran has warnings for those who do not believe....should I now follow the Koran to avoid danger?

I've decided to be 100% honest with myself...I can't believe something BECAUSE it's claimed that if I do not, I'm in trouble. That is NOT a reason to believe something.

Skepticism is extremely valuable. It isn't a stance on something, it's a way of approaching extraordinary claims. Parents teach their children "don't take any wooden nickles" meaning, "don't be gullible and believe everything you're told".

This is excellent advice, why ignore this when it comes to religion?

Just as a last statement, I'm also skeptical of some claims I've heard/read about evolution.

Saved7
Jan 8th 2008, 11:45 PM
I allow my children to form their own beliefs. The Koran has warnings for those who do not believe....should I now follow the Koran to avoid danger?

.


yah, warnings of death or beatings for not believing...but regardless they go to hell unless they are perfect or die for their faith.
That's the beauty of Christ. The warnings we have are to live the way God tells us to live because He love us and wants our lives to be happy, and oh btw, regardless of whether we die for our faith or just die a ripe old age, we go to heaven...simply for believing. I think God kind of got the raw end of the deal here. But that's what love does...love gives of itself. It sacrifices, as a parent I am sure you know that well.:) See Christ died for US, we don't have to die for our faith just to gain access to heaven, whereas the koran says you have to die for him in order to gain access to heaven. Their god didn't die for them, but ours died for us.

RoadWarrior
Jan 9th 2008, 12:15 AM
I debated whether I am allowed to respond to questions or not. I assume I am allowed.
You are allowed. This is your thread. We are allowed to speak to you here, but not to each other. So you can have individual dialogs with one or more as you please.

I expect some others will chime in as to what they understand and believe about the physical evidence of a world-wide flood.


My other thought is, if you visited a town where you noticed all the residents believed the earth is flat....would you feel compelled to discuss this with them?
No, Cisco, I would not. I traveled in Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, and did not feel compelled to tell the people that they were wrong in their religion or culture or other beliefs. I just enjoyed being there, and learning. There was one instance when a young lady asked me questions about Christianity, and we had a nice chat. But I just answered her questions, I didn't try to convert her. And she didn't try to convert me.



I believe when I first joined the board I was a Believer. Today I am not. I left the Christian faith about 6 years ago or so.


I am sorry that this happened to you Cisco. But I do understand how it happens. I think you must be longing for some part of it, something you liked about it that you miss. Maybe that is why you have come to our board?



But before I start believing in God, it would make sense that I can FIRST believe a simple flood story alleged in Genesis [which is supposedly a literal truth handed down from God to Man].

If you hang out around here long enough, you will learn that not everyone demands that it be understood and believed as a literal story. Some of course do, and some are strident about it being important to be believe it that way. But others will say that it is a story which conveys something important about God and His relationship to man. Since it seems to be a hangup point for you, I'd suggest that you might benefit from thinking of it the second way. I'd not want it to be a logjam that prevents you from drawing near to God.



Spiritual condition or spiritual conditioning? Please understand my statement is not a mocking one. I was once a believer. Religion is VERY powerful, it can get a man to love his enemies and it can get a man to destroy the innocent.

Well, religion of course comes in many flavors. But no, I do mean condition and not conditioning. I was angry at God for many years. That was my condition - angry. When I came to the point of being willing to listen to Him, my condition changed from an angry person, to a listening student. I changed from being an enemy of God, to being a friend of God.


I think you and I are both skeptical, only perhaps I'm more consistent? I'm skeptical of the claims in the Koran, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Book of Mormon [and others but this will suffice] AND the Bible. I simply don't give the Bible special privileges.

I truly do understand this, Cisco. Of course I do "give the Bible special privileges" but only because of the change that happened in me. I was much like you, but I didn't get hung up on the flood story. I was hung up on the story of creation, and the role of woman in the Bible, as I thought it was presented in the Bible. I learned truth, and it changed my perception. I had heard teachings that warped the truth, and it was a stumbling block for me.

But notice this: It is not the Bible that saves, but it is Jesus, and His sacrifice for us on the cross. The Bible tells us many things, and the person who reads it to criticize it can find much to criticize. But the person who reads it with faith and hope can find much that helps us to live better, happier lives.



Just so that I understand you properly...are you stating that the flood story is a non-literal story intended to impart a spiritual lesson? Honestly? That makes a LOT more sense to me.


I think that there was a real flood, and that God literally saved a family. But if you have studied geology, you know that the earth experienced many floods at many times. What made this one different? That is the question. What is it teaching us? Why is this story written down, and how should we understand it? There are at least 2 levels in which the Jewish scholars understood/understand the OT scriptures. The first is the literal level - "this happened", the surface truth. The second is the hidden truth, that which is under the surface.

*snip for brevity*



Skepticism is extremely valuable. It isn't a stance on something, it's a way of approaching extraordinary claims. Parents teach their children "don't take any wooden nickles" meaning, "don't be gullible and believe everything you're told".

This is excellent advice, why ignore this when it comes to religion?

Just as a last statement, I'm also skeptical of some claims I've heard/read about evolution.


Yes, there is a Biblical statment that addresses this also,
1 Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. NKJV

Do not think it is simple to come to God - it is, in one way. In another it is very challenging and difficult. It is simple in that you turn to Him and ask Him to grant you repentance and redemption. It is challenging and difficult, because once you enter into the kingdom, you will find that you have only just begun. The rest of your life is a journey, and some of it will be quite difficult. But the joys outweigh the difficulties, IMO. And if you think about it, you have difficulties in this world, whether or not you are not in the kingdom.

Thanks for the conversation.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 9th 2008, 12:28 AM
Hello CiscoKid! I'm attempting to understand some of the things you posted in your last post. You said that you were a believer when you joined the board and that it has been 6 years since you left the faith, yet it says that you joined the board in Oct 2004 which is just more than 3 years ago. Were you a believer then; three years ago? I have to admit that I am a bit skeptical as well. When you considered yourself a 'believer' had you had a personal encounter with God? If you did not personally KNOW Him, then that is why you had trouble trusting Him and His word. There are those who are Christian that believe Noah's flood is simply an allegory, and though I don't agree with their conclusion, since I don't feel it's a salvational issue I have no problem if that's what they believe. I, however, after much research and study, have come to believe that it was a literal, global flood. One of the interesting things I've found is that observed science is much more dependable than theoretical science. An example for you is that at one time geologists truly believed that it took millions of years to create a canyon. Until about a week after the Mount St Helen's eruption they would have said this was just common knowledge. But guess what? Back in May of 1980, we got to watch as a canyon was formed. I believe all the evidence for the flood is sitting right under our noses, but if that evidence is theoretically attributed to other means, it is easily overlooked. Here's a link to the personal site of Dr. John Baumgardner who hold a Ph.D. in geophysics. http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html In this report he discusses what he sees as evidence confirming a global flood. It's a bit heady but if you're into science it's a good read. ;)

God Bless!

losthorizon
Jan 9th 2008, 12:38 AM
If Noah had two wolves on the Ark [most likely the two members of the Canine family would have been wolves], how did we get all the dogs, jackals, foxes, coyotes, dingoes etc that we see today?

Keeping in mind these animals have been around for a long time so 4000 years or less is a blink of an eye in terms of speciation.

The problem isn't whether we can get can get all the "different" members of the canine family from two wolves. It's how we got them in just a couple thousand years or so [with only one original pair].

Biological science has no problem accounting for “rapid speciation” within species, i.e., it is possible for the canine species to have evolved into wolves, coyotes, and dogs over a relatively short “geological” time frame - thousands of years and not millions of years. This type of speciation does not require the Darwinian concept of “dinosaur to bird” morphing that requires added information to species population.

Questions for you – (1) do you have faith in the Darwinian concept of “molecules-to-man” evolution and if you do can you defend that concept with verifiable scientific evidence? (2) Logic tells us that whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence and both the Bible and science tell us that the universe “began to exist” at some specific “time” in the past – as a non-believer in God, how do you explain how the universe came into existence, i.e., as a theist I believe that God created “in the beginning” – what is your explanation of how the universe came into existence?

9Marksfan
Jan 9th 2008, 12:43 AM
Here's an important matter that I don't think has been considered so far - and it just goes to show how conditioned we are by myth! Do we really believe "the animals went in two by two, hurrah, hurrah"? Here's what the Scripture says:-

"You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, male and female.....also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth" Gen 7:2-3 NKJV

Now - think what genetic mutation could do with SEVEN pairs!!!!! :)

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 01:29 AM
Here's an important matter that I don't think has been considered so far - and it just goes to show how conditioned we are by myth! Do we really believe "the animals went in two by two, hurrah, hurrah"? Here's what the Scripture says:-

"You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, male and female.....also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth" Gen 7:2-3 NKJV

Now - think what genetic mutation could do with SEVEN pairs!!!!! :)


Animals unfit for human consumption were "unclean". This would mean there was one pair of wolves....not seven pairs.

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 9th 2008, 01:30 AM
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

This article helped me when I was doubting some aspects of the Bible. It is made for people who are of the same pattern of thinking as you.

I'll admit, I had never seen this perspective offered before as a grew up learning that everything (my pastor said) about the Bible was to be taken absolutly literally. As I look back, it was unfortunate that I did not learn this earlier on.

It would be worth your time to investigate other interpretations regarding the Bible.

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 01:37 AM
Hello CiscoKid! I'm attempting to understand some of the things you posted in your last post. You said that you were a believer when you joined the board and that it has been 6 years since you left the faith, yet it says that you joined the board in Oct 2004 which is just more than 3 years ago. Were you a believer then; three years ago?

I'm a little embarrassed at my memory. For some reason I thought I had joined this board several years ago. Are you sure it was 2004, I'm almost 100% positive I was here before that! Maybe I made a new login or something at one point?



I have to admit that I am a bit skeptical as well. When you considered yourself a 'believer' had you had a personal encounter with God?

What do you consider a personal encounter? Maybe if you give me an example it would help me answer. Have I felt my "spirit" swell during praise and worship? Sure. Not unlike other religious experiences by millions of others I suppose.
Similar kind of feeling when you're falling in love with someone...very powerful....very moving.



If you did not personally KNOW Him, then that is why you had trouble trusting Him and His word.

Well at one time I didn't have trouble believing. There was also a time that I didn't challenge my beliefs.



There are those who are Christian that believe Noah's flood is simply an allegory, and though I don't agree with their conclusion, since I don't feel it's a salvational issue I have no problem if that's what they believe. I, however, after much research and study, have come to believe that it was a literal, global flood. One of the interesting things I've found is that observed science is much more dependable than theoretical science. An example for you is that at one time geologists truly believed that it took millions of years to create a canyon. Until about a week after the Mount St Helen's eruption they would have said this was just common knowledge. But guess what? Back in May of 1980, we got to watch as a canyon was formed. I believe all the evidence for the flood is sitting right under our noses, but if that evidence is theoretically attributed to other means, it is easily overlooked. Here's a link to the personal site of Dr. John Baumgardner who hold a Ph.D. in geophysics. http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html In this report he discusses what he sees as evidence confirming a global flood. It's a bit heady but if you're into science it's a good read. ;)

God Bless!


I'm not able to critique that article via my own expertise. But I did find a response to these claims.

Search for John Baumgardner in this FAQ:

***Link Removed***


I noticed this at the top of Dr. Baumgardner's article " Copyright 2003 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.". Why not submit it to peer reviewed scientific journal for other scientists to critique and challenge?

losthorizon
Jan 9th 2008, 01:58 AM
...I debated whether I am allowed to respond to questions or not. I assume I am allowed. The reason why the flood story is very important to me is because: 1) Its a claim in the Bible that is "outlandish" [tried to find a word not offensive but conveyed the unbelievers viewpoint] and 2. It's a claim that would have real, tangible, physical evidence.

As one who finds the biblical explanation of life of life on earth “outlandish” what do you offer in its place? What worldview do you advance to explain the origin of the complex life forms we see in our world in the past and present?

You ridicule God’s revelation as outlandish but offer nothing in it place. Do you not have any alternative for God’s creative power? Do you have any "real, tangible, physical evidence" to offer that we can examine to support your worldview?

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 01:59 AM
Biological science has no problem accounting for “rapid speciation” within species, i.e., it is possible for the canine species to have evolved into wolves, coyotes, and dogs over a relatively short “geological” time frame - thousands of years and not millions of years.

I would agree that wolves will develop different features in a short time span...but I would need evidence that wolves could bring forth foxes in a very short time span [few thousand years at most]. Remember, foxes/jackals/hyenas have been around a long time. This would mean that there is much less than 4400 years [time of flood till now] for this to happen.



This type of speciation does not require the Darwinian concept of “dinosaur to bird” morphing that requires added information to species population.

No not quite dino-to-bird morphing but there's quite a bit of difference from a wolf to a fox. The feline family is even worse. The family is a good bit larger.



Questions for you – (1) do you have faith in the Darwinian concept of “molecules-to-man” evolution and if you do can you defend that concept with verifiable scientific evidence? [\quote]

No I do not. As I said to RoadWarrior...I'm skeptical of some of the things I've read/heard regarding evolution.


[quote=losthorizon;1494681]
(2) Logic tells us that whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence and both the Bible and science tell us that the universe “began to exist” at some specific “time” in the past – as a non-believer in God, how do you explain how the universe came into existence, i.e., as a theist I believe that God created “in the beginning” – what is your explanation of how the universe came into existence?

I'm humble enough to say "I don't know". I'm quite comfortable not knowing.

There are certainly questions that we humans have that we really have no concrete answers for. When we come to these "gaps" in our knowledge I'm not so sure concluding "God did it" is the best response.

There was a time when we didn't know why it rained, or how weather worked. There have been many times in the past when we didn't understand how something worked or why. Instead of assuming "God put it there" or "God performed a miracle" we investigated and found a natural explanation.

My advice is that we continue to search for answers.

So far the scientific method has served us well when finding answers to life's mysteries. I don't trust everything I hear scientists theorize, but I do trust the scientific method.

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 02:04 AM
As one who finds the biblical explanation of life of life on earth “outlandish” what do you offer in its place? What worldview do you advance to explain the origin of the complex life forms we see in our world in the past and present?

When I used the word "outlandish" I was specifically referring to the flood story.

I think evolution answers "many" things regarding diversity of life on earth. As to the question of how LIFE got here I'm simply not sure.

I personally think our planet may have been "impregnated" by something in the cosmos. IE a meteor impact that contained "life". I honestly don't know however.



You ridicule God’s revelation as outlandish but offer nothing in it place. Do you not have any alternative for God’s creative power? Do you have any "real, tangible, physical evidence" to offer that we can examine to support your worldview?

I am sorry that you took offense to my discussion with RoadWarrior. I think he understood where I was coming from. At NO time did I mean to "ridicule" anything.

TEITZY
Jan 9th 2008, 02:07 AM
Unlike evolution, rapid speciation is commonly OBSERVED today in a variety of animal species as this (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/) article clearly shows. More articles here (http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22RAPID+SPECIATION%22&btnG=Search) if you are interested. Also note that speciation results in a net loss of genetic complexity or diversity in a population, the exact opposite of what evolution requires to work on a macro scale. With the original dog ancestors on the ark, speciation would actually happen more quickly than it does today since the genetic diversity was much higher in the original kind and therefore the potential for variation in their offspring would be also much greater.

Cheers
Leigh

dljc
Jan 9th 2008, 02:11 AM
CK,


Good to see you buddy. I have a question for you. Are you seriously willing to consider anything we say? I don't mean for that to sound rude, the reason I ask this question is because I remember the Bible and Science forum we used to have here, and you were hung up on this issue then. I remember discussing this with you back then. Has your opinion changed in the least or are you still in the mud?

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 02:18 AM
Unlike evolution, rapid speciation is commonly OBSERVED today in a variety of animal species as this (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/) article clearly shows. More articles here (http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22RAPID+SPECIATION%22&btnG=Search) if you are interested. Also note that speciation results in a net loss of genetic complexity or diversity in a population, the exact opposite of what evolution requires to work on a macro scale. With the original dog ancestors on the ark, speciation would actually happen more quickly than it does today since the genetic diversity was much higher in the original kind and therefore the potential for variation in their offspring would be also much greater.

Cheers
Leigh


Thanks for the links. After a quick read I saw several statements mentioning "rapid changes" being reported but they don't mention what. Again I see plenty of evidence with "changes" occuring in a short period of time. But the "change" from a wolf to a fox is another thing entirely.

Also some of the creatures they mentioned had very short life spans. Wolves last quite a bit longer, therefore the changes would take longer.

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 02:22 AM
CK,


Good to see you buddy. I have a question for you. Are you seriously willing to consider anything we say? I don't mean for that to sound rude, the reason I ask this question is because I remember the Bible and Science forum we used to have here, and you were hung up on this issue then. I remember discussing this with you back then. Has your opinion changed in the least or are you still in the mud?


Of course I consider every response I get. I wouldn't be a very good skeptic if I didn't ;)

Has my opinion changed regarding the Bible? Flood? God?

Not sure what you meant exactly.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 9th 2008, 02:44 AM
I'm a little embarrassed at my memory. For some reason I thought I had joined this board several years ago. Are you sure it was 2004, I'm almost 100% positive I was here before that! Maybe I made a new login or something at one point?

What do you consider a personal encounter? Maybe if you give me an example it would help me answer. Have I felt my "spirit" swell during praise and worship? Sure. Not unlike other religious experiences by millions of others I suppose.
Similar kind of feeling when you're falling in love with someone...very powerful....very moving.

Well at one time I didn't have trouble believing. There was also a time that I didn't challenge my beliefs.

I'm not able to critique that article via my own expertise. But I did find a response to these claims.

Search for John Baumgardner in this FAQ:

***Link Removed***


I noticed this at the top of Dr. Baumgardner's article " Copyright 2003 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.". Why not submit it to peer reviewed scientific journal for other scientists to critique and challenge?
It's not a big deal about when you ceased to believe, I was just attempting to reconcile some things you were saying. ;)

Nope, no swelling required. :D You have likely read of Paul's personal encounter with Him on the road to Damascus. It was a REAL experience. He met Yeshua and he was changed forever. Meeting Him is very different than merely growing up going to Sunday school. I met Him back in October 1998 in a little house in South Carolina and I was changed forever. Did you ever meet Him or did you merely happily follow along with what you were expected to believe until you got tired of pretending?

I posted the link because I mistakenly thought you were looking for information on how intelligent people could believe in a global flood. As I also posted, there are those who believe it is allegorical. So, there you go! Now you can believe again because the global flood doesn't have to be literal! But wait! It isn't that simple is it? The bottom line is that it's not about logically figuring the Bible out so you can cross that off the list. Sure, it may make someone feel a bit better as they continue pretending. This is what you need to put on the list: Meet God! That's it! That is the bottom line. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. That's my best advice to you! That is, IF you really want to meet Him.

God Bless!

dljc
Jan 9th 2008, 02:44 AM
Well, it's pretty obvious your opinion about God, the flood and the Bible haven't changed. So you're still stuck in the mud on this issue about the flood. My point is, are you seriously willing to consider that God did what He said He did, or are you still searching through secular material only?

An asteroid containing life? That would explain things easier wouldn't it. You sure are putting a lot of faith in someone else's ideas of how it all began.

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 03:01 AM
It's not a big deal about when you ceased to believe, I was just attempting to reconcile some things you were saying. ;)

Nope, no swelling required. :D You have likely read of Paul's personal encounter with Him on the road to Damascus. It was a REAL experience. He met Yeshua and he was changed forever. Meeting Him is very different than merely growing up going to Sunday school. I met Him back in October 1998 in a little house in South Carolina and I was changed forever. Did you ever meet Him or did you merely happily follow along with what you were expected believe until you got tired of pretending?

Can you describe "meeting Him"? I was a faithful Christian, I honestly believed the Bible since I was a pup. Did I ever have any kind of paranormal experience...No.




I posted the link because I mistakenly thought you were looking for information on how intelligent people could believe in a global flood.

Well there are intelligent people who believe certain crystals can heal you simply by wearing them. There are intelligent people who believe telekinesis is real and that people can bend spoons with their mind. There are intelligent people who believe in Scientology, a religion/cult started by a pulp fiction author!

Skepticism does not equate to intelligence.

I think what's so intriguing to me is WHY they believe.





As I also posted, there are those who believe it is allegorical. So, there you go! Now you can believe again because the global flood doesn't have to be literal! But wait! It isn't that simply is it? The bottom line is that it's not about logically figuring the Bible out so you can cross that off the list. Sure, it may make someone feel a bit better as they continue pretending. This is what you need to put on the list: Meet God! That's it! That is the bottom line. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. That's my best advice to you! That is, IF you really want to meet Him.

God Bless!


I ask you to trust me when I say I've prayed for revelation. I see the natural world around me. I've never once had a "spiritual" encounter or experience that I can recall...other than common "spiritual experiences" such as watching your child being born.

The flood story is not the only thing I ponder over. I'm just as interested in young earth proponents. In the face of monumental evidence, how can someone still believe the earth is 6K years old?

I think from a Biblical standpoint....if I never had a spiritual experience [with God] then perhaps I am simply not "chosen" of God to accompany Him in heaven. If such is true, then what can you do? :hmm:

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 03:08 AM
Well, it's pretty obvious your opinion about God, the flood and the Bible haven't changed. So you're still stuck in the mud on this issue about the flood. My point is, are you seriously willing to consider that God did what He said He did, or are you still searching through secular material only?

My honest response to this is, after reading the old testament...I'm not so sure everything that starts with "God said......." is really from God.

My current belief regarding the flood is that it was a local flood that literally happened long ago. I think the story was perhaps embellished as time went on.



An asteroid containing life? That would explain things easier wouldn't it. You sure are putting a lot of faith in someone else's ideas of how it all began.


Actually I thought about this before I ever heard of the Panspermia. Of course I don't know if this is the answer but it at least plausible. Even if this theory was true...it really doesn't answer anything anyway does it? :D

dljc
Jan 9th 2008, 03:25 AM
My honest response to this is, after reading the old testament...I'm not so sure everything that starts with "God said......." is really from God.

My current belief regarding the flood is that it was a local flood that literally happened long ago. I think the story was perhaps embellished as time went on.Have you checked into the different cultures at the time that also have a flood story?

Actually I thought about this before I ever heard of the Panspermia. Of course I don't know if this is the answer but it at least plausible. Even if this theory was true...it really doesn't answer anything anyway does it? :DHow did the planet get here for the asteroid to hit it? This theory may explain life, but it doesn't answer the previous question. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, doesn't it? (I know, Billy Preston said that). :lol:

TEITZY
Jan 9th 2008, 03:25 AM
Thanks for the links. After a quick read I saw several statements mentioning "rapid changes" being reported but they don't mention what. Again I see plenty of evidence with "changes" occuring in a short period of time. But the "change" from a wolf to a fox is another thing entirely.

Also some of the creatures they mentioned had very short life spans. Wolves last quite a bit longer, therefore the changes would take longer.

Well they did specifically mention changes like body size, leg length etc. Also salmon and finches live for 8-10 years (not much shorter than most dogs) and with the salmon it took just 13 generations to produce a new species and about 200 years in the case of the finches. As I said above, we would expect even more rapid speciation to occur with the original kinds that came off the ark since there would be much more potential (ie. more genes) for variation and one would also expect a slow down in speciation over time as populations became more isolated and the gene pool greatly reduced. On a genetic level at least, the external differences we see in dogs (eg. size, colour, fur length etc.) are fairly easily achieved unlike the genetic gymnastics (miracle actually) that would have to occur for a dinosaur to turn into a chicken.

Cheers
Leigh

Studyin'2Show
Jan 9th 2008, 03:26 AM
Can you describe "meeting Him"? I was a faithful Christian, I honestly believed the Bible since I was a pup. Did I ever have any kind of paranormal experience...No.

Well there are intelligent people who believe certain crystals can heal you simply by wearing them. There are intelligent people who believe telekinesis is real and that people can bend spoons with their mind. There are intelligent people who believe in Scientology, a religion/cult started by a pulp fiction author!

Skepticism does not equate to intelligence.

I think what's so intriguing to me is WHY they believe.

I ask you to trust me when I say I've prayed for revelation. I see the natural world around me. I've never once had a "spiritual" encounter or experience that I can recall...other than common "spiritual experiences" such as watching your child being born.

The flood story is not the only thing I ponder over. I'm just as interested in young earth proponents. In the face of monumental evidence, how can someone still believe the earth is 6K years old?

I think from a Biblical standpoint....if I never had a spiritual experience [with God] then perhaps I am simply not "chosen" of God to accompany Him in heaven. If such is true, then what can you do? :hmm:What is a faithful Christian if they've never met God? What does that mean? You got up a Sunday to fall asleep in church? You had a Bible that stayed open on the coffee table? You didn't kill people? Really! What does being a faithful Christian look like if you don't know Christ? Let's be real here, okay?

BTW, if you asked God to reveal Himself the way you asked here about wolves and dogs on the ark, it's possible that maybe He did answer but you had a clever comeback and missed the revelation. :o I'd try again! :hmm:

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 03:35 AM
What is a faithful Christian if they've never met God? What does that mean? You got up a Sunday to fall asleep in church? You had a Bible that stayed open on the coffee table? You didn't kill people? Really! What does being a faithful Christian look like if you don't know Christ? Let's be real here, okay?

It almost appears that you're mocking my lack of "connection" with God. I hope I'm mistaken. Are you assuming I never really tried?

Again I'm asking...how do you know if you've "met" God?

How is your experience authentic and that of a Mormon or Hindu artificial?




BTW, if you asked God to reveal Himself the way you asked here about wolves and dogs on the ark, it's possible that maybe He did answer but you had a clever comeback and missed the revelation. :o I'd try again! :hmm:


Actually I've quipped before that my spiritual antennae are broken. :help:

I think if God exists He would be able to communicate something this important to me so that I would not miss it. At least I would hope.

losthorizon
Jan 9th 2008, 03:39 AM
...So far the scientific method has served us well when finding answers to life's mysteries. I don't trust everything I hear scientists theorize, but I do trust the scientific method.

Aren’t you just pushing a "scientism" worldview, i.e., the concept that science alone is the determiner of truth and reality? Do you believe that God exists?


When I used the word "outlandish" I was specifically referring to the flood story.
But isn’t it true that you find many facts recorded in the Bible as equally “outlandish”?


I think evolution answers "many" things regarding diversity of life on earth. As to the question of how LIFE got here I'm simply not sure.
Then you are a subscriber to “evolution of the gaps” – the idea that over enough time (billions of years) evolution can morph a reptilian’s dead-end lung into a bird’s flow-through lung? Doesn’t it really take more “faith” to believe that concept than to believe in the Flood? Can you defend Darwinism by the use of the “scientific method” or is Darwinism in reality simply mythology presented under the pretext of science?


I personally think our planet may have been "impregnated" by something in the cosmos. IE a meteor impact that contained "life".
But your dilemma is only pushed back one more layer – life must have originated somewhere else in the cosmos instead of on earth. You are still faced with the old atheistic problem that without God life must originate from non-life all by its lonesome - a concept very foreign to the scientific method. This appears to be non-logical thinking on your part - yes? How can something come from nothing without a guiding and creative Mind? ;)

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 03:46 AM
Have you checked into the different cultures at the time that also have a flood story?

Most cultures that existed near a body of water had flood stories. Have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh? The story involving Utnapishtim sounds a lot like Noah and his quest...only the story is centuries older. Apologists simply suggest that the story of Noah is older and that they all originate from the one true flood story.

Only the Noahic flood story stayed in tact. :rolleyes:




How did the planet get here for the asteroid to hit it? This theory may explain life, but it doesn't answer the previous question. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, doesn't it? (I know, Billy Preston said that). :lol:


Earth may have been formed by the Sun when it was young. The dust and gas from the Sun clumped together into larger and larger pieces. This is the most popular theory as of right now anyway.

As I said in my own post....panspermia doesn't really explain anything it just gives us additional questions. I just seem to think it's a possibility.

RoadWarrior
Jan 9th 2008, 04:04 AM
Most cultures that existed near a body of water had flood stories. Have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh? The story involving Utnapishtim sounds a lot like Noah and his quest...only the story is centuries older. Apologists simply suggest that the story of Noah is older and that they all originate from the one true flood story.

Only the Noahic flood story stayed in tact. :rolleyes:



Hi Cisco,

I've heard of the Epic, but never read it. If you have read both, how do they compare? Are they basically the same story?

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 04:09 AM
Aren’t you just pushing a "scientism" worldview, i.e., the concept that science alone is the determiner of truth and reality? Do you believe that God exists?

I wouldn't describe myself as "pushing" anything other than skepticism. I do believe the scientific method has given us more tangible answers than religion when it comes to exploring the world we live in.

Well when I think of "God" I tend to think of that in terms of "what got us here". God is a descriptive word we use for the 'source of our existence'.

Do I believe in a spirit being that created the Universe and intervenes on the lives of humans...no.

This does bring up a good topic. I think it's been proven over and over that people desire a protective God like being to watch over them. Guardian Angels, ghosts of relatives, et al watching over us and protecting us from the beyond.

I don't think people like the idea of being on this planet in this galaxy with no cosmic force to protect us and guide us. That is a lonely desolate thought to some. It really doesn't have to be.

Browse your cable/satellite channels sometime....look at the scores of shows dedicated to the paranormal, ghosts, spirits, angels etc. Look at the people like John Edwards who gets millions wishing he would speak to the dead to find answers.



But isn’t it true that you find many facts recorded in the Bible as equally “outlandish”?

True. I think there are plenty of areas the Bible is correct and definitely some areas where I am skeptical. I simply do not treat the Bible differently than I do the Koran.



Then you are a subscriber to “evolution of the gaps” – the idea that over enough time (billions of years) evolution can morph a reptilian’s dead-end lung into a bird’s flow-through lung? Doesn’t it really take more “faith” to believe that concept than to believe in the Flood?

This would be a mistaken assumption. From your standpoint there are ONLY two beliefs:

1. The God of the Bible created all.
2. Evolution has all the answers.

Is that really true? I don't think so.




Can you defend Darwinism by the use of the “scientific method” or is Darwinism in reality simply mythology presented under the pretext of science?

Your responses remind me of Kent Hovind a bit. If you read my posts in this thread NEVER did I suggest that Darwinism has all the answers. As a matter of fact, this is getting off topic if anything.




But your dilemma is only pushed back one more layer – life must have originated somewhere else in the cosmos instead of on earth. You are still faced with the old atheistic problem that without God life must originate from non-life all by its lonesome - a concept very foreign to the scientific method. This appears to be non-logical thinking on your part - yes? How can something come from nothing without a guiding and creative Mind? ;)

I admitted this much earlier. Life from the cosmos or anywhere else does NOT answer anything. It just adds another layer of questioning.

If I said an alien "created" life, how would you respond? Who created the alien?

Same argument for God or any other "creator".

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 04:12 AM
Hi Cisco,

I've heard of the Epic, but never read it. If you have read both, how do they compare? Are they basically the same story?


Here is a breakdown of similarities [note there were differences also]:

* The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.
* The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
* The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
* The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).
* The ark would be sealed with pitch.
* The ark would have with many internal compartments
* It would have a single door
* It would have at least one window.
* The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.
* A great rain covered the land with water.
* The mountains were initially covered with water.
* The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
* The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.
* The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
* The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
* God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.
* The hero was blessed.
* The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.


Here are the main differences:

* Noah received his instructions directly from Jehovah; Ut-Napishtim received them indirectly during a dream.
* Noah's ark was 3 stories high and rectangular in shape. Two estimated dimensions are 547 x 91 ft. and 450 x 75 ft. The Babylonian ark was 6 stories high and square.
* Ut-Napishtim invited additional people on board: a pilot and some skilled workmen.
* Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat; Ut-Napishtim'sat on Mt. Nisir; these locations are both in the Middle East, and are located few hundred miles apart
* In the Bible, some of the water emerged from beneath the earth. And the rains from above lasted for 40 days and nights. A 40 day interval often symbolized a period of judgment in the Hebrew Scriptures. 2 In the Babylonian account, the water came only in the form of rain, and lasted only 6 days.
* Noah released a raven once and a dove twice; Ut-Napishtim released three birds: a dove, swallow and raven.

dljc
Jan 9th 2008, 04:14 AM
Most cultures that existed near a body of water had flood stories. Have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh? The story involving Utnapishtim sounds a lot like Noah and his quest...only the story is centuries older. Apologists simply suggest that the story of Noah is older and that they all originate from the one true flood story.

Only the Noahic flood story stayed in tact. :rolleyes:





Earth may have been formed by the Sun when it was young. The dust and gas from the Sun clumped together into larger and larger pieces. This is the most popular theory as of right now anyway.

As I said in my own post....panspermia doesn't really explain anything it just gives us additional questions. I just seem to think it's a possibility.Let me ask you CK. Do you approach these different theories with the same skepticism as you do the Noahic Flood? Or do you just accept them as gospel?

The reason I ask is because there is plenty of information out there that supports either view you want to have. There are plenty of atheist sites that are biased in that way, and there are plenty of Christian sites that are biased that way. If you are leaning more toward the atheist site, you are looking at things and agreeing with like minded folks. Much like what we get accused of. I could take a picture of something in my yard and put up a website or write a book and say whatever I want to say about this rock or whatever I've found. I could present all kinds of false data to support this story I've come up with. But the bottom line would be to drive the reader in one direction or the other. Do you approach this information with the same skepticism?

You believe that the flood couldn't have happened the way the Bible says it did. Because now that interferes with evolution. You choose to believe in evolution so you can't believe the Bible. See the dilemma?

Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Him. (John 14:6)

Do you think Science can save you?

RoadWarrior
Jan 9th 2008, 04:18 AM
Here is a breakdown of similarities [note there were differences also]:


Thanks Cisco, I've often wondered. Good analysis and comparison, by the way. You obviously have looked into this rather deeply.

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 04:30 AM
Let me ask you CK. Do you approach these different theories with the same skepticism as you do the Noahic Flood? Or do you just accept them as gospel?

As I've stated several times I don't believe everything I hear and that goes for what I hear on the Discovery channel.




The reason I ask is because there is plenty of information out there that supports either view you want to have. There are plenty of atheist sites that are biased in that way, and there are plenty of Christian sites that are biased that way. If you are leaning more toward the atheist site, you are looking at things and agreeing with like minded folks. Much like what we get accused of. I could take a picture of something in my yard and put up a website or write a book and say whatever I want to say about this rock or whatever I've found. I could present all kinds of false data to support this story I've come up with. But the bottom line would be to drive the reader in one direction or the other. Do you approach this information with the same skepticism?

Of course...if you make a claim about what you've found...I would expect anyone to require something we can test that claim against.




You believe that the flood couldn't have happened the way the Bible says it did. Because now that interferes with evolution.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with why I don't believe in the Flood story. I simply used one argument against the flood [that one happened to involve evolution]. I have another dozen arguments aside from the one I gave here.




You choose to believe in evolution so you can't believe the Bible. See the dilemma?

I believe in evolutionary processes. Do I believe in everything I read/hear about evolution? No.



Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Him. (John 14:6)

Do you think Science can save you?

Save me from what? :idea:

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 04:43 AM
Not to kill a nice thread but I think it's run it's course.

There is really just one thing that I think is unsettled in my mind. I asked 'Studyin'2Show' a couple times to describe or quantify HOW one knows that they've "met Christ".

I'm still waiting for an answer to this very important question. May I start a new thread to explore this?

I also understand if the admins would rather I leave.

dljc
Jan 9th 2008, 04:45 AM
As I've stated several times I don't believe everything I hear and that goes for what I hear on the Discovery channel.




Of course...if you make a claim about what you've found...I would expect anyone to require something we can test that claim against.




Evolution has NOTHING to do with why I don't believe in the Flood story. I simply used one argument against the flood [that one happened to involve evolution]. I have another dozen arguments aside from the one I gave here.




I believe in evolutionary processes. Do I believe in everything I read/hear about evolution? No. Fair enough.

Save me from what? :idea:From yourself.

losthorizon
Jan 9th 2008, 04:46 AM
...I wouldn't describe myself as "pushing" anything other than skepticism. I do believe the scientific method has given us more tangible answers than religion when it comes to exploring the world we live in.


I think your motivation goes beyond skepticism. But the questions that goes begging – is the physical universe “all there is…?” Or is there something beyond the material reality?


Well when I think of "God" I tend to think of that in terms of "what got us here". God is a descriptive word we use for the 'source of our existence'.
And what is that source of our existence if not God?

Do I believe in a spirit being that created the Universe and intervenes on the lives of humans...no.
Then how did the Universe come into being – logically, something cannot come from nothing – or do you believe that statement is false?


This does bring up a good topic. I think it's been proven over and over that people desire a protective God like being to watch over them.
But isn’t this fact simply because He has created us with that desire to seek Him and hasn’t He given us revelation so that we might know who He is and what he desires from us? You sought Him at one time - why?


This would be a mistaken assumption. From your standpoint there are ONLY two beliefs:

1. The God of the Bible created all.
2. Evolution has all the answers.
No – from my standpoint there is only one reality - God “created in the beginning” as revealed and Darwinian evolution is nothing more than naturalistic (atheistic) mythology with scientific terminology. Does your answer (or lack thereof) mean you cannot support Darwinism with the scientific method?


I admitted this much earlier. Life from the cosmos or anywhere else does NOT answer anything. It just adds another layer of questioning.

If I said an alien "created" life, how would you respond? Who created the alien?

Same argument for God or any other "creator".
But God by definition is eternal and exists outside of time and change does He not?

RoadWarrior
Jan 9th 2008, 04:51 AM
Not to kill a nice thread but I think it's run it's course.

There is really just one thing that I think is unsettled in my mind. I asked 'Studyin'2Show' a couple times to describe or quantify HOW one knows that they've "met Christ".

I'm still waiting for an answer to this very important question. May I start a new thread to explore this?

I also understand if the admins would rather I leave.

Cisco, I think that would be a great thread! I'll watch for it - tomorrow probably, since it's getting late.

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 05:08 AM
I think your motivation goes beyond skepticism. But the questions that goes begging – is the physical universe “all there is…?” Or is there something beyond the material reality?

My position is, the physical reality is all there is UNTIL we find concrete [maybe not 'concrete', how about significant] evidence there is something else. Maybe there is an alternate dimension where everything is purple except for pink robots that roam the cosmos.

Is that possible? Yes...is there a reason to believe it? :cool:




Then how did the Universe come into being – logically, something cannot come from nothing – or do you believe that statement is false?

Again, I don't know where the universe came from....but I'm OK with NOT knowing. I simply don't think the God of the Gaps argument is wise. It's burned humanity so many times in the past.



But isn’t this fact simply because He has created us with that desire to seek Him and hasn’t He given us revelation so that we might know who He is and what he desires from us? You sought Him at one time - why?

That is one suggestion....but if it's true He gave humans a miserable guiding system to Him. I think we have an insatiable desire for answers....so much so that we'll cling to all kinds of things in order to feel that we have them.



No – from my standpoint there is only one reality - God “created in the beginning” as revealed and Darwinian evolution is nothing more than naturalistic (atheistic) mythology with scientific terminology. Does your answer (or lack thereof) mean you cannot support Darwinism with the scientific method?

I don't know why so many of you think I'm a fan of Darwin. Not sure what else to say.

My only thought here is that we use the technologies, the tools, the advances, the insight that the scientific method brings us......every day. We use it to save our lives....to heal us...to explore our universe.

If my memory is correct, Martin Luther criticized Galileo for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He based this on the scripture where Joshua said the "Sun stood still". Luther said that to suggest the Earth revolves around the Sun is like saying Christ is not the Son of God.

Perhaps it's not the Bible that's in conflict with Science...but interpretation.




But God by definition is eternal and exists outside of time and change does He not?

That's my point....perhaps the Creator Alien is outside time too?

Ciscokid
Jan 9th 2008, 05:09 AM
Cisco, I think that would be a great thread! I'll watch for it - tomorrow probably, since it's getting late.

Agreed, I'm tired....goodnight all!

Studyin'2Show
Jan 9th 2008, 12:57 PM
It almost appears that you're mocking my lack of "connection" with God. I hope I'm mistaken. Are you assuming I never really tried?

Again I'm asking...how do you know if you've "met" God?

How is your experience authentic and that of a Mormon or Hindu artificial?

Actually I've quipped before that my spiritual antennae are broken. :help:

I think if God exists He would be able to communicate something this important to me so that I would not miss it. At least I would hope.No, of course I'm not mocking you. Are you mocking me? :hmm:

How do you know you have 'met' God? First, you have to have 'met' His Son, Yeshua (Jesus) and when you have seen Him, you have seen the Father. So, how do you know you have 'met' Yeshua? It's just like if you meet Joe, or Steve, or Larry. It's not about getting all sappy or feeling bubbly inside; it's about finally seeing who He is.

I grew up catholic. Went to catholic schools. Graduated from a catholic high school. I had some form of religion. If you asked me if when I died I would go to heaven I would have said, "I think so because I'm a pretty good person." But I did not KNOW Yeshua. He was not real in my life. He was a really nice dead guy from history that was supposed to have done some really cool miracles; even coming back to life. It was like an interesting science fiction movie and I felt like I had sat out in an audience and watched from afar. Very moving but when it was done, I got up and went home. It didn't change me or my life one bit. Church was boring, the Bible boring and harder than Shakespeare to understand (I actually liked Shakespeare :D). That's a definition of knowing of Him but not knowing HIM!

Okay, so what changed and when? My mother started getting all 'religious' (from my POV) back in 1997. It was a bit of a drag. I had already been married for more than 12 years so it wasn't like I had to live with her or anything. :rolleyes: In 1998 our family moved from South Florida to South Carolina. The cost of living was soooo much better there and I was able to be a stay-at-home mom. We were living in a house that we would NEVER have been able to afford in Florida and generally things (on the outside) looked pretty good. But inside? Inside I was in turmoil. I would laugh but I had no joy. I had things to do but I had no purpose. I was just existing day by day. My mother had visited about a month before and had brought me a gift; a 'New Believers Bible'. It still sat unopened underneath a bunch of junk on my desk.

We were talking on the phone one day and I guess she heard something in my voice or, in retrospect, maybe the Holy Spirit prompted her so she said, "Denise, (that's my name ;)) have you ever read the Bible?" Now, I was thinking - Woman, did you not spend thousands sending me to private school. You know I had religion class every year. But I actually said, "Of course I have." (I bit indignant, I might add) She said, "Not for a class or because you HAVE TO for some reason, but because you want to?" (Insert long pause here) Because I wanted to? Who reads the Bible for fun? She continued, "Not in little pieces here and there. Not a few verses here; a few verses there, but page after page, like a book?"

After I said no, came her challenge. She said, "Do you think you can pick it up and read it starting at Matthew?"

"Yes!" I said without thinking. Who was she to challenge me? She read it so of course I CAN read it! (As you can tell by now, I have a bit of a competitive streak) I was going to prove to her that this was no big deal. I would read it like a book and tell her about it and I'd be off the hook with her forever! :pp That's what I thought. I don't how else to explain it than this. Somewhere in chapters 5, 6, 7 or so the scales began to fall off my eyes. Things I had never been able to understand suddenly became clear like I had never imagined. It was like instead of being in the audience disconnected from the action, I was there at the feet of Yeshua feeling the love he had for ME! Not the general, He loves everyone, deal but the personal love He has for just me. At this point, I had felt His love in a very different way but I still had not 'met' Him yet.

As I continued reading and things became more and more clear, I realized that although I had known about Him for most of my life, I had NEVER really KNOWN Him. At this point, I did not merely want to know Him, but I was DESPERATE for Him! In this desperation, I fell onto the floor and wept like a baby. I recognized the filth within my soul that kept me separated from the Father and His Son. I knew there was nothing I could ever do to make myself righteous and that I would NEVER be worthy of this love I was feeling from Him. I wept and I pleaded; I begged and I cried. At that moment, I wanted nothing else in life but His presence and somewhere in that moment He picked up my soul from the pit it had been in and craddled me in His arms and told me that not only does He love me but that He will NEVER leave me! That, my friend, is when I met Him! And I have never been the same. You see, it's something you would not forget like when you first met your wife or husband; or your best friend. You just know. You remember the encounter. It's not just about growing up believing this or that. It is about the real person that you 'meet'.

BTW, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER give up! As long as you have breath in your body. Do not EVER think that because you haven't met Him that you never will. Okay? So, if you want to start another thread to hear from others how they 'met' Him, I'll keep my eyes open for it. ;)

God Bless!

dljc
Jan 9th 2008, 03:06 PM
Not to kill a nice thread but I think it's run it's course.I think on this note we'll go ahead and close this thread. CK, if you have any questions about Studyin2Show's post above, you are welcome to start a new thread on that. But this thread is closed.