Noah and his Ark - Believe it or Not?

[painted wolf]

may, a lot has been learned in three hundred years.

Tectonics for instance and how rocks and fossils are formed.

if all the fossils are the result of the flood, then why don't we find fossils in a jumble of mixed time periods?
Why is it that early animals are found below late ones? Why should elephants be on top of fish? Fish and crocodiles swim far better than any elephant or human. Why arn't the bad swimmers on the bottom? Why don't we find Elephants and dinosaurs together? Why don't we find dinosaurs before the triassic rocks? Heck why havent we found any remains of the cities and people that supposedly extisted before the flood?

I won't go into the fact that the animals like the 'elephants' found around the world are not the same ones found in Africa and Asia and so on.

It makes sence that Bible Students wouldn't believe in things outside the bible. To bad all the evidence for the deluge has been disproven, and all the eminent scholars are from centuries ago.

wa:do

 

[Ceridwen018]

Since the Flood legends are generally found among people who did not come in touch with the Bible until recent centuries, it would be a mistake to contend that the Scriptural account influenced them.

Heh, heh--more like they influenced the scriptural account.

• Bible students, however, do not base their belief in the global flood on the evidences of geology. They accept the Holy Scriptures as the truthful Word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13) Yet, it is interesting to note that eminent scholars have found throughout the earth features that they accept as testimony to a global deluge.

Lol, how convenient. :biglaugh:Although unfortunately incorrect.

I agree with Painted Wolf, that you insitance in citing sources dated from before America was even a nation is the root of your problems. Do you also believe the earth is flat?

 

[Pah]

is there geological evidence of the Flood? Indeed there is, and it has long been recognized by various scholars. For example, in 1761 Alexander Catcott, A.M

Ah yes the scholar that found two Biblical firmaments:biglaugh:

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/fsearch.html
Alexander Catcott (1725-1779) published A Treatise on the Deluge in 1761. He believed the subterranean waters of the abyss were responsible for the flood. Like Robert Hooke, Catcott believed there were two firmaments. But for him, they were both identified with an expanse or atmosphere. The upper one, the atmosphere above the earth, had waters below it, the waters of the oceans of the earth. Catcott called this the exterior expanse or firmament. The airs which he assumed existed within the earth, he called the interior expanse. This expanse was below the waters of the abyss, which he identified with "the waters above the firmament." Catcott adopted concepts of the firmament similar to views proposed by John Hutchinson in Moses's Principia, (1724). Geologist Davis Young commented on Catcott's model:
The waters under the firmament were the waters above the solid shell and below the atmosphere. The waters beneath the solid shell and above the interior expanse were the waters above the firmament. Hence, in Catcott's primitive earth we have a bizarre situation in which the waters below the firmament were located physically above the waters above the firmament!
Catcott was a careful observer of landforms and he attributed many of the features of the landscape to the effects of erosion of retreating flood waters. He made important observations of the effects of erosion in mountains and suggested they were carved from newly deposited sediment by currents while the earth's crust was still submerged in the waters of the flood. His explanation of the firmament did not become widely accepted.

http://www.loxtonsomerset.org.uk/people/lhstcv04.html
Notes:
1. Dr. Alexander Catcott, (Vicar of Temple Church Bristol), A Treatise on the Deluge. He thought that animals such as elephant, lion, rhinoceros and hyæna were washed away from Africa by the waters of the Great Flood and deposited in caves in England as the waters subsided. He also suggested the theory that stalactites and stalagmites were formed by the action of water.

:biglaugh:

 

[may]

If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists found no trace of it? Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.


​

Similar mistakes have been made. Concerning the time when scientists were developing their theory of ice ages, we read: "They were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages; formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor."​

Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. Many have argued that this event was the Flood.​

An editorial in the magazine Biblical Archaeologist observed: "It is important to remember that the story of a great flood is one of the most widespread traditions in human culture . . . Nevertheless behind the oldest traditions found in Near Eastern sources, there may well be an actual flood of gigantic proportions dating from one of the pluvial periods . . . many thousands of years ago." The pluvial periods were times when the surface of the earth was much wetter than now. Freshwater lakes around the world were much larger. It is theorized that the wetness was caused by heavy rains associated with the end of the ice ages. But some have suggested that on one occasion the extreme wetness of the earth’s surface was a result of the Flood.

 

[Pah]

If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists found no trace of it? Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.​

"Perhaps" doesn't cut it. Real examples, real places, real people who have done the studies is what is needed.

​

Similar mistakes have been made. Concerning the time when scientists were developing their theory of ice ages, we read: "They were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages; formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor."​

Where do we read this? Who said or wrote it?

Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. Many have argued that this event was the Flood.​

Verifiable documentation please!!!!

An editorial in the magazine Biblical Archaeologist observed: "It is important to remember that the story of a great flood is one of the most widespread traditions in human culture . . . Nevertheless behind the oldest traditions found in Near Eastern sources, there may well be an actual flood of gigantic proportions dating from one of the pluvial periods . . . many thousands of years ago." The pluvial periods were times when the surface of the earth was much wetter than now. Freshwater lakes around the world were much larger. It is theorized that the wetness was caused by heavy rains associated with the end of the ice ages. But some have suggested that on one occasion the extreme wetness of the earth’s surface was a result of the Flood.

Editorials are opinions! Your comments are opinions.

Facts, May, facts - we need facts!

 

[robtex]

May even if you find evidence of a great flood somewhere in time don't you see the HUGE jump in logic to say that some fella made a boat put two of every animal in it because some fella in the sky who is invisable told him do and than purposefully destroyed everything else on the planet.

Go back and read this thread from the beginning.

1) druidus pointed out the long-term damage a flood would caused to the eco system
2) others have pointed out that the boat could not hold all the animals
3) others have pointed out animals could not have lived that way for 40/40
4) others have pointed out that evolution made the ark unneccessary
5) others have pointed out a wooden boat with that much weight would have sank
6) others have pointed out that the draught neccessary to make the flood happen would have killed off most the animals before the flood
7) others have pointed out that the boat has never ever been discovered
8) others have claimed that God does not make mistakes so there is no reason for the flood.
9) others have pointed out it was a labor inducing way to propogate genocide by God who created life from nothing

ect ect....

 

[painted wolf]

May we have glaciers that are remains of the ones that spread out over the world. Alaska, Greenland, The Alps, Antarctica, The Andes, the Himelayas and so on....

We do not have enough water to cover the whole earth... where is the extra water?

We have more evidence that the oceans were lower due to the ice age than we have that they ever covered the whole world.

wa:do

 

[may]

Further, The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: "The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level." So, if everything were leveled out—if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in—the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.

The book Planet Earth—Glacier draws attention to the way water in the form of ice sheets depresses the surface of the earth. For example, it says: "If the Greenland ice were to disappear, the island would eventually rebound some 2,000 feet." In view of this, the effect of a sudden global flood on parts of the earth’s crust could well have been catastrophic.
The biblical flood and the ice epoch by D.Patten, 1966 p 62 also National geographicJAN, 1945 P 105

For the Flood to have happened, the pre-Flood sea basins would have to have been shallower, and the mountains lower than they are now. Is this possible? Well, one textbook says: "Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea."Since the mountains and sea basins rise and fall, it is apparent that at one time the mountains were not as high as they are now and the great sea basins were not as deep.What happened to the floodwaters after the Flood? They must have drained into the sea basins. How? Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10 km] deep at the plate boundaries.It is quite likely that—perhaps triggered by the Flood itself—the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please list those standard geology and geophysics college text books that entertain the possibility of the Biblical flood.

 

[may]

Accepting​

the Unprovable


​

A statement that is unprovable is not necessarily untrue. Scientific proof is limited by man’s ability to discover sufficient evidence and to interpret data correctly. But some truths are unprovable because no evidence has been preserved, the evidence is obscure or undiscovered, or scientific capabilities and expertise are insufficient to arrive at an uncontested conclusion. Might this be the case with certain Biblical statements for which independent physical evidence is lacking?​

For example, the Bible’s references to an invisible realm inhabited by spirit persons cannot be proved—or disproved—scientifically. The same can be said of miraculous events mentioned in the Bible. Not enough clear geologic evidence for the global Flood of Noah’s day is available to satisfy some people. (Genesis, chapter 7) Must we conclude that it did not happen? Historical events can be obscured by time and change. So is it not possible that thousands of years of geologic activity has effaced much of the evidence for the Flood?​

Granted, the Bible contains statements that cannot be proved or disproved by available physical evidence. But should that surprise us? The Bible is not a science textbook. It is, however, a book of truth. Many have already considered strong evidence that its writers were men of integrity and honesty. And when they touch on matters related to science, their words are accurate and completely free from ancient "scientific" theories that turned out to be mere myths. Science is thus no enemy of the Bible. There is every reason to weigh what the Bible says with an open mind

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not enough clear geologic evidence for the global Flood of Noah’s day is available to satisfy some people.

Please list any standard geology and/or geophysics college text book that entertain the possibility of the Biblical flood.

 

[painted wolf]

may- ice is much heavier than water... that is why it depresses the land it sits on. Water is much lighter and runs downhill... it does not depress the land it sits on. Otherwise places like the Aral sea wich is drying out would be experiencing such elevation changes. We can measure such changes in elevation and England for instance, which was depressed by its glacial sheet, is still in the process of moving to straiten itself back out. England is rebounding at a rate of about 1mm per year for example.

Mountains rise and fall due to tectonic activity, it is a slow but measurable process, it is still happining... it could not have happined in 40 days.

If the land was flat and boring before the flood, where was all the water kept?
There still isn't enough water to cover the entire surface of the earth... where did it all go?

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wow this is a long thread. I am a Christian and I think that the story of the flood in Genesis is a theological reflection on a true ancient catastrophe. Yes, I think that there was a flood. I think that it was localized and real because of other accounts (Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, predates the Genesis story and has similarities to the Genesis account). I think that it is real because it is logical to think that a myth of this nature stems from some natural event.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wow this is a long thread. I am a Christian and I think that the story of the flood in Genesis is a theological reflection on a true ancient catastrophe.

What is the difference between "theological reflection" and theologized folklore?

 

[Pah]

Accepting​

the Unprovable


​

A statement that is unprovable is not necessarily untrue. Scientific proof is limited by man’s ability to discover sufficient evidence and to interpret data correctly. But some truths are unprovable because no evidence has been preserved, the evidence is obscure or undiscovered, or scientific capabilities and expertise are insufficient to arrive at an uncontested conclusion. Might this be the case with certain Biblical statements for which independent physical evidence is lacking?​

For example, the Bible’s references to an invisible realm inhabited by spirit persons cannot be proved—or disproved—scientifically. The same can be said of miraculous events mentioned in the Bible. Not enough clear geologic evidence for the global Flood of Noah’s day is available to satisfy some people. (Genesis, chapter 7) Must we conclude that it did not happen? Historical events can be obscured by time and change. So is it not possible that thousands of years of geologic activity has effaced much of the evidence for the Flood?​

Granted, the Bible contains statements that cannot be proved or disproved by available physical evidence. But should that surprise us? The Bible is not a science textbook. It is, however, a book of truth. Many have already considered strong evidence that its writers were men of integrity and honesty. And when they touch on matters related to science, their words are accurate and completely free from ancient "scientific" theories that turned out to be mere myths. Science is thus no enemy of the Bible. There is every reason to weigh what the Bible says with an open mind

As I posted in another thread
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html

The "God Of The Gaps" Argument
This argument has the form

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.

This is not based in logic. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science.

Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new scientific advance. For example, after the work of Galileo and Newton, it was no longer thought that angels pushed the planets across the heavens.

Apparently, some don't know they should be embarrassed

 

[Firecat89]

There is too much that does not make sense... furthermore I don't even know why this should be recognized as a story, it puts God down in so many ways. It makes him out to be this child that decides he's going to take everyone down with him: instead of using his powers to help, he thinks destruction will help. Not wise.

 

[linwood]

furthermore I don't even know why this should be recognized as a story, it puts God down in so many ways.

It`s Biblical scripture.
If you`re going to recognize the Christian or Judiac God you must recognize the story.

If the standards for what should and should not be believed were held...

"It makes him out to be this child that decides he's going to take everyone down with him:"

They`d have to do away with an extremely large part of the Bible considering genesis, exodus, revelation, Acts, and so many other parts show God in this manner.

 

[Firecat89]

I've been studying Genesis lately and I wonder, why was all this written about God, to show his improvement when he became more... I guess humane... later? I'm really a newbie on this I admit, but I really want to learn the WHY to all of this. What motivated God to change? Or what motivated people to write a change about him? Of course I really think I'm digressing off Noah's Ark, but I like to follow my trains of thought and see where they lead me. Noah's Ark I really find fascinating, for example... It isn't as beautiful of a story as people make it out to be when they tell it to their children. A supposedly "good" man, abandoning all these people without question, seeing bloated bodies outside of his ark. If God told *me* to be like that, and say it was good at the same time, and I followed it, I would be blind. Which in my train of thought leads me to the story of Abraham going to sacrifice Isaac, and I really want to get back on subject... I think Noah was either a very terrible, or a very ignorant man, if I were him I would refuse to recognize such a God. He's making the same mistake Isaac makes, except with Noah, the people he is agreeing to give up aren't saved.

 

[linwood]

've been studying Genesis lately and I wonder, why was all this written about God, to show his improvement when he became more... I guess humane... later?

If you`re refering to the difference in the morality of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God the answer is simple.

The OT was written by an ancient culture of hebrews who it seemed had to conquer & fight for their very survival.
Their God was bitter and arrogant and all powerful.

The NT was writtten by a group of outlaw Jews who also were in fear of their lives but this time from the descendents of those Hebrews who wrote the OT (In fact the writers of the NT were descended from them also).
They wrote of a kinder more merciful God perhaps because they themselves wished for that kindness and mercy.

The writings of these Jews were canonized by the early orthadox Church (Catholic).
This church got to choose which writings were to become the Bible and which were not to be allowed .
They chose a kinder more gentle God than the Hebrews of the OT.

This is all very oversimplified but thats it in a nutshell.

 

[jvi]

Noah's Ark was his brain. He gathered all the different belief systems of mankind(represented by animals,birds,creepy things, clean and unclean) into his brain. Water represents spiritual knowledge.It is food for the brain. Jesus walked on (had command of) water which is spiritual knowledge. The flood was Noah's spiritual knowledge that covered all the large belief systems(represented by spiritual mountains) of that time. It spiritually rained bits and pieces of Noah's knowledge until the flood spiritually killed all except Noah and his family and the world started over fresh after Satan&Cain's false religion contaminated it.However Noah's son Ham's wife was a Cainite. Wives represent religions in the Bible. Ham brought false religion through the flood and led to cursed Canaan and also Nimrod who really jumpstarted false religion after the flood. Sin was Cain's false god. To become sinless and saved you must remove all false religion from your life like Jesus did. Good works alone won't save you.

I don't believe Noah gathered physical elephants, lions,tigers,grizzly bears, beavers,bald eagles,turkeys,etc into a tiny boat and 10,000 foot mountains were under physical water.

So yes, I believe in the flood of Noah.