Noah's Ark Found?
- Thread starter FLhawk
- Start date
This is still a great thread and now more than ever............
we need to get all of you in one room together!
I'll moderate!
Has this reached Legendary status yet!!??
Mike
we need to get all of you in one room together!
I'll moderate!
Has this reached Legendary status yet!!??
Mike
Re: This is still a great thread and now more than ever............
Has this reached Legendary status yet!!??
Hey, you're an Admin - you make the call.
Oh, please don't move the thread yet - putting it on the "Legendary" board tends to kill active discussion. Please give it a day or two... ;-)
Has this reached Legendary status yet!!??
Hey, you're an Admin - you make the call.
Oh, please don't move the thread yet - putting it on the "Legendary" board tends to kill active discussion. Please give it a day or two... ;-)
I have a question!!!!!
And, this may have been answered in a round-a-bout way earlier in the thread.....but,
If an expedition goes to the mountain and finds the remains of an Ark, basically intact and recognizable, how do you think people will react to such a discovery. Will there be a sudden religious awakening like the modern world has never seen? Are people prepared for such a discovery?
I'm in the doubting Thomas category. I believe there is likely some greater power (god), but I'm not overly religious. However, the older I get, the more I start to think about the difference in believing and not believing.
It certainly can't hurt to believe, considering the possible consequences if you don't.
Mike
And, this may have been answered in a round-a-bout way earlier in the thread.....but,
If an expedition goes to the mountain and finds the remains of an Ark, basically intact and recognizable, how do you think people will react to such a discovery. Will there be a sudden religious awakening like the modern world has never seen? Are people prepared for such a discovery?
I'm in the doubting Thomas category. I believe there is likely some greater power (god), but I'm not overly religious. However, the older I get, the more I start to think about the difference in believing and not believing.
It certainly can't hurt to believe, considering the possible consequences if you don't.
Mike
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....
I agree with you guys to a certain degree. The Bible is definitely open to interpretation on certain matters. However, most of the 'debatable' things of the Bible (IMO) do not concern the fundamentals of the faith. But it does become hard to separate what is fundamentally important to the faith versus areas in which we can reasonably disagree & not jeopardize our own convictions regarding Biblical truth. This threshhold is different for everyone & is why we all choose different churches or denominations that best fit our understanding.
In my opinion in order to be a Christian, you must at least agree on the following: (By the way, I am not inviting cricicism from those that do not hold to the authority & inerrancy of scripture, for this is my main premise).
- That Jesus was the Son of God.
- That Jesus was crucified, buried, & resurrected on the third day as an atonement for our sin.
- That faith in Jesus is the only way to God.
We can disagree on many things that don't jeopardize Christ's work...
- Did the wine Jesus drank have alcohol in it
- Are women supposed to be priests & pastors & teachers of men
- Can you lose your salvation
- Did Jephthah sacricice his daughter or set her apart as a living sacrifice for temple service
- Are you saved by faith or faith + works
- Who wrote the book of Hebrews
- Does the Bible speak against tatooing your body
- What does the Bible say about wearing pants with your butt-cheeks hanging out
- Was God describing a dinosaur in the book of Job
For me some of these are extremely important issues. Issues that (through my own study of scripture & study of contextual commentaries by biblical scholars) I have strong feelings about. I would not attend a church where there is people that are 'slain-in-the-spirit'. I would not attend a church that taught works-based salvation. I believe this viewpoint is wrong - I would argue that it is wrong. Either faith-based is correct, faith + works is correct or they are both wrong - no two opposing viewpoints can be correct on this.
This is where I begin to depart with you, NPR. Hounded for example has spent the better part of his life studying these things. He has scrutinized both sides of many of these issues - he knows what he believe's & why from a contextual & historical viewpoint. He has a basis for his belief. Does this make him arrogant? No more than you believing that the Earth is billions of years old & that I'm silly for believing otherwise makes you arrogant.
Interpretation of the Bible involves study. Study of the work as a whole. Study of the context. Study of language. Not to open a can of worms - but it also involves the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hounded has subjected his belief to all of these things...I daresay you have not (at least not to the same extent).
NPR - If we don't agree on the first 3 essentials of the faith - it's pretty pointless to argue about the minutia...
This post was edited on 4/29 10:13 AM
I agree with you guys to a certain degree. The Bible is definitely open to interpretation on certain matters. However, most of the 'debatable' things of the Bible (IMO) do not concern the fundamentals of the faith. But it does become hard to separate what is fundamentally important to the faith versus areas in which we can reasonably disagree & not jeopardize our own convictions regarding Biblical truth. This threshhold is different for everyone & is why we all choose different churches or denominations that best fit our understanding.
In my opinion in order to be a Christian, you must at least agree on the following: (By the way, I am not inviting cricicism from those that do not hold to the authority & inerrancy of scripture, for this is my main premise).
- That Jesus was the Son of God.
- That Jesus was crucified, buried, & resurrected on the third day as an atonement for our sin.
- That faith in Jesus is the only way to God.
We can disagree on many things that don't jeopardize Christ's work...
- Did the wine Jesus drank have alcohol in it
- Are women supposed to be priests & pastors & teachers of men
- Can you lose your salvation
- Did Jephthah sacricice his daughter or set her apart as a living sacrifice for temple service
- Are you saved by faith or faith + works
- Who wrote the book of Hebrews
- Does the Bible speak against tatooing your body
- What does the Bible say about wearing pants with your butt-cheeks hanging out
- Was God describing a dinosaur in the book of Job
For me some of these are extremely important issues. Issues that (through my own study of scripture & study of contextual commentaries by biblical scholars) I have strong feelings about. I would not attend a church where there is people that are 'slain-in-the-spirit'. I would not attend a church that taught works-based salvation. I believe this viewpoint is wrong - I would argue that it is wrong. Either faith-based is correct, faith + works is correct or they are both wrong - no two opposing viewpoints can be correct on this.
This is where I begin to depart with you, NPR. Hounded for example has spent the better part of his life studying these things. He has scrutinized both sides of many of these issues - he knows what he believe's & why from a contextual & historical viewpoint. He has a basis for his belief. Does this make him arrogant? No more than you believing that the Earth is billions of years old & that I'm silly for believing otherwise makes you arrogant.
Interpretation of the Bible involves study. Study of the work as a whole. Study of the context. Study of language. Not to open a can of worms - but it also involves the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hounded has subjected his belief to all of these things...I daresay you have not (at least not to the same extent).
NPR - If we don't agree on the first 3 essentials of the faith - it's pretty pointless to argue about the minutia...
This post was edited on 4/29 10:13 AM
Re: Ummm, Sarge old pal...
NPRLover, based on your post about fundamentalist arguments, I think you'd enjoy a book called Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. Even if you're not Catholic, it presents an interesting view of the arguments advanced by each, and it's pretty straightforward. Just thought I'd mention it, as you seem interested in the subject.
NPRLover, based on your post about fundamentalist arguments, I think you'd enjoy a book called Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. Even if you're not Catholic, it presents an interesting view of the arguments advanced by each, and it's pretty straightforward. Just thought I'd mention it, as you seem interested in the subject.
Re: I have a question!!!!!
Mike:
This is strictly my personal opinion...
I do not believe humanity will ever find a 'slam-dunk' like the ark would be...This would begin to erode or lessen the faith required by God - for which he has already given us abundant revelation. (Creation, prophecy, recorded miracles, the Bible, etc).
I hope I am wrong...
I do find it amusing that NPR already says he wouldn't buy it...Maybe Hounded was right when he said that if God slapped him in the face - he still wouldn't believe...God slapped Pharoah in the face a number of times with no success. Some people have closed their hearts & minds to God's voice - the Bible says this will happen. If the ark were to be found - we'd be surprised at the # of people who wouldn't be changed...
My 2 cents...
Mike:
This is strictly my personal opinion...
I do not believe humanity will ever find a 'slam-dunk' like the ark would be...This would begin to erode or lessen the faith required by God - for which he has already given us abundant revelation. (Creation, prophecy, recorded miracles, the Bible, etc).
I hope I am wrong...
I do find it amusing that NPR already says he wouldn't buy it...Maybe Hounded was right when he said that if God slapped him in the face - he still wouldn't believe...God slapped Pharoah in the face a number of times with no success. Some people have closed their hearts & minds to God's voice - the Bible says this will happen. If the ark were to be found - we'd be surprised at the # of people who wouldn't be changed...
My 2 cents...
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....
In my opinion in order to be a Christian, you must at least agree on the following: (By the way, I am not inviting cricicism from those that do not hold to the authority & inerrancy of scripture, for this is my main premise).
- That Jesus was the Son of God.
- That Jesus was crucified, buried, & resurrected on the third day as an atonement for our sin.
- That faith in Jesus is the only way to God.
and
For me some of these are extremely important issues. Issues that (through my own study of scripture & study of contextual commentaries by biblical scholars) I have strong feelings about. I would not attend a church where there is people that are 'slain-in-the-spirit'. I would not attend a church that taught works-based salvation. I believe this viewpoint is wrong - I would argue that it is wrong.
Sarge, you're beginning to sound positively Lutheran in your viewpoint.
Either faith-based is correct, faith + works is correct or they are both wrong - no two opposing viewpoints can be correct on this.
That's one of the interesting issues when debating "Biblical" inerrancy: Paul takes one view of the faith/works issue, (the author of) James seems to take another. Both are included in the New Testament, and both have been viewed in different ways by different faiths.
A quick question for you, given the above:
1) What church do you attend?
2) What is your view (or churches view) in regards to open communion? Do you commune in churches of different faiths, and allow those of different faiths to commune in your church?
In my opinion in order to be a Christian, you must at least agree on the following: (By the way, I am not inviting cricicism from those that do not hold to the authority & inerrancy of scripture, for this is my main premise).
- That Jesus was the Son of God.
- That Jesus was crucified, buried, & resurrected on the third day as an atonement for our sin.
- That faith in Jesus is the only way to God.
and
For me some of these are extremely important issues. Issues that (through my own study of scripture & study of contextual commentaries by biblical scholars) I have strong feelings about. I would not attend a church where there is people that are 'slain-in-the-spirit'. I would not attend a church that taught works-based salvation. I believe this viewpoint is wrong - I would argue that it is wrong.
Sarge, you're beginning to sound positively Lutheran in your viewpoint.
Either faith-based is correct, faith + works is correct or they are both wrong - no two opposing viewpoints can be correct on this.
That's one of the interesting issues when debating "Biblical" inerrancy: Paul takes one view of the faith/works issue, (the author of) James seems to take another. Both are included in the New Testament, and both have been viewed in different ways by different faiths.
A quick question for you, given the above:
1) What church do you attend?
2) What is your view (or churches view) in regards to open communion? Do you commune in churches of different faiths, and allow those of different faiths to commune in your church?
Re: I have a question!!!!!
I do find it amusing that NPR already says he wouldn't buy it...
That is NOT what I said.
sarge, either you don't have the mental wherewithal to distinguish between what I wrote and what you are claiming that I wrote - that I wouldn't "buy it", or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.
What I said was that nothing would be "proved".
There is a big, big difference between that and saying that I wouldn't "buy it".
What I'm talking about is not that an ark did or did not exist, but whether this would "prove" that the ancient Jews (or Paul for that matter) were correct in their pronoucements of a supreme being.
I do find it amusing that NPR already says he wouldn't buy it...
That is NOT what I said.
sarge, either you don't have the mental wherewithal to distinguish between what I wrote and what you are claiming that I wrote - that I wouldn't "buy it", or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.
What I said was that nothing would be "proved".
There is a big, big difference between that and saying that I wouldn't "buy it".
What I'm talking about is not that an ark did or did not exist, but whether this would "prove" that the ancient Jews (or Paul for that matter) were correct in their pronoucements of a supreme being.
So, NPR.............
You would just discount the fact that 1+1=2?
Biblical story + Finding Ark = ?????????
Proof that some facsimilie of the story was true.
Mike
You would just discount the fact that 1+1=2?
Biblical story + Finding Ark = ?????????
Proof that some facsimilie of the story was true.
Mike
Re: So, NPR.............
Mike,
Some elements of the ark story may well be true (I'm not saying that it proves a global flood, though).
What I meant by proof was the bigger picture. It doesn't prove the existence of a supreme being as evidenced in the bible. Or course, it doesn't disprove it, either. That's all I'm saying.
There were a few great floods in that part of the world, some list in history and folklore before the writing of the bible, if I'm not mistaken (qv Gilgamesh). This ark may be from one of those floods. Or it could be the ark of the OT.
Mike,
Some elements of the ark story may well be true (I'm not saying that it proves a global flood, though).
What I meant by proof was the bigger picture. It doesn't prove the existence of a supreme being as evidenced in the bible. Or course, it doesn't disprove it, either. That's all I'm saying.
There were a few great floods in that part of the world, some list in history and folklore before the writing of the bible, if I'm not mistaken (qv Gilgamesh). This ark may be from one of those floods. Or it could be the ark of the OT.
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....
1.) I go to a non-denominational church called Faith Community Church. The doctrines are most similar to Evangelical Free or General Conference Baptist...
2.) I believe that if one is 'in Christ' they can (and are) in our church invited to partake in Communion - regardless of denominational ties. (This is one of the perplexing - if not offensive - aspects of the Catholic church to me). To me there are really two 'rules' in the Bible regarding communion. First, you have to be a believer to partake. Second, you should not take if you have unconfessed sin on the table. However, these are personal rules which are explained - there is no one there to keep scord...You have to 'examine yourself' as it were...
1.) I go to a non-denominational church called Faith Community Church. The doctrines are most similar to Evangelical Free or General Conference Baptist...
2.) I believe that if one is 'in Christ' they can (and are) in our church invited to partake in Communion - regardless of denominational ties. (This is one of the perplexing - if not offensive - aspects of the Catholic church to me). To me there are really two 'rules' in the Bible regarding communion. First, you have to be a believer to partake. Second, you should not take if you have unconfessed sin on the table. However, these are personal rules which are explained - there is no one there to keep scord...You have to 'examine yourself' as it were...
Re: I have a question!!!!!
Intentional misrepresentation sucks...
Like claiming the creationists believe there were 4 million animals on the ark, right...
I did misrepresent what you said. But the level of scrutiny you would apply to a find such as this (assuming it fit the Biblical account) is still illustrative.
It's particularly interesting when you consider that you misrepresented the conclusions drawn from your link regarding the Ica Stones - claiming the article proved they were a fraud - when the article encouraged only that one be skeptical of such finds. Consider also that you took & ran with the interpretation of the word 'tail' being a euphemism for 'penis'. Though I have never heard this interpretation from any reputable Biblical scholars that I know - yet this was plenty for you to take & run with. You completely disregarded my evidence explaining the ice core and its 'annual layers' not being annual at all; indicating an ice buildup consistent with the flood account - though I have no idea why...
It seems you apply two different levels of scrutiny. One when the evidence tells you what you want to hear & another when it doesn't.
Intentional misrepresentation sucks...
Like claiming the creationists believe there were 4 million animals on the ark, right...
I did misrepresent what you said. But the level of scrutiny you would apply to a find such as this (assuming it fit the Biblical account) is still illustrative.
It's particularly interesting when you consider that you misrepresented the conclusions drawn from your link regarding the Ica Stones - claiming the article proved they were a fraud - when the article encouraged only that one be skeptical of such finds. Consider also that you took & ran with the interpretation of the word 'tail' being a euphemism for 'penis'. Though I have never heard this interpretation from any reputable Biblical scholars that I know - yet this was plenty for you to take & run with. You completely disregarded my evidence explaining the ice core and its 'annual layers' not being annual at all; indicating an ice buildup consistent with the flood account - though I have no idea why...
It seems you apply two different levels of scrutiny. One when the evidence tells you what you want to hear & another when it doesn't.
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....
[/QUOTE]
NPR, please make a list of other alternatives:
(1) Jesus is the only way to heaven.
(2) Jesus is NOT the only way to heaven.
This post was edited on 4/28 10:50 PM[/B][/QUOTE]
Hey Jonny, you got me to agree with you.
[/QUOTE]
NPR, please make a list of other alternatives:
(1) Jesus is the only way to heaven.
(2) Jesus is NOT the only way to heaven.
This post was edited on 4/28 10:50 PM[/B][/QUOTE]
Hey Jonny, you got me to agree with you.
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....
tig:
quick question...I did a little reading up on your quote of Isaiah chapter 7 yesterday...
Is it possible that there can be 'duality' or 'dual-fulfillment' of prophecy? It appears that the prophecy to which you refer might fulfill both the contextual & messianic prophecy...Would you leave room for this?
Another...What do you do with Isaiah Chapter 53? The link to Christ as Messiah seems pretty clear to me here - I was wondering how you see it?
tig:
quick question...I did a little reading up on your quote of Isaiah chapter 7 yesterday...
Is it possible that there can be 'duality' or 'dual-fulfillment' of prophecy? It appears that the prophecy to which you refer might fulfill both the contextual & messianic prophecy...Would you leave room for this?
Another...What do you do with Isaiah Chapter 53? The link to Christ as Messiah seems pretty clear to me here - I was wondering how you see it?
Re: I have a question!!!!!
sarge,
A rebuttal if I may.
Like claiming the creationists believe there were 4 million animals on the ark, right...
I did not state that the creationists claimed this. Please re-read post. I linked some interesting questions posed by others, but did not address the views of creationists.
...misrepresented the conclusions drawn from your link regarding the Ica Stones - claiming the article proved they were a fraud - when the article encouraged only that one be skeptical of such finds.
sarge has a stronger case here, but imo one really is looking hard (too hard) to find the Ica stones to be authentic. But, they haven't been "proven" to be frauds, in no small part because the good Dr. refuses to reveal the source of the cave/tunnels. So, in summary, one should be very skeptical of these claims.
Consider also that you took & ran with the interpretation of the word 'tail' being a euphemism for 'penis'.
I hadn't heard it before, either, but it is an alternative hypothesis to your dinosaur explanation. I don't think I really "ran with it" though. I admit that I am predisposed to not believing that a dinosaur is described in Job.
You completely disregarded my evidence explaining the ice core and its 'annual layers' not being annual at all; indicating an ice buildup consistent with the flood account ...
I'm continually underwhelmed by your scientific knowledge, so did not take it seriously. Maybe I should have. If so, I apologize.
sarge,
A rebuttal if I may.
Like claiming the creationists believe there were 4 million animals on the ark, right...
I did not state that the creationists claimed this. Please re-read post. I linked some interesting questions posed by others, but did not address the views of creationists.
...misrepresented the conclusions drawn from your link regarding the Ica Stones - claiming the article proved they were a fraud - when the article encouraged only that one be skeptical of such finds.
sarge has a stronger case here, but imo one really is looking hard (too hard) to find the Ica stones to be authentic. But, they haven't been "proven" to be frauds, in no small part because the good Dr. refuses to reveal the source of the cave/tunnels. So, in summary, one should be very skeptical of these claims.
Consider also that you took & ran with the interpretation of the word 'tail' being a euphemism for 'penis'.
I hadn't heard it before, either, but it is an alternative hypothesis to your dinosaur explanation. I don't think I really "ran with it" though. I admit that I am predisposed to not believing that a dinosaur is described in Job.
You completely disregarded my evidence explaining the ice core and its 'annual layers' not being annual at all; indicating an ice buildup consistent with the flood account ...
I'm continually underwhelmed by your scientific knowledge, so did not take it seriously. Maybe I should have. If so, I apologize.
Re: I have a question!!!!!
You completely disregarded my evidence explaining the ice core and its 'annual layers' not being annual at all; indicating an ice buildup consistent with the flood account ...
Actually, I thought Sousy addressed this point.
You completely disregarded my evidence explaining the ice core and its 'annual layers' not being annual at all; indicating an ice buildup consistent with the flood account ...
Actually, I thought Sousy addressed this point.
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
(*puts fingers in ears, shuts eyes tight*) La-la-la-la-la...ni-ni-ni-ni-ni....noo-noo-noo-noo-noo.....!!!!!
ENOUGH ALREADY!
(*puts fingers in ears, shuts eyes tight*) La-la-la-la-la...ni-ni-ni-ni-ni....noo-noo-noo-noo-noo.....!!!!!
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Re: AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Let me reconstruct the 'ice core' discussion...
NPR, you linked a bunch of questions from Talk.Origins Archive relative to the flood; discrediting the flood based on a lack of evidence(s)...One of which including the following statement:
- Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting ANNUAL LAYERS.
Then I responded with a question asking, 'who decided that the layers are 'annual'? i.e. representative of one year. There is evidence - from the plane that crashed & was then consumed by layers of ice - that MANY layers of ice can form in a year's time. The plane had crashed roughly 50 years prior & had been covered by hundreds of 'annual layers' of ice. Meaning that the layers don't represent one year, as Talk.Origins implies - but much less than one year. When the data on the crashed planed was extrapolated over the total depth of the ice - an age closer to 4000 not 40,000 years of ice development was derived. This would be totally consistent with the flood account & should be considered positive evidence of a flood in this region.
I think I am the one that understands 'annular' rings in this context - Talk.Origins apparently does not. If Sousy was addressing me in his/her rebuttal...Sousy was mistaken. We both made the same point 'annular rings' don't necessarily mean one year - at least not in this context.
Let me know when my 'scientific knowledge' passes your threshhold for allowance into the discussion. It always seems right when we are on the cusp of reasonable debate you have to throw a 'you are not nearly intelligent enough to discuss these things...' quip in. It would be nifty if you saw fit to stop this. You don't like it when Jonny does it regarding interpretations of the Bible...I don't like it here.
Let me reconstruct the 'ice core' discussion...
NPR, you linked a bunch of questions from Talk.Origins Archive relative to the flood; discrediting the flood based on a lack of evidence(s)...One of which including the following statement:
- Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting ANNUAL LAYERS.
Then I responded with a question asking, 'who decided that the layers are 'annual'? i.e. representative of one year. There is evidence - from the plane that crashed & was then consumed by layers of ice - that MANY layers of ice can form in a year's time. The plane had crashed roughly 50 years prior & had been covered by hundreds of 'annual layers' of ice. Meaning that the layers don't represent one year, as Talk.Origins implies - but much less than one year. When the data on the crashed planed was extrapolated over the total depth of the ice - an age closer to 4000 not 40,000 years of ice development was derived. This would be totally consistent with the flood account & should be considered positive evidence of a flood in this region.
I think I am the one that understands 'annular' rings in this context - Talk.Origins apparently does not. If Sousy was addressing me in his/her rebuttal...Sousy was mistaken. We both made the same point 'annular rings' don't necessarily mean one year - at least not in this context.
Let me know when my 'scientific knowledge' passes your threshhold for allowance into the discussion. It always seems right when we are on the cusp of reasonable debate you have to throw a 'you are not nearly intelligent enough to discuss these things...' quip in. It would be nifty if you saw fit to stop this. You don't like it when Jonny does it regarding interpretations of the Bible...I don't like it here.
Re: AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
- Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting ANNUAL LAYERS.
Then I responded with a question asking, 'who decided that the layers are 'annual'? i.e. representative of one year. There is evidence - from the plane that crashed & was then consumed by layers of ice - that MANY layers of ice can form in a year's time. The plane had crashed roughly 50 years prior & had been covered by hundreds of 'annual layers' of ice. Meaning that the layers don't represent one year, as Talk.Origins implies - but much less than one year. When the data on the crashed planed was extrapolated over the total depth of the ice - an age closer to 4000 not 40,000 years of ice development was derived. This would be totally consistent with the flood account & should be considered positive evidence of a flood in this region.
I think I am the one that understands 'annular' rings in this context - Talk.Origins apparently does not. If Sousy was addressing me in his/her rebuttal...Sousy was mistaken. We both made the same point 'annular rings' don't necessarily mean one year - at least not in this context.
A few things:
- You can make "guesses" based on averages. Something like "there are typically three major storms every year that form ice" which lets you make an estimate. The esimate using this technique is not really good - that's why you get a number like "40,000" years instead of "36,679 years and two months".
- What you're talking about happend in Greenland, and probably in a section where planes might crash. What this means: it probably occured on an active glacier. Melting, receding, etc. "Annular" layers would probably also be radically different as the snow/ice compacted as they were buried with age.
- I can think of one really good reason why an airplane crashing from the sky could end up near ice core 'layers' that make it appear to be older than when the plane crashed. Planes, when coming out of the sky, tend not to gently land on a surface for ice to accumulate on them.
Do you have a link to all of this stuff? I've really never heard of it.
- Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting ANNUAL LAYERS.
Then I responded with a question asking, 'who decided that the layers are 'annual'? i.e. representative of one year. There is evidence - from the plane that crashed & was then consumed by layers of ice - that MANY layers of ice can form in a year's time. The plane had crashed roughly 50 years prior & had been covered by hundreds of 'annual layers' of ice. Meaning that the layers don't represent one year, as Talk.Origins implies - but much less than one year. When the data on the crashed planed was extrapolated over the total depth of the ice - an age closer to 4000 not 40,000 years of ice development was derived. This would be totally consistent with the flood account & should be considered positive evidence of a flood in this region.
I think I am the one that understands 'annular' rings in this context - Talk.Origins apparently does not. If Sousy was addressing me in his/her rebuttal...Sousy was mistaken. We both made the same point 'annular rings' don't necessarily mean one year - at least not in this context.
A few things:
- You can make "guesses" based on averages. Something like "there are typically three major storms every year that form ice" which lets you make an estimate. The esimate using this technique is not really good - that's why you get a number like "40,000" years instead of "36,679 years and two months".
- What you're talking about happend in Greenland, and probably in a section where planes might crash. What this means: it probably occured on an active glacier. Melting, receding, etc. "Annular" layers would probably also be radically different as the snow/ice compacted as they were buried with age.
- I can think of one really good reason why an airplane crashing from the sky could end up near ice core 'layers' that make it appear to be older than when the plane crashed. Planes, when coming out of the sky, tend not to gently land on a surface for ice to accumulate on them.
Do you have a link to all of this stuff? I've really never heard of it.
Re: AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
If the ark is found, it does nothing to strengthen the Christians' case. The story of Noah is OT and has nothing to do with Jesus. Correct? The only faith it directly affects is the Jewish religion.
If the ark is found, it does nothing to strengthen the Christians' case. The story of Noah is OT and has nothing to do with Jesus. Correct? The only faith it directly affects is the Jewish religion.
Re: AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Dude, I hope you are kidding...
Sousy, your link, if you will...Any comments on your denom/communion questions?
The Lost Squadron
Dude, I hope you are kidding...
Sousy, your link, if you will...Any comments on your denom/communion questions?
The Lost Squadron
Re: AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Sousy, your link, if you will...Any comments on your denom/communion questions?
Sorry... almost forgot.
1.) I go to a non-denominational church called Faith Community Church. The doctrines are most similar to Evangelical Free or General Conference Baptist...
Interesting. How do "non-denominational" churches such as yours handle education - in terms of accepted/un-accepted doctrine? (The 'how to interpret the Bible', if you will.)
2.) I believe that if one is 'in Christ' they can (and are) in our church invited to partake in Communion - regardless of denominational ties. (This is one of the perplexing - if not offensive - aspects of the Catholic church to me). To me there are really two 'rules' in the Bible regarding communion. First, you have to be a believer to partake. Second, you should not take if you have unconfessed sin on the table. However, these are personal rules which are explained - there is no one there to keep scord...You have to 'examine yourself' as it were...
So, open communion is the norm (actually, you might also want to check the LCMS - they close the table, too. It was somewhat of an embarassment to my grandparents to have the entire family go to thier church (the local one), just to find out the "ELCA" Lutherans - the rest of the family - couldn't take communion.)
How does your church handle ecuemenical ties - do they share charity causes, organizations, etc.?
Just curious...
Sousy, your link, if you will...Any comments on your denom/communion questions?
Sorry... almost forgot.
1.) I go to a non-denominational church called Faith Community Church. The doctrines are most similar to Evangelical Free or General Conference Baptist...
Interesting. How do "non-denominational" churches such as yours handle education - in terms of accepted/un-accepted doctrine? (The 'how to interpret the Bible', if you will.)
2.) I believe that if one is 'in Christ' they can (and are) in our church invited to partake in Communion - regardless of denominational ties. (This is one of the perplexing - if not offensive - aspects of the Catholic church to me). To me there are really two 'rules' in the Bible regarding communion. First, you have to be a believer to partake. Second, you should not take if you have unconfessed sin on the table. However, these are personal rules which are explained - there is no one there to keep scord...You have to 'examine yourself' as it were...
So, open communion is the norm (actually, you might also want to check the LCMS - they close the table, too. It was somewhat of an embarassment to my grandparents to have the entire family go to thier church (the local one), just to find out the "ELCA" Lutherans - the rest of the family - couldn't take communion.)
How does your church handle ecuemenical ties - do they share charity causes, organizations, etc.?
Just curious...
Re: AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Restricting communion to only those of your denomination, again, seems offensive to me. This is one (of many) things that turns people off to organized religion.
We have participated in the past, in ecumenical events. Our community has a 'ministerial' society for the clergy. As a church we leave it up to the individual pastor as to whether or not to be involved. The main objection being the inclusion of pastors from the local Mormon & JW churches. This inclusion of what we believe is a non-christian element has made involvement in this association unpalatable for some of our pastors. It hasn't bothered others.
Regarding doctrine. The doctrinal statement is the foundational document. The Elders would, hypothetically, help to govern on matters of doctrine. Nothing in the doctrinal statement has (in 10 yrs) been disputed.
Restricting communion to only those of your denomination, again, seems offensive to me. This is one (of many) things that turns people off to organized religion.
We have participated in the past, in ecumenical events. Our community has a 'ministerial' society for the clergy. As a church we leave it up to the individual pastor as to whether or not to be involved. The main objection being the inclusion of pastors from the local Mormon & JW churches. This inclusion of what we believe is a non-christian element has made involvement in this association unpalatable for some of our pastors. It hasn't bothered others.
Regarding doctrine. The doctrinal statement is the foundational document. The Elders would, hypothetically, help to govern on matters of doctrine. Nothing in the doctrinal statement has (in 10 yrs) been disputed.
RO-Mo-Ko.........
I'm not Johnny, but that seems logical.
So, is this thread over? Too bad, it was nearing Epic status quickly! (That's actually above Legendary)
Mike
I'm not Johnny, but that seems logical.
So, is this thread over? Too bad, it was nearing Epic status quickly! (That's actually above Legendary)
Mike
It seems as though the Bible touters are basing their entire argument on the accuracy of carbon dating. Is that the only method scientists use to gauge the age of the earth? NO!
Look at the evidence of the red-shift when looking at distant galaxies. By all evidence, it would have taken the cosmos about 14 BILLION years to reach its present state.
Want to take the Bible literally? OK If I recall, someone commanded the sun to stand still so his army could finish a battle. Why? It would have been correct to command the EARTH to stand still, because we are moving in relation to the sun. (In other words, the sun was ALREADY standing still - the earth is moving.)
Here's another tidbit - if every cloud were to empty at the same time, so there was NO moisture left in the atmosphere, it would flood most land masses to the incredible height of 1 and a half feet. Hardly life threatening. Much of the high land would NEVER be covered. There simply is not enough moisture in the atmosphere to inundate the entire globe.
The earth only 6,000 years old? Man contemporaneous with dinosaurs? Silly!
Look at the evidence of the red-shift when looking at distant galaxies. By all evidence, it would have taken the cosmos about 14 BILLION years to reach its present state.
Want to take the Bible literally? OK If I recall, someone commanded the sun to stand still so his army could finish a battle. Why? It would have been correct to command the EARTH to stand still, because we are moving in relation to the sun. (In other words, the sun was ALREADY standing still - the earth is moving.)
Here's another tidbit - if every cloud were to empty at the same time, so there was NO moisture left in the atmosphere, it would flood most land masses to the incredible height of 1 and a half feet. Hardly life threatening. Much of the high land would NEVER be covered. There simply is not enough moisture in the atmosphere to inundate the entire globe.
The earth only 6,000 years old? Man contemporaneous with dinosaurs? Silly!
1.) Creationists rely only on invalidation Carbon dating.
No, for example geological dating is fundamentally flawed as well...
2.) Regarding the Red shift indicating the cosmos is 14 billion years old.
When God created the Cosmos, he created it in a state of maturity (i.e. with an appearance of age). Trees had rings in them, Adam was not an infant, etc. He performed a similar miracle when he turned water into wine...not new wine, mind you...but wine that was significantly aged. This red shift idea is not a problem for Creationists.
3.) Regarding telling the sun to stand still.
This is nit-picking. Relative to the Earth, the Sun was standing still. People also say the sun 'sets' - do you correct them every time they say this? The Bible also refers to the 'four corners of the Earth' - this does not mean the Bible indicates the world was flat, either.
4.) Regarding the amount of moisture in the atmosphere...
I agree, there is not enough moisture in today's atmosphere to sufficiently flood the Earth. However, the Earth of Genesis & of Noah's day was a very different place. Most of the water was in the atmosphere (it had never rained up to the point of the flood - according to the Bible) not in the oceans as we see today. So your presumption that things were back then as they are today is flawed. Also keep in mind that the flood's recession (i.e. the erosion)is what caused most of the mountains of today - so there wouldn't have been as much water needed to cover the high places either...
This post was edited on 4/29 10:31 PM
No, it's not nit-picking. Thousands of people were branded as heretics for challenging biblical (Aristotle's) view of the universe. Many were put to death.
The bible simply lost the battle of how the universe is organized. They bet on the wrong horse. The earth, as it turns out, is NOT the center of the universe.
Hadn't rained up until that time? How do you grow plants without rain?
The bible simply lost the battle of how the universe is organized. They bet on the wrong horse. The earth, as it turns out, is NOT the center of the universe.
Hadn't rained up until that time? How do you grow plants without rain?
You should think long and hard about the ad hoc argument you've proposed here. You haven't helped yourself as much as you think.
You think finding Noah's Ark is a big deal?! Check out this photo--proof that Adam and Eve took a bite out of the apple from paradise. It was found perfectly preserved in the Red Sea after a descendant of Moses parted it again last week.
Yeah, Mocco, that's just precisely like finding a 4400-year old boat 450 feet long and locked in a glacier on the side of a mountain in a desert in Turkey at over 17,000 feet elevation. Exactly.
