[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian

So the evidence indicates. We are genetically closer to chimps and they to us, then either species is to any other ape species. If God chose to use nature to make the diversity of life on Earth, as He says in Genesis, why would you find that offensive?


I am sorry Barbarian how any believer in God can lower themselves to ridicule Scripture that much. The Bible clearly says mankind was a special creation. Not from apes.

I suppose you also do not believe in a universal flood, yet many Christian scientists believe in a universal flood....it seems as if the Bible is secondary to Science evidence which is primary in importance. It never used to be that way. Here are some fine example of Creationists who believed in the Noachian flood.

View attachment 6243
Creationist 1660

Nicolas Steno, dedicated his book on Geology and stratigraphy to the Noachian Flood in the preface.
He was obviously a creationist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Steno

The dawn of modern geology: The principles

*Nicholaus Steno, latinized form of Niels Stensen (1638-1686), a Danish anatomist and geologist, who in Italy pointed out the true origin of geological strata and of fossils. In Prodromus (Prologue to a dissertation on how a solid body is enclosed by the processes of nature within another solid body)
Steno’s work on the formation of rock layers and fossils were crucial to the development of modern geology, and were enough to have earned him the title of ‘Father of Stratigraphy

--------------------------------------

Creationist 1730 , Robert Hooke , John Ray , John Woodward .

*Steno’s contemporaries, the British natural scientists John Ray (1628-1705), Robert Hooke (1635-1703) and John Woodward (1668-1728), also argued that fossils were the remains of once-living animals and plants. However, the opinion was still universal that fossils represented life destroyed by the universal flood.
-Robert Hooke was perhaps the greatest experimental scientist of the seventeenth century.
He was the first person to examine fossils with a microscope, to note close similarities between the structures of fossil and living wood and mollusc shells,
and to observe, two and a half centuries before Darwin, that the fossil record documents the appearance and extinction of species in the history of life on Earth.
Hooke believed that the Biblical Flood had been too short in time and suggested that earthquakes had likely destroyed ancient life forms.
-John Ray always supported the theory that fossils were once living organisms
-John Woodward related fossils to specific rock formations and attempted to classify them. In 1695 he published Essay Toward a Natural History of the Earth, which advanced a theory to explain stratification and the fossils embedded in them by the deposit of debris out of the flood.
Catastrophism versus Uniformitarianism and Gradualism:

------------------
Evolutionist 1750
-Buffon (Georges-Louis Leclerc, Compte de Buffon, 1707-1788) proposed a speculative theory of the earth and broke the tradition of a relatively young earth.
-------------------------
Creationist 1780
Johann Lehmann (1719-1767) developed a classification of rocks and mountains parelleling that of Arduino.
1. Urgebirge: primitive mountains and rocks (crystalline) were believed to have been formed by chemical precipitation, lacking fossils but containing masses of metallic ores (formed at the time of CREATION).
2. Flötzgebirge: Layered mountains. Sediments are eroded from the primary mountains and deposited on the sides of primary mountains and in basins between them.
Lehmann suggested that they may have been formed during the NOACHIAN FLOOD
---------------------------
Evolutionist 1790
*James Hutton (1727-1797):
PRIOR TO HUTTON GEOLOGY DID NOT EXIT.
The Scottish geologist James Hutton in his Theory of the Earth (1795) stated that ‘the Earth must be millions of years old’.
Hutton is credited with discovery of three basic principles:
1. The vastness of geologic time.
2. Unconformities.
3. Uniformitarianism.

--------------------------
Creationist 1830
In 19th Century, catastrophism was more easily correlated with religious doctrines, and as a consequence remained for some time the interpretation of the Earth’s history adopted by the great majority of geologists.
*The French naturalist Georges L. Cuvier (1769-1832) was one of its major supporter.
-Cuvier suggested that four main worldwide catastrophes had occurred, the last one being the Biblical Flood.
-The taxonomic classification scheme introduced by the Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) in his Systema Naturae (1735), was extended by Cuvier to fossils, which he recognized as organic remains of extinct animals. He is therefore known as the founder of palaeontology as a separate science from geology. However, Cuvier rejected the theory of evolution and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s (1744-1829) theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, proposed in Zoological Philosophy (1809). He believed that new life forms would be created after periodic sea-level changes; in his view some animals died and some survived, but none evolved.
Cuvier introduced into France the Principle of Faunal Succession and method of field work
--------------------------
Creationist 1840
Cuvier’s successors, as d’Orbigny and Agassiz, still maintained the catastrophic theory well into the 19th Century.

---------------------------------
Creationist but became an Evolutionist 1850


Uniformitarianism finally became widely accepted as a result of the work of the Scottish geologist Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell attended Oxford University and was trained as a lawyer and practised law for several years. He attended lectures given by W. Buckland, one of the best known geologist at that time.
-He noticed that the surface of the Earth can be explained in terms of processes (Uniformitarianism). His ideas were similar to parts of the Huttonian theory.
-He envisaged a cyclical, steady-state world. The causes and processes that are operating now have always operated in the past.

------------------------------------
Evolutionist 1860

The uniformitarian (uniformity of natural laws and geological processes) and gradualist (uniformity of rates) views expressed in Lyell’s work probably influenced the formulation of Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) theory of evolution and facilitated its acceptance. Darwin’s theory of evolution through gradual variation and natural selection was published in his revolutionary work, often abbreviated to The Origin of Species, which was a turning point for the evolution theory and also influenced Geology in the late 19th Century. LYELL’S UNIFORMITARIANISM AND GRADUALISM AND DARWIN’S THEORY WOULD DOMINATE THE EARTH SCIENCES FOR NEARLY 150 YEARS.


Prior to the 1800's Creationists abounded with respect for Creation and for the Great global flood of Noah...

The evidence has not changed.

What has happened since the 1700's is man's faith has declined and so Science evidence has taken over man's faith.

The interpretation of evidence has changed because evolution as a new religion has taken over.

I would rather trust Nicholas Steno, than Charles Darwin's account of Creation and Noah's flood affect upon the earth.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So the evidence indicates. We are genetically closer to chimps and they to us, then either species is to any other ape species. If God chose to use nature to make the diversity of life on Earth, as He says in Genesis, why would you find that offensive?

I am sorry Barbarian how any believer in God can lower themselves to ridicule Scripture that much.

I'm just accepting it as it is. Why is that offensive to you?

The Bible clearly says mankind was a special creation.

The Bible says man was brought forth from the earth. So where the other animals. The special creation was God breathing a living soul into man, not the way our bodies were created.

Not from apes.

The Bible doesn't say that.

I suppose you also do not believe in a universal flood,

Since the Bible doesn't say there was a worldwide flood, and since there's no evidence whatever for it, it's another addition to scripture when people assert it. There was a huge regional flood in the Middle East at about the right time, but whether this is Noah's flood or whether it was an allegory, no one can say.

it seems as if the Bible is secondary to Science evidence which is primary in importance.

See above. In this case, as in all others, science and the Bible are compatible.

Perhaps it's instructive that there were some scientists who accepted a worldwide flood, until evidence showed that to not be the case. Since a worldwide flood was never Christian orthodoxy (although some Christians accepted it), it was never a major issue until YE creationism was invented in the 1900s.

Instead of making up new doctrines, why not just believe what's already there?

 

[turnorburn]

We accept it because because that's what God said.. Those are Gods words my friend

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

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

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

tob

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian,

So the evidence indicates. We are genetically closer to chimps and they to us, then either species is to any other ape species. If God chose to use nature to make the diversity of life on Earth, as He says in Genesis, why would you find that offensive?

------------------------------
Ge 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image,
Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

These verses are very explicit in how man was created....He was not spoken into existence through creation, but formed from the ground, and breathed upon....He was made in the image of GOD....

Now you show me the Bible verses that says Man was descended from creatures already formed?

Lu 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

No where does Scripture mention a creature here, Adam is a direct descendent of God.....

Why is it offensive ?

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Because it does not follow Scripture...what God says....
---------------------------------
You also mention the universal flood was not universal and no scientist wrote about the Noachian Flood before 1900...that is not true....you did not read my earlier post very well....

Here are science people believing in the Noachian Flood before 1900

1. Creationist 1660 Nicolas Steno,

2. Creationist 1840 Cuvier’s successors, as d’Orbigny and Agassiz, still maintained the catastrophic theory well into the 19th Century.

3. Creationist 1780 Johann Lehmann

The rejection of the Noachian flood occurred after Darwin's publication....

Evolutionist 1750 -Buffon by this science person....so the religion of evolution and a local flood is of only recent tradition.....after 1750's

Creation and universal Noachian flood has been the main belief since Jesus spoke about these right though the thousands of years until 1750....when Buffon published doubts....

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Ge 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image,
Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

As Jesus noted, God doesn't have a body, being a spirit. The "image" doesn't mean God has knuckles, a coccyx or earlobes. We are in His image in our souls and minds.

These verses are very explicit in how man was created....He was not spoken into existence through creation, but formed from the ground, and breathed upon....He was made in the image of GOD....

Like the other animals, brought forth by the Earth. It just doesn't say how. And of course, God tells us that our bodies are created naturally, but our souls are given directly by Him.

Now you show me the Bible verses that says Man was descended from creatures already formed?

Can you show me the Bible verses that say man has a hippocampus? The fact that He didn't give you the details, is not license for you to make up a story and claim that it's scriptural.

You also mention the universal flood was not universal

"Universal" is your addition to scripture. The flood isn't even described as worldwide in the Bible, much less "universal."

and no scientist wrote about the Noachian Flood before 1900...

(Barbarian checks) No, I didn't.

The rejection of the Noachian flood occurred after Darwin's publication....

Two things wrong there. First, you're talking about the creationist flood, not the Noachian flood. And second, the idea of a worldwide flood was already rejected before Darwin wrote his book.

When George Poulett Scrope published his investigations into the Auvergne in 1827, he did not use the term "diluvium". He was followed by Murchison and Charles Lyell whose account appeared in 1829. All three agreed that the valleys could well have been formed by rivers acting over a long time, and a deluge was not needed. Lyell, formerly a pupil of Buckland, put strong arguments against diluvialism in the first volume of his Principles of Geology published in 1830, though suggesting the possibility of a deluge affecting a region such as the low-lying area around the Caspian Sea. Sedgwick responded to this book in his presidential address to the Geological Society in February 1830, agreeing that diluvial deposits had formed at differing times. At the society a year later, when retiring from the presidency, Sedgwick described his former belief that "vast masses of diluvial gravel" had been scattered worldwide in "one violent and transitory period" as "a most unwarranted conclusion", and therefore thought "it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

Sedgwick continued to believe that there still could have been a flood involvinging Noah, but noted that the massive deposits found around the world could not be from that flood.

Creation, as the Bible recounts it, does not depend on a "universal flood" which imaginative people added to scripture.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian

Lets discuss one aspect at a time....Was the Noachian flood global?

Two things wrong there. First, you're talking about the creationist flood, not the Noachian flood. And second, the idea of a worldwide flood was already rejected before Darwin wrote his book.

Creation, as the Bible recounts it, does not depend on a "universal flood" which imaginative people added to scripture.

Ge 6:4 ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

This verse says giant humans lived before the Noachian flood. We should find evidence of these humans in the fossil records. And evidence of their building technology.

Ge 6:11 ¶ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

This implies the whole earth was filled with violence....so we would expect from the giant human records lots of evil depictions recorded.

Ge 7:11 ¶ In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

If the waters of the deep broke up we would expect volcanic activity as well as a flood.
If the water canopy fell, UV radiation would change our Noachian climate .

Ge 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Every high hill covered, over the earth, the whole heaven....terms to describe a universal flood.

Ge 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Every mountain was covered over with water. Thus we would expect to find sea water fossils on the tops of every mountain all over the world.

Ge 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days

It says all creatures died in the flood, except those in the boat....

Ge 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

This means the volcanic activity, plate tectonics and earthquakes were mostly underwater for 150 days, the changes upon the earth were rapid, has any science people studied a plate tectonic change of 1000 kilometres under water moving in just 150 days whole continents, imagine the upheaval that would cause ? we know coal can be made in days, oil in hours and fossils in minutes as massive lime and water deposits concreted dead animals where they died in huge deposits of limestone (a fancy term for concrete made by nature) We would expect trees in the coal, and marine animals in the limestone and a few fossils of land animals as they died where they lived as the waters engulfed them.

Ge 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

The language used to fill the whole earth is similar to the creation to fill the whole earth....

the creeping creepers Genesis 8:17

the swarming swarmers Gen 1:20
the seeding seeds Genesis 1:29

So is there evidence of giant humans? yes
evidence of advanced technology ? yes
evidence of marine deposits? yes 99% of fossils are marine, 1% is land animals
evidence of sea deposits on tops of mountains? yes
evidence of catastrophic water erosion over the earth? yes
evidence of humans living with dinosaurs? yes
evidence of Noah's boat? yes

View attachment 6323
Very dangerous to take photo...not real clear....

http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/PattenBiblFlood01.htm

A book written by Dr Don Patten, depicting evidence for global flood....



Now I suppose you can do you best to discredit the evidence here....
But Nicholas Steno, the father of stratigraphy dedicated in the preface on his book to the Noachian Flood,was not speaking of a local flood

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Two things wrong there. First, you're talking about the creationist flood, not the Noachian flood. And second, the idea of a worldwide flood was already rejected before Darwin wrote his book.

Creation, as the Bible recounts it, does not depend on a "universal flood" which imaginative people added to scripture.

f the waters of the deep broke up we would expect volcanic activity as well as a flood.

Wouldn't think so, but show us your evidence.

If the water canopy fell

Tell us about this unscriptural "water canopy", and show us some evidence for it.

UV radiation would change our Noachian climate .

A water canopy, it it were possible, would also filter out infrared and visible light. So, yes, that would change climate. But you're assuming what you propose to prove.

Every high hill covered, over the earth, the whole heaven....terms to describe a universal flood.

It doesn't say "earth." The word in Hebrew is "eretz" which means "land." Such as "eretz Israel", the "land of Israel." "Universal" is another addition to scripture.

Ge 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Fifteen cubits doesn't sound like a very high mountain to me.

Every mountain was covered over with water. Thus we would expect to find sea water fossils on the tops of every mountain all over the world.

But we don't. The Cascade Mountains, for example, don't have them. And the Himalayas are made of limestone that was formerly continental shelf. It's not covered in sea water fossils, it's made of sea water fossils.

This means the volcanic activity, plate tectonics and earthquakes were mostly underwater for 150 days, the changes upon the earth were rapid, has any science people studied a plate tectonic change of 1000 kilometres under water moving in just 150 days whole continents, imagine the upheaval that would cause ?

We can calculate it, in fact. The energy required to be absorbed from that kind of motion would have boiled the oceans.

we know coal can be made in days, oil in hours and fossils

Show us that.

in minutes as massive lime and water deposits concreted dead animals where they died in huge deposits of limestone (a fancy term for concrete made by nature)

No. Concrete is a very different substance.

So is there evidence of giant humans? yes

Show us that.

evidence of advanced technology ? yes

Show us.

evidence of marine deposits? yes 99% of fossils are marine, 1% is land animals

Which is inconsistent with a global flood. But is consistent with observed geological processes.

evidence of sea deposits on tops of mountains? yes

That's completely wrong. In some cases, no sea deposits at all. In other cases, the mountains are made of folded-up sea crust.

evidence of catastrophic water erosion over the earth? yes

Just not worldwide. The few cases of truly catastrophic water erosion are regional, not even continental, much less worldwide.

evidence of humans living with dinosaurs? yes

None whatever. You would think that if they were contemporary, there would be at least a few examples in the fossil record where they exist together. But nothing.

evidence of Noah's boat? yes

Well, let's take a look...

Very dangerous to take photo...not real clear....

Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, and Arks cause cameras to become unfocused, I guess.

Looking forward to the evidence for your assertions.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian,

I don't need to defend my religion, nor I notice you defend yours....you just present your religion as the only one there is....certainly people are entitled to believe as they wish....

It doesn't say "earth." The word in Hebrew is "eretz" which means "land." Such as "eretz Israel", the "land of Israel." "Universal" is another addition to scripture.

I could study "erets" with you , but you may find this word can mean "land" or "very big land" such as the earth.
So when it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the "erets", the meaning of "earth" is convenient here but not in other places ?

Fifteen cubits doesn't sound like a very high mountain to me.

That would be the meaning of 15 cubits above the highest mountains in Eden times. Not all mountains formed under water, some would have formed after the flood, at rapid rates.

I present an article written by people who defend CATHOLIC FAITH...


http://www.catholiceternaltruth.com/2013/06/Genesisfloodaccount.html

The Great Flood Historical or Myth?
The Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief that the great flood account contained in the Book of Genesis is historical and not just a myth or fable. Though it is not a dogma of faith yet majority of theologians prior to the modernist movement also believes that the great flood is historical. However, after the enlightenment period in Europe this belief slowly becomes uncommon among theologians and biblical scholars. Even today what once a universal belief has become a subject of humor and ridicule, any scholar or apologist who holds the belief that the Genesis flood account is historical is suspected of being ignorant, incompetent and a conservative. Modern research disputes the claim of the Church fathers that the Genesis account of the great flood is historical. Modern scholars like Raymond Brown suggests that the Genesis account of the flood was copied or received its inspiration from the Babylonian literary myth about a global flood that wiped out the population of the world. Since majority of the biblical scholars nowadays both Catholics and Protestants are in agreement that the Genesis account is just a myth, should we now dismiss the claim of the early Church Fathers and abandon this universal belief? Of course not! Biblical scholars offers us nothing but their opinion on the subject if they believe that the Great flood is just a myth then they are entitled to their own opinion since the great flood is not a dogma of faith. However, in order to be aligned with the mind and heart of the living tradition of the Church we are compelled to accept the opinions of the Church Fathers that the Genesis account of the Great flood is historical.
Internal Evidence From Scripture Suggests That It Is Historical
The Genesis account of the great flood is not just a plain record of a historical event, it is a typology of baptism that through the waters of baptism we are cleanse from all types of sins and through it we are incorporated into the body of Christ (Col.1:18) the Church. St. Peter mentions the Noah and the great flood in his discourse about baptism and its necessity for our salvation.
They were the generation who did not believe when God, in his great patience, delayed punishing the world while Noah was building the ark in which a small group of eight persons escaped through water. That was a type of the baptism that now saves you.

1 Peter 3:20-21
St. Peter based his preaching about the necessity of baptism on an event that took place thousands of years ago. In an apologetic point of view if Peter wanted more weight in his argument for the necessity of baptism he would base it on an historical event. If the Genesis account of the great flood is not historical but just a myth or worst a story patterned from pagan literary works then Peter's argument for baptism cannot hold water. But the very reason why Peter use the great flood as a typology for the Sacrament of baptism is because of its historical nature. No apologist would use a myth or fable as a basis for his arguments Peter himself is an apologist (1 Peter 3:15) and he is using a historical event to prove his teaching on baptism.

In the Genesis account of the Great flood what is striking is not the flood itself but the even that took place after the flood.

In Genesis chapter 9 after the flood God established a Covenant between Noah and himself, in the Covenant God promised that the earth will no longer be destroyed by a flood. When God establishes a covenant between himself and mankind it is always a historical event, not a myth, not a fable but historical! Speaking of the Great flood the Catholic Bible Dictionary says that "For much of Christian history, it was accepted unquestioningly as historical" (The Catholic Bible Dictionary, p.292, Hahn).

The Pagan Sources
If the Flood account is an actual historical event then how do we explain the similarities of Flood account in the book of Genesis with pagan literature that also contains accounts of a great flood? At first it would sound that the author of the Flood account in the book of Genesis just copied the story from its neighboring culture but the fact is he didn't. Prior to the account written in the book of Genesis there are already three pagan sources that contain a story of the great flood the Eridu Genesis, Atrahasis and the Gilgamesh, however it must not be concluded that the author of the book of Genesis copied his account of the Great flood from these pagan sources. The global flood that occurred during the time of Noah happened thousands of years ago before the authorship of these three pagan writings. The story about Noah and the great flood was handed down from one generation to the next through oral tradition and it was this tradition that serves as the basis of these pagan writings about the flood. Henceforth, the Genesis account of the flood must not be accuse of having a pagan origin because its basis is the oral tradition of the flood that took place thousands of years ago.

The Great Flood Global or Local?

The book of Genesis is very clear that the flood during Noah's time is global (Gen.7:17-23). In almost every culture in the world there is always a story through forms of myth or other literary device of a great flood that happened thousands of years ago. It is quite impossible that various cultures from different places in the world could have collaborated to create a story about a great flood. However, it is possible that their ancestors could have experience this flood and passed down the story to the next generation. There are also evidences of oceanic fossils found deep in land and on top of mountains. Some fossils of land animals are also found deep in the ocean or sea floors. These extra-biblical evidences suggests that the great flood historically happened thousands of years ago.

Sunday june 23, 2013.

------------------
The blog contains two parts, the first part is the article corner wherein we post articles pertaining to the Catholic faith may it be explaining a a specific doctrine or refuting objections coming from non-catholics. The second part of the blog is dedicated to answer questions coming from our readers. Unlike before we no longer entertain debates on our blog because it can considerably take our time from addressing questions and posting new articles. There is a proper fora for a debate and certainly this blog is not a place for it.
Anyone who wishes to republish, re-post and print our articles you may do so as long as you will properly cite your source.

--------------------
my conclusion

It seems to me reading this good article that, in the past Roman Catholics believed in the Great Flood, but no longer see the Great Flood as universal anymore, because evolutionary science has evidence against the Noachian Flood. So there would have been a conflict to have remained faithful to old traditional writings in Genesis. It also seems to me the Church holds the evidence of science above the written words of Scripture as more authoritative .

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

I don't need to defend my religion

You do have to present evidence for your arguments, however.

you just present your religion as the only one there is

No, I've often pointed out, for example, that Jewish and Muslim believers also worship God, as do all sorts of other Christians.

....certainly people are entitled to believe as they wish....

If you want to present your belief in a worldwide flood as a religious notion, that's pretty much defensible. If you want to present it as science, you've got some problems.

Barbarian observes:
It doesn't say "earth." The word in Hebrew is "eretz" which means "land." Such as "eretz Israel", the "land of Israel." "Universal" is another addition to scripture.

If you have a favorite interpretation of the word, then it is incumbent on you to show that it applies there.

Barbarian notes that the waters were said to rise 15 cubits.
Fifteen cubits doesn't sound like a very high mountain to me.

That would be the meaning of 15 cubits above the highest mountains in Eden times.

That's not what it says, though. Again, more additions to make your new beliefs work.

Not all mountains formed under water, some would have formed after the flood, at rapid rates.

Movement of the crust at those rates would produce incredible amounts of frictional heat that would boil the seas. Inconsistent with the rest of your story.

I present an article written by people who defend CATHOLIC FAITH...

Hard to say where that came from. Catholics are, as your source grudgingly admitted, not obligated to believe your new doctrine, nor did it ever requires such a thing. They can believe it, since Christians never made such a belief a necessary doctrine. Since there was a great regional flood in the Middle East at about the right time, it could be that the flood is not allegorical, but historical. But of course not worldwide, nor does the Bible say it is. That this source does not have the imprimatur from the local bishop is quite telling. It means that the site has not been approved as containing nothing contrary to Christian belief. The fact that it discribes the word of God as "mere myth" whenever it is allegorical or figurative, probably explains why.

my conclusion
It seems to me reading this good article that, in the past Roman Catholics believed in the Great Flood, but no longer see the Great Flood as universal anymore, because evolutionary science has evidence against the Noachian Flood.

No. The Church never taught the flood as literal history. The Magisterium of the Church is an entirely different thing than the opinions and beliefs of various Catholics. So the Church never made a literal history interpretation of Genesis as a necessary doctrine. Perhaps it might have seemed odd to some, but as evidence became available, the decision turned out to be correct once again.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said: "The Church never taught the flood as literal history" that's not true, the church of Jesus Christ has always believed in a world wide flood, you see we believe what scripture teaches us...

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

tob

*edit: forgot something "again"

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian,

I am sorry regarding the website that I thought was promoting Catholic faith, it seems the Catholic Church has never seen the Universal Flood as historical in Scripture. OK. Sorry for that.


You do have to present evidence for your arguments, however.

I do present evidence, but there is always a way to discredit evidence isn't there?

This video was present to some science people at a University, and they accepted the YEC theory
(sad that my belief in the Bible now has a label). And since we now have a label we can be discredited because evolutionary science has more evidence, so they say.


If you want to present your belief in a worldwide flood as a religious notion, that's pretty much defensible. If you want to present it as science, you've got some problems.

When you look at the deposits globally, there is over several hundred metres of sedimentary rock globally.
When you look into the sediment 99% of it is marine deposits and marine fossils
Only 1% is actually land animals. Evidence of a global flood.


Barbarian observes:
It doesn't say "earth." The word in Hebrew is "eretz" which means "land." Such as "eretz Israel", the "land of Israel." "Universal" is another addition to scripture.


OK so when does context dictate " some of the lands" or "all the lands" for which meaning is intended?

Ge 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the sky and the land.
Ge 1:2 And the land was without form, and void;
Ge 1:10 And God called the dry land "yabbashah" Land "eret";

We have a problem here?

Ge 1:9 ¶ 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.
Ge 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Ex 4:9 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land. {shall become: Heb. shall be and shall be}
Ex 14:16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
Ex 14:22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
Ex 14:29 But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
Ex 15:19 For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.
Jos 4:22 Then ye shall let your children know, saying, Israel came over this Jordan on dry land.
Ne 9:11 And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.
Ps 66:6 He turned the sea into dry land: they went through the flood on foot: there did we rejoice in him.
Isa 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
Jon 1:9 And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land. {the LORD: or, JEHOVAH}
Jon 1:13 Nevertheless the men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them. {rowed: Heb. digged} {wrought...: or, grew more and more tempestuous: Heb. went}
Jon 2:10 ¶ And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.
(KJV)

There is enough verses to show Yabbashah means "land" and Yam" means sea.

Jon 1:9 And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land

SO if God created sea and land, what Hebrew word implies the material upon which sit the sea and the dry land ? Answer "earth"

How do you know it isn't the translators who are inconsistent ?

Ge 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land,
Ge 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in the earth,

Such context still fit.....




Barbarian notes that the waters were said to rise 15 cubits.
Fifteen cubits doesn't sound like a very high mountain to me.
That's not what it says, though. Again, more additions to make your new beliefs work.

Sorry I am not wrong

Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills "har", that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains "har" were covered.

(1) it says the high hills were covered
(2) it says 15 cubits upward

SO this implies the water rose 15 cubits above the high hills



Movement of the crust at those rates would produce incredible amounts of frictional heat that would boil the seas. Inconsistent with the rest of your story.

Maybe some ocean regions did boil, but here we move away from Scripture evidence into belief

Ge 7:21 ¶ And all flesh died that moved upon the earth "erets", both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land "charabah", died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground "adamah", both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

The use of Hebrew words for different parts of earth, show the flood was global....

"erets" is a bigger word than than charabah and adamah. Hence means more than mere land.

Why don't you read the Bible as it reads and accept a global flood really happened ?

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Church never taught the flood as literal history"

that's not true

Sorry, that's wrong. If you doubt it, feel free to show where that was ever stated as a required belief. Never happened.

(offers this verse as proof)
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Sorry, that doesn't say so, either. As you see, a worldwide flood was never orthodoxy. That isn't to say that some recent sects haven't made it so for their people. But that's quite a different thing.

A second try:
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

That won't work, either. What you've presented as "earth" is "eretz", which normally was used for a specific area of the Earth, not the Earth itself.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
You do have to present evidence for your arguments, however.

I do present evidence,

You've presented assertions. Evidence, not so much.

but there is always a way to discredit evidence isn't there?

Not unless it can be shown to be false. Assertions are pretty easy.

This video was present to some science people at a University, and they accepted the YEC theory

Like that. No evidence, just assertion.

(sad that my belief in the Bible now has a label). And since we now have a label we can be discredited because evolutionary science has more evidence, so they say.

That's how science works. Preponderance of evidence. Tough game, but nothing works as well for understanding this world.

Barbarian observes:
If you want to present your belief in a worldwide flood as a religious notion, that's pretty much defensible. If you want to present it as science, you've got some problems.

When you look at the deposits globally, there is over several hundred metres of sedimentary rock globally.

In places. Some places, it's many times deeper than that. Some places, none at all. But before Darwn, geologists admitted that there was no way to attribute it to a single flood.

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood.
Rev Adam Sedgewick, professor of geology at Cambridge University, 1831

It should be noted that Sedgewick did consider the Flood to not be an allegory, but he admitted that the vast majority of sediments could not possibly be from Noah's flood.

When you look into the sediment 99% of it is marine deposits and marine fossils

Which is consistent with fossilization proceeding today. Oceans do a much better job of fossilization than dry land. This is why we normally find fossils of land creatures where they've died and fallen into water.

Barbarian observes:
It doesn't say "earth." The word in Hebrew is "eretz" which means "land." Such as "eretz Israel", the "land of Israel." "Universal" is another addition to scripture.

OK so when does context dictate " some of the lands" or "all the lands" for which meaning is intended?

Impossible to say, sometimes. One clue is "all under heaven", which normally meant "out to the horizon." You see this in the passage where Satan takes Jesus to the highest mountain and shows him all of the Earth. As far as the horizon.

Barbarian observes:
Movement of the crust at those rates would produce incredible amounts of frictional heat that would boil the seas. Inconsistent with the rest of your story.

Maybe some ocean regions did boil,

No. For movement you're talking about, the mass of rock would be many, many times the mass of all the oceans, so they would all boil.

but here we move away from Scripture evidence into belief

Of course, there is no scriptural foundation for such sudden plate movements. It's an adjustment you made to make it fit your beliefs. Why not accept it as it is?

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian says: "That won't work, either. What you've presented as "earth" is "eretz", which normally was used for a specific area of the Earth, not the Earth itself." = Confusion

No Confusion: Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

all flesh = all flesh.. every thing = everything

why not just accept it?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

But "under heaven" meant "from horizon to horizon." So not worldwide. That is not in the Bible. It was added later by those who weren't satisfied with scripture as it is.

 

[turnorburn]

Genesis 6:17 every thing that is in the earth shall die.

all flesh = all flesh.. every thing = everything

but your right there are some that would have it differently..

why not just accept it?

tob

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian,

I do not see how a local flood is possible unless the geographic location is shaped like a bowl so that water can accumulate to at least a depth of 15 cubits. The land of Israel is not such a place. It has mountains in the central areas. Flood waters would run off into the coastal plains and then into the Mediterranean Sea. They would also run off into the Jordan Valley and into the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. Scripture is clear that it was a worldwide flood that reached 15 cubits above every mountain and was capable of killing all air breathing life on the planet except for those in the ark.

Also, if it was a local flood limited to eretz Israel, how did the ark come to rest on Mount Ararat (Gen 8:4)? It seems this resting place is in either Turkey or Armenia north of Iran.

View attachment 6338
The arrow shows the approximate position of the ark on Ararat.
The height of Mt Ararat is 5,137 metres.

The ark is approximately 4,700 metres above sea level.....

Now that sounds like a global flood to me.....

I suppose Nicholas Steno, did not believe in the Noachian Flood did he? even though he dedicated his book on stratigraphy to the Great Flood, and wrote extensive laws about catastrophic processes. You cannot discredit Steno. He is a solid young earth Creationist.



Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

I do not see how a local flood is possible unless the geographic location is shaped like a bowl so that water can accumulate to at least a depth of 15 cubits.

And yet, there have been numerous floods that deep, in localities that are not bowl-shaped. Can you figure out why?

The land of Israel is not such a place.

What makes you think Noah lived in Israel?

It has mountains in the central areas. Flood waters would run off into the coastal plains and then into the Mediterranean Sea.

The Middle East, particularly the Tigris/Euphrates valley, has seen numerous devastating floods. It was a major theme in Babylonian, Assyrian, and Sumerian literature.

Scripture is clear that it was a worldwide flood

As you know, scripture does not say it was worldwide. That is new addition to God's word. Nor does it say that it killed all breathing life on the planet.

Also, if it was a local flood limited to eretz Israel,

Israel is only one example of the use of eretz for different sections of land.

how did the ark come to rest on Mount Ararat (Gen 8:4)?

The Bible doesn't say it came to rest on Mount Ararat. It says "the mountains of Ararat", and no one really know where that is.

The arrow shows the approximate position of the ark on Ararat.

Show us your evidence for that.

You cannot discredit Steno.

Steno first figured out that fossils were remains of living things, and realized that the mountains were once sea bottom that had been raised up. His law of superposition is an endless quandry for creatinists.

He is a solid young earth Creationist.

Young earth creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century.
The Creationists offers a thorough, clear, and balanced overview of the arguments and figures at the heart of the debate.
Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth's antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah's flood and its aftermath. Focusing especially on the rise of this "flood geology," Ronald L. Numbers chronicles the remarkable resurgence of antievolutionism since the 1960s, as well as the creationist movement's tangled religious roots in the theologies of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Adventists, among others. His book offers valuable insight into the origins of various "creation science" think tanks and the people behind them. It also goes a long way toward explaining how creationism, until recently viewed as a "peculiarly American" phenomenon, has quietly but dynamically spread internationally--and found its expression outside Christianity in Judaism and Islam.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Creationists-Scientific-Creationism-Intelligent/dp/0674023390

 

[turnorburn]

Again Barbarian said: "As you know, scripture does not say it was worldwide. That is new addition to God's word. Nor does it say that it killed all breathing life on the planet"

Those words are a mans words

The Holy Spirit gave Moses these words..

Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you know, scripture does not say it was worldwide. That is new addition to God's word. Nor does it say that it killed all breathing life on the planet

Those words are a mans words

But nonethless, true. Scripture does not say what you want it to say.

Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, (eretz) both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth(eretz), and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land(eretz), died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth(eretz): and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth (eretz)an hundred and fifty days.

Parentheses are where "eretz", meaning "land" in the sense of an area, is used. The assumption that it must mean"planet" is man's addition.