Noahs Ark

[Evandr]

sure, you're absolutely right. A magic God could have caused the flood, magically increased the water, magically made the water go away, and magically changed all of the evidence, and made it impossible for us to do any science whatsoever, because God goes around making everything look completely different than it is. If you believe this, then you have to reject all empirical science as completely impossible, and admit that your view is fundamentally anti-scientific. That's certainly your prerogative. Just don't call it "creation science."

My, My, al little befuddled are we. I said nothing about magic, only that reservations need be made for our mortal inability to comprehend all things. I am quite sure that what science discovers is really cool and everything but like it or not anything discovered by the efforts of science is and always will be insignificant when compared to the knowledge and power of God.

So what you're saying is that we should not bother doing science, then, because it's not possible to learn anything about the natural world? Otherwise what is your point?

My point is that everything that science achieves is done in an "created enviroment", that is to say science will discover nothing that was not put there for them to discover, a trial if you will to see if, given all the cool stuff that science uncovers, mankind will turn away from the temptation to displace God with it. Unfortunatly there is a vast and growing throng who cannot pass this little test. Using science as the last word with regard to the state of the universe is unwise. Few things change faster than the hard and fast facts of science. New discoveries have been undermining current scientific beliefs for as long as there have been people who seek to understand our world.

Are you familiar with the concept of science at all? It's this new thing, really useful.

New thing? I think not, science has been around for as long as there has been someone around possessing a curious nature and that my friend is a long long time. As I said earlier, science is constantly changing its mind so hinging all your hopes and beliefs on it is going to leave you face down in the dust wondering what happened.

 

[Arlanbb]

Arlanbb Please see post on page 60 of Sept 14th 6:36 p.m.
Hi URAVIP2ME ~ Yes I have read your answer on page 60. You have a few flaws in it. I see that you do not mention Luke's list of the second Cainin [Luke 3:36] Luke says in his listing that "Shem is the father of Arphaxad who is the father of CAINAN who is the father of Shelah who is the father of Eber...." etc. In Gen 11:12 this second CAINAN is left out. So your total number of years would off by the age of the second CAINAN which Luke give no age for.
Second you don't even mention that there is a Septuagint Version of time lines that could throw all your figures off by many hundreds of years.
Third some of the genealogies do not always include every link in the chain; the Hebrew often uses the word "son" to mean grandson or just decendant. Ezra's genealogy omits several links [Ezra 7:1-5; 1 Chron. 6:7-9;Ezra 3:2] just like Matthew leaves out 4 links [Matt. 1:8, 11; 1 Chron. 3:19-12, 15, 16]
Fourth in tabulating the line of the Patriarchs everything is fine down to Joseph birthday as AM 2259 but the time line from Joseph -to-Moses is unrecorded.
Fifth we must remember we are comparing AM dates which count dates from creation down to Abraham where the dating totals are getting bigger and the BC dating gets bigger as it goes in the other direction.
When we consider all of the above we should refrain from dogmatizing the exact dating in AM of the Exodus or Abraham to the BC of Cyrus. It can not be done with exact time line.
There are also archaeologists that do not agree with biblical chronology pointing to 1473 BC (BCE) as the date for Jericho's destruction either.Please name me four archaeologists that agree with your 1473 BC date. According to Dr. Price's biblical chronology chart he gives the date of the conquest of Jericho to 1406BC.

What I am posting is what is recorded in Scripture. How did Dr. Price arrive at his numbers?

I don't know how he arrived at his numbers. Maybe because Dr. Price has a Th.M. in Old Testament and Semitic Languages from Dallas Theological Seminary and Ph. D. in Middle Eastern Studies from University of Texas, Austin has done graduate studies in archaeology at the Hebrew Un. of Jerusalem and has taught on Biblical Archaeology at the Un. of Texas and has excavated at Tel Yin'am and at Qu'ran and has written three books on the bible.
Have you done any of these things and gotten any of the Th.M and PH. D.'s like he has? In Price's own book he admits his dating of Jericho conquest is not from archaeological evidence which he admits there is none but from the scripture only.

You have not answered my questions about the writing of the Egyptions that date back 700 hundred years before your date of the deluge 2370BC and the Pyramids of Giza that were built by the Egyptions 300 years before your deluge dating? And the archaeologial evidence of people living in Egypt over 7000 years ago and 11,000 years ago on people living in Old Jericho? Please answer these question which you avoided the first time you answered me.

 

[richardlowellt]

My, My, al little befuddled are we. I said nothing about magic, only that reservations need be made for our mortal inability to comprehend all things. I am quite sure that what science discovers is really cool and everything but like it or not anything discovered by the efforts of science is and always will be insignificant when compared to the knowledge and power of God.

Of course you said something about magic on your post #655, you referred to "A person with omnipotent POWERS could have tidied up" after this flood. We can comprehend things that exist in the naturalistic realm if we don't understand them we have science to help with that understanding. I think what you are saying is that we can't comprehend things beyond the naturalistic realm, since there is absolutely no evidence of any realm beyond the naturalistic it become foolish to say we can't comprehend anything from, lets say, and I think what your driving at, the supernatural realm. You are speaking of a being with knowledge and power yet you know nothing of his properties, of course you believe you do, but are not able to state these properties empirically, so you only believe this thing has knowledge and power and thats fine, but it is not factual.

My point is that everything that science achieves is done in an "created enviroment",

That again is your belief, it is not fact, your entire argument is based on what you believe to be true. You at some point have to show us with evidence that, for example, our environment is "created"

that is to say science will discover nothing that was not put there for them to discover, a trial

So it is YOUR BELIEF that this god thing hid things as a test for us to find? You mean like parents do at Easter with an Easter egg hunt? ---Hummm!

Using science as the last word with regard to the state of the universe is unwise.

Well no, since science is the ONLY way to get information about the universe it seems very logical to me. If I have a choice to choice to explain something I think I'll choose science over magic.

New discoveries have been undermining current scientific beliefs for as long as there have been people who seek to understand our world.

You have a very curious way of wording things, undermining, for example, new science discoveries never "undermine current beliefs" and you use beliefs to refer to science knowledge, new discoveries are what science does, thats what it tries to do, new discoveries simple advance our knowledge and replace older knowledge. It's as though you are treating science as a religion with references to "undermining" and "beliefs"

As I said earlier, science is constantly changing its mind so hinging all your hopes and beliefs on it is going to leave you face down in the dust wondering what happened.

You are tooo funny, science has no MIND to change, it is not an entity, I left wondering if you really have any idea what science is about and what it actually does. An intelligent person would have said, science is constantly discovering new knowledge which in turn adds to and replaces older knowledge.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy, why do you fear the truth? Isn't your faith strong enough to face reality?

Your perception of what I believe and know is seriously flawed. Why don't you seek the truth?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yeah it's the same way with FFH. Although I don't seem to ever argue with FFH really, what's the point in arguing with someone who is certifiable? :areyoucra

Which in case you haven't figured it out is why I won't argue with you....wait....you won't read this. I'm on your ignore list.:ignore: :biglaugh:

 

[Autodidact]

My, My, al little befuddled are we. I said nothing about magic, only that reservations need be made for our mortal inability to comprehend all things.

Of course, it goes without saying that all empirical knowledge is tentative, and that science is constantly correcting itself. That doesn't mean that it's useless, or that we don't know anything. For example, we know with as much certainty as our mortal inability permits, that there has never been a worldwide flood. It may be that we're wrong, and it may also be that I'm not a person, but a very intelligent computer program, but both are equally unlikely.

I am quite sure that what science discovers is really cool and everything but like it or not anything discovered by the efforts of science is and always will be insignificant when compared to the knowledge and power of God.

Please provide support for your assertion.

My point is that everything that science achieves is done in an "created enviroment", that is to say science will discover nothing that was not put there for them to discover, a trial if you will to see if, given all the cool stuff that science uncovers, mankind will turn away from the temptation to displace God with it. Unfortunatly there is a vast and growing throng who cannot pass this little test. Using science as the last word with regard to the state of the universe is unwise.

Experience has shown that it is the single most effective way to learn about the natural world. That's why the LDS leaders now assert that Lamanites were "among the ancestors" of Native Americans rather than "the principle ancestors." Science showed them that they were wrong.

Few things change faster than the hard and fast facts of science.

Yup. And?

New discoveries have been undermining current scientific beliefs for as long as there have been people who seek to understand our world

Yup. Science constantly gets more and more right, while religious revelation has no mechanism to improve.

New thing? I think not, science has been around for as long as there has been someone around possessing a curious nature and that my friend is a long long time. As I said earlier, science is constantly changing its mind so hinging all your hopes and beliefs on it is going to leave you face down in the dust wondering what happened.

Sorry, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Science is constantly changing its mind, all the while learning more, correcting itself, and getting more and more right, until it approaches as much certainty as can be gained. Unlike religious dogma, which starts wrong and stays wrong.

 

[darkendless]

If you believe this, then do something very simple for me. Go into your garden and dig a hole about 20 cm deep. If you are right, instead of the soil getting progressively lighter, there should be one inconsistent dark patch where the flood water was so weighed that it caused the organic soil into a suspension which would eventually evaporate away. Just saying this because when my father poured concrete the other day the soil got lighter down to rock, so theres no evidence of flooding here.

Look, heres an example for you from south of me in Sydney Australia: Soil horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please inform me why this soil does not have a distinctive dark layer in between two very light layers i'm very curious because what you suggest goes against everything i have learnt and practised in the last 2 years.

In regards to the vessel. Do you understand weight forces.

Weight = mass x gravity

and;

for every downward weight force in water there is a reacting bouyancy which places an equal force back upon the vessel itself. So when you think about it, a weight force on wood (elastic modulus of about 14 MPa (which is very weak, mild cast steel is 200MPa)) your theory is in a bit of trouble sir.

Very simple mechanics and earth science does not agree with your theories i'm afraid.

Yes its easier to ignore simple facts rather than challenge them isn't it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Your perception of what I believe and know is seriously flawed. Why don't you seek the truth?

When you finally make yourself clear, the truth of your beliefs may be finally exposed.

 

[Evandr]

Autodidact

Science once taught that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around it. I'm sure that those who drew those conclusions would have argued their position just as hard as you do yours. Have you ever listened to a three year old explain where the sun goes when it sets or why the tides do what they do? I have and the answers they give seem quite logical to them and absolutely hilarious to adults. If you were to move forward in time and watch the reactions of those listening to you and yours try to explain away God with your current understanding, I sure you would sound just as ridiculous as those 3 year olds do to me.

Atheism and science are really not related, believing the world was flat did not prove or disprove the existence of God, the Atheist simply uses science to make challenges that cannot be met on current scientific information as a cover story for avoiding the obvious reality that there has to be more to God than they are willing to admit. I cannot prove to you what I know to be true and why I know it and your "prove It" challenge simply makes me sigh an sad chuckle because I would that you knew what I know so, congratulations, hiding behind the old "Prove It" challenge still covers all your bases - for now.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Autodidact

Science once taught that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around it. I'm sure that those who drew those conclusions would have argued their position just as hard as you do yours. Have you ever listened to a three year old explain where the sun goes when it sets or why the tides do what they do? I have and the answers they give seem quite logical to them and absolutely hilarious to adults. If you were to move forward in time and watch the reactions of those listening to you and yours try to explain away God with your current understanding, I sure you would sound just as ridiculous as those 3 year olds do to me.

Atheism and science are really not related, believing the world was flat did not prove or disprove the existence of God, the Atheist simply uses science to make challenges that cannot be met on current scientific information as a cover story for avoiding the obvious reality that there has to be more to God than they are willing to admit. I cannot prove to you what I know to be true and why I know it and your "prove It" challenge simply makes me sigh an sad chuckle because I would that you knew what I know so, congratulations, hiding behind the old "Prove It" challenge still covers all your bases - for now.

If your God meddles in the natural world, there can be objective evidence found for it. Yet you have failed to present that evidence.

But otherwise, your post was quite pompous.

 

[shortfade2]

You are tooo funny, science has no MIND to change, it is not an entity, I left wondering if you really have any idea what science is about and what it actually does. An intelligent person would have said, science is constantly discovering new knowledge which in turn adds to and replaces older knowledge.

Really? Quite interesting, because in my Honors Biography Textbook the very beginning of it said that Scientists are skeptics by nature, and should always be looking to further prove, or disprove things....In other words, scientists should WANT it to change.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Really? Quite interesting, because in my Honors Biography Textbook the very beginning of it said that Scientists are skeptics by nature, and should always be looking to further prove, or disprove things....In other words, scientists should WANT it to change.

I think Richard - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - means that science (not scientists) has no mind to change. It's a process. Not a conscious being.

Scientists should be skeptical and should have an open-mind. Also, in science, things aren't really "proven" or "disproven", but here I'm just getting picky. Scientists should only want change if the change is supported by non-contradictory evidence.

 

[Evandr]

If your God meddles in the natural world, there can be objective evidence found for it. Yet you have failed to present that evidence.

But otherwise, your post was quite pompous.

Say What? No Evidence?! My friend, the fact that you breathe is evidence that there is a God and creator. No Evidence!? There is nothing that does not evidence it - including your right and ability to deny it.

Atheists are prime and pristine examples of those with the sour grapes attitude. Having a little vision is great, you should try it.

 

[shortfade2]

I think Richard - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - means that science (not scientists) has no mind to change. It's a process. Not a conscious being.

Scientists should be skeptical and should have an open-mind. Also, in science, things aren't really "proven" or "disproven", but here I'm just getting picky. Scientists should only want change if the change is supported by non-contradictory evidence.

Science is just the method that scientists use, in my mind.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact

Science once taught that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around it.

No. People once believed this, but it had nothing to do with science. Through science, we learned that the earth is an obloid sphere and revolves around the sun. The religious establishment resisted these discoveries, but eventually were forced to accept the scientific reality.

I'm sure that those who drew those conclusions would have argued their position just as hard as you do yours.

Yeah, they did. They were religionists.

Have you ever listened to a three year old explain where the sun goes when it sets or why the tides do what they do? I have and the answers they give seem quite logical to them and absolutely hilarious to adults. If you were to move forward in time and watch the reactions of those listening to you and yours try to explain away God with your current understanding, I sure you would sound just as ridiculous as those 3 year olds do to me.

Actually, that's more how you sound to me.

Atheism and science are really not related, believing the world was flat did not prove or disprove the existence of God,

Yup, that's right.

the Atheist simply uses science to make challenges that cannot be met on current scientific information as a cover story for avoiding the obvious reality that there has to be more to God than they are willing to admit.

You have it exactly backward. Atheism and science are not much related. Demonstrating that the earth is round neither proves nor disproves God, but religious fundamentalists resisted the truth anyway, just as today's religous fundamentalists cling to the fantasy that there was once a worldwide flood. There wasn't. That fact neither proves nor disproves God. It does show that the book of Genesis is not literal truth. There is no obvious reality of God, or everyone in the world could see it. No one in this thread is asserting that there is no God, merely that there was never a worldwide flood, which is a fact, just as it is a fact that the earth is round. Unfortunately, some allow thier particular believe in their particular religious myth to blind themselves to that fact, just as some allowed theirs to blind themselves to the fact that the earth is round.

I cannot prove to you what I know to be true and why I know it and your "prove It" challenge simply makes me sigh an sad chuckle because I would that you knew what I know so, congratulations, hiding behind the old "Prove It" challenge still covers all your bases - for now.

What challenge are you referring to? What did I ask you to prove?

 

[Autodidact]

Say What? No Evidence?! My friend, the fact that you breathe is evidence that there is a God and creator. No Evidence!? There is nothing that does not evidence it - including your right and ability to deny it.

Let's start a thread; it's irrelevant to this one, which is about a worldwide flood. Whether or not God created us, there has never been a worldwide flood.

Atheists are prime and pristine examples of those with the sour grapes attitude. Having a little vision is great, you should try it.

Is it possible for you to just argue the issues rather than call other people names? Thanks.

 

[shortfade2]

Let's start a thread; it's irrelevant to this one, which is about a worldwide flood. Whether or not God created us, there has never been a worldwide flood.

Is it possible for you to just argue the issues rather than call other people names? Thanks.

Youre the queen of that Auto along with sarcasm. :cover: and the use of people rolling their eyes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Say What? No Evidence?! My friend, the fact that you breathe is evidence that there is a God and creator. No Evidence!? There is nothing that does not evidence it - including your right and ability to deny it.

How so? How does the biological process of an aerobic organism inhaling oxygen to release energy via respiration, prove God?
I believe in a god, and I think your statement is ridiculous. There is no "proof' of God, belief in a god , gods, or prime mover ultimately relies on faith.
The only thing in this argument that requires proof is when a biblical literalist insists that the Global Flood story from the Bible is historicaly accurate.
As of yet, no "proof" that can stand up to geological, and historical evidence has been offered.

Atheists are prime and pristine examples of those with the sour grapes attitude. Having a little vision is great, you should try it.

So all that have no belief in a deity have "sour grapes"? This ad hominem attack has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Generalizing and off topic.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't know how he arrived at his numbers. Maybe because Dr. Price has a Th.M. in Old Testament and Semitic Languages from Dallas Theological Seminary and Ph. D. in Middle Eastern Studies from University of Texas, Austin has done graduate studies in archaeology at the Hebrew Un. of Jerusalem and has taught on Biblical Archaeology at the Un. of Texas and has excavated at Tel Yin'am and at Qu'ran and has written three books on the bible.
Have you done any of these things and gotten any of the Th.M and PH. D.'s like he has? In Price's own book he admits his dating of Jericho conquest is not from archaeological evidence which he admits there is none but from the scripture only.

You have not answered my questions about the writing of the Egyptions that date back 700 hundred years before your date of the deluge 2370BC and the Pyramids of Giza that were built by the Egyptions 300 years before your deluge dating? And the archaeologial evidence of people living in Egypt over 7000 years ago and 11,000 years ago on people living in Old Jericho? Please answer these question which you avoided the first time you answered me.

Thank you for your reply.
I posted what is the fixing of dates from within Scripture.
The archaeologists have their interpretations.
So whether their testimony confirms or contradicts the Bible record and Bible chronology is not going to change what is recorded in Scripture.

As far as Jericho's conquest it would be the same as the fixing of dates is from within Scripture. We do know at the end of the 40 years in the wilderness the Israelites came to the Plains of Moab. After Moses Death Joshua sent the two spies to Jericho. The Passover was observed on the plain of Jericho (Josh 5) before the conquest. Don't many feel that little, or if anything, remains of the Jericho that existed in Joshua's time? So how could one determine a date from that? There are many scriptural references to Jericho. Jericho did exist. It is identified with Tell es-Sultan (Tel Yeriho) about 22 miles ENR of Jerusalem. Nearby Tulul Abu el- Alayiq is considered to be the site of first century Jericho. Don't the findings often depend on subjective factors by the wide divergences from the drawn conclusions of archaeologists? So if the biblical chronology pointing to 1473 BC(BCE) agrees or not with them it is not going to change the Bible record.

Dr Price has a lot of education. The Jews in Jesus day (John 7:15,16) wanted to know how Jesus had a knowledge of letters, when Jesus had not studied or learned at the schools? However, Jesus did receive training although he did not attend rabbinic schools. Neither was Jesus taught at the feet of prominent religious leaders. Jesus was qualified to teach because he received his principle training from the Highest Source. Jesus said he did not speak of his own impulse, but the Father, who sent him, gave him a command as to what to tell and what to speak (John 12:49). In other words, Jesus was given specific instruction about what he would teach us. Jesus based his teachings on reasoning on Scripture. Didn't Jesus often refer to already existing Scripture when talking with others? Even Jesus followers (Acts 4:13) were perceived as unlettered men. So the Bible's internal harmony is found by topic or subject arrangement by corresponding or parallel passages on the same line of thought. Jesus gave the commission to all of his followers (Matt 28:19,20) to teach or be teaching what he taught. Jesus believed in the Genesis account and Jericho figured into his ministry.

 

[Autodidact]

Thank you for your reply.
I posted what is the fixing of dates from within Scripture.
The archaeologists have their interpretations.
So whether their testimony confirms or contradicts the Bible record and Bible chronology is not going to change what is recorded in Scripture.

Yup. so if scripture differs from archeology (biology, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, physics, ancient history, ship-building, hydrology and so forth), which one do you pick?