Noahs Ark

[footprints]

Yes, it's not relevant to this debate because the creationist that have chimed in on the OP don't believe that the earth is older than 13,000 years. There may have been one or two OEC here. As far as the Carboniforous Period I am well aware of that but like I said it wasn't something that needed to be brought up. No one here has ever suggested we have "never" had a massive geological flooding. We just have not had one as described in the bible. Certainly not one in the past 10, 20 or even 30,000 years..etc...etc...which by the way...covers the supposed time line of the Noah deluge.

Darkendless was very explict when he said to me, he wasn't going to explain again why there wasn't a world wide flood. Perhaps this poster doesn't know about the carboniforous period.

As for anything else, we cannot even put a date on this alledged flood, even the creationists time period could be correct, just have the facts mixed up a bit pertaining to a perceived world wide flood and an actual world wide flood.

Funny thing is pertaining to ancient cultures, Noahs Ark could have pertained to a family in a row boat, who went out and saved two kangaroos and a dingo (used aussie animals, I like the sound of it). In my dealings with ancient cultures I have found an element of truth in most of their legends. Many times though it is not what I expected.

Well then this debate may not be for you seeing as though you jump in asking the wrong people to produce evidence of something they completely disagreed with from the start. Speaking of "from the start"....this debate centers around the creationist biblical belief and interpretation and since "they" were the ones posting a date then in all fairness those that disagree should have the right to refute it. That we have done and very well might I add.

On the contrary. If somebody is going to declare somebody wrong, they should have the facts to back it up. It was a simple question I asked Auto, my exact words from post 1354, "Hmmm interesting Auto, and exactly what date was this alledged flood again?" I already knew Auto didn't know the answer to this, nobody does. Hell, we don't even know if it happened. Auto was arguing from an unreasoned position and I just showed how unreasoned it was.

Was there a flood, did Noah exist? Nobody knows for sure. What we do know is, instant denial doesn't get us closer to the truth, neither does instant acceptance.

What about "Mount Everest" is unreasonable for any of us to suggest it was never submerged under water in the fashion as described by the bible?

Refer to Darkendless, he does have the answer to this one.

Yes, and this has been one of our arguments with creationist from the very beginning of the thread.

I actually read through the thread before posting, I could see where the trend was going.

That I said, that if a flood occured there would be residual evidence, doesn't for a second mean there was no flood, it just means there was not a literal world wide flood. I have no way of knowing whether there was perceived world wide flood, or even a flood blown out of proportions for that matter, nor does anybody else.

As am I. My original debate was not with you on this matter. Only those that hold a literalistic view of their scripture.

I do understand that, I wasn't in the debate at the beginning. I only joined the debate after I had read through it and seen how unreasonable it had become.

I see what you mean now. Yes I pretty much agree with this......but wow what a difference a few years makes....considering the most recent news of Ardipithecus ramidus (Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found)

I am aware of Ardi, found not far from where Lucy was found.

You are not the first American I have come across who didn't know of the "Out of Africa," theory. In fact, I cannot say I have talked to many Americans who do actually know about it. Isn't it taught in American schools?

Your point is noted but the debate all along has been about what creationist and other bible literalist believe and they are who we have been dialoging with.

I do understand that. Then I joined the debate. From then on you were not debating with a creationist any more. You were debating an Agnostic.

That's one of the points in debating. This isn't the fist time this subject has come up nor will it be the last. When the debate is started both sides present their case. Should we suspend this circular argument? Heck yeah.....but it won't stop here. We like to debate...that's why we come here.

The debate will not end, it is an open point.There is no answer at this point in time. It will fade away to the archives, till sombody raises the point again and the whole process will start all over again. One belief pattern will say it happened, and another belief pattern will say it didn't and both will point to pretend evidence and suggest it proves some kind of point. Hell I could nearly give you a verbatim of what those for will say and what those against will say, the same dogma has been repeated 1,000 times.

My point being, I have to keep reading through it all, to see if there is any new knowledge which I may have missed or overlooked.

I come here in search of knowledge, but all I ever get is that which I already know.

It's not the point in how many we currently have. The fact and point is....we have them. Dinosaurs are an easy one. We have tons (no pun intended) of fossils of them. And it appears we have plenty of fossils when it comes to us.

We have enough fossils to create as small window to which we can relate and associate to, however our imagination and power of suggestion allows us to.

But really.....your response here has nothing to do with your original comment. You were speaking on the time frame of the supposed flood and the supposed lack of historical records of the time and this is just not true in light of the Sumerian, Egyptian and Chinese dynasties of the time. Paying close attention to the information I listed in regards to the Sumerians and their time line as well as the Egyptians and their time line completely refutes URAVIP2ME's claim of the supposed flood time line.

I am sorry it doesn't. It only disputes the fact that it wasn't a literal world wide flood. Now another piece of reality tells us, that something perceived as real, is also real and valid according to the minds that perceived it. If an ancient cultures whole known world was flooded, then they would have genuinely believed the whole world was covered. We are of course dealing with an ancient culture when we are talking about the early period of the bible, stories were still carried word of mouth or scribbled on scrolls somewhere. All the bible really gives us to go on is it came in-between Adam and Eve and Moses. The Garden of Eden could have even been in Africa for all I know, which could span a period of 30,000 years or even more.

You suspect that his time line is incorrect because of lack of evidence. Guess what? So do I. The difference between you and I is I'm not just making blanket statements when debating with him or any other creationist on this subject. I'm actually presenting some archeological, anthropological and geological evidence to them.

But you are presenting evidence to what? Just disputing a theists claims? This of course doesn't prove anything, except the theist may have the wrong time period, or they haven't considered it may have been a perception based flood.


I

know you don't specifically think the story is true but the creationist here do. We're just presenting the data that shows it couldn't have been true.

All you are doing is showing it doesn't have merit based on a literal world wide flood. It does nothing to discredit the story, just the interpretation of a world wide flood. I have no idea whether it is true or false.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Darkendless was very explict when he said to me, he wasn't going to explain again why there wasn't a world wide flood. Perhaps this poster doesn't know about the carboniforous period.

Well, I can't speak for the OP.

As for anything else, we cannot even put a date on this alledged flood, even the creationists time period could be correct, just have the facts mixed up a bit pertaining to a perceived world wide flood and an actual world wide flood.

But that's just it. "WE" weren't the ones who came up with a date in the first place. Creationist look into their crystal ball called the bible and with their ability to add and subtract they've come up with a time frame. Anyone who is familiar with geology and anthropology should know that the event itself does not coincide with what we know of the natural world......from ANY time period that would lend any credibility to the story.

Funny thing is pertaining to ancient cultures, Noahs Ark could have pertained to a family in a row boat, who went out and saved two kangaroos and a dingo (used aussie animals, I like the sound of it). In my dealings with ancient cultures I have found an element of truth in most of their legends. Many times though it is not what I expected.

Here's the thing...I don't disagree at all with your hypothesis here. The flooding could have been more localized.

On the contrary. If somebody is going to declare somebody wrong, they should have the facts to back it up. It was a simple question I asked Auto, my exact words from post 1354, "Hmmm interesting Auto, and exactly what date was this alledged flood again?" I already knew Auto didn't know the answer to this, nobody does. Hell, we don't even know if it happened. Auto was arguing from an unreasoned position and I just showed how unreasoned it was.

Auto was arguing from the stand point that creationist believe the story to be true. So much so that they (creationist) have come up with a date for it. It's wasn't her job to give you a date. The date had already been given by a creationist pages upon pages ago. Auto was arguing from that particular point forward in an attempt to show that the date (already) given was inaccurate considering what we know about civilization in those days. She was right. The date (considering the details of the story and what literalist believe) is wrong.

Was there a flood

Not like the bible describes it.

did Noah exist?

There's no reason for me to think he did but the believers in the stories told about him believe he existed. Whether he did or not is not particularly important to this debated.

Nobody knows for sure.

I think we do know....

What we do know is, instant denial doesn't get us closer to the truth, neither does instant acceptance.

Well this certainly doesn't fit our position. We have plenty of data showing there was no WWF during the time period given to us by creationist. Maybe some local flooding. So we haven't (instantly denied) the the story without understanding the evidence first.

That I said, that if a flood occured there would be residual evidence, doesn't for a second mean there was no flood, it just means there was not a literal world wide flood. I have no way of knowing whether there was perceived world wide flood, or even a flood blown out of proportions for that matter, nor does anybody else.

Maybe you're alone on this one. It's without a doubt that the creationist posting here believe ("perceive") the biblical deluge was a deluge that cover the whole... of what we call Earth.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1619154-post137.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1655801-post189.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1679809-post336.html

I am aware of Ardi, found not far from where Lucy was found.

You are not the first American I have come across who didn't know of the "Out of Africa," theory. In fact, I cannot say I have talked to many Americans who do actually know about it. Isn't it taught in American schools?

I am very much aware man's origins being in Africa (considering the current evidences we have). I'm not against that. I just don't think I've ever heard it referred to as (The out of Africa theory) before. But to show that I am aware is why I posted the most recent findings on Ardi.

I do understand that. Then I joined the debate. From then on you were not debating with a creationist any more. You were debating an Agnostic.

Yes, I know. That's why I don't respond to you as if you're a creationist. I never thought you were. I think you have said in another thread (can't remember where) your are an Agnostic.

I am sorry it doesn't. It only disputes the fact that it wasn't a literal world wide flood.

And I'm sorry but it does. URAVIP2ME gave a date for the flood. The evidence shows that the date he gave is inaccurate for "HIS" belief that the (Whole World) was flooded as his bible says. The Sumerian and Egyptian dynasties were in full swing during the time line he presented to us. And see that's been the crux of the debate the entire time....There was never a literal world wide flood, at least not during the time URAVIP2ME gave us.

If an ancient cultures whole known world was flooded, then they would have genuinely believed the whole world was covered. We are of course dealing with an ancient culture when we are talking about the early period of the bible, stories were still carried word of mouth or scribbled on scrolls somewhere.

But see, I actually do agree with you...which is why I'm not sure why our particular debate has gone this far. I happen to think that the flood story told was most likely a local event given the area and their record for localized flooding. It's just creationist have bit off the part in their bible about (whole world) and believe it literally. Current data is against their assumptions.

But you are presenting evidence to what? Just disputing a theists claims? This of course doesn't prove anything, except the theist may have the wrong time period, or they haven't considered it may have been a perception based flood.

That's the whole point of the thread......But if I may...I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm simply trying to show that the evidence is not there for their assumptions. Now they could of-course try and give us a different time frame if they like but the results will be the same. We will have to examine the current evidence we have for the natural world and if we do not see evidence for a WWF during that time frame then we have to conclude that it most likely didn't happen in that time either.

All you are doing is showing it doesn't have merit based on a literal world wide flood. It does nothing to discredit the story, just the interpretation of a world wide flood. I have no idea whether it is true or false.

Nope. It has no merit simply because it's not a true story. It could be an interpretation and sort of a retelling of older stories handed down (Epic of Gilgameh). The stories parallel each other quite well.

 

[camanintx]

Darkendless was very explict when he said to me, he wasn't going to explain again why there wasn't a world wide flood. Perhaps this poster doesn't know about the carboniforous period.

As for anything else, we cannot even put a date on this alledged flood, even the creationists time period could be correct, just have the facts mixed up a bit pertaining to a perceived world wide flood and an actual world wide flood.

If the flood occurred in the carboniforous period, I seriously doubt there were any humans around to perceive it.

 

[McBell]

If the flood occurred in the carboniforous period, I seriously doubt there were any humans around to perceive it.

How rude.
To refute an argument with actual facts.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[footprints]

Well, I can't speak for the OP.



But that's just it. "WE" weren't the ones who came up with a date in the first place. Creationist look into their crystal ball called the bible and with their ability to add and subtract they've come up with a time frame. Anyone who is familiar with geology and anthropology should know that the event itself does not coincide with what we know of the natural world......from ANY time period that would lend any credibility to the story.



Here's the thing...I don't disagree at all with your hypothesis here. The flooding could have been more localized.




Auto was arguing from the stand point that creationist believe the story to be true. So much so that they (creationist) have come up with a date for it. It's wasn't her job to give you a date. The date had already been given by a creationist pages upon pages ago. Auto was arguing from that particular point forward in an attempt to show that the date (already) given was inaccurate considering what we know about civilization in those days. She was right. The date (considering the details of the story and what literalist believe) is wrong.



Not like the bible describes it.



There's no reason for me to think he did but the believers in the stories told about him believe he existed. Whether he did or not is not particularly important to this debated.



I think we do know....



Well this certainly doesn't fit our position. We have plenty of data showing there was no WWF during the time period given to us by creationist. Maybe some local flooding. So we haven't (instantly denied) the the story without understanding the evidence first.




Maybe you're alone on this one. It's without a doubt that the creationist posting here believe ("perceive") the biblical deluge was a deluge that cover the whole... of what we call Earth.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1619154-post137.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1655801-post189.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1679809-post336.html




I am very much aware man's origins being in Africa (considering the current evidences we have). I'm not against that. I just don't think I've ever heard it referred to as (The out of Africa theory) before. But to show that I am aware is why I posted the most recent findings on Ardi.



Yes, I know. That's why I don't respond to you as if you're a creationist. I never thought you were. I think you have said in another thread (can't remember where) your are an Agnostic.



And I'm sorry but it does. URAVIP2ME gave a date for the flood. The evidence shows that the date he gave is inaccurate for "HIS" belief that the (Whole World) was flooded as his bible says. The Sumerian and Egyptian dynasties were in full swing during the time line he presented to us. And see that's been the crux of the debate the entire time....There was never a literal world wide flood, at least not during the time URAVIP2ME gave us.



But see, I actually do agree with you...which is why I'm not sure why our particular debate has gone this far. I happen to think that the flood story told was most likely a local event given the area and their record for localized flooding. It's just creationist have bit off the part in their bible about (whole world) and believe it literally. Current data is against their assumptions.



That's the whole point of the thread......But if I may...I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm simply trying to show that the evidence is not there for their assumptions. Now they could of-course try and give us a different time frame if they like but the results will be the same. We will have to examine the current evidence we have for the natural world and if we do not see evidence for a WWF during that time frame then we have to conclude that it most likely didn't happen in that time either.




Nope. It has no merit simply because it's not a true story. It could be an interpretation and sort of a retelling of older stories handed down (Epic of Gilgameh). The stories parallel each other quite well.

In general all I can say again is I am not interested in what a creationist believes. I am only interested in getting to the truth. You keep wanting to go back to a literal world wide flood, which evidence already discounts.

As with discussing with creationists, truth is a far better way of dealing with it. There is no harm in saying we just don't know. That it may contain some merit, then again it may not. That, if anything it may have been a local flood, which the ancient culture perceived as a world wide flood, simply because their whole known world was flooded. Or, it could have been just a normal flood which people over the ages have blown right out of proportions. Then again it may not have happened at all and is just a story to show animals are just as important as humans, ancient cultures have been known to do that too.

 

[footprints]

If the flood occurred in the carboniforous period, I seriously doubt there were any humans around to perceive it.

The carboniforous period was a world wide flood. As for the rest I can only agree with you, for you have only repeated what I have already said.

 

[footprints]

How rude.
To refute an argument with actual facts.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

LOL, and so should you, fancy imagining, imaginary facts, as though I had somehow implied humans were involved in the carboniforous period.

Some posters will stop at nothing to try and discredit, factual evidence if it goes against their belief patterns.

 

[tumbleweed41]

For educational purposes.The Carboniferous Period of the Palaeos Paleozoic era began 354 million years ago. It lasted for about 64 million years. During this time much, but not all of the Earth was covered in water.
The large land masses of Euramerica and Gondwana continued to move toward one another and collide during the Carboniferous Period, forming the land mass known as Pangea.
In the early part of the Carboniferous Period, during the Mississippian Epoch, much, but not all, of North America was covered by warm, shallow seas.
On land, especially in the Euramerican part of Pangea, the equatorial regions are covered by forests. The moist tropical climate produces a lush plant growth, which eventually becomes the great Coal Deposits (hence the name Carboniferous - "coal bearing"). So vigorous was the growth of these ancient trees that they seemed to have sucked much of the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, producing an excess of oxygen. Oxygen levels were higher during this time than at any other time in the history of the Earth.
So for one to insist that the Carboniferous Period was something to be equated to a "world wide flood" is intellectually dishonest and reeks of intentional ignorance.

The Carboniferous
Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate during the Carboniferous Period
Carboniferous Period Article, Carboniferous Information, Prehistoric Facts -- National Geographic

 

[comradesoul]

That's sounds reasonable although there are many who would disagree, especially those who are spending their lives attempting to pinpoint the exact resting place for the ark. I guess my point is that there seems to be a large portion of the Earths history missing from the Bible. Mainly the periods when dinosaurs lived and the other "cavemen" types of lifeforms , etc. . How is this reconciled in the religious realm?

Even if such people find a big ship up on some mountain what will it prove? Does it prove the story behind it's being there correct? No. Does it prove the Bible is the perfect word of God? Not to me in the least. It just proves that some big boat is on the mountain and we have no idea how it got there.

As for me the existence of the mountain and my own ability to have awareness of the mountain are all the proof I need for a Supreme Creator.

These type of stories are held by all older countries and they were once accepted as truth by those cultures but they have no relevance in today's world where the very complexity of a gene up to the cosmos itself points very clearly to an Intelligent Designer.

 

[McBell]

... they have no relevance in today's world where the very complexity of a gene up to the cosmos itself points very clearly to an Intelligent Designer.

Only to those looking to ratify their belief in an intelligent designer.

 

[darkendless]

These type of stories are held by all older countries and they were once accepted as truth by those cultures but they have no relevance in today's world where the very complexity of a gene up to the cosmos itself points very clearly to an Intelligent Designer.

Yes but that would indicate also that the intelligent designer had a more intelligent designer and so on and so forth, so what do you do about that?

 

[Fisherman]

Why does everyone think the animals have to be full grown?

 

[Autodidact]

Why does everyone think the animals have to be full grown?

What animals are you talking about?

 

[McBell]

What animals are you talking about?

I predict that his argument is going to be that the animals on Noah's ark were either infants or perhaps young adults.

I have heard this argument before.
Problem is that the animals being young does not solve any of the problems they think it does and actually creates even more problems.

Of course, if one has taken the stance that God used his power to make the whole animal on the ark situation a miracle, it really does not matter.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In general all I can say again is I am not interested in what a creationist believes.

That's why I said this debate may not be for you then...but the you comtinue to post here.......This debate, in essence, was directed at them.

You keep wanting to go back to a literal world wide flood, which evidence already discounts.

Actually I'm not. I'm simply responding to the claim and the belief that the whole world was flooded. Creationist here contend it was a WWF....I'm simply responding and/or debating the point.

As with discussing with creationists, truth is a far better way of dealing with it. There is no harm in saying we just don't know.

They don't admit, normally, they "just don't know". They actually believe it happened. As for me (I do know) that it didn't happen....based on the evidence that shows it didn't.

That it may contain some merit, then again it may not.

I don't think it does.

That, if anything it may have been a local flood, which the ancient culture perceived as a world wide flood, simply because their whole known world was flooded.

I don't disagree with you here. These stories could have very well been describing a local flood where some "Noah Archetype" packed a couple of his farm animals onto a small boat to ride out the coming storm or the seasonal flooding. That's my opinion. But again you and I are debating a point that I said (VERY) early on in this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1689438-post494.html

'At best, you might find recording of their local flood (Nile River). '

Or, it could have been just a normal flood which people over the ages have blown right out of proportions.

Yep...This is true.

Then again it may not have happened at all

Yep. This is also true....

 

[footprints]

Why does everyone think the animals have to be full grown?

Everbody doesn't Fisherman. Any person who has ever looked at this scenario from any sort of reasoned position, has already concluded they may have been full breeding pairs, they may have been adolescents, some may have been eggs. All possible considerations are needed to be in place before any reasoned positon can reached.

 

[footprints]

That's why I said this debate may not be for you then...but the you comtinue to post here.......This debate, in essence, was directed at them.

This debate is for any member who wishes to join in. I wish to do so.

As for me (I do know) that it didn't happen....based on the evidence that shows it didn't.

Well that is what I want to see. Please give me all the evidence you have which suggests it didn't happen from every possible angle of probability it could have happened from. We have already ruled out a world wide flood.

So now I await your evidence which conclusively shows, 1) Noah didn't exist. 2) There was never a flood of any other description. If such evidence exists, then it is obviously evidence which I may have missed or overlooked, which has a high probability of changing my perception of this very issue.

Of course if you do not have this evidence, just tell me straight out, you do not know if the story is true or false, or if a flood of any other description ever took place. That way I will know I haven't missed or overlooked any evidence.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This debate is for any member who wishes to join in. I wish to do so.

This statement is illogical considering you've stated at least twice you don't care what creationist believe. In order to hold a debate you have to care. What's the point in debating a point where everyone is in agreement?

Well that is what I want to see. Please give me all the evidence you have which suggests it didn't happen from every possible angle of probability it could have happened from. We have already ruled out a world wide flood.

This is a moot point. We've both ruled out WWF and neither of us (You nor Me) have ruled out local flooding.

So now I await your evidence which conclusively shows, 1) Noah didn't exist.

You're asking the wrong person here. Although I personally don't think he existed I never raised that here as a point of debate. In fact I even said;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1859180-post1402.html

" Whether he did or not is not particularly important to this debated."

2) There was never a flood of any other description.

Again, this is moot considering I've stated early on that the supposed flood could have been local. Local and seasonal flooding has and does occur in the middle east and areas of Africa.

Of course if you do not have this evidence, just tell me straight out, you do not know if the story is true or false, or if a flood of any other description ever took place. That way I will know I haven't missed or overlooked any evidence.

That's just it. I never said there was never any flooding in the area. Again, local flooding was a possibility. The story is false in that as of today no geologist will contend the whole world was flooded unless they are presenting the data that showed flooding millions of years ago. Since creationist believe the earth itself is only 13k years old then we have no choice but to conclude the story told has no merit. The claim of a WWF is a baseless one given the 13k time line. Nowhere in that time line do we find WW Flooding. We find local flooding in various areas but that's it.

 

[comradesoul]

Yes but that would indicate also that the intelligent designer had a more intelligent designer and so on and so forth, so what do you do about that?

Well I don't see that that is at all indicated indicated in my statement. But we can address the question anyway. Intelligent Designer with cap's is the way I and many others indicate the Supreme Intelligent Designer, the causeless Cause of all other causes or in other words God. Rather you accept that there is such an Intelligent Being or not is certainly your perogative.

As I see the world there is such a Being whose Intelligence works through everything from the atom to the cosmos. That working through also entails His giving intelligence to other living beings to do His/their part which He uses.

Here is a gross example. An owner of a boat buliding company wants a certain boat built. He expresses his desire on what he wants built to the one he has hired to run the day to day operations of the company. The company president then passes on those instruction's on down the chain which includes the common laborer's. The boat gets built.

I see the owners instruction working at every phase from the president to the laborers.

In vedic cosmology there is a similar hierarchical system with Brahma being the company president and Krishna or God being the owner.
I said it was a gross analogy because the company owner may himself not now what the laborer knows about boat building whereas with God He knows every movement of every atom what to speak of mountain formation. In every phase of life He is the intelligence of the intelligence.

In a personal example, outside my window I have a hummingbird feeder. Sometimes all to rare times have had the realization that although it appears that I am the one that feeds the birds it is really a fact that I am being used as a tool by the Supreme Intelligence to feed His hummingbirds.

Enlightenment in God consciousness means to live in that awareness at every moment as a willing participant as an instrument in God's plan.

 

[darkendless]

Well I don't see that that is at all indicated indicated in my statement. But we can address the question anyway. Intelligent Designer with cap's is the way I and many others indicate the Supreme Intelligent Designer, the causeless Cause of all other causes or in other words God. Rather you accept that there is such an Intelligent Being or not is certainly your perogative.

As I see the world there is such a Being whose Intelligence works through everything from the atom to the cosmos. That working through also entails His giving intelligence to other living beings to do His/their part which He uses.

Here is a gross example. An owner of a boat buliding company wants a certain boat built. He expresses his desire on what he wants built to the one he has hired to run the day to day operations of the company. The company president then passes on those instruction's on down the chain which includes the common laborer's. The boat gets built.

I see the owners instruction working at every phase from the president to the laborers.

In vedic cosmology there is a similar hierarchical system with Brahma being the company president and Krishna or God being the owner.
I said it was a gross analogy because the company owner may himself not now what the laborer knows about boat building whereas with God He knows every movement of every atom what to speak of mountain formation. In every phase of life He is the intelligence of the intelligence.

In a personal example, outside my window I have a hummingbird feeder. Sometimes all to rare times have had the realization that although it appears that I am the one that feeds the birds it is really a fact that I am being used as a tool by the Supreme Intelligence to feed His hummingbirds.

Enlightenment in God consciousness means to live in that awareness at every moment as a willing participant as an instrument in God's plan.

If it makes sense to you then fine. To me, you're making things fit that ain't quite so but thats because i see no evidence of creation, only evolutionary processes.