Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Tough Question

Expand Messages
  • Chris Maness
    I have for a while felt like one of the toughest question that could be thrown at a Christian/Jew would be the whole flood narrative. A conservative view has
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I have for a while felt like one of the toughest question that could
      be thrown at a Christian/Jew would be the whole flood narrative. A
      conservative view has trouble fitting all of the animals in the ark,
      and a local flood has weak scriptural support. That is -- I Peter
      3:20-21 which puts only eight people saved in the ark. If it was a
      local flood, there would be a lot more people around the world that
      were saved from the flood. Also, I am no sure how the Mesopotamian
      valley would hold the flood waters.

      How would you guys deal with this one.

      Regards,
      Chris Maness
    • phoebe
      I just want to offer a couple of thoughts. First of all, I have been greatly helped by the resources at the Institute of Creation Research. They have some very
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 5, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I just want to offer a couple of thoughts. First of all, I have been greatly helped by the resources at the Institute of Creation Research. They have some very good books. Two that I would recommend are: The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris, and the other that I would recommend is by John Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study (http://store.icr.org/products.asp?dept=11&val=0&pagenumber=2). This last book is a study done in great detail about what the bible says and how the ark could have been constructed, which animals would have needed to have been on the ark, how the waste could have been managed and the animals cared for by only 8 people. It goes to great lengths to consider the technology of the time, etc. and is a very thorough treatment of the ark itself.

        A few points to consider from scripture: Genesis 7:15 states that it was animals that had the "breath of life" that were brought onto the ark. While aquatic fish and creatures get oxygen, their breathing systems are designed to extract oxygen from the water which goes in and out of their gills; there are some exceptions. To me that is quite different from a creature which breathes air outright. So, I don't necessarily believe that the aquatic creatures were on the ark.

        I do believe in the biblical concept of "kind" which is introduced in Genesis 1:24. I believe that creation scientists have shown that the speciation that exists has had time to "evolve" or develop even in a short age of the earth system.

        I believe that much of the salinity of the oceans today has developed over time from freshwater runoff, evaporation of water from the oceans, thus leaving the oceans more saline with every runoff from earth. I haven't seen a study of this, but it wouldn't be a stretch for me to believe that the waters were probably not as saline as they are now. If God created creatures with DNA capable of handling salinity even while originally living in freshwater circumstances, then they could have evolved over time. The DNA would have needed the proper trigger to start working.

        I believe that dinosaurs, at least the land ones, were also included on the ark. I believe that they coexisted with man and many probably died out in the ice age that followed the flood, and the rest have become extinct over time. I believe that all of the stories "myths" that exist in many cultures about dragons, are actually what we call today dinosaurs. Nothing in the bible would indicate that only adults of the kinds were brought onto the ark. Juveniles could have been on the ark and there would have been room. Chapters 40 and 41 of Job are powerful scriptures describing creatures (the behemoth and leviathan)which can only reasonably be considered to be what we now call dinosaurs.

        Other physical evidence for a worldwide flood: 1) sediments at the tops of mountains, 2) the massive oil and shale deposits all over the world which was formed by massive amounts of rotting vegetation, 3)fossils all over the world (and no intermediates have ever been found to lend support to macroevolution among the millions of fossils which have now been found and studied). Fossils are difficult to form. Nothing but a flood makes sense for the massive amounts of them that we find all over the earth, 4)you will notice that no matter where you go, when you read the geological formation of the area where you are, you will always read that this area used to be covered by an ocean. Really? They say this because they find marine fossils everywhere and the only reason to believe that the area used to be covered by water is from these marine fossils that they find. This is better explained by a worldwide flood. There is more evidence than what I have pointed out here. Get a good book written by a creation scientist and consider their point of view.

        Now for the theological problems with believing in a long age of the earth. The biggest theological problem is that you necessarily would have had death before sin was introduced, a LOT of death would have occurred before Adam and Eve sinned. If death were around before Adam and Eve sinned then why would Christ have had to physically die? I believe that physical death as well as spiritual death was meted out as punishment for Adam and Eve. God stated in Genesis 2:17, "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." That they died spiritually is indicated in the fact that they suddenly knew they were naked. They had no knowledge of this before and I believe that they lost a covering of God's shekinah light that they would have been covered with before (but that's a discussion for another day). That they were to also die physically is indicated in Genesis 3:19 "to dust you shall return" and also they were to be expelled from the Garden so that they could not eat from the tree of life and live forever, Genesis 3:22.

        Romans 5:12 says that "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned". Christ was to reverse that, Romans 5:15, "for if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." There is more in this passage that I could have quoted, but go and read it for yourself.

        Romans chapter 8:19-21 indicates that man's sin also affected the rest of creation, "For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."

        1 Corinthians 15 indicates that the last enemy to be destroyed is death, verse 22 states "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive," and verse 26 says "The last enemy that will be destroyed is death."

        Kind of a long response. I hope this helps. I love teaching about the flood and I have taught children and adolescents for a long time (more than 20 years). I am not afraid to talk about what the bible actually teaches even though it flies in the face of what mainstream scientists spout. I have degrees in biology/chemistry and a degree in nursing, so a somewhat scientific background also.

        Phoebe
        http://www.itiswrittenphoebe.com

        --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, Chris Maness <chris@...> wrote:
        >
        > I have for a while felt like one of the toughest question that could
        > be thrown at a Christian/Jew would be the whole flood narrative. A
        > conservative view has trouble fitting all of the animals in the ark,
        > and a local flood has weak scriptural support. That is -- I Peter
        > 3:20-21 which puts only eight people saved in the ark. If it was a
        > local flood, there would be a lot more people around the world that
        > were saved from the flood. Also, I am no sure how the Mesopotamian
        > valley would hold the flood waters.
        >
        > How would you guys deal with this one.
        >
        > Regards,
        > Chris Maness
        >
      • Chris Maness
        ... I do not believe that the physical/spiritual death of Adam necessitates physical death of all creation. I find the YEC worldview has some real issues with
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 5, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, phoebe <itiswrittenphoebe@...> wrote:
          > I just want to offer a couple of thoughts. First of all, I have been greatly helped by the resources at the Institute of Creation Research. They have some very good books.  Two that I would recommend are: The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris, and the other that I would recommend is by John Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study (http://store.icr.org/products.asp?dept=11&val=0&pagenumber=2).  This last book is a study done in great detail about what the bible says and how the ark could have been constructed, which animals would have needed to have been on the ark, how the waste could have been managed and the animals cared for by only 8 people. It goes to great lengths to consider the technology of the time, etc. and is a very thorough treatment of the ark itself.
          >
          > A few points to consider from scripture: Genesis 7:15 states that it was animals that had the "breath of life" that were brought onto the ark. While aquatic fish and creatures get oxygen, their breathing systems are designed to extract oxygen from the water which goes in and out of their gills; there are some exceptions. To me that is quite different from a creature which breathes air outright. So, I don't necessarily believe that the aquatic creatures were on the ark.
          >
          > I do believe in the biblical concept of "kind" which is introduced in Genesis 1:24. I believe that creation scientists have shown that the speciation that exists has had time to "evolve" or develop even in a short age of the earth system.
          >
          > I believe that much of the salinity of the oceans today has developed over time from freshwater runoff, evaporation of water from the oceans, thus leaving the oceans more saline with every runoff from earth.  I haven't seen a study of this, but it wouldn't be a stretch for me to believe that the waters were probably not as saline as they are now. If God created creatures with DNA capable of handling salinity even while originally living in freshwater circumstances, then they could have evolved over time. The DNA would have needed the proper trigger to start working.
          >
          > I believe that dinosaurs, at least the land ones, were also included on the ark. I believe that they coexisted with man and many probably died out in the ice age that followed the flood, and the rest have become extinct over time. I believe that all of the stories "myths" that exist in many cultures about dragons, are actually what we call today dinosaurs. Nothing in the bible would indicate that only adults of the kinds were brought onto the ark. Juveniles could have been on the ark and there would have been room. Chapters 40 and 41 of Job are powerful scriptures describing creatures (the behemoth and leviathan)which can only reasonably be considered to be what we now call dinosaurs.
          >
          > Other physical evidence for a worldwide flood:  1) sediments at the tops of mountains, 2) the massive oil and shale deposits all over the world which was formed by massive amounts of rotting vegetation, 3)fossils all over the world (and no intermediates have ever been found to lend support to macroevolution among the millions of fossils which have now been found and studied). Fossils are difficult to form. Nothing but a flood makes sense for the massive amounts of them that we find all over the earth, 4)you will notice that no matter where you go, when you read the geological formation of the area where you are, you will always read that this area used to be covered by an ocean. Really? They say this because they find marine fossils everywhere and the only reason to believe that the area used to be covered by water is from these marine fossils that they find. This is better explained by a worldwide flood. There is more evidence than what I have pointed out here.  Get a good !
          >  book written by a creation scientist and consider their point of view.
          >
          > Now for the theological problems with believing in a long age of the earth.  The biggest theological problem is that you necessarily would have had death before sin was introduced, a LOT of death would have occurred before Adam and Eve sinned. If death were around before Adam and Eve sinned then why would Christ have had to physically die? I believe that physical death as well as spiritual death was meted out as punishment for Adam and Eve. God stated in Genesis 2:17, "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."  That they died spiritually is indicated in the fact that they suddenly knew they were naked. They had no knowledge of this before and I believe that they lost a covering of God's shekinah light that they would have been covered with before (but that's a discussion for another day). That they were to also die physically is indicated in Genesis 3:19 "to dust you shall return" and also they were to be expelled from the Garden so that they could not eat from th!
          >  e tree of life and live forever, Genesis 3:22.
          >
          > Romans 5:12 says that "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned". Christ was to reverse that, Romans 5:15, "for if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." There is more in this passage that I could have quoted, but go and read it for yourself.
          >
          > Romans chapter 8:19-21 indicates that man's sin also affected the rest of creation, "For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."
          >
          > 1 Corinthians 15 indicates that the last enemy to be destroyed is death, verse 22 states "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive," and verse 26 says "The last enemy that will be destroyed is death."
          >
          > Kind of a long response. I hope this helps.  I love teaching about the flood and I have taught children and adolescents for a long time (more than 20 years). I am not afraid to talk about what the bible actually teaches even though it flies in the face of what mainstream scientists spout. I have degrees in biology/chemistry and a degree in nursing, so a somewhat scientific background also.
          >
          > Phoebe
          > http://www.itiswrittenphoebe.com
          >
          > --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, Chris Maness <chris@...> wrote:
          >>
          >> I have for a while felt like one of the toughest question that could
          >> be thrown at a Christian/Jew would be the whole flood narrative.  A
          >> conservative view has trouble fitting all of the animals in the ark,
          >> and a local flood has weak scriptural support.  That is -- I Peter
          >> 3:20-21 which puts only eight people saved in the ark.  If it was a
          >> local flood, there would be a lot more people around the world that
          >> were saved from the flood.  Also, I am no sure how the Mesopotamian
          >> valley would hold the flood waters.
          >>
          >> How would you guys deal with this one.
          >>
          >> Regards,
          >> Chris Maness
          >>

          I do not believe that the physical/spiritual death of Adam
          necessitates physical death of all creation. I find the YEC worldview
          has some real issues with our modern understanding of cosmology. With
          OEC, cosmology actually supports Christianity. Judeo/Christian
          beliefs are one of the few world religions that believe in ex nihilo
          creation by a omnipotent God. The big bang is on our side. I am
          interested in reading the books you suggested. There could be some
          good stuff in there to help me understand how it all could have
          happened. However, the YEC point of view is untenable for me, and
          increases my insecurities that I am possibly deluded. There is a
          mountain of scientific evidence that I would need to ignore in regards
          to that position. I have been a Christian for 17 years and did not
          even know modern people still believed in Usher's chronology until the
          last few years when I started becoming more interested in apologetics.
          To me it is like believing in geocentrism (I am now aware that some
          even hold to these ideas).

          Thanks,
          Chris Maness
        • IW
          ... Hash: SHA1 Pada tanggal Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:34:46 -0700, Chris Maness menulis email dengan judul (Re: [apologetics and theology] Re:
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
            Hash: SHA1

            Pada tanggal Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:34:46 -0700, Chris Maness
            <chris@...> menulis email dengan judul (Re: [apologetics
            and theology] Re: Tough Question):

            I am on vacation and travelling. So I do not have my
            links/sources/archives handy to get into this too meaningfully.

            But

            Phoebe: You were on the CIS (English based Christians In Science and
            they already dealt with your "evidence" and sources. Geologically your
            sources are out to lunch. There are few geologists worth their salt who
            would buy into that. I wish I had my archives - I would quote several
            of the comments, at least two experienced and trained geologists.

            Reg sin having to precede the fall (below, your comments). I believe
            that the death of romans is spirtual death. Death would have preceded
            sin - we have done this topic to death here so will leave it at that.
            Satan and his rebellion preceded Adam's fall. Evil was already in the
            world and interacting with it. Death, if anyone's fault, is not the
            cause of human choices. Deatn is in fact essential to the world -
            bacteria come to mind.

            Chris: I know you and I are similar in position so I will not say too
            much. However, I think something is being overlooked here. Genetics. If
            there were a global flood and if only 8 humans were saved the genetic
            evidence would be there for a period some 10 k years ago (if you follow
            traditional orthodoxy) (or even plus/minus 10 k years!) for a bottle
            neck in the human genetic diversity.

            The interesting thing is that evidentially there are two proposed such
            bottlenecks - but the geographical and chronological timing do not fit
            a global flood theory unless you really flip around dates and locales.

            I did have this link stored in my online folder fyi:
            http://anthropology.net/2009/10/08/evidence-that-two-main-bottleneck-events-shaped-modern-human-genetic-diversity-proc-r-soc-b-firstcite/

            Regards all,

            IW

            > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, phoebe <itiswrittenphoebe@...>
            > wrote:
            > > I just want to offer a couple of thoughts. First of all, I have
            > > been greatly helped by the resources at the Institute of Creation
            > > Research. They have some very good books.  Two that I would
            > > recommend are: The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris, and the other
            > > that I would recommend is by John Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark: A
            > > Feasability Study
            > > (http://store.icr.org/products.asp?dept=11&val=0&pagenumber=2).
            > >  This last book is a study done in great detail about what the
            > > bible says and how the ark could have been constructed, which
            > > animals would have needed to have been on the ark, how the waste
            > > could have been managed and the animals cared for by only 8 people.
            > > It goes to great lengths to consider the technology of the time,
            > > etc. and is a very thorough treatment of the ark itself.
            > >
            > > A few points to consider from scripture: Genesis 7:15 states that
            > > it was animals that had the "breath of life" that were brought onto
            > > the ark. While aquatic fish and creatures get oxygen, their
            > > breathing systems are designed to extract oxygen from the water
            > > which goes in and out of their gills; there are some exceptions. To
            > > me that is quite different from a creature which breathes air
            > > outright. So, I don't necessarily believe that the aquatic
            > > creatures were on the ark.
            > >
            > > I do believe in the biblical concept of "kind" which is introduced
            > > in Genesis 1:24. I believe that creation scientists have shown that
            > > the speciation that exists has had time to "evolve" or develop even
            > > in a short age of the earth system.
            > >
            > > I believe that much of the salinity of the oceans today has
            > > developed over time from freshwater runoff, evaporation of water
            > > from the oceans, thus leaving the oceans more saline with every
            > > runoff from earth.  I haven't seen a study of this, but it wouldn't
            > > be a stretch for me to believe that the waters were probably not as
            > > saline as they are now. If God created creatures with DNA capable
            > > of handling salinity even while originally living in freshwater
            > > circumstances, then they could have evolved over time. The DNA
            > > would have needed the proper trigger to start working.
            > >
            > > I believe that dinosaurs, at least the land ones, were also
            > > included on the ark. I believe that they coexisted with man and
            > > many probably died out in the ice age that followed the flood, and
            > > the rest have become extinct over time. I believe that all of the
            > > stories "myths" that exist in many cultures about dragons, are
            > > actually what we call today dinosaurs. Nothing in the bible would
            > > indicate that only adults of the kinds were brought onto the ark.
            > > Juveniles could have been on the ark and there would have been
            > > room. Chapters 40 and 41 of Job are powerful scriptures describing
            > > creatures (the behemoth and leviathan)which can only reasonably be
            > > considered to be what we now call dinosaurs.
            > >
            > > Other physical evidence for a worldwide flood:  1) sediments at the
            > > tops of mountains, 2) the massive oil and shale deposits all over
            > > the world which was formed by massive amounts of rotting
            > > vegetation, 3)fossils all over the world (and no intermediates have
            > > ever been found to lend support to macroevolution among the
            > > millions of fossils which have now been found and studied). Fossils
            > > are difficult to form. Nothing but a flood makes sense for the
            > > massive amounts of them that we find all over the earth, 4)you will
            > > notice that no matter where you go, when you read the geological
            > > formation of the area where you are, you will always read that this
            > > area used to be covered by an ocean. Really? They say this because
            > > they find marine fossils everywhere and the only reason to believe
            > > that the area used to be covered by water is from these marine
            > > fossils that they find. This is better explained by a worldwide
            > > flood. There is more evidence than what I have pointed out here.
            > >  Get a good ! book written by a creation scientist and consider
            > > their point of view.
            > >
            > > Now for the theological problems with believing in a long age of
            > > the earth.  The biggest theological problem is that you necessarily
            > > would have had death before sin was introduced, a LOT of death
            > > would have occurred before Adam and Eve sinned. If death were
            > > around before Adam and Eve sinned then why would Christ have had to
            > > physically die? I believe that physical death as well as spiritual
            > > death was meted out as punishment for Adam and Eve. God stated in
            > > Genesis 2:17, "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
            > >  That they died spiritually is indicated in the fact that they
            > > suddenly knew they were naked. They had no knowledge of this before
            > > and I believe that they lost a covering of God's shekinah light
            > > that they would have been covered with before (but that's a
            > > discussion for another day). That they were to also die physically
            > > is indicated in Genesis 3:19 "to dust you shall return" and also
            > > they were to be expelled from the Garden so that they could not eat
            > > from th! e tree of life and live forever, Genesis 3:22.
            > >
            > > Romans 5:12 says that "through one man sin entered the world, and
            > > death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all
            > > sinned". Christ was to reverse that, Romans 5:15, "for if by the
            > > one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and gift by
            > > the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." There is
            > > more in this passage that I could have quoted, but go and read it
            > > for yourself.
            > >
            > > Romans chapter 8:19-21 indicates that man's sin also affected the
            > > rest of creation, "For the earnest expectation of the creation
            > > eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the
            > > creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of
            > > Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will
            > > be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious
            > > liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation
            > > groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."
            > >
            > > 1 Corinthians 15 indicates that the last enemy to be destroyed is
            > > death, verse 22 states "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
            > > all shall be made alive," and verse 26 says "The last enemy that
            > > will be destroyed is death."
            > >
            > > Kind of a long response. I hope this helps.  I love teaching about
            > > the flood and I have taught children and adolescents for a long
            > > time (more than 20 years). I am not afraid to talk about what the
            > > bible actually teaches even though it flies in the face of what
            > > mainstream scientists spout. I have degrees in biology/chemistry
            > > and a degree in nursing, so a somewhat scientific background also.
            > >
            > > Phoebe
            > > http://www.itiswrittenphoebe.com
            > >
            > > --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, Chris Maness <chris@...> wrote:
            > >>
            > >> I have for a while felt like one of the toughest question that
            > >> could be thrown at a Christian/Jew would be the whole flood
            > >> narrative.  A conservative view has trouble fitting all of the
            > >> animals in the ark, and a local flood has weak scriptural support.
            > >>  That is -- I Peter 3:20-21 which puts only eight people saved in
            > >> the ark.  If it was a local flood, there would be a lot more
            > >> people around the world that were saved from the flood.  Also, I
            > >> am no sure how the Mesopotamian valley would hold the flood waters.
            > >>
            > >> How would you guys deal with this one.
            > >>
            > >> Regards,
            > >> Chris Maness
            > >>
            >
            > I do not believe that the physical/spiritual death of Adam
            > necessitates physical death of all creation. I find the YEC worldview
            > has some real issues with our modern understanding of cosmology. With
            > OEC, cosmology actually supports Christianity. Judeo/Christian
            > beliefs are one of the few world religions that believe in ex nihilo
            > creation by a omnipotent God. The big bang is on our side. I am
            > interested in reading the books you suggested. There could be some
            > good stuff in there to help me understand how it all could have
            > happened. However, the YEC point of view is untenable for me, and
            > increases my insecurities that I am possibly deluded. There is a
            > mountain of scientific evidence that I would need to ignore in regards
            > to that position. I have been a Christian for 17 years and did not
            > even know modern people still believed in Usher's chronology until the
            > last few years when I started becoming more interested in apologetics.
            > To me it is like believing in geocentrism (I am now aware that some
            > even hold to these ideas).
            >
            > Thanks,
            > Chris Maness




            -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
            Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

            iEYEARECAAYFAkxbZRQACgkQ90Gf33Iu52W0lQCg78WGn3NSiSniFb8blKsOO/+Q
            494AoKx5O62hpR9gvSDscRNyYf92Ya1K
            =FNvD
            -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
          • Chris Maness
            @Iain Thanks for the support. I have some questions about the local flood theory. How do you reconcile I Peter 3:20-21, and more than the 8 not being
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 5, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              @Iain Thanks for the support. I have some questions about the local
              flood theory. How do you reconcile I Peter 3:20-21, and more than the
              8 not being destroyed? I do understand that the Hebrew for Earth does
              not necessarily mean the whole globe as the whole "Earth" as we would
              understand it today as the entire celestial body called planet Earth.
              esp. since the account mentions that "all" waters dried from the
              surface of the land. Certainly the oceans were not dry.

              That is the feeling I have had. Neither local/global has set
              completely well with me, and has remained a weak point in my armor.

              Also, the feeling that I am subject to my own conditional bias. That
              is, I interpret all evidence through a filter so that I interpret it
              in a way that always has to agree with an a priori assumption that my
              Christian world view is correct. And these weaknesses exaggerate the
              feeling of cognitive dissonance. Mormons that are otherwise rational
              people also make me feel this way. However, in a calm moment, I do
              realize that the amount trouble spots for Mormons and Muslims are
              exponentially more prevalent. In the whole Bible this is one of only
              a couple of areas that I feel insecure about. That is the flood
              narrative.

              Drat man. I don't like feeling like this. I struggled a bit as a
              baby Christian with these issues, but the did not bug me for many
              years. I have been a Christian for 17 years and have been learning
              about apologetics for the past two. Thus resurecting some of my old
              doubts and struggles from my atheist background.

              Regards,
              Chris Maness

              On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:27 PM, IW <iain@...> wrote:
              > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
              > Hash: SHA1
              >
              > Pada tanggal Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:34:46 -0700, Chris Maness
              > <chris@...> menulis email dengan judul (Re: [apologetics
              > and theology] Re: Tough Question):
              >
              > I am on vacation and travelling. So I do not have my
              > links/sources/archives handy to get into this too meaningfully.
              >
              > But
              >
              > Phoebe: You were on the CIS (English based Christians In Science and
              > they already dealt with your "evidence" and sources. Geologically your
              > sources are out to lunch. There are few geologists worth their salt who
              > would buy into that. I wish I had my archives - I would quote several
              > of the comments, at least  two experienced and trained geologists.
              >
              > Reg sin having to precede the fall (below, your comments). I believe
              > that the death of romans is spirtual death. Death would have preceded
              > sin - we have done this topic to death here so will leave it at that.
              > Satan and his rebellion preceded Adam's fall. Evil was already in the
              > world and interacting with it. Death, if anyone's fault, is not the
              > cause of human choices. Deatn is in fact essential to the world -
              > bacteria come to mind.
              >
              > Chris: I know you and I are similar in position so I will not say too
              > much. However, I think something is being overlooked here. Genetics. If
              > there were a global flood and if only 8 humans were saved the genetic
              > evidence would be there for a period some 10 k years ago (if you follow
              > traditional orthodoxy) (or even plus/minus 10 k years!) for a bottle
              > neck in the human genetic diversity.
              >
              > The interesting thing is that evidentially there are two proposed such
              > bottlenecks - but the geographical and chronological timing do not fit
              > a global flood theory unless you really flip around dates and locales.
              >
              > I did have this link stored in my online folder fyi:
              > http://anthropology.net/2009/10/08/evidence-that-two-main-bottleneck-events-shaped-modern-human-genetic-diversity-proc-r-soc-b-firstcite/
              >
              > Regards all,
              >
              > IW
              >
              >> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, phoebe <itiswrittenphoebe@...>
              >> wrote:
              >> > I just want to offer a couple of thoughts. First of all, I have
              >> > been greatly helped by the resources at the Institute of Creation
              >> > Research. They have some very good books.  Two that I would
              >> > recommend are: The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris, and the other
              >> > that I would recommend is by John Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark: A
              >> > Feasability Study
              >> > (http://store.icr.org/products.asp?dept=11&val=0&pagenumber=2).
              >> >  This last book is a study done in great detail about what the
              >> > bible says and how the ark could have been constructed, which
              >> > animals would have needed to have been on the ark, how the waste
              >> > could have been managed and the animals cared for by only 8 people.
              >> > It goes to great lengths to consider the technology of the time,
              >> > etc. and is a very thorough treatment of the ark itself.
              >> >
              >> > A few points to consider from scripture: Genesis 7:15 states that
              >> > it was animals that had the "breath of life" that were brought onto
              >> > the ark. While aquatic fish and creatures get oxygen, their
              >> > breathing systems are designed to extract oxygen from the water
              >> > which goes in and out of their gills; there are some exceptions. To
              >> > me that is quite different from a creature which breathes air
              >> > outright. So, I don't necessarily believe that the aquatic
              >> > creatures were on the ark.
              >> >
              >> > I do believe in the biblical concept of "kind" which is introduced
              >> > in Genesis 1:24. I believe that creation scientists have shown that
              >> > the speciation that exists has had time to "evolve" or develop even
              >> > in a short age of the earth system.
              >> >
              >> > I believe that much of the salinity of the oceans today has
              >> > developed over time from freshwater runoff, evaporation of water
              >> > from the oceans, thus leaving the oceans more saline with every
              >> > runoff from earth.  I haven't seen a study of this, but it wouldn't
              >> > be a stretch for me to believe that the waters were probably not as
              >> > saline as they are now. If God created creatures with DNA capable
              >> > of handling salinity even while originally living in freshwater
              >> > circumstances, then they could have evolved over time. The DNA
              >> > would have needed the proper trigger to start working.
              >> >
              >> > I believe that dinosaurs, at least the land ones, were also
              >> > included on the ark. I believe that they coexisted with man and
              >> > many probably died out in the ice age that followed the flood, and
              >> > the rest have become extinct over time. I believe that all of the
              >> > stories "myths" that exist in many cultures about dragons, are
              >> > actually what we call today dinosaurs. Nothing in the bible would
              >> > indicate that only adults of the kinds were brought onto the ark.
              >> > Juveniles could have been on the ark and there would have been
              >> > room. Chapters 40 and 41 of Job are powerful scriptures describing
              >> > creatures (the behemoth and leviathan)which can only reasonably be
              >> > considered to be what we now call dinosaurs.
              >> >
              >> > Other physical evidence for a worldwide flood:  1) sediments at the
              >> > tops of mountains, 2) the massive oil and shale deposits all over
              >> > the world which was formed by massive amounts of rotting
              >> > vegetation, 3)fossils all over the world (and no intermediates have
              >> > ever been found to lend support to macroevolution among the
              >> > millions of fossils which have now been found and studied). Fossils
              >> > are difficult to form. Nothing but a flood makes sense for the
              >> > massive amounts of them that we find all over the earth, 4)you will
              >> > notice that no matter where you go, when you read the geological
              >> > formation of the area where you are, you will always read that this
              >> > area used to be covered by an ocean. Really? They say this because
              >> > they find marine fossils everywhere and the only reason to believe
              >> > that the area used to be covered by water is from these marine
              >> > fossils that they find. This is better explained by a worldwide
              >> > flood. There is more evidence than what I have pointed out here.
              >> >  Get a good ! book written by a creation scientist and consider
              >> > their point of view.
              >> >
              >> > Now for the theological problems with believing in a long age of
              >> > the earth.  The biggest theological problem is that you necessarily
              >> > would have had death before sin was introduced, a LOT of death
              >> > would have occurred before Adam and Eve sinned. If death were
              >> > around before Adam and Eve sinned then why would Christ have had to
              >> > physically die? I believe that physical death as well as spiritual
              >> > death was meted out as punishment for Adam and Eve. God stated in
              >> > Genesis 2:17, "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
              >> >  That they died spiritually is indicated in the fact that they
              >> > suddenly knew they were naked. They had no knowledge of this before
              >> > and I believe that they lost a covering of God's shekinah light
              >> > that they would have been covered with before (but that's a
              >> > discussion for another day). That they were to also die physically
              >> > is indicated in Genesis 3:19 "to dust you shall return" and also
              >> > they were to be expelled from the Garden so that they could not eat
              >> > from th! e tree of life and live forever, Genesis 3:22.
              >> >
              >> > Romans 5:12 says that "through one man sin entered the world, and
              >> > death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all
              >> > sinned". Christ was to reverse that, Romans 5:15, "for if by the
              >> > one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and gift by
              >> > the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." There is
              >> > more in this passage that I could have quoted, but go and read it
              >> > for yourself.
              >> >
              >> > Romans chapter 8:19-21 indicates that man's sin also affected the
              >> > rest of creation, "For the earnest expectation of the creation
              >> > eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the
              >> > creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of
              >> > Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will
              >> > be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious
              >> > liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation
              >> > groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."
              >> >
              >> > 1 Corinthians 15 indicates that the last enemy to be destroyed is
              >> > death, verse 22 states "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
              >> > all shall be made alive," and verse 26 says "The last enemy that
              >> > will be destroyed is death."
              >> >
              >> > Kind of a long response. I hope this helps.  I love teaching about
              >> > the flood and I have taught children and adolescents for a long
              >> > time (more than 20 years). I am not afraid to talk about what the
              >> > bible actually teaches even though it flies in the face of what
              >> > mainstream scientists spout. I have degrees in biology/chemistry
              >> > and a degree in nursing, so a somewhat scientific background also.
              >> >
              >> > Phoebe
              >> > http://www.itiswrittenphoebe.com
              >> >
              >> > --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, Chris Maness <chris@...> wrote:
              >> >>
              >> >> I have for a while felt like one of the toughest question that
              >> >> could be thrown at a Christian/Jew would be the whole flood
              >> >> narrative.  A conservative view has trouble fitting all of the
              >> >> animals in the ark, and a local flood has weak scriptural support.
              >> >>  That is -- I Peter 3:20-21 which puts only eight people saved in
              >> >> the ark.  If it was a local flood, there would be a lot more
              >> >> people around the world that were saved from the flood.  Also, I
              >> >> am no sure how the Mesopotamian valley would hold the flood waters.
              >> >>
              >> >> How would you guys deal with this one.
              >> >>
              >> >> Regards,
              >> >> Chris Maness
              >> >>
              >>
              >> I do not believe that the physical/spiritual death of Adam
              >> necessitates physical death of all creation.  I find the YEC worldview
              >> has some real issues with our modern understanding of cosmology.  With
              >> OEC, cosmology actually supports Christianity.  Judeo/Christian
              >> beliefs are one of the few world religions that believe in ex nihilo
              >> creation by a omnipotent God.  The big bang is on our side.  I am
              >> interested in reading the books you suggested.  There could be some
              >> good stuff in there to help me understand how it all could have
              >> happened.  However, the YEC point of view is untenable for me, and
              >> increases my insecurities that I am possibly deluded.  There is a
              >> mountain of scientific evidence that I would need to ignore in regards
              >> to that position.  I have been a Christian for 17 years and did not
              >> even know modern people still believed in Usher's chronology until the
              >> last few years when I started becoming more interested in apologetics.
              >>  To me it is like believing in geocentrism (I am now aware that some
              >> even hold to these ideas).
              >>
              >> Thanks,
              >> Chris Maness
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
              > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
              >
              > iEYEARECAAYFAkxbZRQACgkQ90Gf33Iu52W0lQCg78WGn3NSiSniFb8blKsOO/+Q
              > 494AoKx5O62hpR9gvSDscRNyYf92Ya1K
              > =FNvD
              > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Brought to you by Theologically Correct dot Com Ministries.
              > http://theologicallycorrect.com
              > 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 - Resources for Christian Living for the Whole Life of the BelieverYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Geoff Smith
              Hello Phoebe, Your discussion points on the geological and scientific aspects of the flood are interesting and you put far better arguements in support of what
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Phoebe,

                Your discussion points on the geological and scientific aspects of the flood are interesting and you put far better arguements in support of what you say much better than I ever could. The fact that you have spent so much time in teaching the subject and have spent time looking things up, in order to use them in your classes obviously means that you have thought about the subject more deeply than most people. Well done.

                Again, the biblical points you made are, in my view, very very fairly put and succinct and to the point. Most importantly of all, they are well balanced and as far as my own beliefs are concerned, acceptible.

                I confess, I haven't studied much beyond the bible for details, since my resources are limited. I am in the process of obtaining and working on some extra materials, to gain a deeper understanding and knowledge of some aspects of theology. Even when I go online, access to some sites leaves a lot to be desired for screen readers and I am not the best at working with the internet.

                It is truthful to say, that lists like this are a source of information and points to be gathered and thought about that I wouldn't have got otherwise. It would be difficult to pluck the variety of views out of the air on one's own. Thank you all for giving me something to think about. I look forward to future inspiration and discussions.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • phoebe
                I have some scientist friends who also are uncomfortable with the young earth idea. Has anyone read the two books by Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 6, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have some scientist friends who also are uncomfortable with the young earth idea. Has anyone read the two books by Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God and The Science of God? Schroeder is Jewish, teaches at MIT I think. His arguments might be more in line with what you are looking for. I personally can't get beyond the problem that death presents. But you might want to read those two books. Start with The Science of God.

                  --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Smith" <gc.smith@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello Phoebe,
                  >
                  > Your discussion points on the geological and scientific aspects of the flood are interesting and you put far better arguements in support of what you say much better than I ever could. The fact that you have spent so much time in teaching the subject and have spent time looking things up, in order to use them in your classes obviously means that you have thought about the subject more deeply than most people. Well done.
                  >
                  > Again, the biblical points you made are, in my view, very very fairly put and succinct and to the point. Most importantly of all, they are well balanced and as far as my own beliefs are concerned, acceptible.
                  >
                  > I confess, I haven't studied much beyond the bible for details, since my resources are limited. I am in the process of obtaining and working on some extra materials, to gain a deeper understanding and knowledge of some aspects of theology. Even when I go online, access to some sites leaves a lot to be desired for screen readers and I am not the best at working with the internet.
                  >
                  > It is truthful to say, that lists like this are a source of information and points to be gathered and thought about that I wouldn't have got otherwise. It would be difficult to pluck the variety of views out of the air on one's own. Thank you all for giving me something to think about. I look forward to future inspiration and discussions.
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • IW
                  ... Hash: SHA1 Pada tanggal Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:54:23 -0700, Chris Maness menulis email dengan judul (Re: [apologetics ... Maybe I am
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 6, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                    Hash: SHA1

                    Pada tanggal Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:54:23 -0700, Chris Maness
                    <chris@...> menulis email dengan judul (Re: [apologetics
                    and theology] Re: Tough Question):

                    > @Iain Thanks for the support. I have some questions about the local
                    > flood theory. How do you reconcile I Peter 3:20-21, and more than the
                    > 8 not being destroyed?

                    Maybe I am thick but I just see a statement that is somewhat general. 8
                    people were saved from the judgement - and the key word here is
                    judgement. Where was this? What people or peoples are affected? It
                    could easily be seen as local (in my eyes).

                    You see when it comes to these issues we are faced with limited
                    possibilities. Either
                    a. The bible is wrong
                    b. Science is wrong
                    c. our understanding of the bible is wrong

                    Since I accept fundamentally the Xian Faith I do not believe the bible
                    is wrong. Of course this is based on a host of reasons ranging from
                    pure philosophy to historical evidence etc etc.

                    Now, in the case of the flood the palaeontology, history, archaeology,
                    geography, genetics, and many other sciences do not support the
                    conservative tradition orthodox interpretation. Is it possible they are
                    wrong? Yes, but it defies probability factors.

                    That logically leaves us with "we are misreading the bible".

                    I guess for me these are small issues. Science and Xianity will (i
                    remain convinced) always meet. It may not be where we always expect or
                    even hope - but Truth remains true and fact remains fact.

                    Since I accept the fundamentals of the Faith I am not bothered if
                    someone comes up with the flood was or was not global. If the science
                    seems to deft the bible, we probably misread the bib le. Or it may be
                    the science will change and prove our original position. I am calmly
                    certain it will never throw down the Xian faith and that regardless,
                    Christ remains the Son of God and the salvation of the world.



                    Regards

                    IW
                    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                    Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

                    iEYEARECAAYFAkxcwxgACgkQ90Gf33Iu52VviwCggunNf6hKDwLx50N0Uamw31RV
                    n5YAoJA3Tbn4WQ2RC2Uwpb78XHKRKzjM
                    =mLFq
                    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                  • twotweny
                    Quick reply: I ve listen to many commentator suggest that all animals could have been baby animals at the time of loading. That would require a lot less
                    Message 9 of 15 , Aug 16, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Quick reply:

                      I've listen to many commentator suggest that "all" animals could have been baby animals at the time of loading. That would require a lot less room than full sized adults. By the time the ark was opened, most would have just reached full size.

                      Also the local flood explanation does not explain many of the other "flood myth" stories in other cultures. If it were truly a local event, it seemed like an awful lot of other ancient culture had a great deal of knowledge about it.

                      --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, Chris Maness <chris@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I have for a while felt like one of the toughest question that could
                      > be thrown at a Christian/Jew would be the whole flood narrative. A
                      > conservative view has trouble fitting all of the animals in the ark,
                      > and a local flood has weak scriptural support. That is -- I Peter
                      > 3:20-21 which puts only eight people saved in the ark. If it was a
                      > local flood, there would be a lot more people around the world that
                      > were saved from the flood. Also, I am no sure how the Mesopotamian
                      > valley would hold the flood waters.
                      >
                      > How would you guys deal with this one.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Chris Maness
                      >
                    • IW
                      ... Hash: SHA1 Menurut penulis twotweny ... Yes, but that raises all sorts of questions. Marsupials for example. Marsupials (ie: Kangaroos) babies develop in
                      Message 10 of 15 , Aug 17, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                        Hash: SHA1

                        Menurut penulis twotweny
                        > Quick reply:
                        >
                        > I've listen to many commentator suggest that "all" animals could have
                        > been baby animals at the time of loading. That would require a lot less
                        > room than full sized adults. By the time the ark was opened, most would
                        > have just reached full size.

                        Yes, but that raises all sorts of questions. Marsupials for example.
                        Marsupials (ie: Kangaroos) babies develop in their mothers' pouch. By the
                        time they come out of the pouch they are anywhere from adolescent to full
                        grown (depending on the species). They certainly would not survive as
                        babies without their mothers.

                        Other questions - animals, like humans, rely on their parents to teach them
                        how to hunt and be the animals they are. Instinct does not cover it all. If
                        they were all babies they had no one to teach them their skills. Ok, sure,
                        God could cover that but then if He did that, why not just miraculously
                        stuff them all on the ark? Or make them all float in the sky in suspended
                        animation until the flood ended?

                        Also, how did polar animals survive on the ark - was it cold enough? How
                        did animals from tropical or desert regions handle it? What about genetic
                        diversity? You cannot sustain a species with one breeding pair.

                        It just makes more sense for the flood to be localised. All the evidence
                        points that way anyhow.

                        >
                        > Also the local flood explanation does not explain many of the other
                        > "flood myth" stories in other cultures. If it were truly a local event,
                        > it
                        > seemed like an awful lot of other ancient culture had a great deal of
                        > knowledge about it.

                        Remember that for every culture with a flood story there are one if not
                        more without. I confess I know of no research on this but based on my
                        travels and knowledge I would hazard that non-flood cultures exceed flood
                        cultures. So what does that mean? There was no flood? There was a flood?
                        The truth is - we do not know. It is not proof either way. merely
                        interesting anecdotal evidence.

                        Also there are possible explanations.

                        1. Major floods are not uncommon in many parts of the world. Further, given
                        that early population centres revolved around fertile areas (ie:
                        floodplains) floods would have been a common element in many many cultures.
                        Throw in travel and trade and over centuries stories would feed on each
                        other.

                        2. It would be interesting to see the dispersion of flood story cultures.
                        Again, I have never researched this so if someone knows about this please
                        let me/us know. However, the little I know (and I may be 100% wrong) seems
                        to show flood stories centring around the proposed area of a local massive
                        flood and spreading out to NA and central/Northern Asia. It does not seem
                        to appear as strongly or at all in the remoter regions of the world which
                        are naturally the final landing places of expanding humanity.

                        *IF* true, this would show that the flood was probably not global as older
                        populations (those who arrived at the extremities of the world) know
                        nothing of the event and younger populations still have a collective
                        memory. It would also be consistent with the migratory routes of people
                        following the local super flood.

                        Anyhow, point 2 is pure almost unsupported conjecture. Food for thought.

                        I would add that stories can appear original to a culture but oft-times are
                        merely a rehash or adaptation of an original story learned elsewhere. A
                        massive local flood somewhere near Turkey/ME would have definitely got the
                        surrounding world's attention. No reason to think the story would not have
                        passed on (see point 1) feeding on their own stories.

                        There is a tribe in some islands in Northern Western New Guinea that, when
                        missionaries arrived in the late 1800s, discovered had a story very similar
                        to the Xian one.

                        They had a virgin girl (Insokari) giving birth to manarbew (Manar bay ow)
                        whose name meant, "reconciler/redeemer". He was prophesied to one day
                        reunite Humanity with the Creator and restore the relationship. His father
                        (Manamakeri) was the go-between between the creator and humanity and the
                        will of the creator on earth.

                        So was this their story that remarkably matched xianity, albeit smudged?

                        Possibly. More likely elements of the story moved eastwards over the
                        centuries as early Xians spread the gospel into China and Asia nearly 4
                        centuries before the missionaries of the 19th century - a gospel that was
                        then nearly wiped out by Muslims and others. But the elements remained
                        transfering through local cultures and being adapted into their own
                        mythology.

                        IW



                        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                        Version: PGP Desktop 10.0.1 (Build 4020) - not licensed for commercial
                        use: www.pgp.com
                        Charset: utf-8

                        wj8DBQFMa2Gb90Gf33Iu52URAm+xAJwIdzwUfIqD5zIo/7KptIXpd9Gq6ACeP8QS
                        0/09EBv50tfFPcdDa5FjdCs=
                        =jW1q
                        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                      • twotweny
                        As usual, you bring up some good points. And again, you will get the quick answer which will not not answer everything, and not in depth. That ark had an
                        Message 11 of 15 , Aug 18, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          As usual, you bring up some good points. And again, you will get the "quick answer" which will not not answer everything, and not in depth.

                          That ark had an awful lot of space on it (have you check the square or cubit footage on that vessel?). Not every creature had to be a baby, but it is possible some of the those that would be huge as adults could have been placed on the ark as babies. Kangagoos are what, about 6 feet as adults? Furthermore, the babies (toddlers/ joeys?) do come out of the pouch before they are full grown adults.

                          Furthermore, how many REALLY BIG animals need to be taught by example and not by instinct (and when do they acquire "enough" training to do it themselves)? I'm certain there are a good number, but are there really so many that they couldn't have fit on that barge we call an ark?

                          Now as far as polar bears, haven't you ever seen LOST?
                          Sorry, as silly as that TV show was it has a good example about this; one of the early scenes has a polar bear on a tropical island. Now, had I not been to the San Diego Zoo many months surrounding seeing that series, I would have just chalked that up to the rest of the incredulous aspect of that crazed island.
                          However, the Zoo indeed house at least one or two polar bears on the premises, and not in an icebox. (San Diego is NOT a cold place by any stretch of the imagination). The Zoo actually had a sign up that explained that yes, polar bears can survive outside of frigid regions for substantial amounts of time under the right circumstances. So that is still not reason a good to discount 2 polar bears on the ark.

                          Also, remember for some animals it was one pair, for others it was 7 pairs. As for the those that had two pair, why would this prevent genetic diversity? As this is a lot closer to the fall than nowadays, there is a good reason to believe that an two individuals of a species would produces more genetic diversity than two individuals in 2010.

                          I wish God would explain more WHY He things the way He did; it would make explaining things to my colleagues a lot easier. But then again, my colleagues don't see fit to explain all the ways they live their lives and make their decisions either(especially when they affect me). It doesn't stop them; should it stop God?

                          Yes He have done the things you mentioned. He could have just started over from scratch, too; that seems a lot more clean to me. But the Bible said He did them way X. Fine, so let us see how that COULD have happened.

                          Sorry I couldn't explain everything. (see, that whole time thing would be one thing I'd change if I were in the ex-nihilo creation business...)

                          Happy Wednesday.

                          --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, "IW" <iain@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                          > Hash: SHA1
                          >
                          > Menurut penulis twotweny
                          > > Quick reply:
                          > >
                          > > I've listen to many commentator suggest that "all" animals could have
                          > > been baby animals at the time of loading. That would require a lot less
                          > > room than full sized adults. By the time the ark was opened, most would
                          > > have just reached full size.
                          >
                          > Yes, but that raises all sorts of questions. Marsupials for example.
                          > Marsupials (ie: Kangaroos) babies develop in their mothers' pouch. By the
                          > time they come out of the pouch they are anywhere from adolescent to full
                          > grown (depending on the species). They certainly would not survive as
                          > babies without their mothers.
                          >
                          > Other questions - animals, like humans, rely on their parents to teach them
                          > how to hunt and be the animals they are. Instinct does not cover it all. If
                          > they were all babies they had no one to teach them their skills. Ok, sure,
                          > God could cover that but then if He did that, why not just miraculously
                          > stuff them all on the ark? Or make them all float in the sky in suspended
                          > animation until the flood ended?
                          >
                          > Also, how did polar animals survive on the ark - was it cold enough? How
                          > did animals from tropical or desert regions handle it? What about genetic
                          > diversity? You cannot sustain a species with one breeding pair.
                          >
                          > It just makes more sense for the flood to be localised. All the evidence
                          > points that way anyhow.
                          >
                          > >
                          > > Also the local flood explanation does not explain many of the other
                          > > "flood myth" stories in other cultures. If it were truly a local event,
                          > > it
                          > > seemed like an awful lot of other ancient culture had a great deal of
                          > > knowledge about it.
                          >
                          > Remember that for every culture with a flood story there are one if not
                          > more without. I confess I know of no research on this but based on my
                          > travels and knowledge I would hazard that non-flood cultures exceed flood
                          > cultures. So what does that mean? There was no flood? There was a flood?
                          > The truth is - we do not know. It is not proof either way. merely
                          > interesting anecdotal evidence.
                          >
                          > Also there are possible explanations.
                          >
                          > 1. Major floods are not uncommon in many parts of the world. Further, given
                          > that early population centres revolved around fertile areas (ie:
                          > floodplains) floods would have been a common element in many many cultures.
                          > Throw in travel and trade and over centuries stories would feed on each
                          > other.
                          >
                          > 2. It would be interesting to see the dispersion of flood story cultures.
                          > Again, I have never researched this so if someone knows about this please
                          > let me/us know. However, the little I know (and I may be 100% wrong) seems
                          > to show flood stories centring around the proposed area of a local massive
                          > flood and spreading out to NA and central/Northern Asia. It does not seem
                          > to appear as strongly or at all in the remoter regions of the world which
                          > are naturally the final landing places of expanding humanity.
                          >
                          > *IF* true, this would show that the flood was probably not global as older
                          > populations (those who arrived at the extremities of the world) know
                          > nothing of the event and younger populations still have a collective
                          > memory. It would also be consistent with the migratory routes of people
                          > following the local super flood.
                          >
                          > Anyhow, point 2 is pure almost unsupported conjecture. Food for thought.
                          >
                          > I would add that stories can appear original to a culture but oft-times are
                          > merely a rehash or adaptation of an original story learned elsewhere. A
                          > massive local flood somewhere near Turkey/ME would have definitely got the
                          > surrounding world's attention. No reason to think the story would not have
                          > passed on (see point 1) feeding on their own stories.
                          >
                          > There is a tribe in some islands in Northern Western New Guinea that, when
                          > missionaries arrived in the late 1800s, discovered had a story very similar
                          > to the Xian one.
                          >
                          > They had a virgin girl (Insokari) giving birth to manarbew (Manar bay ow)
                          > whose name meant, "reconciler/redeemer". He was prophesied to one day
                          > reunite Humanity with the Creator and restore the relationship. His father
                          > (Manamakeri) was the go-between between the creator and humanity and the
                          > will of the creator on earth.
                          >
                          > So was this their story that remarkably matched xianity, albeit smudged?
                          >
                          > Possibly. More likely elements of the story moved eastwards over the
                          > centuries as early Xians spread the gospel into China and Asia nearly 4
                          > centuries before the missionaries of the 19th century - a gospel that was
                          > then nearly wiped out by Muslims and others. But the elements remained
                          > transfering through local cultures and being adapted into their own
                          > mythology.
                          >
                          > IW
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                          > Version: PGP Desktop 10.0.1 (Build 4020) - not licensed for commercial
                          > use: www.pgp.com
                          > Charset: utf-8
                          >
                          > wj8DBQFMa2Gb90Gf33Iu52URAm+xAJwIdzwUfIqD5zIo/7KptIXpd9Gq6ACeP8QS
                          > 0/09EBv50tfFPcdDa5FjdCs=
                          > =jW1q
                          > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                          >
                        • peaceful_heart_05
                          This is said in all love and respect. Christ doesn t care what we believe about how old the earth is, how long it took to create the earth (as long as we know
                          Message 12 of 15 , Aug 19, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This is said in all love and respect. Christ doesn't care what we believe about how old the earth is, how long it took to create the earth (as long as we know God did it through whatever means He chose) as long as we know, love, and serve Him. However, so many seekers to Christianity are turned off by the extremely literal interpretation of some aspects of the Bible. Just like the six days of creation. You just can't reconcile YEC and the absolute literal interpretation of the flood and noah with science and the facts of life on our planet. Here are two quotes (one long) from one of the early church fathers, Augustine of Hippo-

                            This is in reference to Genesis- "In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

                            "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason."


                            Here is a good article on the Young Earth/Old Earth debate. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html

                            It's long, so I didn't want to post it.

                            Once again, this is in all love. We must remember that God is the consummate orderer of the universe, the great mathmetician and logician. He is the creator of all order. He would not do things in a convoluted and roundabout way. The polar bear thing is a good example.

                            God bless,

                            Leilani
                            --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, "twotweny" <twotweny@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > As usual, you bring up some good points. And again, you will get the "quick answer" which will not not answer everything, and not in depth.
                            >
                            > That ark had an awful lot of space on it (have you check the square or cubit footage on that vessel?). Not every creature had to be a baby, but it is possible some of the those that would be huge as adults could have been placed on the ark as babies. Kangagoos are what, about 6 feet as adults? Furthermore, the babies (toddlers/ joeys?) do come out of the pouch before they are full grown adults.
                            >
                            > Furthermore, how many REALLY BIG animals need to be taught by example and not by instinct (and when do they acquire "enough" training to do it themselves)? I'm certain there are a good number, but are there really so many that they couldn't have fit on that barge we call an ark?
                            >
                            > Now as far as polar bears, haven't you ever seen LOST?
                            > Sorry, as silly as that TV show was it has a good example about this; one of the early scenes has a polar bear on a tropical island. Now, had I not been to the San Diego Zoo many months surrounding seeing that series, I would have just chalked that up to the rest of the incredulous aspect of that crazed island.
                            > However, the Zoo indeed house at least one or two polar bears on the premises, and not in an icebox. (San Diego is NOT a cold place by any stretch of the imagination). The Zoo actually had a sign up that explained that yes, polar bears can survive outside of frigid regions for substantial amounts of time under the right circumstances. So that is still not reason a good to discount 2 polar bears on the ark.
                            >
                            > Also, remember for some animals it was one pair, for others it was 7 pairs. As for the those that had two pair, why would this prevent genetic diversity? As this is a lot closer to the fall than nowadays, there is a good reason to believe that an two individuals of a species would produces more genetic diversity than two individuals in 2010.
                            >
                            > I wish God would explain more WHY He things the way He did; it would make explaining things to my colleagues a lot easier. But then again, my colleagues don't see fit to explain all the ways they live their lives and make their decisions either(especially when they affect me). It doesn't stop them; should it stop God?
                            >
                            > Yes He have done the things you mentioned. He could have just started over from scratch, too; that seems a lot more clean to me. But the Bible said He did them way X. Fine, so let us see how that COULD have happened.
                            >
                            > Sorry I couldn't explain everything. (see, that whole time thing would be one thing I'd change if I were in the ex-nihilo creation business...)
                            >
                            > >
                            >
                          • Chris Maness
                            I would concur. Chris On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:18 AM, peaceful_heart_05
                            Message 13 of 15 , Aug 19, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I would concur.

                              Chris

                              On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:18 AM, peaceful_heart_05
                              <peaceful_heart_05@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > This is said in all love and respect.  Christ doesn't care what we believe about how old the earth is, how long it took to create the earth (as long as we know God did it through whatever means He chose) as long as we know, love, and serve Him.  However, so many seekers to Christianity are turned off by the extremely literal interpretation of some aspects of the Bible.  Just like the six days of creation. You just can't reconcile YEC and the absolute literal interpretation of the flood and noah with science and the facts of life on our planet.  Here are two quotes (one long) from one of the early church fathers, Augustine of Hippo-
                              >
                              > This is in reference to Genesis- "In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received.  In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."
                              >
                              > "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.  Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.  The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture!
                              >  are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.  If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason."
                              >
                              >
                              > Here is a good article on the Young Earth/Old Earth debate. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html
                              >
                              > It's long, so I didn't want to post it.
                              >
                              > Once again, this is in all love.  We must remember that God is the consummate orderer of the universe, the great mathmetician and logician.  He is the creator of all order.  He would not do things in a convoluted and roundabout way.  The polar bear thing is a good example.
                              >
                              > God bless,
                              >
                              > Leilani
                              > --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, "twotweny" <twotweny@...> wrote:
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> As usual, you bring up some good points.  And again, you will get the "quick answer"  which will not not answer everything, and not in depth.
                              >>
                              >> That ark had an awful lot of space on it (have you check the square or cubit footage on that vessel?).  Not every creature had to be a baby, but it is possible some of the those that would be huge as adults could have been placed on the ark as babies.  Kangagoos are what, about 6 feet as adults?  Furthermore, the babies (toddlers/ joeys?) do come out of the pouch before they are full grown adults.
                              >>
                              >> Furthermore, how many REALLY BIG animals need to be taught by example and not by instinct (and when do they acquire "enough" training to do it themselves)?  I'm certain there are a good number, but are there really so many that they couldn't have fit on that barge we call an ark?
                              >>
                              >> Now as far as polar bears, haven't you ever seen LOST?
                              >> Sorry, as silly as that TV show was it has a good example about this; one of the early scenes has a polar bear on a tropical island.  Now, had I not been to the San Diego Zoo many months surrounding seeing that series, I would have just chalked that up to the rest of the incredulous aspect of that crazed island.
                              >> However, the Zoo indeed house at least one or two polar bears on the premises, and not in an icebox.  (San Diego is NOT a cold place by any stretch of the imagination).  The Zoo actually had a sign up that explained that yes, polar bears can survive outside of frigid regions for substantial amounts of time under the right circumstances. So that is still not reason a good to discount 2 polar bears on the ark.
                              >>
                              >> Also, remember for some animals it was one pair, for others it was 7 pairs.  As for the those that had two pair, why would this prevent genetic diversity?  As this is a lot closer to the fall than nowadays, there is a good reason to believe that an two individuals of a species would produces more genetic diversity than two individuals in 2010.
                              >>
                              >> I wish God would explain more WHY He things the way He did; it would make explaining things to my colleagues a lot easier.   But then again, my colleagues don't see fit to explain all the ways they live their lives and make their decisions either(especially when they affect me).  It doesn't stop them; should it stop God?
                              >>
                              >> Yes He have done the things you mentioned. He could have just started over from scratch, too; that seems a lot more clean to me.  But the Bible said He did them way X.  Fine, so let us see how that COULD have happened.
                              >>
                              >> Sorry I couldn't explain everything.  (see, that whole time thing would be one thing I'd change if I were in the ex-nihilo creation business...)
                              >>
                              >> >
                              >>
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > Brought to you by Theologically Correct dot Com Ministries.
                              > http://theologicallycorrect.com
                              > 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 - Resources for Christian Living for the Whole Life of the BelieverYahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Geoff Smith
                              Leilani, I agree with you one hundred per cent. and the Augustine passage you quoted. Jesus Christ must have the pre-eminence in everything we say and do. None
                              Message 14 of 15 , Aug 19, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Leilani,

                                I agree with you one hundred per cent. and the Augustine passage you quoted.

                                Jesus Christ must have the pre-eminence in everything we say and do. None Christians look at professing Christians and take their que from us.

                                God bless you,

                                Geoff

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • IW
                                ... Hash: SHA1 Menurut penulis peaceful_heart_05 ... Agreed. In fact these are issues that whilst important to discuss and devise an opinion are not essential
                                Message 15 of 15 , Aug 19, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                                  Hash: SHA1

                                  Menurut penulis peaceful_heart_05
                                  >
                                  > This is said in all love and respect. Christ doesn't care what we
                                  > believe about how old the earth is, how long it took to create the earth
                                  > (as long as we know God did it through whatever means He chose) as long
                                  > as we know, love, and serve Him. However, so many seekers to
                                  > Christianity are turned off by the extremely literal interpretation of
                                  > some aspects of the Bible. Just like the six days of creation. You just
                                  > can't reconcile YEC and the absolute literal interpretation of the flood
                                  > and noah with science and the facts of life on our planet. Here are two
                                  > quotes (one long) from one of the early church fathers, Augustine of
                                  > Hippo-

                                  Agreed. In fact these are issues that whilst important to discuss and
                                  devise an opinion are not essential to the Faith.

                                  IW


                                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                  Version: PGP Desktop 10.0.1 (Build 4020) - not licensed for commercial
                                  use: www.pgp.com
                                  Charset: utf-8

                                  wj8DBQFMbbka90Gf33Iu52URAn/uAKC86kjGsEASoYTm4mY7AzOx11HRPwCg6kJX
                                  GJfLUHaWZyxnKVlfoa7/tws=
                                  =i+Sg
                                  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.