I’m a little worried about Sam Harris, tho…

“…some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them…”

Might I add, “Yikes!”

Mojave Mark

Might be more to protect faith as opposed to “keeping the truth from getting out”. Noah’s Ark figures in Islamic culture as well. Not discovering it because you aren’t allowed to look keeps faith going, not discovering it because you did a top to bottom search damages faith.

Then, there’s this whole notion that Mount Ararat is the Mount Ararat. I’m not sure, but I think that Ararat translates to mountains. The Ararat in Turkey is not called Ararat by the locals and so forth. Finally, there are security concerns.

believe that they know

Sums it up nicely

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
How do you replenish something that has always been void and without form?

doriangrey on May 27, 2007 at 10:37 AM

It doesn’t matter. The christians who believe that they know the earth is young are too busy arguing with the fools who want to believe that there is no God for anyone to consider just how darkly we really do see through the glass…

Allahpundit on May 26, 2007 at 1:42 PM

You’re assumption that I did not click on the link nor read the article, alogn with your wording here, is glaring.

It is just as glaring as the obvious bias that you use when reporting these things.

My comment did not have to do with the information given in the link, but had and has everything to do with the methodology used in presenting that link at the bottom of this story.

Update: Behold, my friends, the new tyranny.

A snark worthy of MSM, but in one thing you are correct: Those who do not click the link and read the story WILL be the ones who go away with a different view entirely.

.

* The Watchers fell, and, taking wives of the daughters of Men, gave rise to a mixed race of humanity and angels – who were considered “giants” and were men of “renown”

The bible says that the “sons of God” married the daughters of men. These were not angels as angels don’t reproduce. They were the sons of Seth who started out as devoted to God (sons of God) but fell away and married the irreligious “daughters of men.” Nowhere in the bible is there an example of angels or demons (fallen angels) having sex with humans. Adam was also called a “son of God” and he was 100% human. I’m not sure where you get the term “watchers” as it’s not in any translation that I’ve ever read. All but one of the 17 English translations I checked render the Hewbrew as “sons of God” or “God’s sons”.

Why won’t the government of Turkey allow exploration on Ararat?

Here’s one for you, it’s one of my favorites.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,

How do you replenish something that has always been void and without form?

Among those who accept that a global flood occured, the most common explanation of where the water came from was a dense vapor canopy in the atmosphere.

Freelancer on May 27, 2007 at 6:24 AM

Agreed, there is much to speculate, and speculation – as long as it is acknowledged as such – can be the source of much amusement.

I’ll toss out a few more, along the lines of what you stated:

1. Genesis 2:6 comments that prior to the creation of Man, there had been no rain, and that “mists” came up from the ground and watered it.

2. Some significant things happened in Genesis 6, as preludes to the judgement of the Flood:

* The Watchers fell, and, taking wives of the daughters of Men, gave rise to a mixed race of humanity and angels – who were considered “giants” and were men of “renown” (some suggest that the context of this word was one of fear, as in men who were to be feared); and

* Without any law from God other than their conscience to govern behavior, the hearts of mankind were “evil continually”.

3. Nothing is said about how people living near Noah reacted as he built the Ark (essentially shaped like a giant shoebox, not a boat).

4. I mentioned the issue about Peleg earlier because names were given in a much different context back then – as RightWinged mentioned earlier, names were given for a reason, and in the Bible, those reasons sometimes included prophetic events (e.g., Methuselah). There is a chain of events surrounding the Tower of Babel incident that suggests God forcibly dispersed Noah’s descendents by breaking up the continents.

There are many, many more, but that’s enough for a start. Personally I give a lot of weight to the Fallen Watchers incident, because it’s so pregnant with possibilities, but that’s just me.

It states that man once lived upwards of 900 years and that mans life expectancy went down in direct correlation with the parents age when they reproduced. Oddly enough science has recently discovered that the longer individuals put off reproducing the longer their offspring tend to live. So again is it allegorical or literal?

doriangrey on May 26, 2007 at 3:44 PM

The lifetimes described in Genesis AFTER THE FLOOD decreased dramatically, but it had much less to do with the parental age at conception, and more to do with changes in the Earth. (Of course, those who don’t believe anything in the Bible need not bother reading further, you’ll just laugh)

Among those who accept that a global flood occured, the most common explanation of where the water came from was a dense vapor canopy in the atmosphere. This would greatly diminish the level of solar ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface, which is among the greatest factors in aging of organic material. (The earth’s magnetosphere is the greatest barrier to alpha and gamma radiation, and a lesser barrier to UV radiation, and its current weakening is a factor in increasing cases of skin cancer.)

Post-Flood, the vapor canopy is gone, UV radiation bombardment of the Earth’s surface increases, and the attendant impact on aging takes place.

Add to this that the first several generations after Adam would inherit from a much-closer-to-perfect genetic source, while each following generation was increasingly subject to the degredations of the curse brought about by the Fall.

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

So simple it hardly seems worth writing down. And yet, apparently, it is. 2 Timothy 2:23.

– Both these extremes are to be avoided; which will be done, if the league of Christians, penned by our Savior himself, were in two cross clauses thereof, soundly and plainly expounded: He that is not with us, is against us; and again, He that is not against us, is with us; that is, if the points fundamental and of substance in religion were truly discerned and distinguished from points not merely of faith, but of opinion, order, or good intention. This is a thing may seem to many a matter trivial, and done already. But if it were done less partially, it would be embraced more generally.

The important thing is acknowledging that we may never know all of these things. In fact, we never will. It’s all about faith.

And when you think about it, that’s not so bad… faith has a wonderful way of manifesting itself. You’ll see it in the eyes of the next child you happen to encounter. That spark, that light, that hope…

That is the essence of the Christian faith. When Jesus spoke of childlike faith, he did not mean act like imbeciles. He meant what he said… HAVE FAITH!

Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 11:36 PM

I know I’ve asked you before, but can you really be that retarded, or is your liberalism just forcing you to be dishonest to such an unbelievable degree?

Those Rosie, Catholic Priest, etc. comments weren’t tangents. They were to explain what I’m talking about when I say Christians are fair game in the media, yet others are not. A point you pretended to respond to earlier, though you actually didn’t. I had to explain at length, because as always we need to break things down like you would for a child in order for you to understand just what you’re doing. Again, you quote people and act as if you’re responding to them, when in reality you’ve just got something you want to say that has nothing to do with the person you’re pretending to argue with. It’s not exactly a strawman (though you love those too), but it’s strawmanesque.

All those other ages of rocks, etc. are much deeper debates… Your “joking” comment, may have been a joke, but you were being serious too, when talking about how old things SEEM to be, mocking what others believe they are. All I said to you was that things aren’t always what they seem. And it wasn’t “a rock” by the way. And it is a big deal when you move something from being oldest to newest on their scale of millions of years. All those authoritative scientists you talk about CONSTANTLY make mistakes, more often than not simply because they assumed certain things based on the evolution mindset and many other related assumptions.

It was a simple comment that things aren’t always what they “seem”, because often what we’re told they “seem” isn’t at all what they “seem”, it’s what they are assumed. Again, we can have an argument about the details of dating methods, etc. but that’s a lot deeper of a discussion and would require more reading and getting back to you than I’m willing to put in (I know you think it takes a long time for my rants here, but these usually take 5 minutes at best, I just type fast).

All I am saying, again, is I respond to specific things you say. You quote me, acting as if you intend to respond to things I say, and then you go off and talk about something different, and expect me to do you the courtesy of answering your questions? Why? You aren’t answering mine or addressing anything I’ve raised… why do you deserve any respect back? Get it?

That God. Ha Ha. What cosmic joker.

Why would I waste time answering one of your questions and getting off in to some other side debate

This is a joke, right? I asked a simple question: do you believe anything in The Bible has been proven wrong? Something that could be answered in one word (yes or no), and you don’t answer because you don’t want to “waste time”? Just look at how much you write after saying that. It’s like one huge walking contradiction.

I in turn point you to a discovery that a rock formation in Africa that had been previously thought to be on of the oldest, was actually one of the youngest on the planet.

I make a joke (on topic may I remind you) and you proceed to talk about the age of a rock in Africa? And you accuse me of going off on tangents? Hello? On the topic of rock ages though–do you like ignoring contradictory evidence? When you find that we have thousands of rocks proving the age of the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old (through half-lives and zicron crystals) do you purposefully avoid it or do you cover your eyes when you accidentally click on those sites? You seem to agree with science when they say the age of a rock is XXX years old and it supports your belief, but when science tells you the age of a rock is XXX (4.5 billion years old) you immediately disregard it. Logic wins again!

In my post I went on to explain to you that science can be wrong, but they can correct their statements when contradictory evidence comes into place.

some authoritative scientist tells us so

Damn those authoritative scientists who aren’t letting the truth of The Bible influence them! They’re like the fascists of truth!

Wow… Rosie O’Donnell, Catholic Church molestation, Muhammad cartoons? Tangents, oh where have you gone?

Anyway, the point is, your response wasn’t to my comment… yet you quote me as if it is.

RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 9:08 PM

You’re a hypocrite at best. You quote a joke post I make where the only thing of substance I asked you was “do you believe anything in The Bible has been proven wrong?” (you still haven’t given a simple one word answer yet) and you wind up taking about Rosie O’Donnell! What the hell? You don’t see the irony in this?

Science was not there to create anything and according to you, God wasn’t there either

Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 9:44 PM

It’s funny because reading this I could swear you don’t understand what the word “science” means. Science is an explanation based on fact and observation. God is an explanation based on belief without fact.

What’s amusing to me is how many people have to “prove” something that they weren’t there to see themselves, or to knock the Bible as “inaccurate” because it doesn’t explain things to their level of satisfaction; or, on the surface, has apparent discrepancies.

Science has always explained things we weren’t there to see. We know dinosaurs exist because we’ve found fossils, before that we didn’t. We know the continents used to be together due to observation of continental drift. Et cetera. And The Bible doesn’t have “discrepancies” on the surface, it’s riddled with them. Man simply did not live to be older than 300 years old. The world was not flooded 4,400 years ago wiping off all life save for that on Noah’s Ark. Woman was not created from the rib of a man and man was not created from the dirt.

Anyone forget about the Big Bang that just seems to have “happened” on its own?

This argument is so tiring. No scientist claims that the Big Bang just “happened;” scientists can determine what was happening at 10^-48 seconds (I think that’s the time), but they aren’t aware of what happened at t=0; and this does not explain “god” (and especially the Christian God).

But there are a lot of clues as to the breadth of that missing detail all through Genesis, and more is scattered through the other 38 books.

Wanderlust on May 26, 2007 at 10:57 PM

What about the other books omitted by the Church? Did those not meet the “influenced by God” standard?

Despite so many people’s attempt to shun the Bible as a literal document (instead of being merely figurative), the narrative in Creation is clear, even in English, regarding what constitutes a literal day (”and the evening and the morning were the [first, second, third, etc.] day”). Beyond that, though, the Bible leaves out an awful lot of detail. But there are a lot of clues as to the breadth of that missing detail all through Genesis, and more is scattered through the other 38 books.

1. The Book of Genesis discusses the creative week, creation of Man and Woman, temptation in the Garden, and the fall (and punishment) of Man in the first three chapters – the tone of the narrative suggests that very little time passed between the Creative Week in Genesis 1 and the expulsion of Man from the Garden at the end of Genesis 3. Yet the story glosses over almost 2000 years of history (timeline gleaned by the geneologies listed in Genesis 5) and then suddenly, Mankind is so bad that God wishes to flood the planet and get rid of everyone, in Genesis 6. A key to this change of heart can be seen in the first verses of Genesis 6.

That, and a lot of your points are interesting and to me point out the lack of writings at the time period. Later it was written. Then as years went on there were more writers so many more books were written as time went on. Just like 100+ years ago, a lot of people may have been writing, but compare that to how many journalists, authors, kids with diaries, and BLOGS are out there today, and it’s like a few generations ago they were living in the stone age. Today there is a record of almost everything we do (and I’m not even getting in to cameras, video, YouTube, etc.) Plus, when these books were written, you have to imagine that many of the “holes” weren’t holes to people living at the time, perhaps just common knowledge. Like we can make Bill Clinton jokes or Paris Hilton jokes, and most of the time we don’t need to go in to detail explaining the context to someone because it’s part of modern pop culture. This reminds me of something I always think of when I hear the stupid “but the Bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs”… While there are other arguments that are a little more difficult to deal with, that one is just stupid. Do I need to list the other animals not mentioned in the Bible, either because they didn’t live in the region where the author lived, because they played no role in a story, because they were just something that was dealt with on a daily basis and not worth mentioning, or perhaps they were grouped in with a different kind of animal and not referred to as “giant lizards”. Again, folks can come up with tougher arguments (which I still don’t buy) about dinosaurs not being there, but the “why aren’t they mentioned” argument is just beyond stupid.

All well and good, I suppose. The continual arguments and posturing on this issue give a lot of people something to do.

Evolutionists criticize Christian Fundamentalists (“CF’s”) for, among other things, taking the Biblical account of Creation on faith. Yet Evolutionists depend on just as much faith to support their story as do CF’s. Anyone forget about the Big Bang that just seems to have “happened” on its own? And don’t get me started on the contortionist arguments that Evolutionists use to conveniently ignore the laws of Thermodynamics in their theory.

Yet when CF’s argue their side of the story, sometimes it’s almost as painful to watch as it is when Elizabeth tries to respond to Rosie on the View. It’s easy to say “I believe the Bible as it’s written”, but to me, if that is the extent of the response, it’s a cop-out.

Theologians throughout recent history have attempted to wrap their heads around God in some fairly amusing ways (at one point, scholars really did try to figure out how many angels would fit on the head of a pin). I’ve read people arguing that trees in the Garden of Eden, if one could have taken a core sample of them on the day of Creation, would have no rings – because if they did, it would mean that they would have been created prior to that day. Again, silly.

Despite so many people’s attempt to shun the Bible as a literal document (instead of being merely figurative), the narrative in Creation is clear, even in English, regarding what constitutes a literal day (“and the evening and the morning were the [first, second, third, etc.] day”). Beyond that, though, the Bible leaves out an awful lot of detail. But there are a lot of clues as to the breadth of that missing detail all through Genesis, and more is scattered through the other 38 books.

I’ll toss out a couple of them as meat for a discussion, should anyone wish to take them up:

1. The Book of Genesis discusses the creative week, creation of Man and Woman, temptation in the Garden, and the fall (and punishment) of Man in the first three chapters – the tone of the narrative suggests that very little time passed between the Creative Week in Genesis 1 and the expulsion of Man from the Garden at the end of Genesis 3. Yet the story glosses over almost 2000 years of history (timeline gleaned by the geneologies listed in Genesis 5) and then suddenly, Mankind is so bad that God wishes to flood the planet and get rid of everyone, in Genesis 6. A key to this change of heart can be seen in the first verses of Genesis 6.

So, some questions: What came of the forbidden liaison between the Watchers and mankind? why is this little detail tossed out just before the narrative goes on to discuss the reasoning behind God wishing to destroy humanity?

2. Next, Genesis spends three chapters discussing the Flood (ch. 7 – 9) and further events are given spotty treatment in the chapters afterwards. There are some clues as to the enormity of change: one, where lifespans are markedly reduced (compare lifespans listed in Genesis 11:10-32 with those in Genesis 5). Also there is a glancing comment as to someone named Peleg, “for in his days was the Earth divided” (Gen 10:25, KJV).

More questions: what caused the lifespans to be reduced so markedly after the Flood? What about the comment regarding Peleg?

My point here is that while I do believe the Bible stands as a literal document, there are many gaps or holes in the timeline presented. It is somewhere in those holes – both in the timeline, and in Man’s understanding of the power of God – that answers regarding things like dinosaurs and determination of the age of the planet may be found. For all we know, either the planet is much older than the Genesis account leads one to believe because of a) the “gap theory” regarding the transliteration of Genesis 1:2 (transliterated from Hebrew, the verse better reads “and the earth [became] without form and void”); and b) we simply do not know how “old” the planet was created to be on the day of Creation.

Without having been involved in the Creative process, those are questions we will likely never answer. Yet to ignore them, to presume we know the answers when we don’t, causes us to put God in the same kind of Box as do Evolutionists who “know” answers when they were not around to have observed things either.

C.S. Lewis once remarked that it was better to remain in a lifetime of doubt than to provide arbitrary answers for things we do not know (see “The Pilgrim’s Regress”). While I have a lot of ideas about how things might have happened, I will not disparage anyone else’s ideas – so long as they will admit that those things are ideas. For the moment someone puts their ideas on creation out as fact, presumes they can authoritatively support their answer on grounds that, whether they believe in the Biblical narrative or not, simply cannot prove.

The quick answers to your questions are: 1) Noah’s ship was really big… 2) The animals were probably young and small and 3) hibernation times for some of the animals

The details are here, fascinating stuff.

The story of Noah’s ark is a distorted version of what appears to be an actual event where a flood on the Euphrates in Sumeria caused a barge full of cattle to be carried away and grounded downstream about 2900 BC, carrying the king of the city-state Shuruppak.]

Tantor on May 26, 2007 at 10:02 PM

Have you ever wondered why the Muslim Turkish government refuses to allow exploration on Mt. Ararat? They did in the past, but when climbers came back with gopher wood pieces and stories of the Ark being there, the government stopped explorers from seeing for themselves. The mountain is only 16,000 feet high. I’ve been up to 19,000 ft in the S. American Andes so 16k should be no big deal for climbing studs.

Just wondering.

And how would you stop those tyrannosaurus rexes from gobbling up all those other tasty animals?

A cow or a horse eat about a bale of hay every two days. If the ark is floating on the flood for 150 days, that’s 75 bales of hay for each big herbivore, which is a cube of bales eight feet on each side. Goats and sheep need half of that. Giraffes and elephants are gonna need more. Noah would need a couple more arks to carry the fodder for the herbivores.

A lion eats about 15 pounds of meat per day. For each lion, that means half a ton of meat during the Deluge. Since I recall nothing in the Bible about Noah having refrigeration, that means he needed to carry live prey for all the big cats and carnivores. That’s probably another couple arks.

The low number of species of living animals and insects etc on Earth is 30 million, the high figure 100 million. Now how did Noah fit thirty million species on the Ark? Let’s say one person could feed and tend a hundred species per day. The ark would require a crew of 300,000 to take care of the animals.

Must I continue?

The story of Noah’s ark is a distorted version of what appears to be an actual event where a flood on the Euphrates in Sumeria caused a barge full of cattle to be carried away and grounded downstream about 2900 BC, carrying the king of the city-state Shuruppak.

Here are details. The story was embellished and changed as it passed from storyteller to storyteller, scribe to scribe.

Evolution serves only one purpose, it’s a very feeble attempt to explain all that is without God.

Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Nonfactor Responds:

God serves only one purpose, it’s a very feeble attempt to explain all that is without science.

Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Maxx corrects Nonfactor’s statement:

God serves only one purpose, it’s a very feeble attempt to explain all that is without science haphazardness.

There… I fixed that for you Nonfactor. You see, you can’t put the word “science” where I put the word “God” because then you are saying that “science” is the creator. Science was not there to create anything and according to you, God wasn’t there either, that means all you are left with for “the Creator” is haphazardness and random circumstances.

And since science has not explained, nor can it duplicate how the first living thing crawled out of the mythical primordial soup, that seals the deal that you can’t substitute the word science where I used the word “God.”

I believe in God and evolution. It’s not that hard to do, really.

I’ve never understood the “belief” that so many seem to have that the two must be mutually exclusive. I’ve often recommended the writings of atheist-turned-Christian Francis Collins. Known is scientific circles as the Director of the NIH Human Genome Project, he explains how one respected scientist in the world of genetics views Genesis and discusses the false premise of evolution and God being mutally exclusive. A good place to start might be his book, “Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”. I’d suggest it both for those who think that being a Christian means they can’t “believe” in evolution, and for those whose belief in evolution (and science) is proof to them that God does not exist (as least not as Christians view him).

And to be fair Blacklake, you can of course see where I am going with this. I’m trying to get to… just how complex is the simplest living thing. It’s a place that most evolutionist don’t like to go.

The answer, ultimately, is “we don’t know.” What’s wrong with that?