Serious questions re

Firstly, please check my threads, im not a newb on a fishing trip, or a troll. Im fairly open minded and while not having ANY faith in organised religion of any sort (just being straight with you) i do sometimes wonder whether there is a creator or something more spiritually powerful than we can comprehend out there.

Anyway, to my questions. I would rather ask these here on ATS than on a purely religious website as im hoping for a reasoned answer without the usual, "just have faith in god" answers. Im genuinely curious as to how some discrepancies (in my mind at least) can be explained away by faith?

Question 1. With the recent news of the Ark supposedly being found on Ararat (yet again), i noticed that the supporters were quick to point to carbon dating evidence that showed it was 4800 years old. Without wishing to offend anyone, can it not be considered very hypocritical to use carbon dating to back up these claims? After all, carbon dating shows things as millions of years old when according to the bible the earth is only 6000 years old? I accept that carbon dating has a margin of error but even the most diehard skeptic would have to admit its not millions of years out of date!

Question 2. The ark story got me thinking as i saw one or two posters mentioning that the ark was the ONLY boat that survived the supposed deluge. If thats the case. how many humans were on the boat? If this happened only 4800 years ago as claimed, how on earth have me managed to reach a population worldwide in excess of 6 BILLION people in 4800 years Is that possible?

Question 3. If noahs family was the only one spared, how have we managed to gain such a diverse spread in races in only 4800 years? White/black/asian/latino/aboriginal etc. And how do the aboriginals trace their history back so far without any mention of Noah for example? Surely he would remembered as the father of their whole race?

Question 4. If the earth is only 6000 years old, and it was wiped clean by flood 4800 years ago, how are dinosaurs explained? Surely its not rational to say that all the different species lived and died out together within a 1200 year time span? After all, not being facetious, but Noah didnt take any raptors on his boat. At least not when i went to sunday school. Given that no dinosaurs are mentioned at all in the bible, how are they explained?

Question5. Ancient ruins. Take for example stonehenge. Or the pyramids. If we say they were constructed 2500BC, the date of the flood would be 2800BC. How would it be possible for monoliths or pyramids so be constructed only 300 years MAXIMUM after a supposed cataclysmic event. And all around the globe?. If ancient monuments were located in just one small region of the globe you could possibly think that survivors had built them, but surely even the most diehard religious fanatic cant be persuaded that the descendents of the survivors of one boat built things like that all around the planet less than 300 years after total wipeout ???

Im not looking for answers from athiests saying the bible is just a collection of stories and people who believe it are idiots. ATS has some VERY clever people on here and some of them have very strongly held religeous beliefs. Its these people i would like to hear from, with explanations as to how they they think any of the above is possible. Obviously there are many things in the bible i could have picked to query, but with the recent ark stories, its just got me thinking. Not trolling, not looking for silly flame wars with anyone, im honestly just curious as to how these things are explained if you also believe the bible and its assertion that the earth is only 6000 years old

reply to post by expatwhite


I am a Christian, and also a student of history.

As a student of history, I have no trouble whatsoever accepting ancient ruins and dinosaurs.
As a Christian, I see no reason why these things should trouble my faith.

They just illustrate the way that God can work obliquely, through historical events. Just as the Persians conquered Babylon for their own, selfish, political reasons, and God used that as a way of releasing the Jews from exile and letting them return to Jerusalem.

This does involve "letting go" of some of the more literal interpretations of Genesis etc-, including the 6000 year calculation of the age of the earth. Myadvice to Christians would be; have enough faith to "let go" of some of the literal without thinking that it needs to undermine anyone's faith in the basic principle that God was working with his people to prepare the way for Christ.

On the point about the ark; I think we have to accept the fact that as a literal story of how the entire land-animal population of the world escaped a universal flood, it is impracticable. So we really do need to let go of it as a literal story. This does not mean that there were no floods. One current theory now is that the end of the last ice age would have produced, for example, a catastrophic flooding of the area around the Black Sea as waters broke through the Bosphorus and flooded what was then a smaller inland sea. perhaps survivors from that were the originators of the Bible tradition? The higher land from Turkey to Iran would have been a natural direction of flight. Maybe there is an element of truth in the tradition (there are similar traditions in Greece).

I would say to them- even as Christians, we can love the discoveries of history. We don't have to be afraid of them.






[edit on 29-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by DISRAELI


Disraeli,

Thank you for your comments. Starred from me.Everything you said made sense and i agree that if all christians took your more practical approach to the bible, ie it being more allegorical rather than literal, then those of us with less faith would be far more accepting and less judgemental than we sometimes are.

I find it hard to believe in the 21st century people are still taking the book as fact, even more hard to believe that in some schools in america (and elsewhere in sure) this is whats taught.

Hopefully someone on here who DOES think that world is only 6000 years old will also respond as im very curious as to their rationale and eager to hear their explanations to my questions.

regards

This is a compelling post, not sure why though.

I was going answer your questions 1 by 1, but they're all based on a single misunderstanding: that the earth is 6000 years old.

The bottom line is the earth cannot be 6000 years old.

IF you accept the idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago, when you get to discussing dinosaurs, the only logical conclusion includes a God running around burying bones to test our faith. IMHO ludicrous.

For myself i like that part about: To God a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. Notice like is not the same as equivalent to.

The first "day" in genesis, happens to be before the parting of night and day, which is illogical. Yet it clearly mentions a day.

If you accept a day as an age, be it one or ten thousands years, whos to say they're even equally divided, then suddenly 1 million years worth of dinosaurs becomes, possible and inherently likely.

God creates yes, but certainly not in a vacuum. He created LIGHT, LAWS, and so on, but in these laws are the structures by which things develope themselves.

At least i'd like to think so *smile*

reply to post by harryhaller


Perhaps its come across wrong, most of my thread is intended to query the 4800 years ago issue and the fact that while there may have been a flood, indeed there is evidence to support this, it cant possibly have been global and it cant possibly be one ship that survives. After all, that means all adams descendents were wiped out bar one family and Noah is the progenitor of our race. So why isnt he venerated as such? Even in religeous circles.

Whilst i readily accept your explanation for the error in calculations for the 6000 years thingy, many people seem to accept the cataclysm being only 4800 years old. I can see why it can be argued for thousands or even millions of years between the days that god created the earth and finally put man on it, but after that point there doesnt seem to be vast gaps.Even the religous group that spearheaded the recent "discovery" on Ararat seemed pleased that the carbon dating figure goes back 4800 years

Yes ok.

Here's a National Geographic article. An excerpt:

But some archaeologists and historians are taking the latest claim that Noah's ark has been found about as seriously as they have past ones—which is to say not very.
(See "Noah's Ark Discovered in Iran?" and "Noah's Ark Quest Dead in Water—Was It a Stunt?")
"I don't know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn't find it," said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State.

First we need proof that it was THE ark, and not a tree from then.

Here's a map showing the apparent spread of Noah's offspring:



Which notably doesn't cover aborigines, south american's and others.

There is enough evidence to accept that a global flood did occur. However, exactly when is still in doubt. We know from celestial positions that the most likely period of the great sphinx was 13000 years ago, as per Graham Hancock. Roughly the same time as the sinking of Atlantis, and the subsequent diaspora.

I would view the Bible and similar religious texts as history books, with all the inferred biases and editing and "modifications" that comes with most history texts. History books are generally written by the survivors or conquerors based on their point of view and revolving around the world as they know it.

Perhaps read Fingerprints of the Gods (Graham Hancock) & Uriel's Machine (can't remember authors) and similar type of material to help (or at least gain a different perspective) with your dating issue.

I'm not particularly religious, but have found that Christian acquaintances all "interpret" the Bible in which ever way suits them best.

Originally posted by expatwhite
Question 1. With the recent news of the Ark supposedly being found on Ararat (yet again), i noticed that the supporters were quick to point to carbon dating evidence that showed it was 4800 years old. Without wishing to offend anyone, can it not be considered very hypocritical to use carbon dating to back up these claims? After all, carbon dating shows things as millions of years old when according to the bible the earth is only 6000 years old?

I don't know many Young Earth Theorists and agree that you either accept carbon dating or you do not. I'm with you in saying carbon dating has some flaws but seems roundabout right given the evidence, earth included.

Originally posted by expatwhite
Question 2. The ark story got me thinking as i saw one or two posters mentioning that the ark was the ONLY boat that survived the supposed deluge. If thats the case. how many humans were on the boat?

Noah and family. It's in Genesis, starting at chapter 5 and is a quick read if you'd like to review it.

Originally posted by expatwhite
If this happened only 4800 years ago as claimed, how on earth have me managed to reach a population worldwide in excess of 6 BILLION people in 4800 years

Is that possible?

It's a good question, one would have to chart it according to exponential growth. Life then was geared towards having many, many children, not one or two like today: "The higher birth rates show the population increasing in size even faster. It is surprising how much difference a small change in the birth rate can make." - www.otherwise.com...

Originally posted by expatwhite
Question 3. If noahs family was the only one spared, how have we managed to gain such a diverse spread in races in only 4800 years? White/black/asian/latino/aboriginal etc. And how do the aboriginals trace their history back so far without any mention of Noah for example? Surely he would remembered as the father of their whole race?

Surely? It was before written history, and perhaps he was for a number of them. Diversity is a fascinating study, from just a few and environmental conditions, it has been proven that humans adapt to their environment. Adaptation is the shifiting of alleles within a population within the confines of genetic make-up. Essentially, no one will be born with glowing purple eyes, but mom and dad can have blue while the child has brown.

Originally posted by expatwhite
Question 4. If the earth is only 6000 years old, and it was wiped clean by flood 4800 years ago, how are dinosaurs explained?

I leave this for a Young Earth Theorist if there is one here.

Originally posted by expatwhite
Surely its not rational to say that all the different species lived and died out together within a 1200 year time span? After all, not being facetious, but Noah didnt take any raptors on his boat. At least not when i went to sunday school.

God provided instructions as to which animals were to be on the ark, see the book of Genesis for details.

Originally posted by expatwhite
Given that no dinosaurs are mentioned at all in the bible, how are they explained?

I think they were wiped out by a flood. Maybe something even long before that like an asteroid. I'm not sure entirely. Have the fun of science is trying to figure it out.

Originally posted by expatwhite
Question5. Ancient ruins. Take for example stonehenge. Or the pyramids. If we say they were constructed 2500BC, the date of the flood would be 2800BC. How would it be possible for monoliths or pyramids so be constructed only 300 years MAXIMUM after a supposed cataclysmic event. And all around the globe?.

One site says a series of ditches ( www.fortunecity.com... ) while another claims a form of archaic machinery. Which it is, I don't know. Overall I think the flood occurred a few thousand years further back in time, but would be welcomed to be shown otherwise. Do you think these monuments would survive a flood?

Originally posted by expatwhite
If ancient monuments were located in just one small region of the globe you could possibly think that survivors had built them, but surely even the most diehard religious fanatic cant be persuaded that the descendents of the survivors of one boat built things like that all around the planet less than 300 years after total wipeout ???

Timelines are important, though our knowledge of them isn't altogether accurate, they must be flexible to new evidence just as you're asking people to be flexible here.

Originally posted by expatwhite
Obviously there are many things in the bible i could have picked to query, but with the recent ark stories, its just got me thinking.

Good deal, I say fire away. It's helpful to look into these things to discover truths.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by saint4God]

I, too, am a Christian. No problems here. The Earth is surely older than 6000 years. The Bible covers this Earth Age we now live in. In Jeremiah, it refers to a flood in which no man lived, nor animals, nor fowls of the air. That can't be Noah's flood...thus, I believe it happened in a previous age.

Also, if Satan was Satan in the Garden of Eden, when did he fall from grace as Lucifer...again, in the previous age.

Dinosaurs are referred to in Job as Behemoth... many theologians interpret as hippos or elephants, but neither of them has a tail as the "cedars of Lebbanon." So mighty that Soloman used them to build the Temple. Only one type of animal walks as thunder, has legs like iron, and a mighty tail, and lived not only in the swamps, but the plains, and even in the mountains...dinosaurs...in a previous Earth Age.

As for the races, although Noah's generations( ie genetics) were perfect and free from Nephillim cross, he was ordered to take sets of ALL animals, God's creation... some believe and I do too, this included other men and women of other races... again to preserve the genetic and racial diversity of Earth. This genetic diversity is what ensures man's survival against disease.

I hope this helps, it is certainly outside the "fundementalist" view...but that is because they don't really dig deep into God's word, if they did...they would find that all of the answers are there...including the ones they don't like...lol.

i think you should look up Dr John Mackay because he deels with a lot of this stuff and will give you answers a lot bettr than i could

Question 1: I for one think carbon dating is bunk. Read me thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Also, as far as I know carbon dating can't be used to date things that are fairly young. So I really don't know how they did it. I don't trust the dating, but that doesn't mean that the thing they found is not that old

Question 2: You have to understand that pre-flood environment was extremely conducive to longevity in human life. So people had alot of kids and continued to have kids for many years. also, there were 8 people on the boat. Noah, Shem, Ham, Japeth and there wifes.

Question 3: I think it was Ham and some of his children that had dark skin... At any rate as the people migrated to their different environments natural selection and micro-evolution would have created the large variety in skin color, ect. Plus there probably was alot of inbreeding with close cousins and such which would have caused particular traits to become dominate among certain groups.

Question 4: There was most likely baby dinosaurs on the ark. They would not have taken up that much room. However, they probably could not survive the new environment. Imagine Global warming and Ice age on steriodes. The sudden change in environment was not conducive to massive reptiles.

Question 5: Actually that is EXACTLY what they did. Gen. 11

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”

You see, that question is directly answered in the Bible. They immediately tried to rebuild from scratch. They wanted to build massive structures.

I think the question that needs to be asked is how in the world were there booming cultures 4000 years ago in many lands...on all continents...if this ARK is the boat that helped just one family survive.

I dont think there is sound evidence that within the last 6000 years that the Earth was covered with water.

There is no signs that one family started over the whole world population 4000-5000 years ago...but there is signs that there were populations in many lands during that time.

Great points OP...or questions. Sorry...I have no answers.

We are finding new writings all the time...many writings that we have no idea how to translate. I dont think there is any proof at all that one family started the whole world over within the last 5000 years.

reply to post by expatwhite



Even if the flood was a real event. ( globally )

The story itself is still a hoax.

Look God created us in his image. Apparently this also included a brain.

Wouldn't we dishonor God if we do not use what we are created with ?
Various stories in the bible lead me to believe that it's all about subjection and events like the tower of bible looks like it is all about keeping us away from what we could achieve or become in the future.

My question is, what power would want to do such a thing ?

Reply to post disraeli

I recently learned the majority of the Jews are not Hebrew or even a Semitic people at all. They are suggested to be the descendants of the Khazars.

You can read all about it in this thread The world as a hostage. Part 2
I'm saying it's true but a lot of info in it is. A very mind provoking article.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

Reply to post disraeli

I recently learned the majority of the Jews are not Hebrew or even a Semitic people at all. They are suggested to be the descendants of the Khazars.

You can read all about it in this thread The world as a hostage. Part 2
I'm saying it's true but a lot of info in it is. A very mind provoking article.

Thank you for offering me that source of information. I'll check the link.
I've come across the theory before, though I suspect that "majority of Jews" is probably a severe overstatement. Part of the Russian contingent, at the most, I would have thought.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
he was ordered to take sets of ALL animals, God's creation... some believe and I do too, this included other men and women of other races... again to preserve the genetic and racial diversity of Earth.

This is interesting and hadn't heard it before. I do believe there needs to be about 30 people to create a successful gene pool naturally. There are many conditions in the Bible that are constituted as supernatural, however.

Originally posted by trueperspective
pre-flood environment was extremely conducive to longevity in human life. So people had alot of kids and continued to have kids for many years.

A good point that I'd forgotten about.

"After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters." - Genesis 5:30



[edit on 29-4-2010 by saint4God]

Personally, I think that a global flood would mean MANY Noah-like folks, loading up their livestock and families on boats, etc.

I don't think they found the ark on Ararat...a wooden structure? Sure, the Ark? No way....

Just as the Bible talks about the first family, it also mentions the sons going to other cities (i.e. so other people). I would think it safe to assume the same thing here, that Noah did load up animals on a boat to escape a flood, but that just because he's the only one in the story, doesn't mean there weren't others who did so...

(and of course, we know the impossibility of ANY sized boat holding all the species)...(after all, for 40 days, he'd be running out of food for the animals that well...eat other animals!!!)

Still, I do believe there was a flood in many of the areas known to the Biblical world (which is a small piece of the real world, mind you)...., and that some escaped by boat, and tried to save animals...