If the Ark was literal, then . . . ?

[SivartM]

http://www.s8int.com/

Not sure how accurate some of the stuff on that website is... but it has a lot of ooparts too.

[abelisle]

Bravus,

If you haven't visited this site, you should:

http://www.atoday.com/dinosaurs-perspectives-goldstein-and-taylor

Amalgamation is proving to be a significant word for our Adventist understanding re: dinosaurs but why aren't they attempting to face the "races" issue which is part of this statement?

BTW, do you know a link to any of the "Yes, Creation" talks that have been presented this week at the GC session?

Alex

[wayfinder]

Abelisle, You are able to ask that question without being censored, I may not. I too ask the same question.

[Guest]

Oh wayfinder, I've seen you ask much crazier questions than this one. Or maybe I should say: "give much crazier answers".

[cardw]

If you are going to allow for miracles why do an ark at all? If god can create a world from scratch, why a flood? And if you want to leave evidence for an ark and this flood why the almost complete lack of evidence other than mythology? And if god is going to leave a book to explain things, why not provide a lot more detail? Maybe because the book is made up.

We can easily provide evidence that the world is much older than 10,000 years. It's all over the place.

Reasons for an Old Earth

There are certainly aspects that we can question, but many of the evidences are very strong. I think most creationists aren't willing really look at this.

[Dr. Shane]

I haven't read this entire thread yet. The questions that started it are rather basic and all have easy answers.

The creatures taken on the ark had the "master" DNA for each "kind". Evolution needs millions of years because it is dependent on random mutations. God doesn't need millions of years because He doesn't use random mutations. Thus one pair of elephant ancestors went on the ark and from them we got the various types of elephants and mammoths in relatively short time.

Insects either went on the ark or survived the flood waters. Perhaps a combination of both.

There are multiple explanations for dinosaurs. Some creationists believe they went on the ark but didn't survive the ice age that followed. Others believe they were all destroyed in the flood. God only preserved some reptiles. Some believe they were a result of genetic engineering and God wiped them out in the flood.

Antediluvian society was not evenly spread out across the globe like the plants and animals. Their cities were probably in areas now covered by the oceans. We know that portions of the ocean floor has sunk. Some areas use to be above sea level. We may never find any trace of antediluvian man because it is under miles of water.

These kinds of things are discussed in creationist cirlces all the time.

[cardw]

Why hide all the evidence for a superior antediluvian race? Why didn't god make it obvious that there were advanced civilizations?

That's the problem when people claim things with lack of evidence.

[Dr. Shane]

Creationists don't have to prove their models to be probable. Plausible is the creationist threshold. Creationist models only have to be plausible - not probable.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

[Twilight]

There are people that claim to have evidence.

But what you have to remember is when an evolutionist finds evidence of human activity in a fossil layer that is not supposed to be there, then they dismiss it as an "inclusion".

There is a book called "Forbidden Archeology", which sites hundreds of these cast off evidences.

Remember, an evolutionist is not going to report anything that undermines evolution...

They are going to assume it is an "anomoly".

And as the vast amount of evidence that is bought to the table is bought by evolutionists, you can pretty much guarantee that you are not getting the full menu...

[Twilight]

Here is a link to the authors site:

http://www.mcremo.com/

He is not a creationist either.

[Twilight]

Here is a link to the reaction by "academia", when this guy's material was going to be aired on TV:

http://www.mcremo.com/mysterious.htm

Quote:

"JUNE 1996 NBC PRESS RELEASE:

Controversy exploded in the academic community with the telecast of The Mysterious Origins of Man last February. Professors of science and anthropology from some of the nation's most prestigious colleges and universities voiced strong opinions about the validity of the special, which challenged long-accepted beliefs about man's beginning.

The program presents evidence suggesting that man may have made the climb from Stone Age to civilization more than once; that present-day man is just the latest in this cycle; and that Darwin's Theory of Evolution has some serious flaws.

"We expected some controversy when we produced this show," says producer Bill Cote, "but were not prepared for the enormous cry of outrage from some members of the scientific community.""

[Twilight]

There is a bias in "science" against creationism, do not expect the scientific community to display a lack of bias when they present you with "evidence"...

[phkrause]

That's exactly the word I was looking for here "Faith". Everyone always wants evidence, which is nice, but sometimes Faith needs to be brought into the equation. It is also amazing to me that there is more Faith in a "Theory" than there is in the written word of God.

[Dr. Shane]

For me it comes down to either believing the Bible is true or that it is not true. If it is true, Adventism is the closest thing to the truth as I am going to find in the world today.

If it is not true, I am lost at sea with ideological winds blowing about in every which direction. I have too many problems with other world religions to be able to accept any one as genuine. Origins-science is based on certain assumptions I cannot accept. If the Bible isn't trustworthy, there is no other depot of truth I see as an acceptable alternative.

[BobRyan]

All the GC Session in Atlanta was pretty clear on this point.

The Giants in the Bible are recorded not only in Genesis 6 but also in Deut 2:11 and 3:11-13 showing that they existed both before and after the flood - meaning Noah was one of them.

According to Deut - the giants still existed many centuries after the flood - one of those guys was about 12' tall according to the data given in that text.

As for variation within a genome -- we have seen it with dogs and cats, wolves, foxes, coyotes etc.

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight]

Agreed.

Then the test is, does it work?

Does the instructions in the bible when understood and carried out in the life actually work.

The answer is yes.

So we have many confirmations that the scripture is what it says it is, but that is going off topic I suspect. :-)