Noah's Ark found?

[Pillsbury]

Pillsbury,

Sorry, I didn't see your post. Again, I am not attacking catholics as a people. In fact an aunt I love very much is a mother superior. My problem is that as an organization the catholic church does as it wishes and it's only answer is that it has a right to do so. The old testament of the Bible is the same as the Torah (the Jewish scriptures). The new testament did go through the Nicene Creed. There were conclusions that the catholic church came to which can be proven using the Bible (I have no problem with those doctrines, just as I have no problem with science when it can prove it's theories). But I will not accept something as fact just because the catholic church says it is so (just as I will not accept as fact a theory that has not been proven). And because the Catholic Church feels that it has a right to do as it pleases, regardless of what the Bible says, so long as it is in accordance to Church Tradition, I disagree with the Church as an organization. But again, I have nothing against Catholic people, seeing as a very large part of my extended family is catholic.

[runawayjim]

I understand. But where does the Bible indicate that it should be the sole basis of dogma? You say your Church existed alongside the ancient churches. What church is it? I'm guessing your a fundamentalist Christian, maybe a Southern Baptist, but most likely non-denominational (and I'm not being critical). You guys believe that you're not Protestant right? That Luther just kept too many of Rome's traditions. You compare yourself to the ancient exiles, the ones who believed that Baptism and Communion were merely symbols. Be careful with that. You may find some similarities, but those groups were weird.

I have my disagreements with the Church as well. I'm actually more of an Anglo-Catholic than anything else.

[Pillsbury]

^ Well just to clarify a bit. The Anglican Church broke off because of politics. The Pope's refusal to grant a divorce to Henry was because of pressure from the Spanish ruler whose sister was married to Henry, who was trying to do what was best for England. The Pope was blackmailed and the Church of England was thus formed.

United Methodists broke off from the Episcopal Church (actually started down in my state) by John Wesley. The Pentecostal Church later broke from the Methodists.

Calvinism is heavily Presbyterian (obviously) but also in the Baptist churches as well. But also in the Puritans too. Read some of their old literature and it's too funny when they start talking about God's providence and the such.

I didn't read the posts closely. I didn't realize she was Seventh Day Adventist as there is a lot of anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant teachings in that church. That makes a lot of sense. Runaway Jim you do a good job explaining your positions.

[linclink]

Ok,

I am just going to do a quick fast reply here..

Maybe tomorrow, when I am not as sleepy, I will post an answer to each and every post. For those who, perhaps didn't read my first post, I stated that I had no opinion on whether or not the mentioned site is the site of Noah's Ark. As far as I am concerned, it may be it, it may not. I don't think there is anywhere near enough evidence at this point to say that it is. I also stated that as far as I am concerned, not one story of the Bible needs to be confirmed in order for my faith to remain as it is. I have personally seen and experienced God in my life to know that He is real. I don't expect a non-believer to believe, nor to understand what I am saying. And thats fine. My other point was that regardless of if you agree with it or not, there is no need to treat those who do like uneducated ignorant fools. As for accusations that I am not a responding with the knowledge of a scientist, your right, I'm not. I studied journalism, not science. My husband did study nuclear physics, and could carry on a much more enlightened conversation here, but he has neither the time at this point, nor the inclination to do so, as it never leads to anywhere. There are many different streams of thought, even within the scientific community and everyone tends to hold on to theirs.

However, I am an informed person who reads widely and who has taken the time (although many years ago) to compare both sides and I do not buy the explanations given by the evolutionists. I have spoken on what my take is, and I respect your right to yours.

The reality is that, just as you look at Christians and say, "whats wrong with them, how can they believe all that stuff without any evidence", we look at evolutionists and say the same. Just as you think Evolution is based on fact, and my faith is based on blind belief, we Christians see your beliefs based on faith in fallible, human scientists, and not facts. The reality is we see each other in the same way. The evidence you see, I do not, and vice-versa. My goal here was never to change anyones mind, but to say, regardless of your feelings and beliefs, that doesn't mean you need to attack those who think differently. I know there are many Christians out there who do not think for themselves, or maybe just see the world differently from me, who support the religious right no matter what, who support this war and Bush and so many other things no matter what. I am not of the same persuasion. I know there are Christians who bash gays and abortionists, but don't open their mouths to criticize the lies of politicians, and their own selves, who do not condemn Christians acting anything but, who don't condemn the skyrocketing divorce and remarriage (within Christian homes), and abandoned children and lack of compassion, etc.. etc.. etc.. (which in the site of God is as much a sin as any). Again, I am not in favor of that train of thought. I do think and I do live my life according to the Bible, which is my guide. The Bible as my guide doesn't turn me into a mindless zombie following corrupt leaders, on the contrary, it frees me to see the truth, and to try and live it.

Pillsbury, in regards to your comments about my faith. I do not consider myself a fundamentalist, I do consider myself a protestant. The reason I said that my faith does not come from the catholic church is this. The catholic church claims that it is the same church as the first Christian church, established by Peter. The reality is that Peter was never a Pope (at least not while he was living). He was in fact a martyr, a missionary, a preacher, a servant. But not a Pope. This title was given to him hundreds of years after his death. The reality is that Christ established the first Christian Church and for the first hundred years the primitive Christian Church was a very very different church from what the Catholic Church has become. In time, this little primitive church became larger and more influential, and then, their simplicity and beliefs of living for others, selling all they had to help the poor, etc.. changed. The church brought in pomp and circumstance, and rituals and symbols, and even doctrines that were not present in the early church. It became powerful and very rich (through an alliance with Constantine, the emperor of Rome), and through that changed its day of observance (for the first 200 or so years they all worshiped on the same day as Jesus, the Sabbath (Saturday), they introduced images to the church such as statues of Mary and other saints (again, in the alliance with Constantine), among many many other things. It was a unification of the Christian Church with the Pagan Church of the time (Saturday to Sunday because pagans worshiped on Sunday, it would be easier to get them to go to church, brought "images" or statues in, because pagans were used to worshiping idols, etc.. etc... This is still seen in Brazil and other Latin American countries and Haiti, where the Catholic Saints have their "Santaria" counterparts and they are recognized by the catholic church). As the church's power grew, as it's riches grew, it committed many atrocities in the name of God (middle ages, etc). As have many religions. The reality is that churches are made up of human beings, none of whom are perfect and power does corrupt. But unfortunately, the Catholic Church does not seem to have changed much. With all that has happened with priests abusing children etc.. there was a huge cover up (from the top, down) for many many decades simply because they were more powerful than weak innocent children, and therefore they "could" do it, so they did. So when I speak of the Catholic Church sticking to tradition rather than the Bible it is based on its actions in the past, when it changed the primitive Christian Church of the times of Christ, to the church of the middle ages that did many things that were quite different from the teachings of the Bible, as well as the profile of the early Christian Church. When I say that our church does not follow the catholic church it is only because we try to base our faith and our doctrines as closely to that of the primitive church as possible. We try to live as Jesus did, have simple lives and serve others. We as a church have one of the most extensive hospital systems around (and some of our hospitals are even partnered with catholic hospitals, we have no problem serving together, though we disagree with the doctrines.) We have ADRA which is an international relief agency (much like Red Cross) that cares for Aids patients around the world and in the US, as well as victims of natural disasters, refugees, etc.. etc...

Now as for Seventh-day Adventists being anti-Catholic and anti-protestant, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact at church today two of the examples used by the pastor in speaking of a life of service were Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and St. Francis of Assis. We believe that there are good, Godly people in every faith and every denomination. Just as their are evil, Godless people in every faith and denomination, including our own. We do disagree strongly with certain actions that the church has committed in past, and continues to commit, but we believe that many many sincere Catholics will be in heaven, as will many who were sincere within their faith and beliefs (even if it wasn't Christian, if they did their best within what they knew, we believe that God will judge according to their knowledge and their sincerity, and that God will be Just AND Merciful).

So, this is a bit longer than I planned on, but that is my take on all of this. Again, I have nothing against any one here, and I am sorry if at times conversations become heated, and if I have offended anyone, I apologize. However I believe that I, and other Christians deserve to at least have the beliefs I chose without being called names (as has been the case between this thread, and especially on the Creationist Museum thread).

By the way, I agree, Catholics are Christians. But I don't believe that God intended us to follow dogma. I believe he intended us to follow his word. But thats a whole other discussion.

[Pillsbury]

^ I hope you understand I wasn't criticizing you or your Seventh Day Adventist faith. I was just debating you. I do disagree about the beginnings of the Christian church and I'll write more later.

[linclink]

^ I hope you understand I wasn't criticizing you or your Seventh Day Adventist faith. I was just debating you. I do disagree about the beginnings of the Christian church and I'll write more later.

[monsoon]

The reality is that, just as you look at Christians and say, "whats wrong with them, how can they believe all that stuff without any evidence", we look at evolutionists and say the same. Just as you think Evolution is based on fact, and my faith is based on blind belief, we Christians see your beliefs based on faith in fallible, human scientists, and not facts. The reality is we see each other in the same way. ......

[erdogs]

Without this kind of defense, everything you posted about Christianity pretty much falls apart. I will point out that in places such as Japan, Christianity is unknown for the most part yet it is a modern well off society without any notions that somehow all live on the earth came from a mythical boat stuffed full of animals and a single family.

[linclink]

Metro M, I am simply stating a reality of how Christians view Evolutionists, and vice versa. Whether you agree with the view or not, whether you believe it to be a "slick trick" or not does not change the fact that it is the way we see each other. Just as you see flaws and holes all over my observations and interpretations and beliefs in the Bible, Christians see flaws and holes all over evolutionists observations and interpretations, and in their beliefs (which in certain cases we feel is unfounded) in flawed human scientists. Just as you feel you have the support of Science and what you believe is based in fact and not merely belief, we feel the same exact way. Instead of picking on each other and trying to convince each other, why not just agree to disagree?

You mentioned scientists not caring what religion someone participates in. I agree. The only reason I went into religion with Pillsbury is because it was brought up. And also because it seems like some of the anti-creationism expressed here isn't just a minor disagreement over peoples free will to chose, but it seems like it carrys anti-Christian sentiment more than anything else. For example, I don't believe in Native American deities and beliefs. To me it is completely off base. But if I were talking to a Native American I would agree to disagree and would not attack him for believing as he wishes. Why? Because I am not threatened by his beliefs. Here it feels more like their is a bone to pick with Christianity and Christians in general, than a simple difference in world views. And I understand that. Much of what has been portrayed in Christianity today, and will continue to be portrayed is a shameful fraud, not true Christianity. And I guess many Christians attack evolutionists, again because they are afraid of people trying to force their evolutionist world view on their kids. Of course if you feel that strongly don't send your kids to public school, put them in Christian schools or home school them, or even if they must go to public school supplement what you disagree with at home, and allow them to study out both sides of the debate and make an informed decision themselves. I went to public school. I read both sides of the subject (including all the hoaxes and mistakes that are committed in carbon dating, and other areas of science). And I came to the conclusions that I came to.

As a parent I have every right to teach my children according to what I believe is right and true. But that doesn't mean I will teach my kids to bash evolutionists, or hate them, or think they are superior. I disagree with all of you, but I believe that God grants everyone free will. Whether or not they are within Gods will is their choice, and it is between them and God. My job is not to judge. So, I just feel alot of this comes from anti-Christian sentiments. If not, why does it bother you so much that Christians believe as they do? I have friends who are athiests, but who believe in intelligent design. They believe a higher intelligence had to have a hand in getting everything started. They don't believe it was God, but they do believe it was some one or some thing. I have friends who believe in the Big Bang, and those who are Christians but evolutionists and those who are Creationist Christians. But because we all know each other no one is threatened by the other and so there isn't this aggressive vibe that is found here.

Anyways... on to your comment about Japan. I don't know of any flood stories in Japan per say, but pretty much every other Oriental society has a story of a flood. I have read Chinas, I know Korea has it, phillipiines, sri lanka, etc.. etc... And pretty much every society, (heres a LONG list of all societies that have a flood story, along with the stories they tell

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html). So it is not just a Judeo-Christian concept. Makes you wonder, how can so many different places, scattered throughout the world, in a time when their was no tv, no newspapers, no telephones, etc... have such similar stories.

[linclink]

The Japanese have their own mythical beliefs, so I don't see that as a good comparison.

There is much of how the universe, time and space work that science can only speculate on at this point. The bible is a collection of stories that were told in the way that they could understand them at the time. I believe there is a lot of true history in the bible, only today we would be able to describe it in better terms.

[monsoon]

Metro M, I am simply stating a reality of how Christians view Evolutionists, and vice versa. .

[monsoon]

The Japanese have their own mythical beliefs, so I don't see that as a good comparison.

[linclink]

this post came in missing half of what I'd written.... had to go back and rewrite it... the full post is below

[Gusterfell]

Like it or not, the worlds greatest thinkers, in all areas of life, heads of state, to artists to inventors, authors, and yes, scientists, the great majority were men who read their Bibles, and worshiped the God of the Bible.

[linclink]

Maybe some protestant sects of Christianity here in the USA feel this way about scientists (no such thing as an evolutionist) but they represent a minority of Christians, and a very small minority of the faithful in the world.

[linclink]

Most of them lived in times when doing otherwise meant immediate, unconditional ostracization, if not worse. They lived in times when the Church was the state, and it was impossible to live a normal life outside the Church. If you like that idea, go live in Iran.

Look at all the technologies and philosophies that were developed by the ancient Chinese, to name just one example of a non-Christian society that contributed much to our modern world.

[Gusterfell]

So what do you propose? Since one cannot believe in the Bible, not be an evolutionist, and still be a scientist, what do you propose? That we strip the nobel prize winners of their title, and make sure no one ever calls these men scientists again?

[linclink]

How many of the people on your list believed that the Bible was 100%, literally true? I'm guessing not one. Sure they can accept it as a valuable document, and even as a source of guidance in life, but if any of them accept stories like the Genesis Creation or Noah's Ark as infallible truth simply because they are written in the Bible, then they are not scientists.

[Gusterfell]

^None of those quotes gives any indication that the speaker doubts evolutionary theory, or any other aspect of established science. All they prove is that these respected scientists had personal spiritual beliefs in addition to their scientific understanding. I agree that there is nothing unusual about that. You may be surprised to learn that I am not an atheist. I have my own spiritual beliefs, but I don't claim to know they are true in the same way that I know basic scientific tenets to be accurate.

I have no problem with scientists being Christians, or stating their beliefs as in those quotes. However, as I'm sure all those scientists understand, there is an important difference between "believing" something in a spiritual or religious sense and considering it to be valid (or even relevent) to science. They can "believe" God created the world, but in order to make a scientific statement to that effect they would require some sort of material evidence that can be independently confirmed by others. That is, of course, impossible. This is why issues of faith and religious belief fall under the realm of philosophic rather than scientific thought.

Of course religion and science can coexist. They have done so since the beginning of science. They are two different types of thought, which seek answers to different types of questions. Conflict arises when one seeks to drive away the other. There have been some examples in which religion is cast aside in the name of science (The Soviet Union comes to mind), but more often it is the religous community that threatens science. Religous people by nature hold very closely to their beliefs, and they feel threatened when science seems to undermine those beliefs. This isn't done out of any anti-religous feelings within the scientific community, but rather because the neutral, dispassionate scientific evidence seems to indicate that what is written in millenia-old books isn't an accurate portrayal of how the natural world functions. Science has no disdain for religion, though there is certainly disdain for science among certain groups of religous people, who refuse to accept anything that conflicts their religous beliefs. This becomes a problem when these religous groups obtain enough power to influence the agenda of a society, as they have in the US. Believe what you want, but don't ask society to base policy on those beliefs that should be based on the most accurate scientific information available.

[monsoon]

Indeed linklink, you are going way out on a limb to tell us the thoughts of other people whom you never met so instead you are telling us what you want them to have believed. My guess is that everyone of those people you listed would simply dismiss "creationalist theory" as a valid science as conjured up by modern day American evangelists in an attempt to convince people their way of thinking, is the only way of thinking.

[runawayjim]

trying to compare something based on absolutely nothing with something based on serious evidence is apples and oranges. that's exactly what you're doing comparing the strong evidence for the case of evolution, which i will add you have obviously not read a whole lot about or done any research about, with the "evidence" of god's existence and the bible being 100% fact.

"evolutionists" (which monsoon is correct in that it does not exist, they are evolutionary biologists, biologists who study evolution) are not believing something based on "faith" that it happened. they based their theories are cold hard evidence and strong deductive reasoning. they did not base it entirely on something that was written thousands of years ago.

[swh1972]

trying to compare something based on absolutely nothing with something based on serious evidence is apples and oranges. that's exactly what you're doing comparing the strong evidence for the case of evolution, which i will add you have obviously not read a whole lot about or done any research about, with the "evidence" of god's existence and the bible being 100% fact.

[MadVlad]

All things being equal, science and faith in science together beat just faith....

[Gusterfell]

I am not disagreeing with you, but to be fair, you seem to discount the fact that religion and science have separate "truths". Scientific fact to an Evolutionary Biologist is a compelling argument to support Evolution. In the same sense, religious beliefs are as strong of an argument to those who hold Creationist views.

[monsoon]

Indeed. Just because someone believes the Easter Bunny laid colored hard cooked chicken eggs in the grass, doesn't mean there is any truth to the matter. Science can be proven, demonstrated and inferred from experimentation regardless of people's beliefs. Science is consistent no matter what part of the world it is performed in. The same is not true about religion.