Bible predictions about Noahs Ark...are true.

[CrowCross]

I would love to do what he did. I would love it if it were true. Ron Wyatt was a seventh day adventist. I earned my paleontology degree under seventh day adventist YEC geologists. For three years I heard seventh day adventists lament Ron Wyatt and how much he was giving YECs and seventh day adventists a bad name. The "Sodom and Gomorrah" he discovered is nothing but a geologic rock formation.

Consider that Wyatt was a nurse anesthetist with no training in archaeology or geology who YEC geologists have denounced and Answers in Genesis called his discoveries fraudulent. See ICM link about his claims

Consider how many have searched for all these same things without any success, but Ron Wyatt singlehandedly discovers virtually everything. Discovered

-Sodom and Gomorrah
-Noah's Ark
-Discovered the "real" Mt Sinai
-Discovered the "real" exact point where Israelites crossed Red Sea
-Discovered Pharaoh's chariot wheel from the Red Sea
-Discovered the "real" site of Jesus's crucifixion
-Discovered the Ark of the Covenant (in a cave directly underneath where Jesus was crucified)
-In that same cave discovered blood spots that he claimed DNA analysis proved was blood from a person born of a virgin

Amazing how one person could discover all these things that others have searched a millenia for

.....and you still have the to ridicule him...The "Sodom and Gomorrah" he discovered may be nothing but a geologic rock formation....I don't know, I haven't read or watched anything on the topic...BUT AT LEAST HE LOOKED. What have you done oh great and wonderful Genesis slayer?

 

[TB2]

.....and you still have the to ridicule him...The "Sodom and Gomorrah" he discovered may be nothing but a geologic rock formation....I don't know, I haven't read or watched anything on the topic...BUT AT LEAST HE LOOKED. What have you done oh great and wonderful Genesis slayer?

I'm not ridiculing him. But I am denouncing him. He was a fraud.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm not ridiculing him. But I am denouncing him. He was a fraud.

Speaking of frauds....you'll love the 6:20 min mark.

Evo-ism is a lie TB2

 

[TB2]

Speaking of frauds....you'll love the 6:20 min mark.

Evo-ism is a lie TB2

Yes, a perfect example of how YECs distort and misrepresent scientific research to the laughter of their audience, for comedic effect, because it's so funny when Christians who are supposed to shine the love of Christ take 5 second sound bytes from scientists and isolated quotes from their work to mudsling and malign and misrepresent the hard work of professional researchers....

..... AND YET don't have the decency, courage (or evidence!) to actually go through the work of legitimately discrediting through the professional peer review publication process.

That says it all there, taking personal swipes at people and their work (that they've really made no attempt to understand; just looking for isolated quotes to cherry pick out of context), AND YET they are unable to actually back up their criticisms via professional publication. Despicable, and ungodly.

Having witnessed the reactions of non-Christian professional scientists to such disreputable tactics, you have no idea how much harm and how damaging this type of thing is to the witness of the Church. How would you feel if someone took your life's work and lied about it and misrepresented it and laughed and made fun of you for things that you knew weren't true???

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, a perfect example of how YECs distort and misrepresent scientific research to the laughter of their audience, for comedic effect, because it's so funny when Christians who are supposed to shine the love of Christ take 5 second sound bytes from scientists and isolated quotes from their work to mudsling and malign and misrepresent the hard work of professional researchers....

..... AND YET don't have the decency, courage (or evidence!) to actually go through the work of legitimately discrediting through the professional peer review publication process.

That says it all there, taking personal swipes at people and their work (that they've really made no attempt to understand; just looking for isolated quotes to cherry pick out of context), AND YET they are unable to actually back up their criticisms via professional publication. Despicable, and ungodly.

Having witnessed the reactions of non-Christian professional scientists to such disreputable tactics, you have no idea how much harm and how damaging this type of thing is to the witness of the Church. How would you feel if someone took your life's work and lied about it and misrepresented it and laughed and made fun of you for things that you knew weren't true???

Gag me with a spoon. Jesus didn't use evolution to create mankind. You distort christianity when you say He did....then you act all high and mighty when the bible is presented...acting as if you have the truth.

The 6:20 min mark was quite revealing. Do you own a Dremel?

 

[TB2]

Gag me with a spoon. Jesus didn't use evolution to create mankind. You distort christianity when you say He did....then you act all high and mighty when the bible is presented...acting as if you have the truth.

The 6:20 min mark was quite revealing. Do you own a Dremel?

As usual, you are big on words and slander and short on evidence to back up your claims

 

[CrowCross]

As usual, you are big on words and slander and short on evidence to back up your claims

Much of my evidence you haven't responded to. Then again I know why...you have no answer. Perhaps it's not talked about on your cut and paste pages you borrow from.

 

[TB2]

Much of my evidence you haven't responded to. Then again I know why...you have no answer. Perhaps it's not talked about on your cut and paste pages you borrow from.

Your self deception is noted

 

[CrowCross]

Your self deception is noted

???? Because I believe Genesis and you don't....I'm self deceived????

 

[TB2]

I am more than willing to dialogue with you. But a respectful exchange is expected. Treat others how you would want to be treated.

 

[TibiasDad]

One of the evidences that supports the YEC's view has been lifted from the bible.

If one reads an account in the bile...then goes looking for the remains of the account and finds it...the bible gains even more credence.

In the bible there is an account of a sea worhty vessel called Noahs Ark. People have read about it for several thousand years.
People have looked for it where the bible says it landed....Genesis 8:4 informs us that...the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

So they looked...and here's what has been discoverd as presented in this article
FIGURE 1. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF AN OBJECT, SHAPED LIKE A SHIP, IN THE ARARAT MOUNTAINS, EASTERN TURKEY, 1959,

The Old earth Secular geologist claimed it was simply a natural phenomena...and walked away.
About a year after taking the photo an expedition went looking for it.

The Ark like anomaly was found and over the years investigated....as the link above shows.

They employed scientific techniques such as metal detection and deep penatrating radar to peer underground...and discovered a ship.

The article tells us....On one occasion, the radar equipment picked up what appeared to be a square shaped object within the ships remains. The specimen was dug up by the Turkish military at that time, and later analyzed by Galbraith Laboratories in the United States. The laboratory testing confirmed that the specimen contained organic carbon, indicating that the material was not rock, but was once composed of living material, consistent with petrified wood. (Fig. 4).

The natural phenomena that the OE Geologist walked away from turns out to not be rock. Metallic objects were also discovered at the Ark site....see figure 5 in the link provided above.

Figure six shows a very ship like pattern when the locations metal was connected....quite amazing.
It was then concluded that the object was the remains of a ship, which exactly matched the Biblical description, and dimensions of Noah’s Ark.

As time went on the rib indentations of the ships were discovered and investigated. Figures 8,9 and 10

As time went on they eventually took 3D images...and the hull of the ship became apparent. Figure 14.

Once again the physical biblical description was realized...“WITH LOWER, SECOND, AND THIRD STORIES SHALT THOU MAKE IT.” (GEN 6:16)
Once again the biblical details were a match....Location, size, shape, (figure 19) decks, materials

The article goes on to explain many more biblically predected features and draws several conclusions. One which is:

It would be a physical impossibility, for a ship the size of the Ark, to drift into the Ararat Mountains, and run aground, 2000 metres above the present elevation of sea level, without water being present. Yet the Ark is not millions of years old. The fossils and sediment on top of which the Ark came to rest, had to have been deposited by the same water, which carried the Ark into that area.

For those who don't believe the bible and follow an Old earth narrative....if it's not Noahs Ark...what is it?

I’m still trying to figure out how an Old Earth adherent, like myself, cannot believe in the the Ark!

Doug

 

[CrowCross]

I’m still trying to figure out how an Old Earth adherent, like myself, cannot believe in the the Ark!

Doug

Most Old Earth adherent don't believe in a world wide flood. Maybe you're different.
Most Old Earth adherent don't believe the flood deposited the rock strata capturing animals and plants which later became fossilized.
They attribute the fossils and strata to millions of years of a slow accumulation of sediment .

Typically because of this belief they contend there was no flood which would mean there was no need for an Ark to save Noah, his family and the animals.

 

[TibiasDad]

Most Old Earth adherent don't believe in a world wide flood. Maybe you're different.

I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. OE adherents are at odds with the 6-10k age of creation, but I don’t see a problem with the flood itself.

Most Old Earth adherent don't believe the flood deposited the rock strata capturing animals and plants which later became fossilized.
They attribute the fossils and strata to millions of years of a slow accumulation of sediment .

And why can’t it be both/and instead of either/or? That there were millions of years of deposits doesn’t mean that a catastrophic flood could not have happened and left the deposits of that event in the record on top of the previous deposits.

My conclusions of an old earth are drawn from astrophysics more than geology.

Typically because of this belief they contend there was no flood which would mean there was no need for an Ark to save Noah, his family and the animals.

I have never heard of such a ridiculous statement, much less believed it.


Doug

 

[CrowCross]

My conclusions of an old earth are drawn from astrophysics more than geology.

Such as?

 

[TibiasDad]

Such as?

The speed of light and the redshift of light moving away from us indicating the expansion of the universe.

Psalm 19 says the creation declares the glory of God and they pour out knowledge, ie science, meaning that the information gathered from the universe is God speaking to us through the creation. And what he speaks is necessarily true!

The science declared by the creation tells us the universe is expanding and that the light from those stars and galaxies are billions of years away based on the speed of light. This simple but irreducible and unimpeachable fact cannot say anything but that the universe is billions of years old.

Doug

 

[CrowCross]

The speed of light and the redshift of light moving away from us indicating the expansion of the universe.

Psalm 19 says the creation declares the glory of God and they pour out knowledge, ie science, meaning that the information gathered from the universe is God speaking to us through the creation. And what he speaks is necessarily true!

The science declared by the creation tells us the universe is expanding and that the light from those stars and galaxies are billions of years away based on the speed of light. This simple but irreducible and unimpeachable fact cannot say anything but that the universe is billions of years old.

Doug

There are several answers to this question...but of course what has been force fed students in schools is the only correct answer.

One answer is the light was created in place from star to earth. Not my favorite but a possibility...but as you said creation declares the glory of God.
Then there is the idea that God spread out the universe...creating red shifts.
Some think the speed of light was much faster at the time of creation
The concept of the earth being in a gravity well at creation where time is running much slower compared to the rest of the universe is yet another answer.
Plus other theories....

.....As you can clearly see there are multiple of theories presented To say there is a simple but irreducible and unimpeachable fact that says the universe is billions of years old.....has challenges. In fact there are galaxies from as far back as we can see as shown with the Webb telescope that are just that.....formed galaxies...when they shouldn't have been galaxies at that time but rather babies.
There are spiral galaxies that should not be spirals if the universe is as old as your science claims.
There is a "wall" of galaxies so big that it could not have formed in the time allotted by your theories....and the list of challenges goes on and on.

You trust the bible for your salvation....You believe Jesus rose from the dead despite scientist telling you people who have been dead don't come back to life on day 3.

 

[TibiasDad]

There are several answers to this question...but of course what has been force fed students in schools is the only correct answer.

One answer is the light was created in place from star to earth. Not my favorite but a possibility...but as you said creation declares the glory of God.
Then there is the idea that God spread out the universe...creating red shifts.
Some think the speed of light was much faster at the time of creation
The concept of the earth being in a gravity well at creation where time is running much slower compared to the rest of the universe is yet another answer.
Plus other theories....

.....As you can clearly see there are multiple of theories presented To say there is a simple but irreducible and unimpeachable fact that says the universe is billions of years old.....has challenges. In fact there are galaxies from as far back as we can see as shown with the Webb telescope that are just that.....formed galaxies...when they shouldn't have been galaxies at that time but rather babies.
There are spiral galaxies that should not be spirals if the universe is as old as your science claims.
There is a "wall" of galaxies so big that it could not have formed in the time allotted by your theories....and the list of challenges goes on and on.

You trust the bible for your salvation....You believe Jesus rose from the dead despite scientist telling you people who have been dead don't come back to life on day 3.

The speed of light is not a theory but an established fact. Sure, there are aspects of light, such as the wave particle duality that are difficult to explain (though not in doubt factually), but speed is not a variable of light that is an enigma. It is the constant that holds the universe, our space-time reality, together.

The speed of light is considered a fundamental constant of nature. Its significance is far broader than its role in describing a property of electromagnetic waves. It serves as the single limiting velocity in the universe, being an upper bound to the propagation speed of signals and to the speeds of all material particles. In the famous relativity equation, E = mc2, the speed of light (c) serves as a constant of proportionality, linking the formerly disparate concepts of mass (m) and energy (E). (Britannia.com)

The “theories” you suggest are purely speculative and, in my opinion, more akin to Einstein’s cosmological constant artificially constructed to fit his beliefs.


Doug

 

[CrowCross]

The speed of light is not a theory but an established fact. Sure, there are aspects of light, such as the wave particle duality that are difficult to explain (though not in doubt factually), but speed is not a variable of light that is an enigma. It is the constant that holds the universe, our space-time reality, together.

The speed of light is considered a fundamental constant of nature. Its significance is far broader than its role in describing a property of electromagnetic waves. It serves as the single limiting velocity in the universe, being an upper bound to the propagation speed of signals and to the speeds of all material particles. In the famous relativity equation, E = mc2, the speed of light (c) serves as a constant of proportionality, linking the formerly disparate concepts of mass (m) and energy (E). (Britannia.com)

The “theories” you suggest are purely speculative and, in my opinion, more akin to Einstein’s cosmological constant artificially constructed to fit his beliefs.


Doug

Pretty much a copy and paste....

Is the speed of light really a constant?
They tell me a black hols has so much gravity light can't escape....basically the speed of light would then be zero or near zero in a black hole.

What you cut and pasted might be relevant if the gravity in the entire universe was equal...are you saying that is true and has always been true?

 

[TibiasDad]

Pretty much a copy and paste....

Is the speed of light really a constant?
They tell me a black hols has so much gravity light can't escape....basically the speed of light would then be zero or near zero in a black hole.

What you cut and pasted might be relevant if the gravity in the entire universe was equal...are you saying that is true and has always been true?

The speed of light is measured in the vacuum of space. The speed of light diminishes slightly when it passes through an object like glass, water or other non-opaque materials, and the factor of reduction varies according to the object affecting it.

A black hole is by definition incapable of reflecting light. Its gravity is so great that nothing that crosses the event horizon is capable of escaping it. This includes electromagnetic waves and light waves. The velocity of light isn’t changed, but its velocity isn’t sufficient to overcome gravity.

As an aside, light and electromagnetic radiation doesn’t have mass, which is why it’s the fastest thing in the universe, and is the mathematical constant, c. I don’t understand how gravity can affect a massless particle/wave.

This said, since we don’t have a unified theory that explains gravity, perhaps we can’t explain this, but neither can we say what happens to light within it. What is space like in a black hole? Is it a vacuum? Perhaps the constant reacts the same regardless of where the vacuum is?

I’m not a physicist of any kind, I’m just a pastor who loves astronomy and all this space oriented. I believe the voice of creation is an aspect of the voice of God, because God created the laws of nature to communicate to us about who he is and what he has created. His truth is constant, and thus Light, by which he calls himself, is necessarily constant to represent its creator! Its existence is subject to the whole of the laws of creation and the maintenance of these laws to the purposes for which they were established. Thus, he created light to interact with other elements which will, by God’s design, mitigate the natural reality or condition of light.

I think this is rather interesting because the Light of the world limited himself relative to his natural state when he took on flesh. Light can be “limited” by the various objects and forces with which it interacts.


Doug

 

[CrowCross]

The speed of light is measured in the vacuum of space. The speed of light diminishes slightly when it passes through an object like glass, water or other non-opaque materials, and the factor of reduction varies according to the object affecting it.

A black hole is by definition incapable of reflecting light. Its gravity is so great that nothing that crosses the event horizon is capable of escaping it. This includes electromagnetic waves and light waves. The velocity of light isn’t changed, but its velocity isn’t sufficient to overcome gravity.

As an aside, light and electromagnetic radiation doesn’t have mass, which is why it’s the fastest thing in the universe, and is the mathematical constant, c. I don’t understand how gravity can affect a massless particle/wave.

This said, since we don’t have a unified theory that explains gravity, perhaps we can’t explain this, but neither can we say what happens to light within it. What is space like in a black hole? Is it a vacuum? Perhaps the constant reacts the same regardless of where the vacuum is?

I’m not a physicist of any kind, I’m just a pastor who loves astronomy and all this space oriented. I believe the voice of creation is an aspect of the voice of God, because God created the laws of nature to communicate to us about who he is and what he has created. His truth is constant, and thus Light, by which he calls himself, is necessarily constant to represent its creator! Its existence is subject to the whole of the laws of creation and the maintenance of these laws to the purposes for which they were established. Thus, he created light to interact with other elements which will, by God’s design, mitigate the natural reality or condition of light.

I think this is rather interesting because the Light of the world limited himself relative to his natural state when he took on flesh. Light can be “limited” by the various objects and forces with which it interacts.


Doug

Well, I'm not here to argue the physics of the speed of light...basically what I have said is that the speed of light "problem" ...isn't really a problem.
If you want to use some unsettled theory to justify an old earth...drawn from astrophysics rather than geology...go for it.