Did Noah's Ark actually happen?

[John Dibble]

No.

[John Dibble]

A global flood?  No.

As we all know, flood stories are prominent in many cultures.  As we also know, there were, in fact, catastrophic floods as late as 6000 BC caused by the end of the last Ice Age.

The story is based on something, I think is the important thing.

^^^^^^

Then I guess the following people were deceived:
Moses (Genesis)
writer of 1Chron
Job
Eliphaz
Isaiah
Ezekiel
Luke
Paul
writer of Hebrews
Peter
Jesus (spoke about Noah in Matthew 24; Luke 17)
God (spoke to Noah in Genesis, and spoke about Noah to Isaiah and Ezekiel)


It amazes me that people can believe God made the entire universe out of nothing, yet doubt his ability to flood a tiny speck of the universe named "Earth"

It amazes me that people can believe either of these things.

It amazes me that people don't believe in a higher power, no matter which God it is. I mean something had to make everything we see...

That just raises the question "then what made God?" - quite often the answer given is "nobody, he always existed". (not saying this is your belief, just a generality) Isn't that really just the same? If you can believe that one thing exists without a creative force behind it, then why is it so strange for another person to believe another thing exists without a creative force behind it?

[John Dibble]

Your arbitrary defined premise is that the bible is true, my arbitrary defined premise is that it is not. However I have the world of sense perception, scientific data, geology, biology, genetics and so forth on my side and you have faith

[Setting aside the laws of thermodynamics which testify to the need of a Creator..].

Abraham had both facts and faith.  And his facts were CONTRARY to his faith.  Yet he didn't waver, but believed God's word and God's word turned out to be true.  Likewise, Noah had never seen rain, so Noah's facts were also CONTRARY to God's warning of a flood.  But Noah proved God to be true and "by his faith he condemned the word" (Heb 11:7).

If his premise is that the Bible isn't true, how is providing Biblical examples which his premise says aren't true supposed to change his mind?

[John Dibble]

Well, at least we agree on two things:
1) every experiment ever conducted has demonstrated that nature cannot create itself, which leaves science at a dead end.
2) God creating the universe solves problem #1

3) The Flying Spaghetti Monster creating the universe solves problem #1.
4) Invisible Pink Unicorn creating the universe solves problem #1.
5) <Fill in the blank> creating the universe solves problem #1.
6) The universe has always existed, just in a different form prior to the Big Bang, solves problem #1.

You can come up with any number of answers to solve that problem, but it doesn't make them true. Science doesn't presume one simply because there is a lack of observable evidence to draw a conclusion.

[John Dibble]

6) The universe has always existed, just in a different form prior to the Big Bang, solves problem #1.

Science doesn't presume one simply because there is a lack of observable evidence to draw a conclusion.

the laws of thermo prohibit the universe always existing

Actually, for the first law to really be true it has to have always existed. If new matter and energy truly can't be created, then that matter/energy had to exist prior to the big bang in some form or another. If you propose that there is something that can create new matter and energy, then you admit that the first law does not hold in all situations and therefore requires revision.

Now if the first law is always true and the universe has always existed, how can the second law hold? After all, according to the second law entropy, or disorder, will increase in any isolated system that is not in equilibrium. Seeing as the universe isn't in equilibrium, and assuming it is an isolated system, its entropy must always be increasing. So if the universe has always existed and it is an isolated system, then any pre-Big Bang form of the universe would have less entropy than any post-Big Bang form of the universe would. I can't comment on what such a form might look like to us, as no such state has been observed and likely could not be observed. Of course, this assumes that the second law is universally true and there is nothing that can naturally decrease total entropy from within our own system.

Here are the possibilities we have as I see it:
1. The universe has not always existed. Something resulted in its creation, and as such the first law of thermodynamics has not always been true. The law may or may not hold in the future.
2. The universe has always existed in some form. The first and second laws of thermodynamics have always been true. All prior forms of the universe were more ordered, and it has constantly been becoming less ordered.
3. The universe has always existed in some form, but is not an isolated system. Something either introduces new matter/energy and/or decreases entropy resulting in it never reaching equilibrium.
4. The universe has always existed in some form, but the first law of thermodynamics does not always hold true. The universe has periodic introductions of new matter/energy, which would inevitably produce some rather interesting effects.
5. The universe has always existed in some form, but the second law of thermodynamics has not always held true. In other words, there could be some state in which an isolated system can see a decrease in total entropy. (this would be difficult if not impossible for us to observe since we can only create systems within our own universe, and as such they would not be absolutely isolated)
6. A combination of 4 and 5 in which the laws of thermodynamics have not always held true.

I'm sure there's more there that I'm forgetting, but you get the gist of it I assume. There are a fair number of possibilities

Ultimately, the thing about the laws of thermodynamics is that they are entirely based off of our observations. Let us not forget that our observations are limited, especially when it comes to before the Big Bang, so we can't in all honesty say that the laws of thermodynamics prove the need for a creator because they very well may not have always applied.

Heck, now that I think about it why are you trying so hard to use them to prove the need for a creator? I would think my attitude of "we have no proof of a creator" goes in line with what you've previously said about God not really leaving proof and wanting you to have faith.

[John Dibble]

I don't even care about the huge flood so much as the animal part


There are about 5,400 species of mammals
There are about 10,000 species of birds
There are about 8,200 species of reptiles
There are about 6-10 million species of insects

Plus other arthropods, unique fish etc.

Multiply this by 2...

...and you expect Noah to have collecetd two of each of these critters, cared for them on his massive ship (and we're talking massive to hold all these animals) and then distribute them accodingly throughout the world? I'm surprised ~19% of this forum is actually that stupid.

IIRC the Bible states the animals came to him, so biblically speaking there's your answer to that problem.

What you really need to argue is whether or not the ark would have enough room for all the animals in question, though I wouldn't put fish and any underwater species in there if I was you - they'll just say the fish stayed in the water. There's also the problem of having a genetically viable population. Given that you'd only have two of each species, you'd have a lot of inbreeding going on, along with the problems that come with it.

[John Dibble]

the laws of thermo prohibit the universe always existing

Actually, for the first law to really be true it has to have always existed.

and so the 1st law contradicts the 2nd law?  I don't think so.

I discussed whether the first law contradicts the second in detail in my post. Please read and think over it as a whole.

Furthermore I will reiterate my most important point - it is unknown whether or not the laws of thermodynamics have always applied. When considering things that occurred before the Big Bang and up to 10^–43 seconds after the Big Bang we know very little. Conditions at those "times" (if time even existed pre-Big Bang) may have been such that one or more of the laws of thermodynamics did not apply. If you don't believe me then ask any physicist whether or not they can prove that the laws of thermodynamics applied before they big bang.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. The 1st law says nothing about natural or supernatural forces. It does not have a caveat for supernatural forces. It either applies or it doesn't. If "supernatural" forces are proven to be an exception, then such a caveat will be added. You don't get to invent exceptions just because you would like to, that's not how real science works.
2. As I have explained, it does not agree with the need for a creator being. That is your own wishful thinking. At best for you it requires a creationary force, which could still be considered "supernatural" if you like, which does not necessarily have to be one with any conscious direction.

[John Dibble]

Conditions at those "times" (if time even existed pre-Big Bang) may have been such that one or more of the laws of thermodynamics did not apply.

is this your grasping-for-straws-law-of-thermo?

No, it's simple scientific fact - we don't know whether the laws of the universe as they are now applied in the pre-Big Bang universe. Can you prove they did? Can you find one scientist who can prove they did?

The best science we have on the matter suggests that many, if not all, of our current universal laws formed during the Planck Epoch, from the exact start of the Big Bang to 10^-43 seconds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. The 1st law says nothing about natural or supernatural forces. It does not have a caveat for supernatural forces. [/quote]

dude, in both of my semesters of Thermo in college, I never worked a thermo problem involving supernatural forces.[/quote]

Of course you didn't - there are no known "supernatural" forces to work with. Until such forces are known, you can't make a caveat for them, now can you? Otherwise you might as well say "The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the Invisible Pink Unicorn", but that would be silly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They don't make a caveat for "supernatural" forces. As I stated, until such a force can be proven to exist, there is no caveat.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, this is an argument of stupidity.  the laws of thermo relate to CLOSED SYSTEMS.  you can not say they the laws encompass supernatural forces, for supernatural forces are, by definition, OUTSIDE the closed system.

First off "supernatural" is not defined as outside the closed system. Generally it's defined as something unobservable or mysterious, not necessarily outside of the system. People often attribute perfectly natural occurences to supernatural forces. What can be considered supernatural is really just a matter of opinion.

Second, if you'll go back to my post where I presented different possibilities, you'll note that among them are cases where forces outside the universal system are involved. Seeing as you seemed to read it rather selectively, I'm not surprised you didn't notice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're the one who brought up thermodynamics in relation to God, not me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I might as well "ponder reflect" on a fairy tale.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've insisted no such thing. I've only presented multiple possibilities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Get over yourself. Just because I disagree with you does not make me frightened. In fact, I'm quite confident that you're wrong, otherwise I wouldn't be voicing my disagreements so strongly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I ask you to prove that the current physical laws applied before the Big Bang. I know for certain you can't. You yourself admit that the laws are based on observations of natural forces. Since science has been unable to observe anything prior to the Big Bang, science can't state whether or not the laws applied before then. I'm not "running" anywhere, simply showing how absurd you are being in insisting that the unprovable is proven. Heck, isn't that hypocritical of you given how you always insist that God wouldn't leave evidence because he wants us to have faith?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I insisted nothing, only presented a multitude of possibilities.

I'll sum it up for you:
1. You claimed that the first law of thermo proves the need for a creator.
2. I claimed that it did not.
3. I presented multiple possibilities to back up my argument.
4. You have not successfully refuted one of them. You can't. You lack any observable evidence to do so.