Subaru Enthusiasts Car Club of the Sierras
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Subaru Enthusiasts Car Club of the Sierras (https://www.seccs.org/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic Chat (https://www.seccs.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Why are Rainbows Gay? (https://www.seccs.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8836)

bigrobwoot 2010-06-11 05:59 AM
Just to add to Scott's post on the Theory of Evolution, he is right. A scientific theory means that it is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over and over and over again, and has never once been disproven, but it is not provable yet.

For example, gravity is just a theory, since we can only test our knowledge of it in the part of the universe we can touch. Scientists assume it applies to the whole thing, but based on today's technology, it isn't yet provable.

I'm not skating your post, Joel, but I know it's going to take about an hour to address it, and I'll be at work all day, so I gotta do it in chunks.

Dean 2010-06-11 07:26 AM
This discussion reminds me of Clarke's laws...

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

They are very useful to me in conversations like this.

Can we even imagine living in year zero much less BC from a knowledge and technology perspective? Again, I think we have to take the bible in context. What might have been perceived as miraculous or unknowable then might well be trivial or commonplace today. Their perception of time and distance were like a dog's compared to ours.

I do not find value in nitpicking scripture.

If the bible said the earth was flat because that was believed at the time, would that invalidate all else it contains?

We now know Newton's "Laws" while great for everyday use actually don't hold up under extreme conditions. Should we discount him and everything he did because of that? No.

Today we have String Theory, something we may never be able to detect or measure, but may well be the all encompassing wonderfulness for the physical world. For all we know, the universe is just god's tapestry made up of those strings.

I like Darwin's theory, but cannot really fathom time on the scale evolution takes. I talk about vision and how the human eye and the brain work while driving all the time, but cannot imagine the organism that first moved toward the light or motion that was it's origin and the mind boggling sequence to get from there to here, but I have faith that it happened. :)

Creationism may just be the best science of the day. And if it is the word of God, it is the best understanding of those words or ideas the people of the time had. They did not understand what we do today. How would a person of that period document something as simple as a 3D movie? A vision perceived through plastic glasses known as god's eyes?

Again, I think spending time debating the technical detail of ancient scripture is of far less value than the ideas and ideals in them.

100_Percent_Juice 2010-06-11 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperry (Post 149828)
So we're not literally made in his image then?
Do you take that scripture to mean literal physical appearance?

100_Percent_Juice 2010-06-11 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperry (Post 149827)
A scientific "theory" is not the same thing as a layman's theory. A scientific theory is a hypothetical prediction, the strength of which is determined by the evidence gathered via experimentation.
This would be a great argument toward a creator. Those bible writers would be considered a layman to an extreme degree considering the technology at their time. As we know they were all completely different and from different times. So if those men came to a conclusion that was considered wrong until proven fact by science thousands of years later, would that not imply that they had help from someone who knew much more than they did?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sperry (Post 149827)
I'm not sure what your point is about the light from Andromeda... but FYI the Hubble telescope has imaged galaxies around 13B light years away, so the universe is at least 13 billion years old... which fits right in with the current estimates of the age of the universe.
I was simply trying to show Rob that I didn't believe the universe was only thousands of years old. I also stated that I was unsure how old it was. By your post it is at least 13B years old. I find that informative not something contrary to what I believe. I imagine as technology continues to improve we will find that the universe is even older than that. Again, none of us know how old it could be.

100_Percent_Juice 2010-06-11 09:03 AM
Just wanted to let you know I am leaving for LA and I don't know when I will have internet next. I will be back in a week if you don't hear from me.

bigrobwoot 2010-06-11 09:24 AM
My responses will be in bold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 149822)
Rob, I admire your passion about what you feel but, I don't totally understand your post.



What is your definition of evolve? There are many different views on evolution. Do you believe that man came about by chance from a puddle? If so, where has that been proven as fact? I think they still call this the theory of evolution. Even Darwin himself said this "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Also, if humans are supposed to be an evolutionary improvement over monkeys, why do humans suffer from emotional problems that do not afflict monkeys?

I believe the generally-accepted theory of evolution. The first living organism was a single-celled, bacteria-like being. That slowly evolved into a multi-cell organism, into a fish, into amphibians, into reptiles, into birds, into mammals. I don't know how much more detailed you want my definition, but j hope that answers your question.

In order for this to have happened, there needed to be a spark of energy to get the atoms to align in a way that created life. This is where my agnosticism comes in. That spark could have been a natural phenomenon, but it could have been the "hand of God". This is why I say that if there is a God, he is not all-powerful. He is simply something that exists outside of our universe that can influence our universe.

Over the course of evolutionary history, there are plenty of animals that have less-than-desireable traits, such as our emotional volatility. For all we know, we could be the stepping stone to the next great evolutionary stage. It could also be argued that in our developmental stage, the angry people killed the apathetic people, and therefore they were the ones that propagated the species.

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.” New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of paleontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”
Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.” Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.” The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.” Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”
Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.” Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?” Evolution is unable to answer.

Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

Wow, modern science isn't infallable? That isn't news. They've only been searching for fossils or 100 years? Of course they won't uncover the millions of years of evolution in 100 years. They're still finding and naming new species in the ocean to this day. This is where our differing beliefs come in. I fill in the gaps with evolution, you fill them in with creation.

There are fossils showing fish with the beginnings of legs, and snakes as well.

There are also mutations that just pop up in certain offspring, instead of slowly coming to fruition. For example, that octopus baby that was born in India, I think it was. That particular example wasn't helpful, but if it were, she would have mated and passed the mutation along.







How can you say that the Earth is not the only place with life and then say, "I know life hasn't been found yet"? All the other planets that scientists have probed are devoid of life. But Earth teems with life, sustained by very complex systems that provide light, air, heat, water and food, all in exquisite balance. It shows evidence of having been specially built to accommodate living things comfortably. Imagine that you are in a barren desert, devoid of all life. Suddenly you come upon a beautiful house. The house has air conditioning, heating, plumbing and electricity. Its refrigerator and cupboards are filled with food. Its basement contains fuel and other supplies. Now, suppose you asked someone where all of this came from, in such a barren desert. What would you think if that person answered, “It just happened to appear there by chance”? Would you believe that? Or would you take for granted that it had a designer and builder?

All the other planets? All, what, 5 of them? That's just this solar system. Like Scott said, the universe is unfathomably large, with trillions, probably more, of galaxies and solar systems. I'd say that it is possible for at least one of those planets in those solar systems to have a planet that can and does support life.

In the desert example, it would have to be the Sahara, and I'd been wandering for 10 minutes before I found that house. That would lead me to believe that there are other houses with people in them somewhere in the desert.

Again, I don't claim to know where our universe came from. The house needing a builder doesn't feel like an accurate analogy, though. We know there is something that exists that builds houses. We don't know if there is something that exists that builds universes (multiverses?).

Among the many precise conditions vital to life on the earth is the amount of light and heat received from the sun. The earth gets only a small fraction of the sun’s energy. Yet, it is just the right amount required to sustain life. This is because the earth is just the right distance from the sun—an average 93,000,000 miles. If the earth were much closer to the sun or farther away from it, temperatures would be too hot or too cold for life.
As it orbits the sun once a year the earth travels at a speed of about 66,600 miles an hour. That speed is just right to offset the gravitational pull of the sun and keep the earth at the proper distance. If that speed were decreased, the earth would be pulled toward the sun. In time, Earth could become a scorched wasteland like Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Mercury’s daytime temperature is over 600 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if Earth’s orbital speed were increased, it would move farther away from the sun and could become an icy waste like Pluto, the planet whose orbit reaches farthest from the sun. Pluto’s temperature is about 300 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.
In addition, the earth consistently makes a complete rotation on its axis every 24 hours. This provides regular periods of light and darkness. But what if the earth rotated on its axis, say, only once a year? It would mean that the same side of the earth would be facing the sun all year long. That side would likely become a furnacelike desert, while the side away from the sun would likely become a sub-zero wasteland. Few, if any, living things could exist in those extreme circumstances.
As Earth rotates on its axis, it is tilted 23.5 degrees in relation to the sun. If the earth were not tilted, there would be no change of seasons. Climate would be the same all the time. While this would not make life impossible, it would make it less interesting and would drastically change the present crop cycles in many places. If the earth were tilted much more, there would be extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters

All of that info about earth is why it supports life as we know it. There could be other forms of life out there that are more resistant to cold, because they live on a planet slightly farther away from their sun than we do to ours. Are you saying that out of all of the solar systems in the universe, it isn't possible that there is another earth-like planet? There are 2 in our own solar system that are near misses! Venus used to look like earth, but over millions (billions?) of years, it has slowly gotten closer to the sun, and the sun has expanded. I'd suggest that life was possible on Venus back then. They haven't dug for fossils there, so how do we know there wasn't? There isn't any water there because of the extreme heat and small atmosphere. For all we know, it used to have water before it got closer to the sun. Maybe our water came from Venus when it was boiled off. Maybe earth caught the water floating in space.


No. I think you are asking the time period question based on the fact that many people believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24hr days. The book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, “day” refers to a period of time. It can be either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours. Even in Genesis all six “days” are spoken of collectively as one lengthy period. The fact is, the Bible reveals that the creative “days,” or ages, encompass thousands of years.
A person can see this from what the Bible says about the seventh “day.” The record of each of the first six “days” ends saying, ‘and there came to be evening and morning, a first day,’ and so on. Yet, you will not find that comment after the record of the seventh “day.” And in the first century C.E., some 4,000 years downstream in history, the Bible referred to the seventh rest “day” as still continuing. (Hebrews 4:4-6) So the seventh “day” was a period spanning thousands of years, and we can logically conclude the same about the first six “days.”

You're right, I lumped you in with them, I apologize. I can't assume what you believe just as much as you can't assume what I believe. Regardless of the time frame of a "day", accoring to the bible, earth was created before anything else in the universe, including the life-supporting sun. If a "day" is really thousands, millions, or billions of years, how did plant life exist for so long without a sun to provide them with life? How did light exist without a sun being yet created? Why doesn't that light still exist without the sun?

Sir Fred Hoyle explains in The Nature of the Universe: “To avoid the issue of creation it would be necessary for all the material of the Universe to be infinitely old, and this it cannot be. . . . Hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium and the other elements . . . How comes it then that the Universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter were infinitely old this would be quite impossible. So we see that the Universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged.”

The only thing that turns hydrogen into other elements is a fusion reaction in a star. Just as the age of the universe is unfathomable, so is the amount of matter in it. So is its age. This all leads back to the original question(s), of where did we come from and why?

To answer your question, I personally do not know how old the universe is. With what we as humans know today it would make sense that the universe is at least millions of years old. On a clear night, the light of Andromeda galaxy may be visible to the naked eye. Now, knowing how far away that island universe of stars is from the earth and that light travels at 186,282 miles [299,792 km] a second, scientists have determined that the light you see coming from the Andromeda galaxy is 1.5 million years old.
I did my best. Let me know if there's anything I missed

sperry 2010-06-11 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 149831)
Do you take that scripture to mean literal physical appearance?
Of course I don't. But I'm not the one that claims the Bible is the literal word of god.

My point is that if people who staunchly defend the Bible as proof that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible is the literal word of god are willing to say that man was not literally created in the image of god even though that's what the Bible says, then perhaps those people using the Bible as an excuse to come down on homosexuality are actually stretching the validity of the Bible on the subject in order to foster their own attitudes about gays.

To put it another way... Bible literalists seem willing to recognize metaphor in the Bible all over the place, except where it conflicts with what they already believe. Never have I met or heard of someone that said "you know, I was okay with gays, but then I read that god says gays are sinners and now I think they should all stop being gay". Those that use the Bible as their "reason" for being anti-gay were likely anti-gay before they studied the Bible, or they were simply taught to believe it was bad from their parents at a young age, in which case they've never really even thought critically about it for themselves.

And another thought... if homosexuality is a "disease" how is it also a sin (since I've heard both claims from the anti-gay crowd)? Doesn't sinning imply willful action? Doesn't a disease imply something out of the person's control? If being fat were a sin, would a person with a thyroid disorder be a sinner because of their disorder? I'm just trying to understand the supposed similarity between someone that's gay and someone that's a thief.

Also, as I'm phrasing most of this as questions to Joel, I just want to explicitly point out that I'm not suggesting Joel is "anti-gay" or that he subscribes fully or even partially to the hypotheticals I'm mentioning. I'm actually very grateful to the relatively good natured and positive discussion going on here on what's really a pretty touchy subject. Also, I don't really expect anyone to change their minds over this discussion either way since virtually everyone has their own well formed opinions about this sort of stuff... but, as Rob mentioned, I do find value in the discussion as far as it triggering my own introspection.

sperry 2010-06-11 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 149834)
This would be a great argument toward a creator. Those bible writers would be considered a layman to an extreme degree considering the technology at their time. As we know they were all completely different and from different times. So if those men came to a conclusion that was considered wrong until proven fact by science thousands of years later, would that not imply that they had help from someone who knew much more than they did?
Perhaps, if there was an overwhelming amount of things that they got right compared to things they got wrong. The problem is that the opposite is true. When it comes to scientific predictions and explanations, the Bible is overwhelmingly dated to the era of its authors with respect to their description of the natural world.

ScottyS 2010-06-11 03:12 PM
One more thing to think about at a purely logical level: if God is able to create all of the things that we can observe about the universe, including the dimensions of space and time, it stands to reason that He is not limited in any way by the laws of physics that we have identified and categorized to date, as He would be the origin of all such frameworks. There are all sorts of implications there, starting with the fact that the Earth could have been created in some long, drawn-out manner as our current observational knowledge indicates, or in a literal 144hrs, in whichever manner God saw fit. This view actually makes the most sense from a purely scientific perspective - the idea that there is some god floating around out there that is somehow constrained by the laws of physics (like the gods of many mythologies) makes little sense. The God of the Bible is certainly not constrained by anything that we have the ability to observe or describe.

I would also say that there is a difference between arguing "literal" interpretation of the actual grammar/language used in some translation, and a "literal" interpretation of the idea/fact/concept described, after weighing against similar texts elsewhere in the Bible and original language. Interestingly enough, the focus of most people that attack the idea that the Bible is the inspired and without contradiction is typically on linguistic minutia and other similar items that real scholarship would immediately clarify. You never see an objective look at the remarkable consistency and persistence of a document that spans multiple millennia, several civilizations, dozens of writers, and all of the linguistic and grammatical issues that go along with that.

The reason I'm not getting involved in the argument is that there is always too much preconception going on, which clouds the issue.

A1337STI 2010-06-11 03:46 PM
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. No He's testing us. If God forces your actions, then you are nothing but a puppet and there's nothing to Judge you upon who goes to heaven and who goes to hell if everyone's actions are controlled.

I'de say if God was controlling my even action, now that would be malevolent. You should already know this by now, if not from the Bible, then just through common sense.

We tend to call dictators Evil because they Can and DO control the actions of others (against their will)

A1337STI 2010-06-11 03:46 PM
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. No He's testing us. If God forces your actions, then you are nothing but a puppet and there's nothing to Judge you upon who goes to heaven and who goes to hell if everyone's actions are controlled.

I'de say if God was controlling my even action, now that would be malevolent. You should already know this by now, if not from the Bible, then just through common sense.

We tend to call dictators Evil because they Can and DO control the actions of others (against their will)

Kevin M 2010-06-11 04:18 PM
There are some very clear instances of hypocrisy and contradiction going on in the Bible. An eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek is the most commonly cited. There are some clear issues with the contents that any "real scholarship" makes quite clear. A lot of it can be explained away by subscribing to the idea that Jesus' life and death fulfilled the contract of the Old Testament and essentially made it moot. The New Testament is way more friendly to the conduct of a free society.

Still, even if I were quite Christian, believing in God, Jesus, the resurrection etc., I would obviously not believe that anything recorded in the Bible should be taken literally, for the most part. In particular the idea that the Bible ever has accurately described anything remotely scientific or involving the natural universe is laughable. The Old Testament explicitly contradicts what we've discovered and theorized in all of science. Like Scott said, it's never once gotten it right. Viewing the writings in the Bible as flawed products of a flawed species is far, far preferable to me than having to reject the entire thing as a complete fabrication loosed upon the world by a vast conspiracy of the churches of the faith.

The problem then is, once you don't feel that the Bible directly represents God but rather our understanding of him, it really sucks as a guide to social behavior. The constant and never-disputed affirmation of slavery, bigotry, sexism, violence and servitude to the church are horrifying to me. That led to my personal view of the writings in the Bible to be a fairly decent code of personal conduct- Jesus never said that any one of us should act in a way I would not condone- but a terrible one for guiding how we apply the law to other people.

So that is my severely abbreviated and mediocre explanation of why I don't attend church. I'm comfortable with the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who created the universe. I'm okay with the idea that Jesus could be his one true prophet and the messiah. But past that, I've never found a set of views that I, as the creature that God may or may not have destined me to be, am comfortable embracing in its entirety.

---

My first post in this thread is a quote from Ghandi- "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." I first read that long after I had figured out where I stood on the subject, and it summed me up perfectly. It's just so disappointing to me when people try to use the Bible to justify evil behavior. Slavery, sexism, war, etc. etc. are explicitly approved by scripture.

Here's the problem I have with people who want to apply the Bible (or the teachings of any other organized religion) to secular law and secular society. Why is it that Christians want to prevent people from being gay because of scripture, but they conveniently leave out so much? I have to wonder how many of the people who voted yes on Prop 8 a couple years ago are aware that the actual punishment prescribed for homosexuality is death? Have they ever read Deuteronomy 21:18 which explicitly states that disobedient children are to be stoned as well? Or Exodus 31:15 which clearly says that anyone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death? Do they know that there are 39 more capital crimes specified in the Bible?

At least Jesus was consistent, and more importantly loving and compassionate.

knucklesplitter 2010-06-11 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 149825)
No. The bible says that God is a spirit. Just as assigning human features to God is not to be understood literally, the use of male gender to describe God should not be taken literally. Gender distinction is unique to physical creatures and is a linguistic device that reflects the limitations of human language to capture fully the essence of God.

The Bible’s use of the designation “Father” helps us to understand that our Creator can be compared to a loving, protective, and caring human father. (Matthew 6:9) This does not mean that we are to view God, or even other spirit creatures in heaven, as being male or female. Gender, in the sense of sex, is not a characteristic of their nature.
That is a very reasonable response. The male gender thing often bugged me. I dunno though, the whole man-create-in-His-image thing combined with most artistic depictions gives people the impression he is some old dude with grey hair and beard and a loin cloth or robe which must be there to cover something. A god having actual gender and grey hair and wearing clothes is quite ridiculous.

knucklesplitter 2010-06-11 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 149815)
Since you and Rob have decided to join in, why don't you guys share your own beliefs. Clearly there is something in the bible that you found that didn't make sense and turned you away 30 years ago.
I am a devout born-again atheist (90+%). An ironic thing is the first event I remember that started me disavowing my faith was something my pastor told me whilst discussing my own request to be baptized at age 14. I had never been baptized as an infant. He basically told me I couldn't get to Heaven without being baptized. Now this is up for interpretation (and there are sects that believe this), but coming from him that was a strong statement. I went through with the baptism in my 3-piece suit in front of the whole congregation at 14. But I was on the way out already. The idea that some petty arbitrary procedure like that could eternally condemn someone despite all else they had done good and righteous - it didn't make sense. God sounded like an asshole to me. I mean he/it create these imperfect human fuck-ups and gave them free will, knowing full well we are fuck-ups, and knowing full well it will end badly, and then he banishes us to eternal damnation for such petty bullshit. It's kinda like throwing a puppy in the fireplace for peeing on the carpet. This is not my definitive reason for my lack of faith and my contempt for religion, but it is an example and one of many many reasons I cannot and will not go into in this thread. I already regret most of the keystrokes I've wasted here.

knucklesplitter 2010-06-11 06:13 PM
On a lighter note related to gayness... the LA Log Cabin Republicans are having a teabag toss. They will be trying to get their teabags into the mouths of likenesess of Brown, Pelosi, and Palin:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo....php?ref=fpblg

knucklesplitter 2010-06-11 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyS (Post 149867)
I would also say that there is a difference between arguing "literal" interpretation of the actual grammar/language used in some translation, and a "literal" interpretation of the idea/fact/concept described, after weighing against similar texts elsewhere in the Bible and original language. Interestingly enough, the focus of most people that attack the idea that the Bible is the inspired and without contradiction is typically on linguistic minutia and other similar items that real scholarship would immediately clarify. You never see an objective look at the remarkable consistency and persistence of a document that spans multiple millennia, several civilizations, dozens of writers, and all of the linguistic and grammatical issues that go along with that.
The earth was not created in a week, there was no great flood, women were not created from a dude's rib, etc. etc. etc x 100's. This is not literary minutia. It is fine to believe in it, but believing in it does not make it true no matter how hard one tries. It is more reasonable IMHO to take it as parable or mythology. Do not confuse faith with fact - they are not the same thing and often do not coincide. Faith is fine, beneficial even... to many of those who can believe, but it is not science, and it is not history, and in my opinion is not truth. Having lived in the Southeast most of my life I had literal Christian interpretation shoved at me daily, so I learned to shove back. If somebody wants to quote the Bible literally to put down or condemn others or to otherwise support their twisted worldview, then I am there to quote it back at them to contradict it, because quite frankly it is pretty easy.

None of this negativity is directed personally at Juice, HighDesert, Scotty... You guys seem pretty knowledgable, enlightened, and reasonable, though I personally disagree with you on many or most things religious.

Kevin M 2010-06-11 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by knucklesplitter (Post 149878)
I am a devout born-again atheist (90+%). An ironic thing is the first event I remember that started me disavowing my faith was something my pastor told me whilst discussing my own request to be baptized at age 14. I had never been baptized as an infant. He basically told me I couldn't get to Heaven without being baptized. Now this is up for interpretation (and there are sects that believe this), but coming from him that was a strong statement. I went through with the baptism in my 3-piece suit in front of the whole congregation at 14. But I was on the way out already. The idea that some petty arbitrary procedure like that could eternally condemn someone despite all else they had done good and righteous - it didn't make sense. God sounded like an asshole to me. I mean he/it create these imperfect human fuck-ups and gave them free will, knowing full well we are fuck-ups, and knowing full well it will end badly, and then he banishes us to eternal damnation for such petty bullshit. It's kinda like throwing a puppy in the fireplace for peeing on the carpet. This is not my definitive reason for my lack of faith and my contempt for religion, but it is an example and one of many many reasons I cannot and will not go into in this thread. I already regret most of the keystrokes I've wasted here.
Baptism only seems like a "petty arbitrary procedure" if you don't already have a strong idea of what God wants from you and why the churches that endorse it do so. It's not about appeasing God by jumping through hoops, it's about demonstrating your own faith and your own commitment to serving God's will... by jumping through hoops. ;) The symbolic bathing represents the church clearing you of your Original Sin, and you "taking the plunge" so to speak into the church membership and your commitment. Personally I think it makes sense, provided you also believe the rest of the basic tenants of the Gospels, which is basically love God and/or Jesus (depending on your sect), love your neighbor, and you'll be saved.

Kevin M 2010-06-11 07:14 PM
Speaking of Original Sin, that's one of the main philosophical differences I have with Catholicism and some Protestant sects. I much prefer free will, Tabula Rasa, and to a great extent Clockmaker Theory. On the other hand, if those ideas are right and life on Earth is one giant pass/fail essay exam... well, if God created me he'll understand why I got up and walked out.

Bob Danger 2010-06-11 07:26 PM

khail19 2010-06-11 07:55 PM
Something funny happened this last week that reminded me of this thread, so I thought I would post it up. First of all, I'm mostly agnostic and my wife is catholic. She wants to do the whole baptism thing for our 3 month old, which I'm fine with.

So we had to go to this class for parents and godparents in order to be allowed to have the baptism. The teacher (a deacon, which I gather is below a priest in the catholic hierarchy) told us that up until 1975, the church taught that babies who died before being baptised could not enter heaven, and would stuck in limbo/purgatory after death. However, in 1975 the church decided that mankind should not be allowed to assume what god wanted for the afterlife of infants, so now they say that "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God."

So basically, all the un-baptised babies that died before 1975 went to limbo, and no one knows what happened to all the ones after 1975. Doesn't make sense to me, and my wife couldn't really explain it to me either.

bigrobwoot 2010-06-13 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A1337STI (Post 149871)
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. No He's testing us. If God forces your actions, then you are nothing but a puppet and there's nothing to Judge you upon who goes to heaven and who goes to hell if everyone's actions are controlled.

I'de say if God was controlling my even action, now that would be malevolent. You should already know this by now, if not from the Bible, then just through common sense.

We tend to call dictators Evil because they Can and DO control the actions of others (against their will)
If God is all-knowing, and he knows what is in our hearts, why does he need to test us? He knows how we will react, so why make even his most devout, loyal followers suffer?

Stopping horrible things from happening to you does not have to include controlling anything you do. He doesn't have to give your child type 1 diabetes, autism, cancer, etc. to keep you (and your innocent child, for that matter) from suffering. Not creating Hitler sure would have prevented a lot of suffering. Not introducing terrible people to anthrax would have saved a few lives, not showing those kids from Columbine or Virginia Tech how to get their hands on guns would have helped... I think that's enough examples.

dknv 2010-06-13 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by khail19 (Post 149887)
..So basically, all the un-baptised babies that died before 1975 went to limbo, and no one knows what happened to all the ones after 1975. Doesn't make sense to me, and my wife couldn't really explain it to me either.
Isn't this typical? THE CHURCH (specifically the Catholic Church, headed by THE POPE - the Vicar of Christ on Earth - THE ONE AND ONLY representative of the Word of our Lord God) - changed the rules again. No offense to those of the Catholic persuasion. But can someone explain to me why decisions to change the rules like this are ok?

When I read the first page of this thread, my immediate thought was Jesus' quote, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. (Posts 2, 3 and 4 were joking around.) WWJD?

sperry 2010-06-14 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dknv (Post 149933)
Isn't this typical? THE CHURCH (specifically the Catholic Church, headed by THE POPE - the Vicar of Christ on Earth - THE ONE AND ONLY representative of the Word of our Lord God) - changed the rules again. No offense to those of the Catholic persuasion. But can someone explain to me why decisions to change the rules like this are ok?

When I read the first page of this thread, my immediate thought was Jesus' quote, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. (Posts 2, 3 and 4 were joking around.) WWJD?
Actually, the way the Catholic church changes the rules occasionally is to me the reason why of all the Christian persuasions, the Catholics do it best.

Sure, it took them centuries, but they finally pardoned Galileo for teaching the sun was the center of the solar system. They also have stepped back from saying the earth was literally created in 6 days and now say the Bible's story is metaphor for the billions of years it's taken since the Big Bang for the earth to exist as we see it, though they don't comment on the incorrect order of creation in the Bible. So they do bend to modern sensibilities... well they're only 400 years behind the times.

But at least the Catholics are willing to recognize the Bible is outdated, at least scientifically, and are willing to slowly make concessions to the fact. Which makes plenty of sense to me, since IMO none of the errors in the Bible detract from the Bible's message. If all churches accepted the Bible as the writings of religious scholars instead of god himself, the Bible would be a much more useful tool. But it'll probably take the Catholic church another 2000 years before admitting that... and the chance of the church still being around 2000 years from now is pretty slim since the world seems to be going either atheist or Islam.

dknv 2010-06-14 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperry (Post 149938)
But at least the Catholics are willing to recognize the Bible is outdated, at least scientifically, and are willing to slowly make concessions to the fact. Which makes plenty of sense to me, since IMO none of the errors in the Bible detract from the Bible's message. If all churches accepted the Bible as the writings of religious scholars instead of god himself, the Bible would be a much more useful tool. But it'll probably take the Catholic church another 2000 years before admitting that... and the chance of the church still being around 2000 years from now is pretty slim since the world seems to be going either atheist or Islam.
My post may have sounded like I was asking the question from a highly fundamentalist viewpoint, when in fact I am leaning in the opposite direction - as you have laid out, Scott. I was posing the question from a devil's advocate viewpoint. (Although in this discussion, I wish I could have found a different phrase to describe it, haha.)

Does the Catholic Church believe the entire Bible is outdated, or is it only some writings? And are the concessions based wholly on scientific findings, or divine inspiration, or possibly something else? Or a combination of these things? From the outside looking in, it is hard to understand or trust why these teachings are the one and only truth.

I believe the messages in the Bible are God's word, put in writing by those who had divine inspiration. But with various interpretations completed by imperfect humans (including decisions on what books and writings to keep, and what to discard in both New and Old Testaments), I can understand why so many questions and doubts exist about it.

I feel very fortunate to be living in a time and place, where I won't be persecuted for questioning religious teachings; and in a time where we are seeing examples where science is backing up religious teachings (Noah's Ark and the story of the Flood), as well as where religion is acknowledging science (story of creation).

bigrobwoot 2010-06-14 02:36 PM
Where is the proof for Noah's Ark? I think I remember hearing something about that when I was going to church a long time ago, but I never heard any specifics.

bigrobwoot 2010-06-14 02:51 PM
So, after doing some independent research (googling "Noah's ark proof" and clicking on the first 2 links) I came up with this article that says it has not been proven. This comes from a Christian website, so if there were any bias, it would be toward the side of its existence.

Quote:
Over the last two decades the search for Noah's Ark has received international attention. Dozens of expeditions to the Ararat region of eastern Turkey, mostly by American Christian groups, have led to numerous claims - but no proof.

According to the Bible, Noah's Ark was a large barge constructed of wood and sealed with bitumen. Its overall dimensions were at least 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high with three interior decks. A “window” appeared to be constructed around the top (Genesis 6:14-16). Incidentally, the overall size of the Ark makes it the largest seagoing vessel known before the 20th century, and its proportions are amazingly similar to the large ocean liners of today.


Artist's conception of Noah's Ark based on biblical information and reported sightings on Mt. Ararat.
The Bible says Noah's boat came to rest on “the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). “Ararat” probably designated a region (the ancient kingdom of Urartu) and not a specific mountain peak. After Noah and his family left the Ark on the mountain, the boat virtually disappeared from the pages of the Bible. Later Biblical writers never suggested they knew it could still be seen.

The mountain called Ararat today is more like a mountain range with twin peaks. Interestingly, there have been numerous reports throughout history of a large boat on a mountain in this region. Earliest references (beginning in the 3rd century B.C.) suggested it was common knowledge that the Ark could still be viewed on Mount Ararat.

Reports over the past century range from visits to the vessel, to recovery of wooden timber, to aerial photographs. It is generally believed that at least large part of the Ark is intact, not on the highest peak, but somewhere above the 10,000 foot level. Apparently encased in snow and ice for most of the year, only during certain warm summers can the structure be witnessed or accessed. Some have spoken of climbing onto the roof, others say they have walked inside.

In the 1980s, “ark-eology” was given an air of respectability with the active participation of former NASA astronaut James Irwin in expeditions up the mountain. In addition, Ark investigation was also given a boost with the breakup of the former Soviet Union, because the mountain was right on the Turkey-Soviet border. Expeditions up the mountain had been considered a security threat by the Soviet government.

Unfortunately, return visits to proposed sites have produced no further evidence, the whereabouts of all photographs are presently unknown, and different sightings do not suggest the same location on the mountain. Furthermore, Astronaut James Irwin has since died, a purported eyewitness has recently recanted publicly, and there have been few new expeditions up the mountain in the 1990s. Further expeditions have taken place in the new millennium, but no proof of the Ark has yet been found.

But efforts are still ongoing. While the Associates for Biblical Research is not engaged in any of these efforts, we are aware of continued research into ancient reports, further testimony from eyewitnesses and renewed efforts to pinpoint the Ark's resting place. More expeditions are pending. If it's up there, we will certainly hear about it.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html

even if there were proof that a boat that large existed in the mountains, that doesn't mean it held 2 of every animal aboard, or even that there was a great flood. All it proves is that there were some people living in the mountains that were afraid of a great flood.

sperry 2010-06-14 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigrobwoot (Post 149963)
Where is the proof for Noah's Ark? I think I remember hearing something about that when I was going to church a long time ago, but I never heard any specifics.
I don't think there's any proof of the ark, just some satellite photos with "ark" labeled on them, which of course were probably labeled as such because that's just what the photo editors called the anomaly, not because that's what it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ararat_anomaly

The "recent proof" I've heard about is speculation about the source of the flood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

Kevin M 2010-06-14 03:11 PM
Yeah, that all jibes with what I've heard. There's archaeological/geologic evidence of a super catastrophic flood in Babylon roughly when the story takes place, but no evidence whatsoever of Noah, his Ark, or that no living creatures otherwise survived the flood.

AtomicLabMonkey 2010-06-15 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by knucklesplitter (Post 149878)
God sounded like an asshole to me.
Look around at the world we live in - if there is a God, he's obviously an asshole.

Also, you guys have way too much fucking time on your hands.

:picard:

dknv 2010-06-15 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey (Post 149997)
Also, you guys have way too much fucking time on your hands.
I know! It took me a hour to skim read through the thread before I even posted. Yeah, I'm a slow reader. But I also looked at some of the links.

bigrobwoot 2010-06-15 09:31 PM
There's nothing wrong with wanting to know where we came from, and discussing it with other people with different points of view. It's very educational and mind-opening, if that's a word. The thread isn't too bad if you stay caught up :lol:

Highdesertsuby 2010-06-22 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigrobwoot (Post 149965)
even if there were proof that a boat that large existed in the mountains, that doesn't mean it held 2 of every animal aboard, or even that there was a great flood. All it proves is that there were some people living in the mountains that were afraid of a great flood.
Just to make a point...the flood account in Genesis does not say "two of every animal". It says two of every KIND of animal (not species). That means two dogs, two horses, two cats, etc. I don't rememebr how "kind" would be classified in taxonomy, but if you run the numbers, Noah would have only had to carry about 5,000-6,000 individual animals on the ark to cover the genetic diversity we have now. With the size of the ark that number could be easily accomidated.

The second point is that everyone likes to say that there is no evidence of a global flood...when in fact, there is an entire planet full of evidence. Practically every surface feature we see today is the result of catastrophic water-sourced erosion, or the aftereffects. Only huge floods and rapid sedimentation could be responible for the incredible numbers of fossils we have worldwide (we are talking multiple trillions...with a "T"). Flood hydrology and geomorphology (fancy name for land-changing processes) is what I got my degree in, and I have seen much of this firsthand.

I can't speak about the ark, and if it still exists or not, but I can tell you this much...anyone who says that there is no evidence that a global flood occurred simply has not actually looked at the earth and studied what is out there.

Kevin M 2010-06-22 08:56 PM
Sorry man, but that post proves nothing beyond your lack of understanding of biology and geology.

Highdesertsuby 2010-06-22 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin M (Post 150096)
Sorry man, but that post proves nothing beyond your lack of understanding of biology and geology.
No...sorry to you...I understand alot more about geology and biology than you think I do. UNR thought my understanding of geology was good enough for them to give me a bachelor's degree in geology, plus I spent 3 years working on a masters there as well. I understand EXACTLY how evolution and a billions of years old earth is supposed to work, plus I spent years out there in the field actually looking at it, so I know what evidence is really available. I also worked for the state geologic survey for nearly 10 years...so please don't tell me I don't understand these things. By comparison, most of what nearly every person on this forum knows is only what they have been told by National Geographic and the History Channel. I do this for a living.

Kevin M 2010-06-22 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby (Post 150095)
Just to make a point...the flood account in Genesis does not say "two of every animal". It says two of every KIND of animal (not species). That means two dogs, two horses, two cats, etc. I don't rememebr how "kind" would be classified in taxonomy, but if you run the numbers, Noah would have only had to carry about 5,000-6,000 individual animals on the ark to cover the genetic diversity we have now. With the size of the ark that number could be easily accomidated.
That's just silly. Using word-play to attempt to establish scientific truth in the Bible is an old trick that still doesn't work. But whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby (Post 150095)
The second point is that everyone likes to say that there is no evidence of a global flood...when in fact, there is an entire planet full of evidence. Practically every surface feature we see today is the result of catastrophic water-sourced erosion, or the aftereffects. Only huge floods and rapid sedimentation could be responible for the incredible numbers of fossils we have worldwide (we are talking multiple trillions...with a "T"). Flood hydrology and geomorphology (fancy name for land-changing processes) is what I got my degree in, and I have seen much of this firsthand.
I'm sorry again, but I'm staggered by the level of twisted meanings and misinformation coming from someone so educated in this field. There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood." We can probably just start and end that debate by noting there isn't even enough water on the planet to fully cover it. No point even getting into the dizzying array of methods for forming the various geological features of the planet without pretending they're all from "catastrophic water-sourced erosion."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby (Post 150095)
I can't speak about the ark, and if it still exists or not, but I can tell you this much...anyone who says that there is no evidence that a global flood occurred simply has not actually looked at the earth and studied what is out there.
There very well could have been a Noah, who built an ark, and loaded it with his family and lots of animals and survived a wicked flood. There is clear evidence of a MAJOR flood on the Euphrates roughly corresponding to when Noah would have lived. Scholars generally attribute the Noah flood story to another ancient Babylonian king, but it's close enough. Trying to parlay such things into a claim that there was a planetary-scale flood, that all creatures not on Noah's ark perished and that all of humanity is directly descended from him is preposterous, silly, and irresponsible. After seven years of studying geology I find it very, very hard to believe that you can accept what occurs in the book of Genesis as literal scientific fact in any way.

Highdesertsuby 2010-06-22 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin M (Post 150099)
That's just silly. Using word-play to attempt to establish scientific truth in the Bible is an old trick that still doesn't work. But whatever.
It's not an issue of "word-play", I am making a point...everyone who ever questions the validity of the Genesis flood account always says somehting like "there is no way Noah could have gotten two of every SPECIES of animal on the ark". I am simply saying that the bible doesn't use the term "species", it uses the word "kind". That word does have a biological term equivalent, "family" is the nearest option. In any case, many of myown professors have admitted that those classifications are rather arbitrary anyway, and they are constantly being rearranged. I do find it interesting though that, instead of trying to actually refute what I said, you have to resort to using terms like "silly" and "old tricks". Typical of someone who doesn't want to give a serious look at the other side of the story.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin M (Post 150099)
I'm sorry again, but I'm staggered by the level of twisted meanings and misinformation coming from someone so educated in this field. There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood." We can probably just start and end that debate by noting there isn't even enough water on the planet to fully cover it. No point even getting into the dizzying array of methods for forming the various geological features of the planet without pretending they're all from "catastrophic water-sourced erosion."
Well I am "staggered" by the level of assumptions coming from people who have little or NO education in this field. You can say what you want, but I have been out there on the rocks and digging in the dirt, measuring the faults, mapping the ground, looking at the fossils, and seeing with my own eyes the kinds of processes that work out there. I have the advantage of having studied BOTH models (evolution and creation) for years, which is more than I can say for most people out there...I actually have a standard of comparison. Do you have anything more than TV indoctrination? The formation of geological features is my speciality, and there is no "dizzying array" of methods or processes. The kinds of forces that can change the way the earth surface looks is actually pretty limited...water, wind, tectonics, and chemical reactions. When you actually get away from the tv and look at the rocks themselves, water erosion is actually the primary method responsible for most of the features we see. The only question is how much water and how much time. Most geologists are realizing that catastrophic changes are more the norm, which is why they invented punctuated equilibrium to try to explain it.

In any case, I don't have to "pretend" anything...the evidence is there, just depends on how you want to interpret it. You said "There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood."". So are you saying that sedimentary layers that extend worldwide could not have been caused by a global flood? Are you saying that the trillions upon trillions of fossils found worldwide could not have possibly been buried and preserved by sediment from a global flood? Are you saying that even though most of the world's landmass is made up of miles thick sedimentary layers, a global flood could not have possibly been the reason they are there? Are you saying that the evolutionary geologic model is the ONLY possible explanation there is? You must be smarter than Einstein then to be able to state, as a fact, that there is no evidence for a global flood. I am actually curious...where did you learn about geology? By the way, if you drop the mountain ranges and raise the ocean basins, there is PLENTY of water to cover everything...tectonic models actually do allow for this to have possibly been the case. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin M (Post 150099)
There very well could have been a Noah, who built an ark, and loaded it with his family and lots of animals and survived a wicked flood. There is clear evidence of a MAJOR flood on the Euphrates roughly corresponding to when Noah would have lived. Scholars generally attribute the Noah flood story to another ancient Babylonian king, but it's close enough. Trying to parlay such things into a claim that there was a planetary-scale flood, that all creatures not on Noah's ark perished and that all of humanity is directly descended from him is preposterous, silly, and irresponsible. After seven years of studying geology I find it very, very hard to believe that you can accept what occurs in the book of Genesis as literal scientific fact in any way.

Hmmm..."preposterous, silly, and irresponsible"...is that all you can do is to throw out more of those obviously condescending remarks (see my note from earlier)? After 7 years of official study, and many more outside of the classroom, I find a literal understanding of Genesis to make alot more sense than to believe that some cosmic accident made everything from nothing (something evolutionists STILL cannot explain), and that we all evolved from rocks. As for everyone descending from Noah and his family, even the director of the Human Genome Project admits that all humans come from a single genetic ancestor. So, no, my ideas are not as silly as you think they are, if the number 1 geneticist on the planet agrees with me. Also, if a global flood didn't kill all of those animals, then would you care to explain how we have trillions of fossils preserved under miles of sediments all around the world? Fossilization requires RAPID burial to even have a chance...no other process will work. Once again, I will suggest to you that you actually study the claims and scientific models produced by the creation community and stop relying so much on the 6-7 regular guests that show up on Discovery and History channel every time this subject is brought up.

bigrobwoot 2010-06-23 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby (Post 150101)
It's not an issue of "word-play", I am making a point...everyone who ever questions the validity of the Genesis flood account always says somehting like "there is no way Noah could have gotten two of every SPECIES of animal on the ark". I am simply saying that the bible doesn't use the term "species", it uses the word "kind". That word does have a biological term equivalent, "family" is the nearest option. In any case, many of myown professors have admitted that those classifications are rather arbitrary anyway, and they are constantly being rearranged. I do find it interesting though that, instead of trying to actually refute what I said, you have to resort to using terms like "silly" and "old tricks". Typical of someone who doesn't want to give a serious look at the other side of the story.






Well I am "staggered" by the level of assumptions coming from people who have little or NO education in this field. You can say what you want, but I have been out there on the rocks and digging in the dirt, measuring the faults, mapping the ground, looking at the fossils, and seeing with my own eyes the kinds of processes that work out there. I have the advantage of having studied BOTH models (evolution and creation) for years, which is more than I can say for most people out there...I actually have a standard of comparison. Do you have anything more than TV indoctrination? The formation of geological features is my speciality, and there is no "dizzying array" of methods or processes. The kinds of forces that can change the way the earth surface looks is actually pretty limited...water, wind, tectonics, and chemical reactions. When you actually get away from the tv and look at the rocks themselves, water erosion is actually the primary method responsible for most of the features we see. The only question is how much water and how much time. Most geologists are realizing that catastrophic changes are more the norm, which is why they invented punctuated equilibrium to try to explain it.

In any case, I don't have to "pretend" anything...the evidence is there, just depends on how you want to interpret it. You said "There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood."". So are you saying that sedimentary layers that extend worldwide could not have been caused by a global flood? Are you saying that the trillions upon trillions of fossils found worldwide could not have possibly been buried and preserved by sediment from a global flood? Are you saying that even though most of the world's landmass is made up of miles thick sedimentary layers, a global flood could not have possibly been the reason they are there? Are you saying that the evolutionary geologic model is the ONLY possible explanation there is? You must be smarter than Einstein then to be able to state, as a fact, that there is no evidence for a global flood. I am actually curious...where did you learn about geology? By the way, if you drop the mountain ranges and raise the ocean basins, there is PLENTY of water to cover everything...tectonic models actually do allow for this to have possibly been the case. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.





Hmmm..."preposterous, silly, and irresponsible"...is that all you can do is to throw out more of those obviously condescending remarks (see my note from earlier)? After 7 years of official study, and many more outside of the classroom, I find a literal understanding of Genesis to make alot more sense than to believe that some cosmic accident made everything from nothing (something evolutionists STILL cannot explain), and that we all evolved from rocks. As for everyone descending from Noah and his family, even the director of the Human Genome Project admits that all humans come from a single genetic ancestor. So, no, my ideas are not as silly as you think they are, if the number 1 geneticist on the planet agrees with me. Also, if a global flood didn't kill all of those animals, then would you care to explain how we have trillions of fossils preserved under miles of sediments all around the world? Fossilization requires RAPID burial to even have a chance...no other process will work. Once again, I will suggest to you that you actually study the claims and scientific models produced by the creation community and stop relying so much on the 6-7 regular guests that show up on Discovery and History channel every time this subject is brought up.
I'd suggest that a mistake you're making is trying to make the evidence you've found fit the conclusions you've already reached. Based on my admittedly limited study in the area of Geology (I got an A in Geology 101 :)) aren't there other processes than a global flood that could have caused all of the rock formations you're talking about? Like, localized flooding combined with tectonic plate movement? I'd say it is generally accepted that mountains have been continually growing. Therefore, they used to be a lot smaller than they are now. Also, the great lake lahontan used to cover most of this state. This is evidenced near walker lake looking at the mountains. Now, not being a geologist, I genuinely don't know where else in the world this existed, if it did anywhere at all. But I'd say that this could also erode mountains to cause the formations you were talking about. Another possible source is localized flooding. I'm sure everyone remembers the flood of '97? That was either a 100-year or 200-year flood, which means it is a pretty small flood, on a geological timeline. There could have been massive floods tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago that would also have caused erosion. The last ice age also contributed, via giant icebergs colliding with land masses.

Sorry if that doesn't flow too well, I wrote in spurts.

bigrobwoot 2010-06-23 01:46 PM
Wouldn't massive, world-wide flooding also kill most of the plant species?

bigrobwoot 2010-06-23 02:02 PM
And wouldn't all of the oceans mix with all of the lakes, making every lake saline?

Highdesertsuby 2010-06-23 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigrobwoot (Post 150123)
Wouldn't massive, world-wide flooding also kill most of the plant species?
Yes, it would have killed most of them, but remember...seeds float, and many plants can actually survive being covered in water for long periods of time. There are also numerous examples of seeds that can exist in a dormant phase either underwater or buried in sediment until the right conditions cause them to "energize" for lack of a better term.

Highdesertsuby 2010-06-23 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigrobwoot (Post 150125)
And wouldn't all of the oceans mix with all of the lakes, making every lake saline?
That is assuming that the oceans were nearly as saline as they are now. Even then, that isn't much...about 3.6%. Plus, lakes are constantly having their water supply replentished (provided they have an outlet), so even if they were more saline for a while, they wouldn't stay that way for long.

Highdesertsuby 2010-06-23 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigrobwoot (Post 150122)
I'd suggest that a mistake you're making is trying to make the evidence you've found fit the conclusions you've already reached. Based on my admittedly limited study in the area of Geology (I got an A in Geology 101 :)) aren't there other processes than a global flood that could have caused all of the rock formations you're talking about? Like, localized flooding combined with tectonic plate movement? I'd say it is generally accepted that mountains have been continually growing. Therefore, they used to be a lot smaller than they are now. Also, the great lake lahontan used to cover most of this state. This is evidenced near walker lake looking at the mountains. Now, not being a geologist, I genuinely don't know where else in the world this existed, if it did anywhere at all. But I'd say that this could also erode mountains to cause the formations you were talking about. Another possible source is localized flooding. I'm sure everyone remembers the flood of '97? That was either a 100-year or 200-year flood, which means it is a pretty small flood, on a geological timeline. There could have been massive floods tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago that would also have caused erosion. The last ice age also contributed, via giant icebergs colliding with land masses.

Sorry if that doesn't flow too well, I wrote in spurts.
A point of fact is that I did not try to make evidence fit a conclusion I had already made. I was a serious believer in a billions of years old earth...UNTIL I found evidence to the contrary. Your assumption is that I did things the other way around. It was the vidence that I found out in the field that convinced me that the earth could not be billions of years old..later studying uncovered more evidence to back that up. The issue is not that I made any mistakes in what I believe could be a plausable cause to much of the earth's erosion...but that the average evolutionist is the one who makes that mistake by assuming that much of the erosion we see could NOT have been caused by massive worldwide flooding. What we are dealing with here is time and volume of water. Some of the erosion we see was obviously NOT caused by a huge flood, because the amount of erosion is not very big...and erosion is an ongoing process. However, the erosion evidence we see does NOT rule out the possibility of global flooding as a cause. In fact, many erosional features we see HAD to be caused by global-scale flooding simply because of the structure we see and the sheer volume of sediments that were moved.

Many smaller flood events would leave a distinctive pattern of varying grain size in the layers (larger on bottom, smaller on top). You would see this pattern repeated in sequence every time you had a flood. We do see this on a small scale with local flooding, but the big sediment deposits (ie. the Navaho Sandstone in Grand Canyon) do not show this pattern. Neither do they show evidence of surface erosion between layers as you would expect to see between flood events. You would also have to find a way to explain why the same layers can be found in Arizona, New York, and Scotland. It takes a global scale flood to move that much sediment and distribute it halfway across the planet.

Of course, there are other processes that have shaped our world more recently, but that still does NOT eliminate the possibility that a global flood did most of the damage. Millions of years of smaller floods could certainly erode mountains and canyons, but they would have left different erosion patterns than what we actually see in the rocks. The big assumption is that the earth actually had the time to do this (the millions of years thing)...and there are several lines of evidence that show that the earth could not possibly be that old. Everyone that believes in millions of years has to rely on one of two things...the geologic column and age dating.

The geoligic column was invented without the benefit of age dating, or even any evidence that the rocks appear in age sequence. Rocks matching the geologic column's age sequence do not exist on earth ANYWHERE...and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Even my own professors admitted they don't exist. Next, ALL age dating techniques are faulty and do not work...been proven time and again BY SECULAR SCIENTISTS. They are all based on assumptions about initial conditions that no one was around to observe. The only reason why the millions of years thing was invented was to try to give some credability to evolution theory, whcih needs the time to even have a chance (even with that it can't work, but that is a molecular biology discussion....happy to get into that as well).

Other evidence for a young earth involve things like the reduction in earth's rotational speed, the ever-increasing distance of the moon, and atmospheric carbon 14 equlilibrium issues. Happy to discuss them all.

By the way, Lake Lahontan drying up isn't an issue of erosion, but rather climate change. It was a realitively recent event, even by geologic standards. The whole idea here is to realize that, based on the actual evidence seen in the rocks (not to mention some laws of physics), a global flood does a much better job of explaining the geologic features than smaller local floods over millions of years. The formation of the Grand Canyon is one of my favorate examples of how people can totally ignore facts to try to push a dead theory....more on that later if you are willing to learn.

bigrobwoot 2010-06-24 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby (Post 150133)
Yes, it would have killed most of them, but remember...seeds float, and many plants can actually survive being covered in water for long periods of time. There are also numerous examples of seeds that can exist in a dormant phase either underwater or buried in sediment until the right conditions cause them to "energize" for lack of a better term.
Nothing kills plants like salinity. How long was the earth underwater during this flood? I seem to remember it being years, but I don't remember for sure. All of the salt in the water also would have destroyed all of the soil on earth for growing for years. I'd also guess that there is only a 1 in 4 chance that the plants were in the seed-producing season. But our spring isn't the same as australia's spring, so where did all of the different plants' seeds come from?

bigrobwoot 2010-06-24 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby (Post 150134)
That is assuming that the oceans were nearly as saline as they are now. Even then, that isn't much...about 3.6%. Plus, lakes are constantly having their water supply replentished (provided they have an outlet), so even if they were more saline for a while, they wouldn't stay that way for long.
Why wouldn't the oceans be as saline then as they are now? Not all lakes have an outlet. The great salt lake is a prime example. So is pyramid lake. Salinity/TDS (total dissolved solids) wasn't an issue in pyramid until the wastewater treatment plant started dumping in there. AFAIK, it isn't as saline as the ocean yet. It should be, since it would have been saline from mixing with the oceans, and then adding salinity/TDS from the treated wastewater. That is the only local lake example I can think of, but I'm not a geologist or hydrologist.

100_Percent_Juice 2010-06-24 10:21 AM
I don't know why so many discussions on this forum have to turn into a pissing match of who is more educated. There is nobody alive today who was around to physically witness any of this. Neither side (evolutionist/creationist) has a complete, highly detailed, word for word account of the beginning of the earth, mankind, or the flood. There will always be arguments on both sides as to why these issues are true or untrue. Personally, I honestly don't see the big deal with finding the Ark. Lets assume that Noah's Ark will be found some day in the future. If it is, will you automatically change what you believe? Will you say "here is that evidence I have been looking for, I guess I will now believe the bible". I doubt it. There will then arise arguments about who's boat it actually was and that it still doesn't prove there was a flood etc etc etc.

There is not a single person who has come into this thread unbiased. There are some issues that will probably never be resolved and questions that will never be answered. Faith is required to believe either side. I feel that a person can only prove to themselves what they believe. I personally believe creation because, to me it makes the most sense and also gives the most meaning to life. Like everyone, I too have many questions about the opposing belief.

If evolution springs forth out of necessity, why do even the most brilliant of minds only use such a small portion of our brain?

If death is a natural part of humanity, why do people get so upset and filled with grief when someone dies?

Why are humans so completely different from all other living creatures? As humans we enjoy love, comedy, art, music, we see in color, we can taste an endless variety of flavor, we have a strong sense of justice, we are always trying to learn and better ourselves, we question how and why we are alive and on this planet.

This leads me to personally believe that we were created for a purpose. That being the amazing creatures that we are is a result of intelligent design and not mere coincidence.

Kevin M 2010-06-24 10:38 AM
Here are some super-quickie answers that work for those questions which, IMO, do not conflict with the major explanations of Why We're Here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 150141)
If evolution springs forth out of necessity, why do even the most brilliant of minds only use such a small portion of our brain?
A question for biologists, but I believe (lol) that the current line of thinking is that if we overclocked our brains by using a high percentage of it at a given moment, we'd essentially suffer from heat stroke in moments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 150141)
If death is a natural part of humanity, why do people get so upset and filled with grief when someone dies?
The social construct of death being very, very bad makes sense from both an evolutionary standpoint and from the religious. Societies are stronger and more viable when we work to prevent individuals of our society/species from dying sooner. For the most part anyway. And for those who believe God is in control of everything that happens, the answer is that we grieve because He made us that way for His own purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 150141)
Why are humans so completely different from all other living creatures? As humans we enjoy love, comedy, art, music, we see in color, we can taste an endless variety of flavor, we have a strong sense of justice, we are always trying to learn and better ourselves, we question how and why we are alive and on this planet.
Evolution: it's because of those giant brains. Creation: Humans are special, we are God's chosen ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 150141)
This leads me to personally believe that we were created for a purpose. That being the amazing creatures that we are is a result of intelligent design and not mere coincidence.
Science only conflicts with religion when religion insists science is wrong and that the Book of ancient writings- be it the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud/torah etc.- is literally correct. Honest, true science cannot and does not attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or deities, merely to understand the natural world, wherever it may have come from.

100_Percent_Juice 2010-06-24 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin M (Post 150142)
A question for biologists, but I believe (lol) that the current line of thinking is that if we overclocked our brains by using a high percentage of it at a given moment, we'd essentially suffer from heat stroke in moments.
I understand what you are saying but, that doesn't answer the question as to why we have big brains. Its just a silly (IMO) explanation of why we can't utilize more of it. I am not asking nor do I expect you to provide a lengthy answer for these questions. I think this is just food for thought and if we wanted to, we could all go back and forth forever.

bigrobwoot 2010-06-24 01:10 PM
I thought the point of this thread (since the derailment) was to go back and forth? Whether I accept some of the answers I'm given or not, it is a great source of deep thought. I don't care if I convince anyone to believe what I do or not. I'd like to think I haven't insulted anyone's intelligence, I haven't been trying to, and I know that mine hasn't been insulted. Isn't this how people get answers, though? By asking questions?

100_Percent_Juice 2010-06-24 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigrobwoot (Post 150145)
I thought the point of this thread (since the derailment) was to go back and forth? Whether I accept some of the answers I'm given or not, it is a great source of deep thought. I don't care if I convince anyone to believe what I do or not. I'd like to think I haven't insulted anyone's intelligence, I haven't been trying to, and I know that mine hasn't been insulted. Isn't this how people get answers, though? By asking questions?
I agree with this. I am all for going back and forth as an interchange of thoughts and information. I just don't wish for it to become personal to where someone feels that their intelligence is being questioned. I think it has started to edge in that direction a few times but, I think we are still good.

Kevin M 2010-06-24 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice (Post 150144)
I understand what you are saying but, that doesn't answer the question as to why we have big brains. Its just a silly (IMO) explanation of why we can't utilize more of it. I am not asking nor do I expect you to provide a lengthy answer for these questions. I think this is just food for thought and if we wanted to, we could all go back and forth forever.
There plausible, common sense explanations for our big brains from both evolution theory and creation theory. Bigger brains = smarter, smarter = more survival from the evolution standpoint. The cost of our big brains is long gestation, difficult childbirth, and looooooong adolescence. This is why we developed complex social interactions, strong emotions, etc. They are necessary components of the overall "gameplan" for our species. Obviously there's a lot of complexity involved that I can't get into, but nearly everything we think we know about Homo Sapiens jives with Darwinian evolutionary theory.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:50 PM.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright Subaru Enthusiasts Car Club of the Sierras unless otherwise noted.