Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 24/33
(21-Mar-2011 at 05:19)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner: View Post
I can answer that
Cause early Christians went to war with and killed anyone that opposed their beliefs and as it was the last religion to arise in such a way right before our age of industry and enlightenment ... its the one we got stuck with
How does that explain me and millions like me? You can't just point to some events and say that it applies across the board.

No one used a sword to convert me. In actuality I was raised an atheist and never attended a Church. Yet I while sitting in my living room alone at age 28, I felt God and in a second went from completely sure there was no God to completely sure there was one and that he was the God specifically spoken of in the Bible.
#41  
View Public Profile Find more posts by adam332 Add adam332 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2825
(21-Mar-2011 at 05:58)


Quote:
How does that explain me and millions like me? You can't just point to some events and say that it applies across the board.
That would be the part where it explains why Christianity lasted while others failed. It has to do with it's followers killing others and it being a very good social and political tool rather then some divine truth you are going for. At least that's what history points


Quote:
No one used a sword to convert me. In actuality I was raised an atheist and never attended a Church. Yet I while sitting in my living room alone at age 28, I felt God and in a second went from completely sure there was no God to completely sure there was one and that he was the God specifically spoken of in the Bible.
And this complete sureness is the reason why you stuff your ears and ignore every counter argument? And you seem to be getting worse. With me you seem repeated the same thing over and over. Now you seem to be afraid to even adress filcher's damn good arguments

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views

Last edited by DHoffryn, 21-Mar-2011 at 05:59.
#42  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 25/33
(21-Mar-2011 at 07:16)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
It is a reason to dismiss them if you want to explain in any scientific terms the existence of God. There is no way that stories and tales of God's existence can be credited any more than the stories of Ghosts and spirits, of Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, or any other legend can be credited as real. I do not doubt that those who believe in his existence feel the stories should be considered true, but without additional information we cannot make a judgement call on whether they actually are true or not.
It may be scientifically possible to prove God but it can never be scientifically possible to disprove Him. I've heard many try to dissect the Bible to show inconsistencies. However, not only has archaeology shown many Biblical things that were once myth to be fact but science has too.

For example, I've heard people ask how was there light(Gen. 1:3) before the sun was created(Gen. 1:14-19) in an effort to discredit scripture.

However it was science which explained it just in the last 80yrs.

Sonoluminescence is the ability of turning sound into light. It was first stumbled upon in 1934 by H. Frenzel and H. Schultes of the University of Cologne, Germany. Essentially, it is the ability of acoustical energy bombarding molecules of water. Here we have a scientific principal showing sound and water resulting in light.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The Bible records water and sound and then light. An amazing coincidence to say the least even for the biggest skeptic.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
I think you may be under a misrepresentation here about lengths of time . I think that the worship of animals pre dates the Abrahamic religions and has existed in a greater area for a longer time, than has Judaism, and it grew not just in one corner of the World, but in all areas of the World.
I am not denying there were other religions before Abraham, but according to scripture the worship of Abraham's God existed before all others. Abraham and his offspring were simply given the job of being his ambassadors at that point in history.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
We have no "cut off" line in terms of what is and isn't factual. we have numerous books and archaeological discoveries that exist beyond the popular writings of people like Alexander the Great, and we can use secondary sources to also prove he was a real person. We cannot prove Robin Hood was a real person, despite the popularity of legends simply because there are no records that support the accounts often told of him. It is not a question of when, but a question of what; what records are there, who has written of them, what physical evidence of his life remains?
Again, who gets to determine that an authors comments are true up until a particular subject is mentioned?

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
It merely went through what any other new religion went through since the dawn of history. That it survived does not mean that it is true or Divine, it merely means that it was a religion the largest group of people were able to feel comfortable with.
I never said it was proof of divinity because it had outlasted most and is currently the majority belief of the human race. I was pointing out it's uniqueness and that it should not be dismissed as just your average religion.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
When we are able to verify what is written in it. The old testament is a history of the Jewish peoples, and as such it can be verified; the religion doctrine shows the religious beliefs but it does not show that the God of Abraham exists.
That is incorrect. It does more than simply record their religious beliefs. It gives first hand accounts of how some of the writers saw miracles, spoke and touched God in the physical sense. Let me reiterate, who gets to determine that a Biblical author was speaking literally of a physical place or event in one sentence, then when recording that he literally touched God in the next sentence it is myth?

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
You are describing a history book. No one has ever said that the Bible is not an account of the history of the Jewish race. What it is not is evidence of a Divine being.
Let me get this straight, it can be evidence of cities that the author actually saw, but it is can not be evidence of a divine being who the author actually saw? A bit inconsistent.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
No, we should let common sense tell us. If there is physical evidence relating to the passage, then we should say that is proof. So far it has shown several historical facts with physical proof, but no divine ones.
Again that is subjective. To millions it has been able to confirm evidence of a divine being they have personally encountered.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
Unfortunately I have never seen physical evidence of God that you can actually use to prove his existence.
That is not the standard for what many scholars call evidence. There are recorded accounts of places and events that have never been physically found. Yet, when other non-Biblical sources have recorded the same exact event or place they consider that evidence that the Bible was recording an actual physical place or event.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
The Bible is a human compilation of many writers and story tellers that. The Church is an organization that was created by human beings, and the Church Doctrines were created amongst great debate and controversy.
Not much I can disagree with there, except the phrase "story tellers" which seems to imply fiction to me.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
All the evidences that you have presented rely on hearsay evidences and circumstantial evidences, there is no evidence that you have bought forth showing God exists.
So if the Bible records the existence of an empire and multiple other sources confirm the same it is simply hearsay and not evidence? I think there would be many archaeologists who disagree with your definition of evidence.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
The main problem is that you know what you know, but you do not see that others have a hard time accepting evidences that cannot be proven or verified by physical evidences or by secondary reports. I am definitely not saying you are wrong in your beliefs, I am saying that others may not see as clearly as you do in some ways.
Interesting. Just before this you indicated secondary reports as hearsay and not evidence, but here you clearly indicate that physical evidence and secondary reports are equal proof. It appears secondary reports of God is your exception to what you will call evidence. How convenient.
#43  
View Public Profile Find more posts by adam332 Add adam332 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 26/33
(21-Mar-2011 at 07:57)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
That would be the part where it explains why Christianity lasted while others failed. It has to do with it's followers killing others and it being a very good social and political tool rather then some divine truth you are going for. At least that's what history points
Has nothing to do with my response.


Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
And this complete sureness is the reason why you stuff your ears and ignore every counter argument? And you seem to be getting worse. With me you seem repeated the same thing over and over. Now you seem to be afraid to even adress filcher's damn good arguments
Evidently you didn't read. I said I spent the first 28yrs an atheist. So you think I just stuffed my ears. Please tell me you have something real to contribute.

I'm not afraid of anyones comments. There is definitely a unfair advantage of time constraint when one person is having to answer many others. I'm so sorry that I don't have the time of 4 people to satisfy you. Do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just gonna' mock someone for not having the time to answer somebody elses thoughts.

If you have something of substance to say then join in otherwise let filcher and I continue without your snide empty comments.
#44  
View Public Profile Find more posts by adam332 Add adam332 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3842/3983
(21-Mar-2011 at 09:55)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by adam332: View Post
It may be scientifically possible to prove God but it can never be scientifically possible to disprove Him. I've heard many try to dissect the Bible to show inconsistencies. However, not only has archaeology shown many Biblical things that were once myth to be fact but science has too.
The problem with using the Bible to argue points is that it is does depend on faith, and not on physical evidence. Nobody AFAIK has said the Bible is not a historical accounting of the Jewish history and the tribes, we are saying that using the historical context as a proof of religious context is like comparing apples and oranges.

Quote:
For example, I've heard people ask how was there light(Gen. 1:3) before the sun was created(Gen. 1:14-19) in an effort to discredit scripture.

However it was science which explained it just in the last 80yrs.

Sonoluminescence is the ability of turning sound into light. It was first stumbled upon in 1934 by H. Frenzel and H. Schultes of the University of Cologne, Germany. Essentially, it is the ability of acoustical energy bombarding molecules of water. Here we have a scientific principal showing sound and water resulting in light.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The Bible records water and sound and then light. An amazing coincidence to say the least even for the biggest skeptic.
The interpretation of the Bible has resulted in many schisms within the church, and has led to very outlandish beliefs. There are at least 2 accounts of the beginning of the earth, they are contradictory to each other. In this instance you use a very liberal interpretation of scientific theory to try to explain how the Bible is not contradictory with science; unfortunately it is contradictory to itself.

If the Bible is the literal word of God, which creation story is the right one, and why is there a creation that is totally wrong?

Quote:
I am not denying there were other religions before Abraham, but according to scripture the worship of Abraham's God existed before all others. Abraham and his offspring were simply given the job of being his ambassadors at that point in history.
So in points of fact, as the worship of animals, and of pantheons of Gods were the norm, and I believe that Judaism was the first major religion that was monotheistic, God was originally worshiped as an animal or as one of several different beings in a pantheon.

Quote:
Again, who gets to determine that an authors comments are true up until a particular subject is mentioned?
You don't really have that choice, do you? You are arguing the Bible is factual. How can you say that this is false, this true, this is a story, this really happened, that is a parable when you argue the truth of the Bible.

When historians look at history they use records from that time, writings of authors, religious texts, folk tales and legends and myths. They examine ruins and landscapes. In extreme cases they will look at nature for clues of the historical record, tree rings, silt deposits, mines and quarries, etc They do not usually base their belief of events on just one source, but attempt to find as much information as possible on the subject.

No one determines the truth of a single person, it is determined by the historical record that is already surmised or known.

Quote:
I never said it was proof of divinity because it had outlasted most and is currently the majority belief of the human race. I was pointing out it's uniqueness and that it should not be dismissed as just your average religion
.


There is a reason that it is the majority belief, it was viciously spread amongst tribes that had to convert or be wiped out. There was nothing Christian about the European colonialists, although I do not doubt that many of the missionaries truly believed in what they were doing. I have never dismissed Christianity as just another religion, but I do not see long life and majority belief as a reason to feel it is any different from many other religions.

Quote:
That is incorrect. It does more than simply record their religious beliefs. It gives first hand accounts of how some of the writers saw miracles, spoke and touched God in the physical sense. Let me reiterate, who gets to determine that a Biblical author was speaking literally of a physical place or event in one sentence, then when recording that he literally touched God in the next sentence it is myth?
Which is the easiest to prove is real? The existence of God or angels? That a city was located on the bank of a known river at a time in the distant past?

Do you believe in fairies, leprechauns and bigfoot, because the World is full of people who have seen these creatures. There are also people who have talked with Elvis, Jesus, and most other historical figures from the past. Unless you think people should believe in these sightings also, because they are recorded I think the claim that people in the Bible saw things should be taken with a grain of salt.

Quote:
Let me get this straight, it can be evidence of cities that the author actually saw, but it is can not be evidence of a divine being who the author actually saw? A bit inconsistent.
No. It is evidence when combined with additional evidence that is discovered.

Quote:
Again that is subjective. To millions it has been able to confirm evidence of a divine being they have personally encountered.
The statistics say that 5% of the population suffers from some form of mental illness. It is not surprising that millions can report evidence of a being that science can find no proof of.

Quote:
That is not the standard for what many scholars call evidence. There are recorded accounts of places and events that have never been physically found. Yet, when other non-Biblical sources have recorded the same exact event or place they consider that evidence that the Bible was recording an actual physical place or event.
We are talking physical evidence to determine the accuracy of reports and not simply written accounts. There were many legends of Robin Hood and King Arthur, but historians do not believe these figures existed as there is no actual physical evidence they did. Same with Atlantis, generally ruled a myth by historians because of the lack of any physical evidence.

Now in the '50s Velikovsky showed that most cultures on the earth had similar legends and myths as far as cataclysms, they all recorded great floods, etc. It is not truly surprising as in local regions over hundreds of years there would be natural disasters which would give rise to myths and legends, and become popular as a sign from the Gods. Whether all the myths were centered on the same cataclysm, and at the same moment in history is not clear, but does point the problem with using old writings as a source to prove events. The book created lots of controversy and was even banned from some Universities, but many people still insist Velikovsky was not proven wrong.

Quote:
Not much I can disagree with there, except the phrase "story tellers" which seems to imply fiction to me.
Much of Jesus's teachings were by telling stories. It is not known if the stories were true, the most important point was the message that it conveyed. Many of the stories in the Bible are not verifiable, and written by people who had not personally witnessed the events described. The writings are hearsay tales, passed down until they were recorded.

Quote:
So if the Bible records the existence of an empire and multiple other sources confirm the same it is simply hearsay and not evidence? I think there would be many archaeologists who disagree with your definition of evidence.
You are misdirecting the argument. The confirmation of the place is by all the records and data, not just one writing. It is not based solely on the Bible, nor is it determined without the Bible. If it was just the Bible that recorded the place, then it would be hearsay and not evidence that the place exists. If some form of additional evidence is found, then we can say that the evidence is stronger.

You claim that the Bible is the only evidence we need to prove a place or event existed.

Quote:
Interesting. Just before this you indicated secondary reports as hearsay and not evidence, but here you clearly indicate that physical evidence and secondary reports are equal proof. It appears secondary reports of God is your exception to what you will call evidence. How convenient.
Convenient, no. You misrepresent every point I made.

Places and events can be determined to be factual if there is physical evidence to support the claims. Reports of what a person saw a thousand years ago can not be proved as factual through any means yet at our disposal. The existence of God cannot be proven by third hand writings or eyewitness accounts, or we would be forced to believe in fairies, leprechauns and bigfoot.

Based on what you are saying, the World of Mordor may well exist, as there is a book on it.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#45  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2669/2825
(21-Mar-2011 at 10:14)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by adam332: View Post
Has nothing to do with my response.

Acxtually it has pretty everything to do with it
Quote:
Evidently you didn't read. I said I spent the first 28yrs an atheist. So you think I just stuffed my ears. Please tell me you have something real to contribute.
So? Is this supposed to mean something? From what I have seen the majority of self described atheists can be as pig headed as the most fanatical of christians.


Quote:
I'm not afraid of anyones comments. There is definitely a unfair advantage of time constraint when one person is having to answer many others. I'm so sorry that I don't have the time of 4 people to satisfy you. Do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just gonna' mock someone for not having the time to answer somebody elses thoughts.

If you have something of substance to say then join in otherwise let filcher and I continue without your snide empty comments.
It has nothing to do with time but everything to do with how you just repeat the same stuff all over again and ignore every single rational response to your incredibly weak arguments. Seriously the way you write I am this close to thiking that you are simply a troll who is messing with us

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views

Last edited by DHoffryn, 21-Mar-2011 at 10:15.
#46  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3844/3983
(21-Mar-2011 at 18:06)


Quote:
Evidently you didn't read. I said I spent the first 28yrs an atheist. So you think I just stuffed my ears. Please tell me you have something real to contribute
I have always felt I was a Christian, not because I believed the Bible was infallible, but because I liked the message that Jesus had for us. That I can counter your arguments does not mean that I do not believe, it means my believe is based on something that cannot be proven, and to try to prove it in a logical or scientific manner is doomed to failure.

Quote:
I'm not afraid of anyones comments. There is definitely a unfair advantage of time constraint when one person is having to answer many others. I'm so sorry that I don't have the time of 4 people to satisfy you. Do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just gonna' mock someone for not having the time to answer somebody elses thoughts
Answers should be natural, but they must be your answers.

Do you believe that God made heaven and earth in 7 days? Remember that the first day also defined what a day was.

Do you believe the earth and universe is only 6000 years old?

Do you believe Noah carried all those creatures on the Ark?

Man's knowledge says these are not possible. As we are reasoning creatures, why did God give us the power to think and act freely if not to solve these questions? He refuses to prove himself in any meaningful way to those who do not believe, and instead creates evidence that refutes his own Word. Does he get jollies from tricking people into a life time of torment when it would be so easy for him to make believers of all of us?

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#47  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 28/33
(23-Mar-2011 at 13:15)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
I have always felt I was a Christian, not because I believed the Bible was infallible, but because I liked the message that Jesus had for us. That I can counter your arguments does not mean that I do not believe, it means my believe is based on something that cannot be proven, and to try to prove it in a logical or scientific manner is doomed to failure.



Answers should be natural, but they must be your answers.

Do you believe that God made heaven and earth in 7 days? Remember that the first day also defined what a day was.

Do you believe the earth and universe is only 6000 years old?

Do you believe Noah carried all those creatures on the Ark?

Man's knowledge says these are not possible. As we are reasoning creatures, why did God give us the power to think and act freely if not to solve these questions? He refuses to prove himself in any meaningful way to those who do not believe, and instead creates evidence that refutes his own Word. Does he get jollies from tricking people into a life time of torment when it would be so easy for him to make believers of all of us?
First, you responded to things that were aimed at another's comments not your own.

Yes I do believe in a literal seven day creation. I also believe in a literal Sabbath day. Which is the 7th day not the first day(Sunday) that many Christians propose.

No I do not believe the Earth and the universe is 6000 yrs old, nor do I believe that the Bible indicates such. I will be happy to clarify myself and/or scripture if need be.

No, I do not believe that the Bible says Noah "carried" any animals onto the ark. But I do believe that 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal was led by God onto the ark.

Last edited by adam332, 23-Mar-2011 at 13:19.
#48  
View Public Profile Find more posts by adam332 Add adam332 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3846/3983
(23-Mar-2011 at 15:28)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by adam332: View Post
First, you responded to things that were aimed at another's comments not your own.
The forum is a community, and hopefully everyone is respectful of everyone else's opinions. No one has the authority to limit disussion as long as we are on topic.

Quote:
Yes I do believe in a literal seven day creation. I also believe in a literal Sabbath day. Which is the 7th day not the first day(Sunday) that many Christians propose.
As the original calendar that was used has been changed at least once (in the 16oo.s IIRC) how are you sure even the saturday is the correct day?

The Big Bang Theory, as I understand it, does not claim the Heavens were created in a week, not the earth, but were a process involving billions of years. So was the creation of water molecules, the creation of suns and planets.

Quote:
No I do not believe the Earth and the universe is 6000 yrs old, nor do I believe that the Bible indicates such. I will be happy to clarify myself and/or scripture if need be.
The Bible claims the creation of heaven and earth and the animals and man took 6 days to make. Is Genesis wrong?

Quote:
No, I do not believe that the Bible says Noah "carried" any animals onto the ark. But I do believe that 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal was led by God onto the ark.
How did Noah fit all those creatures unto the Ark? Did Noah take insects, reptiles, amphibians? If not, how did some that cannot swim, survive?

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#49  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2027/2050
Donated $50.00
(23-Mar-2011 at 16:07)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
How did Noah fit all those creatures unto the Ark? Did Noah take insects, reptiles, amphibians? If not, how did some that cannot swim, survive?
Surely a more important question is how did manage to have large enough salt water tanks and fresh water tanks to hold all the fish AND manage to divide them up so they wouldn't eat each other AND oxygenate those tanks?

This is what every PvP argument boils down to:
Dear Devs:
Rock is overpowered, please nerf. Paper is fine.
Yours, Scissors
#50  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Grashnak Add Grashnak to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3217/3399
Donated $25.30
(23-Mar-2011 at 18:23)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by Grashnak: View Post
Surely a more important question is how did manage to have large enough salt water tanks and fresh water tanks to hold all the fish AND manage to divide them up so they wouldn't eat each other AND oxygenate those tanks?
If it was me I'm not sure I would worry too much about fish during a giant flood

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
R.I.P. InJustice!
Hit me up on Facebook

EWE-tah
#51  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Saint Sinner Add Saint Sinner to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2028/2050
Donated $50.00
(23-Mar-2011 at 19:02)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner: View Post
If it was me I'm not sure I would worry too much about fish during a giant flood
Hey, it does say every animal... if he left them all outside whichever the flood was fresh or salt water some fish species were doomed.

This is what every PvP argument boils down to:
Dear Devs:
Rock is overpowered, please nerf. Paper is fine.
Yours, Scissors
#52  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Grashnak Add Grashnak to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 29/33
(24-Mar-2011 at 04:16)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner: View Post
If it was me I'm not sure I would worry too much about fish during a giant flood
OK, on this you made me laugh and are correct in thinking. Of course people could argue about salt water VS. fresh water. However, in the grand scheme of things I too find it humorous that people would wonder how fish survived in a flood.
#53  
View Public Profile Find more posts by adam332 Add adam332 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 30/33
(24-Mar-2011 at 06:33)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
The forum is a community, and hopefully everyone is respectful of everyone else's opinions. No one has the authority to limit disussion as long as we are on topic.
I didn't attempt to limit anybody. I simply pointed out what he was responding to.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
As the original calendar that was used has been changed at least once (in the 16oo.s IIRC) how are you sure even the saturday is the correct day?
The original calendar was never changed. Some TRIED to change it at various points but it never took and always reverted back to the seven day weekly cycle. To think that people forgot when the Sabbath was, is perhaps the weakest of arguments that people try to use. In order to remember what day is the Sabbath all one has to do is be able to count to seven and then start over, etc...

To even consider that mankind lost track of the Sabbath is to imply that you actually think every single Israelite everywhere all forgot what day the Sabbath was, and at some later date they all somehow agreed to designate a specific day as the new Sabbath. Seriously, think about it.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
The Big Bang Theory, as I understand it, does not claim the Heavens were created in a week, not the earth, but were a process involving billions of years. So was the creation of water molecules, the creation of suns and planets.
This appears to be a statement about a theory, and does not really ask me anything about my position. Nor does it establish itself as anything more than the most recent of scientific theories on the subject.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
The Bible claims the creation of heaven and earth and the animals and man took 6 days to make. Is Genesis wrong?
No I don't think Genesis is wrong, I think your understanding of what it actually says is wrong.

Let's look at what it actually indicates is the first day.

Gen. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The scripture indicates that when he labeled the light as day and the darkness as light was the first day. It says nothing about the timing of the first four verses. It may include those verses as part of the first day but it doesn't specify.

For arguments sake let's assume that it does include those verses. If you read the rest of the creation account the you will notice that it records he made the trees, etc... and they were fully mature with the seed already in the fruit. There is no reason to think that he didn't also make the universe in a mature state.

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
How did Noah fit all those creatures unto the Ark? Did Noah take insects, reptiles, amphibians? If not, how did some that cannot swim, survive?
That is a loaded question. There are many things which are not specified in scripture. Not just this, but also creation which I can only use my knowledge of the physical world as we understand it and Biblical details to surmise an answer. This in no way can account for that which we may consider miraculous nor does it need to, except for those who don't believe. However I will give it my best shot.

Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 18-inch cubit is long enough to show the size of the Ark. To put that in perspective Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.

Let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

There are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family.

___________
___________

Now let me ask you to respond to this info.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ation-research
#54  
View Public Profile Find more posts by adam332 Add adam332 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2029/2050
Donated $50.00
(24-Mar-2011 at 10:38)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by adam332: View Post
OK, on this you made me laugh and are correct in thinking. Of course people could argue about salt water VS. fresh water. However, in the grand scheme of things I too find it humorous that people would wonder how fish survived in a flood.
That's because you haven't thought about it. The amount of water falling is truely huge. Look at this way, it rained so hard the entire world was covered in 40 days and night.

1,083,661,260 km^3/40 days

27,091,531.5 km^3/day
18813.564 km^3/minute
18,813,563,541,666,666.667 L/minute
36.889 L/m^2/minute

That is not rain, but a wall of water covering the globe. Any fish in small streams and ponds are not going to survive by just swimming through it. Your average goldfish in a small stream is going to be hit by that amount of water falling in his little stream is going to have a really bad day.

So once the flood has happened if the water is fresh then the waters of the earth are horribly diluted (in salt terms) and a vast number of species are going to die. If the water falling is salt water... good bye all fresh water fish.

So yes, Noah is going to need to take on fish on to his Ark or the fish of the world are going to be missing a large number of species.

Quote:
Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.

Let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Then he is ignoring many problems. Firstly that calculation appears to show a cubic boat with no decks, ballast or a keel. If it is a pure cube, I'm sorry to tell you that a cube boat laden with a vast number of animals is going to have a tough time trying to float especially when so heavily laden. That volume is horrifically overblown.

Secondly - the animals are on board but they will need to eat & drink. So lets say Noah - who has no experience in either boat building or animal husbandry somehow rigs up means for them to drink from the rainwater for the first 40 days that still leaves months afterwards when all he is surrounded by is sea water - plus then you have all the food for the many months it takes for the rain to fall and waters to recede - this is a huge, huge volume needed.

If you cut down the animals to a couple (or seven) in that way does that mean you believe in rapid evolution so that the huge number of species formed from such a small base in just a few years ?

Lastly... where did all this water go and where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him ? If Noah can build such an absurdly large boat to hold such vast numbers of animals, water & food.... how come no one else managed survive - even people who spend their lives on the ocean ?

This is what every PvP argument boils down to:
Dear Devs:
Rock is overpowered, please nerf. Paper is fine.
Yours, Scissors
#55  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Grashnak Add Grashnak to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 32/33
(24-Mar-2011 at 13:15)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by Grashnak: View Post
That's because you haven't thought about it. The amount of water falling is truely huge. Look at this way, it rained so hard the entire world was covered in 40 days and night.

1,083,661,260 km^3/40 days

27,091,531.5 km^3/day
18813.564 km^3/minute
18,813,563,541,666,666.667 L/minute
36.889 L/m^2/minute

That is not rain, but a wall of water covering the globe. Any fish in small streams and ponds are not going to survive by just swimming through it. Your average goldfish in a small stream is going to be hit by that amount of water falling in his little stream is going to have a really bad day.

So once the flood has happened if the water is fresh then the waters of the earth are horribly diluted (in salt terms) and a vast number of species are going to die. If the water falling is salt water... good bye all fresh water fish.

So yes, Noah is going to need to take on fish on to his Ark or the fish of the world are going to be missing a large number of species.



Then he is ignoring many problems. Firstly that calculation appears to show a cubic boat with no decks, ballast or a keel. If it is a pure cube, I'm sorry to tell you that a cube boat laden with a vast number of animals is going to have a tough time trying to float especially when so heavily laden. That volume is horrifically overblown.

Secondly - the animals are on board but they will need to eat & drink. So lets say Noah - who has no experience in either boat building or animal husbandry somehow rigs up means for them to drink from the rainwater for the first 40 days that still leaves months afterwards when all he is surrounded by is sea water - plus then you have all the food for the many months it takes for the rain to fall and waters to recede - this is a huge, huge volume needed.

If you cut down the animals to a couple (or seven) in that way does that mean you believe in rapid evolution so that the huge number of species formed from such a small base in just a few years ?

Lastly... where did all this water go and where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him ? If Noah can build such an absurdly large boat to hold such vast numbers of animals, water & food.... how come no one else managed survive - even people who spend their lives on the ocean ?
I suggest you read a little closer, the dimensions of the boat were already mentioned and nowhere did it indicate that it was a cube. It took the measurements established in the Bible and informed the reader how many cubic inches that would be. BIG DIFFERENCE.

My oh my, you really haven't paid attention to the Biblical story...have you? You actually said:"where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him".

If you had read the Bible before posting you would have realized that Noah had 120 yrs to build the boat with his family and perhaps alot of help. It doesn't specify how many actually worked on the boat just how long it took.

Just an idea, stop spouting off about a subject from a book you have obviously never read. You may have something more credible than "cube boats" and "short amounts of time" to offer if you try.

Where did the water go? You haven't thought this through at all have you? Please, after reading my response do yourself a favor and actually read the entire old and new testament from cover to cover before you type another word about it. You will be better armed if you actually know what the Bible says before you post.

I'll give you a couple of hints free of charge. The bible speaks of a planet that had waters above the waters, and that this planet had never rained prior to the flood rain.

During this pre-flood period it records incredible lifespans and also mentions giants as well as a leviathan that has the tail the size of a cedar tree.

But after the flood it quickly informs us that those life spans plummeted. Doesn't the fossilized record show ferns the size of trees and dragonfly's with wingspans the size of a great condor? So why did the older earth sustain animals so disproportionate and life spans so long compared to before the post flood world?

These are valid scientific questions that need to be answered, right? So before you just dismiss these items because you haven't an answer. Perhaps you should take your parcel of understanding about scientific precepts and ask yourself is there any known response that may satisfy all these at once.

I can't give you any bigger of a hint than that, if you can't figure it out from that point then maybe you should educate yourself on the science and the Bible before questioning others. Good luck.

Last edited by adam332, 24-Mar-2011 at 13:17.
#56  
View Public Profile Find more posts by adam332 Add adam332 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 33/33
(24-Mar-2011 at 13:37)


The last post wasn't edited in the proper time frame. So I will repost the whole thing since I have no idea what items it may have excluded or not.

The following should be enough to answer any ones questions without looking back at the rest.

Originally Posted by Grashnak: View Post
That's because you haven't thought about it. The amount of water falling is truely huge. Look at this way, it rained so hard the entire world was covered in 40 days and night.

1,083,661,260 km^3/40 days

27,091,531.5 km^3/day
18813.564 km^3/minute
18,813,563,541,666,666.667 L/minute
36.889 L/m^2/minute

That is not rain, but a wall of water covering the globe. Any fish in small streams and ponds are not going to survive by just swimming through it. Your average goldfish in a small stream is going to be hit by that amount of water falling in his little stream is going to have a really bad day.

So once the flood has happened if the water is fresh then the waters of the earth are horribly diluted (in salt terms) and a vast number of species are going to die. If the water falling is salt water... good bye all fresh water fish.

So yes, Noah is going to need to take on fish on to his Ark or the fish of the world are going to be missing a large number of species.



Then he is ignoring many problems. Firstly that calculation appears to show a cubic boat with no decks, ballast or a keel. If it is a pure cube, I'm sorry to tell you that a cube boat laden with a vast number of animals is going to have a tough time trying to float especially when so heavily laden. That volume is horrifically overblown.

Secondly - the animals are on board but they will need to eat & drink. So lets say Noah - who has no experience in either boat building or animal husbandry somehow rigs up means for them to drink from the rainwater for the first 40 days that still leaves months afterwards when all he is surrounded by is sea water - plus then you have all the food for the many months it takes for the rain to fall and waters to recede - this is a huge, huge volume needed.

If you cut down the animals to a couple (or seven) in that way does that mean you believe in rapid evolution so that the huge number of species formed from such a small base in just a few years ?

Lastly... where did all this water go and where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him ? If Noah can build such an absurdly large boat to hold such vast numbers of animals, water & food.... how come no one else managed survive - even people who spend their lives on the ocean ?
Actually when speaking of how much water it would take to cover every inch of the planet I suggest you calculate two things... and that is all.

1st) how much would the oceans rise if every cloud dropped every bit of water?
2nd) how much would the oceans rise if every molecule of frozen water were thawed?

See how easy it was to dispel your calculations.

I suggest you read a little closer, the dimensions of the boat were already mentioned and nowhere did it indicate that it was a cube. It took the measurements established in the Bible and informed the reader how many cubic inches that would be. BIG DIFFERENCE.

My oh my, you really haven't paid attention to the Biblical story...have you? You actually said:"where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him".

If you had read the Bible before posting you would have realized that Noah had 120 yrs to build the boat with his family and perhaps alot of help. It doesn't specify how many actually worked on the boat just how long it took.

Just an idea, stop spouting off about a subject from a book you have obviously never read. You may have something more credible than "cube boats" and "short amounts of time" to offer if you try.

Where did the water go? You haven't thought this through at all have you? Please, after reading my response do yourself a favor and actually read the entire old and new testament from cover to cover before you type another word about it. You will be better armed if you actually know what the Bible says before you post.

I'll give you a couple of hints free of charge. The bible speaks of a planet that had waters above the waters, and that this planet had never rained prior to the flood rain.

During this pre-flood period it records incredible lifespans and also mentions giants as well as a leviathan that has the tail the size of a cedar tree.

But after the flood it quickly informs us that those life spans plummeted. Doesn't the fossilized record show ferns the size of trees and dragonfly's with wingspans the size of a great condor? So why did the older earth sustain animals so disproportionate and life spans so long compared to before the post flood world?

These are valid scientific questions that need to be answered, right? So before you just dismiss these items because you haven't an answer. Perhaps you should take your parcel of understanding about scientific precepts and ask yourself is there any known response that may satisfy all these at once.

I can't give you any bigger of a hint than that, if you can't figure it out from that point then maybe you should educate yourself on the science and the Bible before questioning others. Good luck.

Last edited by adam332, 24-Mar-2011 at 13:38.
#57  
View Public Profile Find more posts by adam332 Add adam332 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2030/2050
Donated $50.00
(24-Mar-2011 at 14:11)


Re: Faith based arguments.

Originally Posted by adam332: View Post
The last post wasn't edited in the proper time frame. So I will repost the whole thing since I have no idea what items it may have excluded or not.

The following should be enough to answer any ones questions without looking back at the rest.



Actually when speaking of how much water it would take to cover every inch of the planet I suggest you calculate two things... and that is all.

1st) how much would the oceans rise if every cloud dropped every bit of water?
2nd) how much would the oceans rise if every molecule of frozen water were thawed?
1) Not very much, it cloud cover changes considerable - it would not raise by biblical flood proportions.
2) I believe it's been calculated at about 10m by folks who fear regarding global warmimg.

Not nearly enough to cover the mountains. Sorry chap.

Quote:
See how easy it was to dispel your calculations.?
You havn't. To cover the Earth beyond the height of the mountains in fourty days means a wall of water would need to fall. (The bible makes no mention of the ice melting and refreezing - have you read the Bible at all ?

Quote:
I suggest you read a little closer, the dimensions of the boat were already mentioned and nowhere did it indicate that it was a cube. It took the measurements established in the Bible and informed the reader how many cubic inches that would be. BIG DIFFERENCE.
My mistake, I had misread that section of your previous post.

Quote:
My oh my, you really haven't paid attention to the Biblical story...have you? You actually said:"where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him".

If you had read the Bible before posting you would have realized that Noah had 120 yrs to build the boat with his family and perhaps alot of help. It doesn't specify how many actually worked on the boat just how long it took.
Have you read the Bible old chap ?

Genesis 7 : 4
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

7 : 10
And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

He gives him a week. I think you are confusing when the Bible talks of his age when he has children (500) and when the floods happen when Noah is in his 600th year.

It also says:
7 : 5
And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

Not

And Noah with his vast army of enslaved boat builders did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

Quote:
Just an idea, stop spouting off about a subject from a book you have obviously never read. You may have something more credible than "cube boats" and "short amounts of time" to offer if you try.

Where did the water go? You haven't thought this through at all have you? Please, after reading my response do yourself a favor and actually read the entire old and new testament from cover to cover before you type another word about it. You will be better armed if you actually know what the Bible says before you post.

I'll give you a couple of hints free of charge. The bible speaks of a planet that had waters above the waters, and that this planet had never rained prior to the flood rain.
If you are trying to suggest that the clouds hold enough water to cover the entire Earth, you really are in denial about physics. Sure clouds do hold a surprising amount... but it's not THAT much.

Quote:
During this pre-flood period it records incredible lifespans and also mentions giants as well as a leviathan that has the tail the size of a cedar tree.

But after the flood it quickly informs us that those life spans plummeted. Doesn't the fossilized record show ferns the size of trees and dragonfly's with wingspans the size of a great condor? So why did the older earth sustain animals so disproportionate and life spans so long compared to before the post flood world?.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything related to this subject.

Quote:
These are valid scientific questions that need to be answered, right? So before you just dismiss these items because you haven't an answer. Perhaps you should take your parcel of understanding about scientific precepts and ask yourself is there any known response that may satisfy all these at once.

I can't give you any bigger of a hint than that, if you can't figure it out from that point then maybe you should educate yourself on the science and the Bible before questioning others. Good luck.
Lol - nicely done, dismissive without any meaningful answer ! You laugh and mock but without actually rebutting anything. It's sad to see since you are clearly intelligent, rather than just being dismissive and superior, why not try addressing the points made ?

This is what every PvP argument boils down to:
Dear Devs:
Rock is overpowered, please nerf. Paper is fine.
Yours, Scissors
#58  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Grashnak Add Grashnak to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3774/3863
(21-Apr-2011 at 23:48)


I've picked a few quotes out to debate, so here goes...

Originally Posted by Balfron: View Post
"but faith does not belong in an argument - arguments are based on proof, logic and reasoning."

Yet you asserted that without using any proof, logic or reasoning. It may be that religion involves a leap of faith (although many dispute that, for example C S Lewis writes entertainingly that Christianity is perfectly rational). Why are arguments based on the belief that God is real and good irrational, but arguments based on the belief that it is wrong to harm others (for example) rational? Once you have the foundation of (for example) liberalism you can build systematically on that to make more complex arguments, but you still took that initial leap of faith to say that liberalism is good, just like you accuse religious people of doing.

I think there is a space in public debate for religious beliefs, and I think it's quite wrong to give views less weighting (or their own forum!) simply because they stem from a belief in a supernatural being.
This I find confusing. It's rather obvious to anyone that if you make an argument, you must have proof, logic and reasoning to convince others. Without them, you won't convince anyone you're right. The problem with arguments that use faith as a basis for reasoning is that religious faith, by definition, has no proof to it.


Originally Posted by adam332: View Post
If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them? By what standard would you believe them, faith? Wouldn't it be your faith in the credibility of more than a 100 complete strangers that led you to believe them.

What if the murder had happened 250 yrs ago, and there were over a hundred recorded accounts of that murder, would you believe that it occurred.

So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed?
People arn't actually questioning faith in the Bible, they are questioning the faith in god. The Bible exists, is a historical account, some of which is false, some is true. The Bible was written by relatively few people. It's accounts of other people can only be viewed as being only as accurate as you can be about the feelings of the person nearest to you, and frequently less accurate than that. Beyond this, it must be remembered that the Bible has been heavily edited, as well as translated, with all the inherent fidelity loss in the meaning of words.

Originally Posted by adam332: View Post
How exactly is the big bang "proven"? Last I checked it's a theory, based on current scientific evidence. Even the scientists who have come to this conclusion have altered their theory over time and in some cases they disagree on details of this theory. So it is definitely a theory at best.
You're right, it is a theory, and again a theory based on scientific evidence. If you were so inclined, you could consult a scientist of that field, and ask him to explain the theory. And provide you evidence as to why the theory exists. This evidence, should you wish to, you could independently verify by performing the research and experiments yourself. So could anyone.

Faith requires you to accept a theory, without question, without evidence.

Originally Posted by adam332: View Post
Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?

Evidence isn't subjective, how it is interpreted is, however. Belief is a word that is frequently used where the word "theory" should be used. A belief is something that a person feels, is entirely subjective and can be contradictory to evidence. Hence the need for some to feel their belief is "valid". A
theory is based on evidence, which is all it needs to be valid.

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!
#59  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6520/7006
(22-Apr-2011 at 08:33)


Quote:
Now let me ask you to respond to this info.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ation-research
No problem.

1) "because 14C has a short half-life compared with other dating isotopes—“just” 5,730 years. Carbon-14 is limited to dating objects thousands of years old, but not millions or billions of years. For samples that are truly ancient, any initial 14C content should have completely decayed away."

Wrong... wrong.... wrong. These self-proclaimed 'scientists' don't know what a half-life is. A half life of 5,730 years doesn't mean that after that period it is all gone. It means *half* is gone, which is why it is called a half-life...

Obviously, if you keep chopping something in half, you will never gate to rid of it all, which is why C14 is found in rocks billions of years old.


2) "If a sample of granite is truly millions of years old, then most of the helium resulting from uranium decay should have escaped long ago from the rock. This follows because helium atoms are relatively small and mobile, and they do not combine with other elements."

Wrong... wrong... wrong. Helium content is *not* a dating method, for the very simple reason that in cool crystals the helium increases. This is because the rate of decay producing the helium is constant, but the diffusion varies with temperature. High temperature = high diffusion = net loss; cool temperature = low diffusion = net gain.


3)"The concept of accelerated nuclear decay was further explored by the RATE team. This is a radical idea because nuclear half-lives are assumed to be constant throughout history."

This one is a joke - "accelerated nuclear decay"?!

Nuclear decay is constant. Full stop. Why on earth would it suddenly accelerate because of a flood? If that where true, wouldn't it also accelerate under the oceans that cover 2/3 of the planet and hence be... you know... really, really obvious?

Also - "RATE scientists believe that these sedimentary rock layers formed rapidly during the Genesis Flood." Ever heard of a circular argument? They are starting out with an assumption of the conclusion, coming up with a crack-pot theory that defies all known laws of physics to explain it, saying that this cast doubt on all known laws of physics, and then implying that the doubt supports their conclusion.


This is exactly the kind of junk-science that makes creationist look like a bunch of clowns.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#60  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Atheism History & Arguments (youtube links) Peppie Religious Discussions 62 24-Dec-2006 14:38
Why ask the monothesists about God ? Grashnak Religious Discussions 30 24-Sep-2004 19:00
Grabs based on NW? Wavelength Utopia Suggestions 10 18-Jun-2002 06:15
religious system solistus Utopia Suggestions 8 18-Mar-2002 08:44
Next Age Digger The Lunatic Asylum 30 14-Apr-2001 06:56


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 01:55.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.