Religion and Politics

[CyniQ]

How did Noah keep the fish without glass? The fish you ask...si, if the ocean and lakes swelled to proportions much, much larger than they were to begin with, then entire ecological system in the ocean/lake would change/die. You can't have plants living in 4 feet survive when they are suddenly in 4000 feet of water. Doesn't work. Thus, Noah must have taken not only the land animals, but also the fishes and sea plants. How did he do that?

There are all sorts of questions that can be asked of any historic or scientific document or record. Some can be answered to the satisfaction of the asker. Maybe some cannot. Consider for one that the idea of a global flood is really not so farfetched. After all, 70 some odd percent of the earth's surface is covered with water. That doesn't even include the frozen water of the ice caps. I've heard it said that if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea trenches and basins were filled in, leveling all land. That the earth would be covered in 1,000 METERS of water. Some geologists believe that it is likely that at one time mountains were no where near as high as they are today. What if the weight of the waters of a great flood put enough pressure on the tectonic plates to push mountains up even higher, and basins down even lower? Virtually everyone agrees that various mountain ranges were sculpted by glacier movement at the end of a great Ice Age. What if the recession of the flood waters has been misinterpreted as such? As I've said before. The story of a great flood is one of the most widespread traditions in human culture.

I can't answer everything. But I believe that there is overwhelming evidence to support the idea of a global flood. And we all survived somehow...

 

[Grizzly]

There are all sorts of questions that can be asked of any historic or scientific document or record. Some can be answered to the satisfaction of the asker. Maybe some cannot.

Did you mean, "well, it's a mystery, but it's not ours to know the majesty of god and his ways." ?

Actually, questions can be asked and maybe/maybe not answered of historical documents. Don't try and drag down science to the level of mythology. If you ask a question of a scientific document, you get an answer. That's the point of science; to prove why things happen as they do.

 

[Weatherlite]

And that is exactly why I posed the question. I don't find it plausible for this to have happened either. There must have been lots of breeds on board. So this would dispell the idea that only one pair of each species was brought. BUT, if it is still argued that that is the case then how did all of these other breeds come about?

My answer would have to be evolution. They evolved over the years, adapting to their various regions and roles in life. Oh...wait a minute!! I forgot...THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION!!!! My bad.

Speciation (what you are refering to) is not evolution. I disagree with the idea of evolution as often discussed - organisms becoming more complex over time i.e. amoebas into frogs. Speciation has been shown to occur, evolution has not.

 

[CyniQ]

Did you mean, "well, it's a mystery, but it's not ours to know the majesty of god and his ways." ?

Actually, questions can be asked and maybe/maybe not answered of historical documents. Don't try and drag down science to the level of mythology. If you ask a question of a scientific document, you get an answer. That's the point of science; to prove why things happen as they do.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. Do you mean to say that all scientific questions have answers? Certain scientific "theories" widely accepted as fact in the sci community, such as evolution, cannot even come close to answering all questions posed regarding them. Drag science down to the level of mythology? I only seek to use science to prove or disprove what I currently hold to be true. Isn't that the point of science? (oops did you say that already?? )To seek to explain observed phenomena? Or test collected data? You're very closed-minded for a supposed "scientist". How do you expect to learn anything new?

Haven't you learned anything from MythBusters? They use science to prove or disprove supposed "myths"...

 

[Grizzly]

But, you see, those are clearly labeled as "theories". Meaning that they are the best conclusion one can arrive at with the current data, but they are not proven. Thus, they are labeled theories and not espoused as fact.

Ask a person who calls themselves Christian to tell you a myth. He will always start telling you something about Zues, Hades, Hermes, etc. NEVER will they acknowledge Christian dogma as mythological in nature because, "myths are made up stories". This certainly can't apply to the Bible. It's a fact that everything in there happened even though we can't prove it. It's still a fact, though.

edit- I forgot to add earlier... Here's what I meant by science giving the answer. Ask of science, "Science, is rubber a good conductor of electricity?" and science will prove to you beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that rubber is a horrible conductor of electricity. In fact, it just plain doesn't conduct electricity.

 

[Bob Smith]

edit- I forgot to add earlier... Here's what I meant by science giving the answer. Ask of science, "Science, is rubber a good conductor of electricity?" and science will prove to you beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that rubber is a horrible conductor of electricity. In fact, it just plain doesn't conduct electricity.

Right, but as CyniQ was saying, you can ask Science "does evolution exist?" and they cant give you an answer. Speculation, yes, but not a definite answer like your rubber example. IMO, a person has to have as much, or more faith, to believe in evolution than in creation (or in Biblical events).

 

[CyniQ]

Right, but as CyniQ was saying, you can ask Science "does evolution exist?" and they cant give you an answer. Speculation, yes, but not a definite answer like your rubber example. IMO, a person has to have as much, or more faith, to believe in evolution than in creation (or in Biblical events).

Right, and evolution is preached as gospel (pardon the pun), widely taught and accepted as fact. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution is among the holiest (sorry, had to ) of theories. So why are they teaching it in children's science classes as fact? Does evolution exist? How about: Why isn't evolution supported by the fossil record? Dinosaurs appeared (as dinos) and then disappeared (also as dinos). There is no record of them becoming anything other than dinosaurs.

How is the myth of evolution any different than the theory of creation (intelligent design)?

How is: Once upon a time a pioneering amoeba decided to become a fish...

Any better than: and God proceeded to create man in his image... ????

 

[Grizzly]

Right, but as CyniQ was saying, you can ask Science "does evolution exist?" and they cant give you an answer. Speculation, yes, but not a definite answer like your rubber example. IMO, a person has to have as much, or more faith, to believe in evolution than in creation (or in Biblical events).

In a sense, I suppose. However, the track record of science speaks for itself. 150 years ago flight was impossible. Never going to happen. It's impossible. Really? Going to outerspace is even more impossible and would never, ever, ever, ever, ever be possible. Really?

300 years ago demons and evil spirits caused disease.

500 years ago the earth was flat.

1000 years ago the sun was a chariot of fire pulled across the sky by flaming steeds.

My point is that, given enough time, science demonstrates the truth of everything.

 

[CyniQ]

BTW. Ask the bible. Is the earth flat? In 1500 BCE Moses wrote that the "circle of the earth is hanging upon nothing". We now know that to be fact...

 

[CyniQ]

In a sense, I suppose. However, the track record of science speaks for itself. 150 years ago flight was impossible. Never going to happen. It's impossible. Really? Going to outerspace is even more impossible and would never, ever, ever, ever, ever be possible. Really?

300 years ago demons and evil spirits caused disease.

500 years ago the earth was flat.

1000 years ago the sun was a chariot of fire pulled across the sky by flaming steeds.

My point is that, given enough time, science demonstrates the truth of everything.

Hah. Please see previous post. Moses also wrote that disease was caused by shit, dead people, and women on their periods...

 

[CyniQ]

Science is defined as systemized knowledge derived from observation and study. (scrotum is defined as "pouch of skin holding the testicles". their on the same page in my dictionary. )

So to say that science eventually reveals truth is probably irrefutable. But why do science and faith or religion have to be mutually exclusive??

 

[Grizzly]

Because they have heretofore been mutually exclusive. People climbed to the top of Mt. Olympus. There went that religion. We discovered tectonic plates and the causes of earth quakes. There went the Navajo religion and their "earthquake monster".

Religion seeks to explain the unexplained with mysticism and magic. Science seeks to explain the unexplained with logic, reason and fact. Logic, reason and fact are that which allow us to live. They are responsible for the continuation of your life. They, in and of themselves, should be our gods. (figuratively speaking) Mysticism and magic are that which...well, they don't really do shit except give people some goofy explanation to cling to because they are too self-absorbed to realize their pitiful little life means fuck all to anyone except themselves and their immediate family and there is no "meaning of life".

 

[Grizzly]

And because books like the Bible ask one to suspend reality. To ignore the laws of nature and everything science can demonstrate. We've got people turning into salt, a dude walking on top of water, another dude making an ocean part in the middle. We've got a guy making fish and wine appear out of thin air.

All of this is scientifically impossible, therfore, the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[CyniQ]

What if science proves certain "religious" tenets to be true? For example, you said that 500 years ago the earth was flat. The bible said some 3500 years ago that it was round and supported by nothing. Not that God held it up on his shoulders, or that it was held up by giant turtles or an elephant. But that if floated, suspended as if hanging upon nothing. Science proves this to be true, 3500 years later. This is what sets the bible apart from other religious texts. It doesn't defy science. The Isrealites were commanded to wash their hands before eating thousands of years before science realized that unclean hands transmit germs.

 

[CyniQ]

And because books like the Bible ask one to suspend reality. To ignore the laws of nature and everything science can demonstrate. We've got people turning into salt, a dude walking on top of water, another dude making an ocean part in the middle. We've got a guy making fish and wine appear out of thin air.

All of this is scientifically impossible, therfore, the two are mutually exclusive.

Have you tested this hypothesis? I would be cautious about declaring things impossible without any supportive data.

In point of fact the parting of the Red Sea has been duplicated in lab studies. I can't cite it right now, but somebody was able to part a small body of water using magnetic fields. And I saw Emperor Zed walk on water in Superman II. So there.

 

[Grizzly]

Let's see here. Hmmmmm, a small body of water is certainly not analogous to the Red Sea and, according to the text, there was no magnets involved. In fact, one would need 21st century technology to pull that off. I guarantee magnets like those used were not available in 1500BCE.

"This is what sets the bible apart from other religious texts. It doesn't defy science. The Isrealites were commanded to wash their hands before eating thousands of years before science realized that unclean hands transmit germs."

So the part where it dates the earth 400 some thousand years too young is scientifically sound? Women's menstruation causes disease. Really? I'd better get some medicine quick because I've eaten numerous bloody boxes.

 

[Bob Smith]

So the part where it dates the earth 400 some thousand years too young is scientifically sound? Women's menstruation causes disease. Really? I'd better get some medicine quick because I've eaten numerous bloody boxes.

Have you been checked for diseases lately?

Your arguement against Lots wife turning to salt is no different than your arguement FOR evolution. Neither of which are proven or really have any scientific evidence supporting the actual occurance. Yet evolution is taught like it was 100% fact, yet its so far from that as to make it asinine to be the only "theory" taught in schools.

 

[Grizzly]

Well, it should be the only theory taught in schools. Public schools, anyhow. Hell, if there's another scientifically based theory, then go right ahead. However, your religious beliefs should not be forced on others. You say God plopped us all down on the earth as is. According to the navajoes, there were several test runs and, eventually, the gods decided on people made from corn. You gonna teach da botha 'em?

 

[Sensational]

Omnibenevolent: all good. All good implies the absence of any bad.

Omnipotent: all powerful. All powerful.

Put them together and you get a contraidiction in godliness. Either he's all good, but not all powerful or he's all powerful but not all good because he can't be both since evil exists which means he must not be powerful enough to stop it or he's not all good because he doesn't mind the existence of evil.

It is not necessarily a contradiction, because power just means the capacity to do something....but the more I think about this, humans seem like little people in God's micro machine world~Sensational

 

[Sensational]

Being a christian I do believe that God created the heaven and the earth. However, I also KNOW that things do evolve naturally, and it can be inferred that a creature that is alive today is not the direct product from God. So what is the truth? As scientists we have noticed that evolution happens and that in and of itself is a fact. However, is it likely that man would evolve from a fish to a man? Not really. Is it likely that USEFUL organic material could be made from inorganic material? Kind of...evidence on both sides. And I would like to note also that saying that things evolve does not disprove the existence of God. It just breaks the belief system that christians have had for thousands of years.

Just because the belief is old, does not means it is correct. If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, he could DIRECT evolution. Therefore evolution could be the hand of God....Not out of the realm of possibility~Sensational