Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 278910111213141516 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 313
  1. fubka's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    40 Global Posts
    #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm View Post
    Prove it. I can have Google recommend "why carbon dating is wrong, flawed, inaccurate, false" any day, so there's my answer on the matter.

    AMEN!!
    lol, can you find one that is published in a scientific journal or by someone who didn't get a fake doctorate from a uncredited diploma mill?

    YEC!
  2. fubka's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    40 Global Posts
    #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Bible says Noah was in ark for just over a year, but not that the earth was covered with water for a year. 40 day torrential rain till high mountains (of THAT time) covered- Gen 7:19.
    Are you saying that the Mt of today were drastically different 4,000 years ago? Not only do YECs support Super Evolution, Super Plate Tectonic Uplifting

    Why do people laugh at creationists?
  3. #223  
    The book "Planet Earth—Glacier" draws attention to the way water in the form of ice sheets depresses the surface of the earth. For example, it says: “If the Greenland ice were to disappear, the island would eventually rebound some 2,000*feet.”

    Earth's crust is relatively thin (20 to 100 miles, depending). The enormous pressure of water (which in liquid state weighs more per depth than ice) covering the earth could feasibly cause dramatic changes in its surface.

    So not that the earth was already "smoother" before the flood, but that the flood itself easily could have caused that smoothing. Same explanation used for Ice Age effects.
  4. fubka's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    40 Global Posts
    #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    The book "Planet Earth—Glacier" draws attention to the way water in the form of ice sheets depresses the surface of the earth. For example, it says: “If the Greenland ice were to disappear, the island would eventually rebound some 2,000*feet.”

    Earth's crust is relatively thin (20 to 100 miles, depending). The enormous pressure of water (which in liquid state weighs more per depth than ice) covering the earth could feasibly cause dramatic changes in its surface.

    So not that the earth was already "smoother" before the flood, but that the flood itself easily could have caused that smoothing. Same explanation used for Ice Age effects.
    Again, can you please find some peer reviewed research on this topic, not something out of yahoo answers please or some inference from a book written by a guy who has a BS in Philosophy.
  5. #225  
    I've already quoted God several times and that didn't make an impact...

  6. #226  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Surely you would add a possible third option? That he is both loving and omnipotent but has chosen till now to allow the condition for reasons you are not aware of?
    I wholeheartedly thought of this this, but by going down this road god just becomes a big list of what-if's, and I don't think, philosophically or spiritually, that that's very helpful to anyone. I don't think it's fair, in an intellectual discussion, for a person (whoever I was replying to) to be so specific about the nature of god in some instances, but then claim that god is 'mysterious' when someone questions the idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    But what if your kid was harming someone, and you did do something, but not everyone saw?
    I don't think that's a relevant argument. We know for a fact bad people hurt good people. A god didn't secretly prevent it all from happening. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Because you're assuming a puppet master interventionist G-d with this, just like others.
    I only assumed it for the sake of that specific argument. Naturally, there are many different 'behaviors' a god could follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Why do we assume loving or watchful?
    There are some replies in this thread making those assumptions, I'm challenging them by showing what I perceive to be the illogical conclusions if they were indeed true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Does G-d hope? How do you know?
    I don't know. It was a hypothetical response to the point the poster made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Who says it's supposed to establish the entire dynamic?
    Nobody made this claim. I disagreed with (I think pogey's) use of the parent-child metaphor (that I used previously) and I didn't think it worked in that instance he made.

    I feel you're getting caught up by certain phrases within my arguments and not the spirit of the arguments themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Humanity corrupts humanity.
    100% agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    It's not an awesome metaphor because I think we lack the language to quantify G-d.
    This is a fair statement. A person blind since birth, no matter how much you try, will never fully understand what seeing is like. Only imperfect metaphors could be used to explain to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Unless there's a reason for the hands-off approach.
    Another valid point. But like I said above to another poster, when god becomes a list of uncertainty and what-if's, I have trouble believing.
    August 2009 - January 2011. Thank god I'm no longer a Pre user!

  7. #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Here's another 'Devil's Advocate' question for those of you who feel that God knew Adam would sin. This question I'm about to ask may also be something for those who feel God needed Adam to sin to accomplish his 'plan'.
    In fact, I'd also like to hear from those who say we needed sin to understand good.
    And finally, those of you who feel the suffering that has been a result of sin, as being a way to better prepare us for heaven....

    Ok, here's my question;
    Why didn't God just create us in heaven like the Angels? All this sin, pain and suffering all so we can end up in Heaven where we could of just as easily been created in the first place.
    This question hounded me in my earlier years...up till college. I understood what true love was, and what true responsibility love entailed. Skipping the anecdote, love, as they say, is best when you let it go and it comes back. In a sense, that is what makes it all the more precious to God. Angels are almost robotic in their worship and adoration of God. We humans are obviously not programmed as such. And it makes our love for Him greater, knowing that we have a 'home' and a father who loves us. I understand that you can have bitter feelings toward Him for putting you on this cursed earth in the first place, but just as I still love my mother (despite the unfavorable conditions she gave to me upon birth), I will praise and love my Father who allowed me to grow down here on earth.
  8. #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by octoberorange View Post
    I take the extreme point because some here are dancing around the issue. Of course my murderous ****** children wouldn't allow me to control them. But I'm not all-powerful like a god, who chooses NOT to protect the victims of murderous ****** nuts (in the name of free-will, I've been told). Funny...
    What you are looking for, you cannot find nor understand. I struggle with a similar issue...why cant God tell us WHY He does things?! The point has been mentioned before...an infinite being cannot be understood by a finite being. Youre demanding an answer that no one has, and then ridiculing those people who are trying to give as much insight as they can to maybe help you. I dont know why green was the chosen color of most foliage, but I know that it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by octoberorange View Post
    Omnipotent (all-powerful) god, yes. But a loving omnipotent god? Assuming an omnipotent god exists, either god is all-powerful but doesn't care, or god is all-loving but CAN'T do anything.
    Those two are NOT separate. Maybe in your experience, they are...but its not impossible in the realm of this entire universe, and the creator of it. Funny...how is omnipotent exclude ANYTHING?

    Quote Originally Posted by octoberorange View Post
    I'm not understanding quite what this is supposed to mean in the context of god's omnipotence vs. loving qualities. The metaphor can only go so far.
    It was an under-developed example of how we men can do more than we do to prevent and intercede on evil, but we dont. Being less than a God is not an excuse to not try. Honestly, I would stop a car for a loved one...or die trying. I dont claim to be a superhero, but you never know what you cant do until you try.

    Quote Originally Posted by octoberorange View Post
    He CAN control the bad people from hurting others, but chooses NOT to. I say this in the nicest way possible, you just argued my point for me. This isn't about free-will as a means to spiritual growth, this is about a self-proclaimed loving being who condones (by lack of action) the sick things our species is capable of (don't forget, he made us this way on purpose). Another extreme example: there's an innocent person about to get murdered. A random dude has the absolute no-questions-asked means to protect this person, but he chooses not to (his reason is irrelevant). Without getting too convoluted regarding this example, you can NOT tell me that this person acted morally.
    Just to make sure we are on the same level, I am not offended by this 'debate'. I do disagree with the approach you have (as you disagree with mine). God isnt a being we can figure out. And questioning Him will be something we do with varying degrees of no success until we die. But given the information we have through His word and creation, we know that He CAN do whatever He wants. And what He wants is for His likeness to 1.realize that they cannot do it on their own 2. realize that He is there for us and 3. follow Him to fulfill His desire for us to love Him and for us to be loved.

    Now, make mine a Mojito and leave the cat on the front porch and I will take you up on that cheap bar!
    Last edited by BMIC50; 05/12/2010 at 09:13 PM. Reason: typo
  9. #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    Youre demanding an answer that no one has, and then ridiculing those people who are trying to give as much insight as they can to maybe help you.
    It's not my intention to ridicule anyone here. But if someone claims to have intimate knowledge of a cosmic force and speaks so knowledgeable about something that has no proof outside of religious texts, I'm going to challenge those beliefs when I don't think they're grounded.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

    But I do understand that 'logical reasoning' is not the ultimate solution for everything, and certainly has its limits inside spirituality. But I can't help but be skeptical. I'm a hopeless seeker of truth, to a fault. Maybe, in some way, I seek to find what it is that you have, which I lack.

    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    Being less than a God is not an excuse to not try. Honestly, I would stop a car for a loved one...or die trying. I dont claim to be a superhero, but you never know what you cant do until you try.
    I agree with this. Never intended to argue otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    But given the information we have through His word and creation, we know that He CAN do whatever He wants. And what He wants is for His likeness to 1.realize that they cannot do it on their own 2. realize that He is there for us and 3. follow Him to fulfill His desire for us to love Him and for us to be loved.
    I think you know I'll disagree with this. So let's just let this be that which we don't agree on, no need to continue. Our minds are probably made up anyways.
    /handshake

    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    Now, make mine a Mojito and leave the cat on the front porch and I will take you up on that cheap bar!
    Where's Pogey at? He's paying
    August 2009 - January 2011. Thank god I'm no longer a Pre user!

  10. #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by octoberorange
    I wholeheartedly thought of this this, but by going down this road god just becomes a big list of what-if's, and I don't think, philosophically or spiritually, that that's very helpful to anyone. I don't think it's fair, in an intellectual discussion, for a person (whoever I was replying to) to be so specific about the nature of god in some instances, but then claim that god is 'mysterious' when someone questions the idea.
    God, in the Bible, (rem. this thread began with a Biblical question, so a Biblical answer is valid) invites us to know him, promises that it is possible, and tells us that he has put into writing all that we need to be able to do so. If in the end he was some unknowable mystery, that would make him cruel and truly repugnant.

    Quote Originally Posted by octoberorange
    But if someone claims to have intimate knowledge of a cosmic force and speaks so knowledgeable about something that has no proof outside of religious texts, I'm going to challenge those beliefs when I don't think they're grounded.
    Why is the Bible so easily dismissed? I don't know in your personal case, but in my experience the VAST majority of people who do so have never read it all the way through. Many only repeat attacks on it that they've heard from others.
    The Bible is mankind's oldest surviving book. Even if you dismiss the "religious" part, its history, geography, chronology... are unimpeachable. Many times historians and archaeologists have mocked the Bible, only to later recant when discoveries confirmed it. Pontius Pilate, Sennacherib, Nineveh... a long list of once "imaginary" persons or places later confirmed as real. The Bible referenced the water cycle, the earth as a globe floating in space, the unsanitary contact with excrement or dead bodies, and other "simple" scientific principles when contemporary civilizations thought otherwise.

    I have never found a textual reference to a historical event that can be proven false. Many perhaps are unconfirmed, but that is not the same. At some point, when a source holds true time after time after time... a reasonable person can put some trust in other points being true.
  11. #231  
    who gives a crap.
  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    As to Noah, and Adam, being actual historical persons... 1 Chronicles chapters 1 through 9 and Luke chapter three both list them in a very detailed genealogy that includes many persons that are confirmed by extra-biblical history. Rejecting them raises the problem of deciding (arbitrarily?) where the reality begins?
    It's already arbitrary. There are huge schisms in how to parse the timelines.

    I read recently something that mentioned how Darwin, before forming his theories on evolution, was greatly frustrated about the existence of God, due to a profound grief over the death of his daughter, along with a long standing distaste for the dogma of a fiery Hell.

    The majority of religious thought is a great catalyst for athiesm... or at least not liking the idea of God.
    Firstly, I've never heard that. Be interested in a source.

    Secondly, it's totally possible to approach Atheism in a manner that isn't a rejection of G-d. Sometimes it's as simple as a lack of resonance, other times it's the very big problem of the things done in G-d's name. Atheism is more than "not liking the idea of G-d".

    Religious people don't like it when our ideals are reduced to "fairy tales", so it behooves us to not reduce Atheism to "Show me on this doll where the bad G-d touched you."

    Quote Originally Posted by fubka View Post
    Why do people laugh at creationists?
    You know, I think you've developed a tick...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    I've already quoted God several times and that didn't make an impact...

    We've quoted men claiming to quote G-d, with no empirical evidence. The Torah isn't a cookbook and doesn't deal with this stuff. We should leave the HOW to science and the WHY to religion, and stop acting like it matters if someone's concept of how physics worked 300 years ago throws everything out.

    Quote Originally Posted by octoberorange View Post
    I wholeheartedly thought of this this, but by going down this road god just becomes a big list of what-if's, and I don't think, philosophically or spiritually, that that's very helpful to anyone. I don't think it's fair, in an intellectual discussion, for a person (whoever I was replying to) to be so specific about the nature of god in some instances, but then claim that god is 'mysterious' when someone questions the idea.
    I think all G-d can be right now is a "what if?". I mean, unless we take the "Because the Bible Tells Me So" attitude, and I honestly don't think that helps anyone.

    I don't think that's a relevant argument. We know for a fact bad people hurt good people. A god didn't secretly prevent it all from happening. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
    A little. We see the crime, but maybe we don't always see the punishment. Which doesn't clear G-d of the crime happening in the first place. As you said, if there's no "reason", then that's a crappy thing.

    I only assumed it for the sake of that specific argument. Naturally, there are many different 'behaviors' a god could follow.
    General "you". Sorry.
    There are some replies in this thread making those assumptions, I'm challenging them by showing what I perceive to be the illogical conclusions if they were indeed true.
    I'm actually kind of backing your challenge up with that.

    I don't know. It was a hypothetical response to the point the poster made.
    Again, general you. Maybe I'll switch to saying "one"?

    Nobody made this claim. I disagreed with (I think pogey's) use of the parent-child metaphor (that I used previously) and I didn't think it worked in that instance he made.

    I feel you're getting caught up by certain phrases within my arguments and not the spirit of the arguments themselves.
    I was actually trying to support it, in my own way.

    I think questioning is right and good. Even one accepts, as I do, that the Torah is divine in nature, it's full of people questioning G-d. If they can do it, I sure can.

    100% agree.
    Thesis Statement: We kinda suck.

    Wait, what if that's what "in the image of G-d" means? G-d, if He contains everything, has to contain evil as well as good. So to do we have the potential for either... well, sounds pretty anyway.

    This is a fair statement. A person blind since birth, no matter how much you try, will never fully understand what seeing is like. Only imperfect metaphors could be used to explain to them.
    The fact that you had a perfect metaphor for explaining an imperfect metaphor makes me smile.

    It's why I automatically distrust anyone, no matter what the faith, who says "G-d wants this". No. You think G-d wants that. And you're welcome to. Until you try to force others to think that to.

    Another valid point. But like I said above to another poster, when god becomes a list of uncertainty and what-if's, I have trouble believing.
    Easy belief is belief that hasn't been challenged, and isn't worth believing in, if you ask me.

    I question till I find what "fits" and I re-question. That works for me. YMMV.
  13. #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by typo lad
    Firstly, I've never heard that. Be interested in a source.
    I can't remember honestly; but a quick wickipedia ( i know, i know...) reveals a plethora of sources about his early religious training, debates about a loving omnipotent creator (didn't like the way a parasitic wasp deals cruelly with the caterpillar) and the death of his daugter in 1851, several years before publishing "Origin".

    I didn't mean to say that ALL atheists or evolutionists are turned off of God for a single reason, just that I know many who have been. My point was more along the lines that mainstream religion CLAIMS to represent the Bible, but in actuality contradicts it by either doctrine or actions that are not in harmony with scripture. Many people (myself included) are quite surprised by this when they examine the Bible; that is what I was trying to say.
  14. #234  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Wait, what if that's what "in the image of G-d" means? G-d, if He contains everything, has to contain evil as well as good. So to do we have the potential for either... well, sounds pretty anyway.
    This echos my line of thinking fairly well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    The fact that you had a perfect metaphor for explaining an imperfect metaphor makes me smile.
    LOGIC FAILURE: DIVISION BY ZERO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Easy belief is belief that hasn't been challenged, and isn't worth believing in, if you ask me.

    I question till I find what "fits" and I re-question. That works for me.
    Nothing more can be asked of a person who follows this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Why is the Bible so easily dismissed? I don't know in your personal case, but in my experience the VAST majority of people who do so have never read it all the way through. Many only repeat attacks on it that they've heard from others.
    I have not read the bible all the way through. But I have read a large chunk of it. Maybe the only people who read it all the way through are the ones who already believe in it. In my case, I couldn't finish it because I found many repugnant passages within and I didn't feel it necessary to finish what I started.

    But it is true that there are people of any side of an argument who spout off things they only heard, not discovered for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    The Bible is mankind's oldest surviving book.
    There are many surviving texts, religious and otherwise, from much earlier and from many different parts of the world. But even if it were true, it doesn't really prove anything in my opinion, only that it is very old.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Even if you dismiss the "religious" part, its history, geography, chronology... are unimpeachable.
    I'm sorry, but your use of 'unimpeachable' is a falsehood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Many times historians and archaeologists have mocked the Bible, only to later recant when discoveries confirmed it. Pontius Pilate, Sennacherib, Nineveh... a long list of once "imaginary" persons or places later confirmed as real.
    Perhaps. But the presence of an historical record within a religious text does not provide evidence for the religious aspect (a point I believe you made later in the post I'm quoting), it only provides a timeline with which the text existed.

    Many Buddhist texts combine history and supernatural such as regarding Siddhartha Gautama's (Buddha's) birth, and how he could walk and talk as soon as he was born, and lotus flowers bloomed wherever he stepped. In no way do I think that really happened, but I know the 'official' historical record of 500BC ancient India matches a lot of these stories which regards to persons and places.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    The Bible referenced the water cycle, the earth as a globe floating in space, the unsanitary contact with excrement or dead bodies, and other "simple" scientific principles
    Again, not indicative of the veracity of any spiritual claims, only the scientific concepts of the time. With regards to dead bodies, they may have understood not to touch them, but they didn't understand why; there was no proper germ theory of disease until the discovery of microorganisms much later. To me, that's not quite as scientific, and more something that humans learned through centuries of experience.

    Other things, such as Adam and Eve being the first humans, global flood, obviously are not true. Not to be a pest, but I'm not going to argue those points any further. We've both made our viewpoints known. Perhaps another thread
    August 2009 - January 2011. Thank god I'm no longer a Pre user!

  15. #235  
    Quote Originally Posted by octoberorange View Post
    This echos my line of thinking fairly well.

    LOGIC FAILURE: DIVISION BY ZERO.

    Nothing more can be asked of a person who follows this.
    Why I do believe I've made a friend.


    I have not read the bible all the way through. But I have read a large chunk of it. Maybe the only people who read it all the way through are the ones who already believe in it. In my case, I couldn't finish it because I found many repugnant passages within and I didn't feel it necessary to finish what I started.

    But it is true that there are people of any side of an argument who spout off things they only heard, not discovered for themselves.
    That's actually what keeps me reading. When I catch something that doesn't fit, even in context I want to know how it meshes. It's why I study the Talmud as well as Tanach, and try to figure things out. Plus, a LOT of the verses are predicated on other verses (that's without getting into context stuff).

    Like say, any law about a death penalty. People (on both sides of the discussion) sometimes portray it like the Torah is saying "gitcher gun!". Instead, it's talking case-law. It assumes witnesses and a court. And the roll of a witness in Torah law is intensely different. You have to have certain credentials, you have to see the guy doing it and warn him during the act three times, and have to know that if you're caught lying, you get the same penalty you had.

    A big difference from just "grab him, take him to the edge of town and stone him!".

    There are many surviving texts, religious and otherwise, from much earlier and from many different parts of the world. But even if it were true, it doesn't really prove anything in my opinion, only that it is very old.
    Yeah, I gotta go with october on this. There are a ton of texts that pre-date the oldest example of the Torah (Nash Papyrus or Dead Sea Scrolls). If we go by age, then the Gilgamesh Epic must have happened. Now personally, I think that a society that uses parchment (Judea) is going to leave less records than one that uses clay tablets (Mesepotamia) but that doesn't change the fact that age is not a proof.

    I'm sorry, but your use of 'unimpeachable' is a falsehood.
    Indeed, people have been so fixated on "Biblical History" that they ignore recorded history when it contradicts, instead of simply saying "Hmm, we must have guessed wrong."

    For years I've listened to people say the reason the story of Exodus isn't recorded in Egyptian glyphs is because they wouldn't bother recording such a loss. Except "Decoding Exodus", which is overall a bit of "Biblical History" wishful thinking, makes one darn good point: there is a recorded incident of a vassal race leaving Egypt, the Hyksos. They were ignored because they don't fit the timeline someone decided on years ago, and because they were mercenaries instead of shepherds, but it's a heck of a co-inky-dink to just throw out, especially when Josephus has a whole dialogue about it (I just looked that up though, wasn't on the top of my head).


    Perhaps. But the presence of an historical record within a religious text does not provide evidence for the religious aspect (a point I believe you made later in the post I'm quoting), it only provides a timeline with which the text existed.
    Indeed, this would be like saying that since we eventually found Troy, the Illiad and Oddysy must have gone down.

    I'm not saying it disproves it, but to bring it as proof is not rational. If you insist on using rationality to prop up faith, you're going to find logical holes unless you are a master scholar in all fields of study, and have a direct line to G-d or a time machine.


    Again, not indicative of the veracity of any spiritual claims, only the scientific concepts of the time. With regards to dead bodies, they may have understood not to touch them, but they didn't understand why; there was no proper germ theory of disease until the discovery of microorganisms much later. To me, that's not quite as scientific, and more something that humans learned through centuries of experience.
    See, from my faith end of it, it seems more like a way of wording it for those who don't have the basics to understand.

    A lot of the laws do make logical sense in retrospect, but some don't. Like "pigs aren't Kosher because they were worried about trichinosis". Except if you accept the Documentary Thesis (I don't), they new darn well how to cook meat. If you accept the Bible dates generally bandied about... they still new.

    Now, if you want to say as a Nomadic culture, keeping an animal that required being tied down made little sense... I can almost see that.

    Although I've yet to hear an explanation for to Torah noting the pig as the one and only animal with cloven hoods that's a non-ruminant, and how centuries later, we don't know of any non-porcine cloven hooves ruminants. If that was a guess, it was a hell of a guess.

    Other things, such as Adam and Eve being the first humans, global flood, obviously are not true.
    The question is are they supposed to be "true" or are they supposed to "ring true"? I still think everything up to Abraham is the prelude.

    Not to be a pest, but I'm not going to argue those points any further. We've both made our viewpoints known. Perhaps another thread
    NO FAIR!

    Come back, New Friend.
  16. #236  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    That's actually what keeps me reading. When I catch something that doesn't fit, even in context I want to know how it meshes. It's why I study the Talmud as well as Tanach, and try to figure things out. Plus, a LOT of the verses are predicated on other verses (that's without getting into context stuff).
    YES! I'd even add that those bits are where some of the most profound wisdom is found...I'd like to think that it's intentionally this way.

    Yeah, I gotta go with october on this. There are a ton of texts that pre-date the oldest example of the Torah (Nash Papyrus or Dead Sea Scrolls). If we go by age, then the Gilgamesh Epic must have happened. Now personally, I think that a society that uses parchment (Judea) is going to leave less records than one that uses clay tablets (Mesepotamia) but that doesn't change the fact that age is not a proof.
    Agreed. I knew I'd get nailed on this; My fingers didn't complete my thought. I meant oldest that's currently in use, globally. Add to that the fact that it's so often been banned, attacked, etc... just it's survival is pretty impressive.

    See, from my faith end of it, it seems more like a way of wording it for those who don't have the basics to understand.

    Although I've yet to hear an explanation for to Torah noting the pig as the one and only animal with cloven hoods that's a non-ruminant, and how centuries later, we don't know of any non-porcine cloven hooves ruminants. If that was a guess, it was a hell of a guess.
    Yes, exactly. The Bible certainly isn't a science book... I just meant that it refers to things that no one knew or understood at the time... which to me personally gives indication of a Creator's knowledge.



    NO FAIR!

    Come back, New Friend.
    +1 - I hope I haven't sounded bombastic. Everyone commenting here has obviously been very intelligent and educated, and sincere in their views. My defense of the Bible comes natural since I have been a student/teacher of the Scriptures for 20 years. Present company excluded, I have many times defended criticisms of the Bible in situations that made me feel like a high school Literature teacher trying to discuss Shakespeare with a class that half didn't read the piece and those that did didn't understand the language, so instead they choose to fake British accents and laugh at men in tights.
  17. #237  
    I promise I wasn't ragequitting this thread because of anyone specifically. I was trying to avoid what I thought would be a back-and-forth "bible says this but science says this" argument that tends to happen. That, and I've been reading this thread at work instead of doing my paperwork I'm more than happy to keep going. I absolutely love this stuff.

    We're all on the same path at the end of the day, we're just setting foot from different start-points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    I'd even add that those bits are where some of the most profound wisdom is found...I'd like to think that it's intentionally this way.
    Hmm.. fascinating.
    August 2009 - January 2011. Thank god I'm no longer a Pre user!

  18. #238  
    Quote Originally Posted by octoberorange View Post
    We're all on the same path at the end of the day, we're just setting foot from different start-points.
    :
    I agree that we are all at different starting points. And one can argue that our paths have converged at this moment. We will then diverge at the destination. Not just heaven or hell, but the basis of our understanding will eventually lead us to different places in our lives.

    Some of us read religious texts, while others read scientific ones. We cannot discount religious texts due to the inconsistent science some claim, just as we cannot discount science because of the shortness in its ability to explain the why. I agree that an argument cant be made entirely of one or the other, as we finite beings are still able to comprehend both. But arguments based solely on one or the other cant be thrown out entirely.

    Lastly, no matter how many cooky ideas come from other religions, beliefs or supposed scientific calculations, it only takes ONE to be correct. So the arguments that are based on the percentage of ill-conceived ideas in the past are invalid also.
  19. #239  
    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    Some of us read religious texts, while others read scientific ones. We cannot discount religious texts due to the inconsistent science some claim, just as we cannot discount science because of the shortness in its ability to explain the why. I agree that an argument cant be made entirely of one or the other, as we finite beings are still able to comprehend both. But arguments based solely on one or the other cant be thrown out entirely.
    Except it's really not an either/or scenario. That's the thing.
  20. #240  
    Can´t find the post, but someone had asked for peer studies regarding possible flaws in radioactive dating? Here's two:

    Unexpected errors affect dating techniques - 30 September 1989 - New Scientist


    ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - NYTimes.com

    I'll preface by saying that I am NOT a creationist, in the sense that I do not take Genesis chapter 1 to mean that the earth is 7000 years old nor that all life on it was created in six 24 hour days. There is plenty of proof that the earth is millions of years old, and this in no way conflicts with the Bible. I only point out this about the dating to remind us that although physical laws don't change, our understanding and ability to measure them is often imperfect. Science is a product of the same race that brought us politics, commerce, and religion, which is often influenced by pride, greed, etc. To believe that science as we know it today is the product of pure thought without any corruption is naive.

    That said, I'd agree also that any belief in a Creator and his purpose MUST conform to reality to be valid. My only comment is that what humans sometimes think they know often turns out to be wrong.

    I agree with Typo Lad about the first part of Genesis being a sweeping prelude that is meant to be an overview, not a detailed literal scientific history. Only difference is that he starts the history in chapter 11; I move it back to chapter 2 . Chapter one is a general order of events that surely cover aeons of time, and I believe we all can agree on that.... well, some might still find exception with the first verse

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions