The Deluge

[Kapyong]

They have only showed me - among sermon after sermon - that science is great and awe inspiring, and that science, which can be wrong, disagrees with the flood account. I already knew that.

Which means -
'science' is just another religion, just another bunch of guys making claims which might be correct, or might not. You never really know.

So David can just choose which religion to believe, because they are all the same really - Christianity, science, Islam, Hinduism ... whichever you pick, it's OK, they are all equally valid.


K.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Is or is not Pluto a planet?

Pluto is what it has always been for the last 4.6 billion years. The fact that astronomers have discovered new objects like Haumea, Makemake and Eris and noted their similarity to Pluto (and Ceres) and dissimilarity to the other planets and decided to reclassify these objects as "dwarf planets" is not an indication that astronomers were wrong for seventy six years. Astronomers simply gained enough new information since 1930 that they decided that they needed to make their model of the solar system more sophisticated.

This is a mistake that the scientifically ignorant often make. They assume that science is like a competing religion that pretends to have all the answers. But science doesn't work that way. Unlike most religious doctrine, science leaves all things open for further modification, or rejection, if new evidence arises. Yes, scientists are fallible humans. That is why science is open to review by all scientists. There are no sacred tenets of science, as it should be.

 

[Paulhoff]

No. Science doesn't prove anything to me like it does you. I trust the Bible and you trust science.

There is a big difference, I don't trust science because it is science, I do because it is self correcting, and not dogmatic. It tells what it has found, and not what it wants things to be. And has new things are learned, science will change if the existing ideas are wrong and don’t agree with it.

Also science does not try to disprove the bible, because that is not a function science.

Because it has claimed to be the word of a so-called god it would have to be true from the very start. Since if it were to be change to what has been learned since then how can it be the word of a so-called god, because wouldn’t that so-called god have already known to have that written into it. One would think a real god could have written a book in such a way that it could be change has its people grew and learned, but it can’t be, so how can it be any word of a so-called god. So the bible has already disproved itself because it cannot change.


Paul

 

[I Am The Scum]

No. Science doesn't prove anything to me like it does you. I trust the Bible and you trust science.

I think we're done here.

David has made it exceedingly clear that there is nothing, literally nothing, that will convince him the flood never happened, even hypothetically. Anything we do find, even if we get in a time machine and travel back and check it ourselves, will be science, and therefore, wrong.

 

[Delvo]

DH, you said this thread was for you to answer our questions, but now you're saying you're here to learn about us, which is close to the opposite. Which is it? Will you answer the questions I've posted twice, or not?

 

[Foster Zygote]

They have only showed me - among sermon after sermon - that science is great and awe inspiring, and that science, which can be wrong, disagrees with the flood account. I already knew that.

Science can be wrong. But I have yet to encounter an instance where religion has been responsible for correcting science. In fact, all correction of science to date has resulted from the practice of science.

If you claim that the flood is supported by scientific evidence then you need to provide that evidence.

 

[PixyMisa]

They have only showed me - among sermon after sermon - that science is great and awe inspiring, and that science, which can be wrong, disagrees with the flood account. I already knew that.

Science can be wrong. For the most part, it isn't.

You are here, chatting with us on an internet forum. The vast array of technologies that make this possible did not come about, I assure you, from reading the Bible.

Science actually works, David. When you reject it, you reject any search for truth in favour of comforting lies.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Science can be wrong. For the most part, it isn't.

You are here, chatting with us on an internet forum. The vast array of technologies that make this possible did not come about, I assure you, from reading the Bible.

Science actually works, David. When you reject it, you reject any search for truth in favour of comforting lies.

As I've already mentioned on this forum, my beloved wife would be slowly dying right now if not for medical science.

David seems to be desperately searching for an excuse to dismiss science.

 

[I Ratant]

The Biblical accounts and the facts? You mean the Bible and science, right?

.
For geology to verify the Flood, ALL of life since the "creation" MUST be in the Flood layer.
Marella, Pikaia, Hallucigenia, Drepanapsis, Dunkleosteus, Eryops, Hylonomus, Protocertops, Paracephlosaurus,
Tyrannosaurus, Megatherium, Chalicothere, Similodon, Elephant, Horse, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo
sapiens*.... ALL have to be intermingled in the Flood layer.
And there must be all the cities and towns and villages with their inhabitants that were deemed unworthy of life.
This layer is well within the capability of Carbon 14 to be reliably dated.
So your theory, based on your research in your book states the above MUST be true.
If it isn't, then your theory has nothing to back it up.
Not only the science of geology, but biology and every other -ology there is fails to find any credence supporting your faith-based theory.
Therefore, -your- theory is false.
.
* look these up. The fantastic ways nature experimented with life is awesome!

 

[Athyrio]

I was born and raised, not so much as an atheist at least by title but irreligious. We didn't believe in God or religion, we thought religious people were nuts......(snip).... one book that I had never read and that was the Bible.

Just curious - do you know that some of us atheists here formerly professed Christianity? And did you have an opinion of the story of Noah when you were irreligious?

 

[devnull]

As I've already mentioned on this forum, my beloved wife would be slowly dying right now if not for medical science.

David seems to be desperately searching for an excuse to dismiss science.

If not for medical science I would be dead, thrice.

Once I had an extremely bad asthma attack when I was a baby. Saved by medical science.

Then when I ruptured my bowel (crohns disease), once again, medical science saved my life.

Again, I suffered crohn's related symptoms (scar tissue causing a near complete stricture of my bowel) and again, medical science saved my life.

 

[Paulhoff]

If not for medical science I would be dead, thrice.

Once I had an extremely bad asthma attack when I was a baby. Saved by medical science.

Then when I ruptured my bowel (crohns disease), once again, medical science saved my life.

Again, I suffered crohn's related symptoms (scar tissue causing a near complete stricture of my bowel) and again, medical science saved my life.

No, that is just all that damn sin in your life.

Paul

 

[Delvo]

I have yet to encounter an instance where religion has been responsible for correcting science. In fact, all correction of science to date has resulted from the practice of science.

Another interesting thing about the relationship between the two: we see religious people trying to come up with ways to say that science supports their religious claims, but don't see scientists trying to come up with ways to say that religion supports their scientific conclusions. The seeking of a stamp of approval only goes one direction. It's like, although they don't admit it, even the religious really know deep down inside which one trumps the other.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have a question related to the OP.


If an oil company were interviewing a geologist to help them search for potential new sources of oil, and that geologist identified himself as someone who believed a worldwide deluge occurred approximately 5,000 years ago, how do you think it would affect his chances of being hired? If it would have an effect, why do you think it would?

 

[Simon39759]

Another interesting thing about the relationship between the two: we see religious people trying to come up with ways to say that science supports their religious claims, but don't see scientists trying to come up with ways to say that religion supports their scientific conclusions. The seeking of a stamp of approval only goes one direction. It's like, although they don't admit it, even the religious really know deep down inside which one trumps the other.

*cough*Francis Collins*cough; cough*

 

[Trent Wray]

It makes me sad when people come here with the pretense of being open-minded and wanting to learn, but then simply cherry-pick what they want to hear to confirm their preconceived notions.

David, thanks for wasting my time. If and when you ever grow up and want to have a real conversation about the world, let me know.

I have honestly missed the entire point of his posts. He will address those who can prove him wrong ... and he will address those who throw daggers at him and preach at him and all the things he doesn't like ... yet he doesn't want to directly discuss God.

There is something missing from this recipe. I don't know that lemon zest and potatoes are gonna cut it.

 

[fuelair]

If not for medical science I would be dead, thrice.

Once I had an extremely bad asthma attack when I was a baby. Saved by medical science.

Then when I ruptured my bowel (crohns disease), once again, medical science saved my life.

Again, I suffered crohn's related symptoms (scar tissue causing a near complete stricture of my bowel) and again, medical science saved my life.

Based on a show (repeated today) on NPR, you might want to do some research on Hookworms. As something to get, if you still have Crohn's.

http://research.nottingham.ac.uk/Vision/display.aspx?id=1177&pid=213 (read about the research here).

 

[Hokulele]

Why is it that you can't understand that my intense study of the Bible for the last 16 or so years is the same type of thing. If I found something in the Bible that couldn't be explained or that was as the skeptic seems to think, contradictory etc. I wouldn't have any problem in disbelieving it.

Ahem.

Of the species of animals over 60 percent are insects - of 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark.

Wait, what?

Genesis 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.


ETA: Or this one:

Genesis 7:23 - And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

 

[TimCallahan]

What is striking about Dave's scenario that many animals could have survived outside the ark is that he's trying to make the ark story compatible with science - the same science he discounts when it doesn't agree with the biblical flood myth.

 

[Hokulele]

What is striking about Dave's scenario that many animals could have survived outside the ark is that he's trying to make the ark story compatible with science - the same science he discounts when it doesn't agree with the biblical flood myth.

Yep.