The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark

  
By:  Gordy327  •  2 months ago  •  387 comments


The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark
People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers. ---Neil deGrasse Tyson

Leave a comment to auto-join group Religious and not News Chat

Religious and not News Chat

This article is the first in a series of articles I plan to write (depending on my available time and interest) objectively examining popular biblical stories to establish their veracity or likelihood of having actually occurred. While many people might view the stories as fables and allegories, some do view them as actual, literal events that have occurred (Looking at you Ken Hamm, lol). These stories have significantly influenced people and societies throughout the centuries. So I will analyze the empirical evidence which either supports or refutes the stories as portrayed. For this Part 1, I will examine the biblical Great Flood and Noah's Ark mythos.

In a nutshell, the Great Flood/Noah's Ark goes like this: God was ticked off at humanity's shenanigans and decided the best way to deal with the situation was genocide via mass drowning (save for Noah & few of his followers, along with certain animals). So God instructed Noah to gather two of every animal and build a great ark to house them during the 40-day/night deluge that would flood the world and kill virtually every living thing on the planet. Afterwards, he would release the animals and themselves to repopulate their respective species. 

This story has so many problems with it, it's difficult to know where to begin. To simplify, I will not be focusing on other cultures earlier flood myths, which probably influenced the creation of the biblical flood myth. Neither will I be focusing on God's own imperfection (or incompetence), as his Creation had some major design flaws forcing him to essentially reboot Creation over again. I also won't delve into the implausibility of rapid repopulation over a short time after the flood either. So here are some problems with the Flood story:

1. The sheer number of animals that had to be aboard the Ark : For this, I'm going to assume that the animals on the ark were all land animals. According to the California Academy of Sciences, there are approximately 6.5 million species of land animals. I'll be conservative and round down to 6 million, give or take a million. Since we have two of every animal, the ark must be capable of holding and supporting 12 MILLION animals for an extended duration, without additional support. That alone makes the Flood story quite implausible (even more so if one includes dinosaurs as passengers). Anyone who has been in a pet store will know housing many animals takes up quite a lot of space and resources. To put that into perspective, a single adult elephant (the largest land mammal in the world) can weigh upwards of 14,000 pounds, grow up to 35 feet long, and eat 200-600 pounds of food and drink 50 gallons of water PER DAY! And Noah had 12 million animals to feed and water daily, which is an impossible task for the relatively few people aboard the ark (never mind cleaning up after the animals too). In addition, it is supposed to believed that many of those animals traveled thousands of miles, some over the ocean, and from remote places like Antarctica, outside of their natural environments and ecosystems, in time to board the ark before the flood. Really?

2. The lack of paleontological evidence : Once the flood occurs, that means EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL not on the ark dies (and PETA takes issue with people wearing furs? They should have quite the issue with God's cruelty to animals here). Not only land animals left behind, but this also includes all land based plant life, insects that feed off of plants, amphibians and avians that feed of the insects, ect.. Essentially, the Flood would destroy entire ecosystems, collapse the food chain, and cause a sudden mass extinction event. This would also include sea based plants and animals, as the sudden influx of freshwater rain would dilute the salinity of the oceans, thereby disrupting the environmental conditions ocean based life requires to survive. If such an extinction event occurred, we would expect to see LOTS of fossils or remnants of the deceased lifeforms all at the same geological strata evenly distributed all over the earth. But we clearly do not observe that being the case. To be fair though, fossilization would require a burial in sediment layers thick enough to preserve them. But we're not seeing that in any sediment layers going back approximately 4000+ years (the time of Noah). Another thing to consider is, when the flood receded and the Ark landed, we should see a large collection of fossils or remains of all the animals that lived and died within a region around the ark. In other words, we should expect to find (for example) penguin remains mixed in along with kangaroo remains in the same general area. Needless to say, we do not see that.

3. The lack of geological evidence : So if a worldwide flood did indeed happen, there would be geological evidence of the event. However, geologists have not discovered any evidence to support the flood story. Just the opposite actually, current geological evidence directly contradicts the idea of a world wide flood covering landmasses. If there were such a Flood event, we would see mountains and other rock formations have a relatively uniform smoothing or massive erosion from the receding Flood water equally around the world. Of course, that is not the case. We would also see erosion and sedimentation occurring simultaneously, which we do not. Not only would we find even sedimentation layers around the world if there were a flood, certain sedimentation layers we see today could not exist. 

4. The amount of water needed to flood the earth does not exist on earth : The volume of water on Earth is fairly constant: it evaporates form oceans, lakes, rivers, ect., condenses in the atmosphere into clouds, and falls back to Earth as rain, where the cycle repeats. So 40 days & nights of rain would have to drop enough water to cover ALL of Earth's landmasses, up and including Mt. Everest, at 29,028 feet above sea level (God wouldn't want to have a little animal stay safe on the peak of Everest while he's trying to smite every living thing, right?). The problem with that is there is not enough water on Earth to actually flood it to the level described in the bible. According to certain estimates , it would take 813,875,076 CUBIC MILES of water to sufficiently cover the entirety of Earth. That's a lot of water. By comparison, all of Earth's oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, equals approximately 321,000,000 cubic miles. I would expect that volume of water to fall in 40 days would be less like being constantly under rain, and more like constantly under a waterfall. Then there's the problem of where all that extra water went after the flood (I know, some people might invoke God's magic and all that).

5. The Ark itself is implausible : Now we get to the centerpiece of the Flood Story, Noah's Great Ark itself. By now, many people are probably familiar with Ken Hamm's Ark Encounter park in Kentucky, where Mr. Hamm built a supposedly accurate, full-size replica of Noah's Ark. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use Mr. Hamm's Ark as a "functional" duplicate of Noah's Ark. So the Ark itself is 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high, smaller than the Titanic (and yet 12 millions animals were housed on board? Really?). I don't think the bible states Noah was a master carpenter or ship builder with the skill to construct a vessel of this magnitude or for the conditions it would face. Presumably, Noah only had wood and the simple tools of his time to construct the Ark. The problem here is, wood is not the ideal material to construct large seagoing vessels. The largest wooden vessels built by master shipbuilders of the recent era was the 6 mast schooner Wyoming, which had an overall length of 450 feet. The problem with such large wooden vessels is that sea travel would cause the wooden hull to twist and warp, resulting in leaks or even structural failure. So the Ark, built by unskilled individuals with primitive tools, meant to remain stable on water rather than actually sail over it, somehow, even with all it's gross tonnage of material, animals, and any cargo, was able to withstand stormy weather and oceans without breaking apart or becoming water logged enough to cause sinking? That seems highly unlikely to me. as does the Great Flood story itself.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Gordy327
1  author  Gordy327    2 months ago

So what do you think? Could the Great Flood and Noah's Ark actually have occurred? I don't think so.

 
 
 
CB
1.1  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @1    2 months ago

We, meaning modern history may never know. This was a very old Earth ago. And the people doing the 'listing' are very, very, long gone. Does any one have a Rabbi's perspective on Noah's Ark?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1    2 months ago

The people in the story may well never have existed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1    2 months ago
We, meaning modern history may never know. This was a very old Earth ago.

Yes it was (for a YEC perspective). That's why we have to look at the geologic and paleontological evidence, which keeps a natural "record" of events from log ago. Both fields of science not only does not support the notion of a biblical global flood, but seems to directly contradict or discredit it. 

Does any one have a Rabbi's perspective on Noah's Ark?

I found this

The Flood commenced on the seventeenth day of the second month. The gates of heaven broke loose, and the depths of the earth opened to send forth streams of raging, boiling water, swallowing everything in its path. Rain fell for forty days and forty nights and the water which covered the earth rose higher and higher. It covered the peaks of the highest mountains. Every living thing died, and all growing things were destroyed. Amid this terrible scene of ruins and devastation the Ark, guided by G‑d, floated securely. But the ship was fiercely tossed about and shaken at the heights of the stormy flood, so that it seemed to Noah that it was about to break apart.

Geez, can God overkill or what? Not only does he drown every living thing, but He boils them alive first. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
1.1.3  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.1    2 months ago

True. It is a very, very, very, (well you get it) time ago. Mostly people at that time may have not shared or could demand of each other the level of meticulousness to details (in writing) which we do today. Although, people did seem to have systems which build upon themselves.

"The people in the story may well never have existed."

That is possible. You hedged your statement. I understand why it is necessary to do so.

In modern times, there is no shortage for 'amazing' tales, stories, and myths-making.  All the while, we are more careful and critical in our beliefs, ideas, and opinions. Still, just imagine some of the many things which we will leave confusing to future generations about "today."

There are places in the New Testament of the Bible which are still being discovered, for example, the Pool of Bethesda. Once thought (by some modern people) to be a myth: discovered.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.4  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.2    2 months ago

Well that is a rendering alright! The writers, all, keep describing an event in time. What exactly it could be is a matter of faith, now. In my opinion. I say this is a matter of faith, because Jewish people teach on Noah; Jesus commented on Noah's life (as a Jewish 'leader' in his day), and Jesus was closer in time to Noah than any group of moderns. (I add this just as a means to broaden discussion - my Christian faith does not hinge on the times or flood of Noah's day.)

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.4    2 months ago
What exactly it could be is a matter of faith, now.

Then that doesn't lend any credibility to the story as actually occurring.

I say this is a matter of faith, because Jewish people teach on Noah; Jesus commented on Noah's life (as a Jewish 'leader' in his day), and Jesus was closer in time to Noah than any group of moderns. (I add this just as a means to broaden discussion - my Christian faith does not hinge on the times or flood of Noah's day.)

That's fine. But the point of the article is to focus on the Flood story itself and establish its veracity. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.6  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.5    2 months ago

How do you intend to establish its veracity or status as a tale without any new information? Curious.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.6    2 months ago
How do you intend to establish its veracity or status as a tale without any new information? Curious.

Read the article. I took all the available information into account and analyzed it. It's doubtful there's going to be anymore forthcoming to significantly alter the conclusion. But if you have something, then by all means let's hear it.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.8  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    2 months ago

I read the article. It is impressive for its purposes. And as you are certainly aware, the Bible goes beyond nature as we know it in many ways.

The "available" information can only get you so far. As Sandy stated @1.1.1, "may" is the operative word, though it leaves the door open for a 'flood' of new information, pun intended.  The Pool of Bethesda (where Jesus healed a paralyzed man) was though to not exist until it was discovered in Jerusalem. Incidentally, you hedged just now when you wrote, "It's doubtful. . . ."

Discoveries happen (from in the ground) when the ground is dug up just so. But, what do I know about ancient lands I have never been privileged to visit or study? It is just more 'background' in the frame of faith (for people like me).

I have no ideas about Noah; I only know what is taken as an article of faith about him written down in "the Book."

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.8    2 months ago
The "available" inforrmation can only get you so far.

That's all we have to go on. So there's no reason to assume the Flood event occurred, especially since the available evidence, which is compelling in its own right, suggests otherwise.

Incidentally, you hedged just now when you wrote, "It's doubtful. . . ."

Not at all. I even said in the article the Flood was highly unlikely. 

Discoveries happen (from in the ground) when the ground is dug up just so.

Like I said, when new evidence is found, then we can reevaluate.

I read the article. It is impressive for its purposes.

Thank you.

And as you are certainly aware, the Bible goes beyond nature as we know it in many ways.

I take it more as a storybook rather than a literal account of events.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.10  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.9    2 months ago

Then we are in agreement, that we should stick a pin here? And shall we wait?  Or, do we carry on blindly supposing that the ancient world has yielded more than enough of its secrets regarding Noah?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.11  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.10    2 months ago

We can carry on until new evidence, if any, emerges. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.12  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.11    2 months ago

But would it be discipline or indulgence at work? There are plenty people of the faith persuasion who 'beat' the scriptures mercilessly, I often pray they could display more control of their subject matter.

For example, we have to discuss God, when we discuss Noah and the Flood. The reason is, we only are told about Noah because God delivered him a task to perform.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.12    2 months ago
The reason is, we only are told about Noah because God delivered him a task to perform.

Or we are told a story that was made up about a god and a man, both of whom were likely made up.  Much like many myths.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.14  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.12    2 months ago
For example, we have to discuss God, when we discuss Noah and the Flood. The reason is, we only are told about Noah because God delivered him a task to perform.

God commanding Noah and flooding the world is all we really need about god. God is just a side character in the Flood. It's the details of the Flood itself that is under scrutiny.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.15  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.13    2 months ago
"The people in the story may well never have existed."

You wrote (above). Like you, I can not confirm or deny. For us, these things are strictly matters of faith, then.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.16  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.14    2 months ago

Okay, then what does the book say about where Noah gets the directions (instructions) for the proportions of his ark (that would save him from a world where others would be condemned)? And what value is righteousness to a man who places no stock in it?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.15    2 months ago

Ok, I'll even go so far as to say that the Biblical Noah, who lived for hundreds of years and built a ship big enough to hold 2 of every species (or 2 of every unclean and seven of every clean animal), made from wood, and capable of supporting its passengers and livestock for a year, almost certainly did not exist.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.18  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.17    2 months ago

"Almost" means there is a chance. But, I digress.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.15    2 months ago
For us, these things are strictly matters of faith, then.

And faith adds no veracity to the idea.   That is what flies in the face of those who need to be persuaded that something is true.   There is no taking something on faith because that practice does not get one any closer to the truth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.18    2 months ago
"Almost" means there is a chance.

I suspect Sandy means it in this sense:

 
 
 
CB
1.1.21  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    2 months ago

I seen this one on various articles.  It fact it is what was going through my mind when I commented.  But we all know a 'crack' can grow into.a garage you can park a 747 inside! Discoveries!

 
 
 
CB
1.1.22  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.19    2 months ago

I think you are missing a vital element: The Spirit. It is the "born again" experience. That is something we 'know' occurred in some of us you know it has not occurred for some of you here. Unfortunately, we have been front-row to seeing how some believers mishandle spiritual gifts in the modern era. Yet, some others manage their gifting quite admirably.

I detect this discussion is not about faith or these other matters, nevertheless. It is about Noah and the Ark (he built).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.22    2 months ago
The Spirit. It is the "born again" experience. That is something we 'know' occurred in some of us you know it has not occurred for some of you here.

Evidence, Cal.  This is entirely subjective.  We aren't missing it.  You can't show it's there to be missed.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.24  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.23    2 months ago

The statement stands. It is attested to by many throughout recorded (New Testament) history and the life testimonies of millions upon millions, and not a mere handful. I can't give you (nor need I try) anything more than this. You are free to qualify this stated experience when you write of it as something we say about ourselves.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.24    2 months ago

While I realize you have nothing more to give, note that a preponderance of belief does not make something true (or even more likely true).  Remember the world used to think the sun and other stars orbited our planet.

But in a contemporary sense, note the beliefs of the billions of Muslims in the world.   The fact that billions hold beliefs such as that Jesus was an ordinary man, a prophet, but was not divine in any way does not make their beliefs true.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.26  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.25    2 months ago

Well, the spiritual realm, the born again experience, are not lending themselves to scientific observation, research, and critique—sadly. However, it is how I, and millions upon millions, profess to live so we would be liars and dishonest to NOT tell others about this aspect of our lives.  That would be unsatisfactory.

Moreover, having repeat discussions about the improbability of Noah existing and building an ark, when researchers are still not absolutely sure he did not exist or build strains credulity (too). Albeit, an exercise. One serving what purposes?

Today, we have an example of the Coronavirus (COVID 19) which is savaging people all over the world. We know little about the virus definitively until the facts reveal themselves—if they do.

In the case of Noah and this flood (and those who reported on it), we may never know the truth of it, because all the relevant parties who shared and explained the narrative are long gone.

That makes it a take it or leave it set of propositions.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.24    2 months ago
The statement stands.

On extremely wobbly legs.  It's just an unsupported assertion, and can be dismissed as such.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.28  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.27    2 months ago

That's your opinion. You are welcome to hold it. However, I will thank you to not try and tell me that the last 25 plus years of my profession is 'wobbly.' I've lived it. Some six or seven years of the last years counting backwards of it on social media engaging you and many others. But, I digress. You can not remark properly on my experiences (I know) you can only take my word for it. Dismissing it? Not even a question.

Now let's move back to the topic. This is not about any one Christian's  spiritual journey back and forth/up and down!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.28    2 months ago
However, I will thank you to not try and tell me that the last 25 plus years of my profession is 'wobbly.' I've lived it.

Sigh.

It's still subjective, Cal.  There's just no getting around that.  You tell us we're missing that which you can't provide evidence exists.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.28    2 months ago
the last 25 plus years of my profession

What profession is that?   Would help clarify your post.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.31  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.30    2 months ago

Good catch. (a) profession of faith.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.32  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.29    2 months ago

See @1.1.26 "Well, the spiritual realm, the born again experience, are not lending themselves to scientific observation, research, and critique—sadly. However, it is how I, and millions upon millions, profess to live so we would be liars and dishonest to NOT tell others about this aspect of our lives.  That would be unsatisfactory."

Therefore, it is what it is. (We don't control this.)

 
 
 
Ender
2  Ender    2 months ago

There are stories of epic floods well before the bible. One of them is Gilgamesh, I believe.

I think it comes down to there being actual floods yet people only knew of their own area at the time.

And of course all stories get exaggerated over the years.

In the Mesopotamia flood story, they build a round boat.

There is a Aztec flood story, a Greek flood story, a Hindu flood story, A Buddhist, Chinese, A Norse story but they were flooded with blood, the Aborigines, Native Americans.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @2    2 months ago
There are stories of epic floods well before the bible. One of them is Gilgamesh, I believe.

It is thought the Great Flood was directly borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, Or at least was inspired by it. But many cultures of the period and region have some kind of flood myth. So it's no stretch that such stories were borrowed, passed around and probably altered or embellished. 

I think it comes down to there being actual floods yet people only knew of their own area at the time.

A regional flood is the most likely scenario. But in people's limited world view of the time, to them, it may have seemed like the whole world was flooded. Certain religions just ran with it.

And of course all stories get exaggerated over the years.

Indeed. First a riverbank flooding suddenly becomes entire cities being submerged becomes whole regions submerged becomes the whole world flooded. It's the Bronze Age version of Telephone.

In the Mesopotamia flood story, they build a round boat.

Round works for rafts. Not sure how well an actual boat would fare.

There is a Aztec flood story, a Greek flood story, a Hindu flood story, A Buddhist, Chinese, A Norse story but they were flooded with blood, the Aborigines, Native Americans.

Basically, any civilization that grew around a river probably has a flood story, and for good reason.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1    2 months ago

I was going to say the same thing as Ender. We know that the region in question was at one time also much wetter than it was today. We have proof with the sphinx, since the erosion we see at the bottom is now known to have happened by water. I think that as the last major ice age ended a lot of places flooded and there were huge fluctuations in weather. And as the Supertramp song goes:

There are times when all the world's asleep
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
Please tell me who I am

As for the ark, I am sure that there were people who gathered supplies and try to wait it out on a boat. This might have become legendary, so to speak.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    2 months ago
I think that as the last major ice age ended a lot of places flooded

At best, the biblical flood was really just a regional flood. But certainly not like the one depicted in the bible.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.2    2 months ago

I would have to agree that it was regional, but given the time, it could have been going on worldwide, but not to the extent, that it covered all the land.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.3    2 months ago
but given the time, it could have been going on worldwide

I don't think that's very likely. There's no evidence to suggest that might have been the case.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
2.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Ender @2    2 months ago

Like the game "telephone." Stories exaggerated, modified, or completely changed from the original.

 
 
 
MAGA
3  MAGA    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3    2 months ago

Did you even bother reading the article? Spare me the self pity and meta and try to discuss the points made in a rational and civil manner. Can you do that? Any further meta will be deleted.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.1  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3.1.1    2 months ago

Again, skip the meta and address the article and points made! If you had done so, you would see that no one nor religion is being attacked. Rather, its claims are being objectively analyzed. Whatever someone believes or why they do is also not the issue here nor the topic of discussion.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.3  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.2    2 months ago

Objective according to who and by what standards? [[Taunting]]

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3.1.3    2 months ago
Objective according to who and by what standards?

Scientific standards and analysis. Not personal feeling, belief, or wishful thinking. See the difference?

 Everything you have said comes from a bias and you try to cloak your anti theism in a veneer of so called objectivity.  

Still with the personal attacks, eh? Either discuss the points made (like most everyone else here is capable of doing) in a civil manner or leave!

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3    2 months ago

Your first comment is pure meta.  Address the content of the article.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.2.1  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    2 months ago

[[No Value]]

 
 
 
TᵢG
4  TᵢG    2 months ago
The sheer number of animals that had to be aboard the Ark

The common explanations offered for this are that the ark only contains two of each 'kind'.   A 'kind' is an undefined term, but it seems to be used to define creatures at a high phylogenetic  level ... major clades that are at the taxonomic level of genus or family.   So the ark, per this way of thinking, would have had a pair of apes who, in theory, would serve as the progenitors for all variations of apes we see today.   (Well, except for humans.)   And the explanation goes on to argue that the larger animals were taken young.   So the lions (or, really, the 'kind' from which lions emerge) would not be full grown but simply cubs.   By inserting all this presupposition into the story, apologists can winnow the number of physical animals down.  Of course the Bible is unclear as to whether one pair or seven pairs of a 'kind' was on the ark because it does not clearly identify the clean from the unclean animals.   So that seven pair factor would bump up the numbers yet again.

They have no answers for how these animals are kept from eating each other, how they are fed (where did the food come from), how waste is disposed of, etc.   The task, as you point out, for managing all these animals with such a tiny crew of caretakers is insurmountable.   The fable, as told, is ridiculous.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 months ago
So the ark, per this way of thinking, would have had a pair of apes who, in theory, would serve as the progenitors for all variations of apes we see today. 

That means biblical literalists just supported evolution, albeit on a very accelerated scale. Progenitors branch off into different variations, which is what we see with evolution. I wonder how they reconcile that with the belief that god created everything just as is?

And the explanation goes on to argue that the larger animals were taken young.   So the lions (or, really, the 'kind' from which lions emerge) would not be full grown but simply cubs. 

That leaves the problem of how the young could survive on their own after the ark landed.

By inserting all this presupposition into the story, apologists can winnow the number of physical animals down. 

Even then, I doubt it would be enough to justify the number of animals can actually fit onto the ark.

So that seven pair factor would bump up the numbers yet again.

True. But for the sake of argument and within the context of the article, I'll just assume it's meant as an actual pair-2 animals per species.

They have no answers for how these animals are kept from eating each other,

Building enclosures for them would only take up more space. 

how they are fed (where did the food come from),

Or the water.

how waste is disposed of, etc. 

That's why Noah kept is followers around, Lol

  The task, as you point out, for managing all these animals with such a tiny crew of caretakers is insurmountable.   The fable, as told, is ridiculous.

Agreed. Any honest review of the story would lead one to that conclusion.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 months ago

The SS Armeneia was torpedoed in 1915 while transporting 1422 mules for the French Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Armenian

She was 512 feet long, 60 feet wide and about 35 feet high. The trans Atlantic voyage was expected to take 3 to 4 weeks.

The normal crew was increased to 175 in order to care for the mules properly.

http://www.maritimequest.com/daily_event_archive/2009/06_june/28_ss_armenian.htm

Can you imagine how many people would have to have been on Noah's Ark to feed and maintain thousands of different kinds of animals with different diets?

No, neither can I.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Split Personality @4.2    2 months ago
Can you imagine how many people would have to have been on Noah's Ark to feed and maintain thousands of different kinds of animals with different diets?

Which is one reason why the whole Noah story is rather implausible.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.1    2 months ago

I doubt that any religious person I know outside of a forum actually believes the Noah's ark story is fact.   Typically it (as with much of the Bible) is considered to be simply an allegory.

That is why it is fascinating to find people on forums who literally believe the story.   Likewise it is fascinating and unfortunate that there are groups like Answers In Genesis working daily to indoctrinate young minds into these literal beliefs (and trying to twist science to do so).

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.2    2 months ago
Typically it (as with much of the Bible) is considered to be simply an allegory.

Which is how it should be taken. But when taken literally, as some apparently do, then the story shows lots of problems and inconsistencies.

That is why it is fascinating to find people on forums who literally believe the story. 

Indeed. It's no different than believing Mother Goose or Grimm's fairy tales are literal stories.

  Likewise it is fascinating and unfortunate that there are groups like Answers In Genesis working daily to indoctrinate young minds into these literal beliefs (and trying to twist science to do so).

Not to mention make science or those "pro-science" seen as something bad or to be avoided.

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.4  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.3    2 months ago

Not to mention .. there would have been no food once the waters receded, with all the animals killed and the plants dying from such long submersion, and all the freshwater would have become saline. And the genetic bottleneck would be obvious. 

 
 
 
lady in black
5  lady in black    2 months ago

Using critical thinking and not knee jerk emotional thinking, no, the flood and the ark did not happen. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6  TᵢG    2 months ago

The lack of paleontological evidence :

Yeah this is where the apologists have an extremely hard time.   Somehow clusters of animals such as the marsupials in Australia and the penguins in Antartica just magically poofed over to their distant homes leaving no trail whatsoever.    If they had migrated, there would have been a trail of fossils.   Nada.

Some apologists hypothesize that a land bridge existed between Europe and Australia (for example) but that this land bridge has since disappeared (entirely by the way ... as if it were never there).

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6    2 months ago
Somehow clusters of animals such as the marsupials in Australia and the penguins in Antartica just magically poofed over to their distant homes leaving no trail whatsoever.   

I've heard "explanations" like there were land bridges. Of course, those bridges no longer exist and amazingly, there is not a single trace of them nor any evidence discovered to that effect, even with all our modern imaging, oceanography, diving, ect.. Quite the mystery, eh?

If they had migrated, there would have been a trail of fossils.   Nada.

There also would have been fossils leading away from the ark landing site. Many animals can migrate. But not the distances that would have been involved.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7  TᵢG    2 months ago

The lack of geological evidence

This is another tough one for apologists.   Amazingly we see apologists claiming that the Grand Canyon was not formed by runoff via the Colorado river but was actually formed by the Great Flood.   They seem to ignore the fact that the layers of fossils correlate with older species at the bottom and younger at the top rather than a mix of species in existence at the time of the flood that would have resulted if made all at once by a flood.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7    2 months ago
   They seem to ignore the fact that the layers of fossils correlate with older species at the bottom and younger at the top rather than a mix of species in existence at the time of the flood that would have resulted if made all at once by a flood.

They also ignore the sediment layers distributed throughout the canyon, indicating a long period of time, sedimentation, and layering. Basically, if the Flood formed the Grand Canyon, there would be very few, if any sedimentation layers at all.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8  TᵢG    2 months ago

The amount of water needed to flood the earth does not exist on earth

Well this one is simply passed off as a miracle.   God poofed in the water and then poofed it away.  

Odd thing is that if one is inclined to accept this level of magic (miracle) then really they could buy that God miniaturized all the animals and put them into hibernation for the almost year time the ark was afloat.   That solves all the logistic problems right there.   Of course, if one is willing to impose such presuppositions then why the ark in the first place?   Why would God go totally iron age manual with the construction of an ark via a skeleton crew when He was going to just make it all logistically possible via a grand miracle?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @8    2 months ago
Well this one is simply passed off as a miracle.   God poofed in the water and then poofed it away. 

How convenient. You would think if god can "poof" something in or out of existence, it would have been easier for him to simply poof all evil and "sinners" out of existence rather than trying to flood them out. But no, he apparently had a rather elaborate plan in mind, in which he still botched the results.

Why would God go totally iron age manual with the construction of an ark via a skeleton crew when He was going to just make it all logistically possible via a grand miracle?

Because...reasons. See previous statement.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9  TᵢG    2 months ago

The Ark itself is implausible

Yes, the best wooden ship builders in history have never built any sea-worthy wooden ship the size of the ark.   But Noah did, and it was seaworthy for almost a year.

Again, all one can do is claim miracle because the laws of physics do not support the claim of the grand wooden ark.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9    2 months ago
But Noah did, and it was seaworthy for almost a year.

Even more amazing given he was probably unskilled and had more primitive tools and resources. Even the ark of the Ark encounter was only built because of modern building techniques. 

Again, all one can do is claim miracle

And that's what some probably will claim and leave it at that.

 
 
 
Ender
9.2  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @9    2 months ago

I saw a show about that a little while back. The Ham ark was built with modern tools and crews of people. They said there was simply no way a small group of people with simple tools could have built something that size.

The logistics, hoisting things in place, the beams needed, the timber that would have been needed.

I know some grand things have been built in ancient times but they were all thinking this was not plausible.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @9.2    2 months ago
I know some grand things have been built in ancient times but they were all thinking this was not plausible.

They're not the only ones who think it's implausible. Bear in mind, great projects of ancient times like the pyramids or the Great Wall utilized tens or even hundreds of thousands of manpower for construction over a period of many years. And they were known accomplished engineers too. The idea that Noah and a small, unskilled group could build something like the ark and actually have it capable of floating for a long period of time is quite implausible indeed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @9.2    2 months ago

Ham's ark is actually just a facade.   There is a concrete structure (a building) behind the ark.   It is a building made to look like an ark.   As built, it is not even remotely sea-worthy.    And, as you note, even then it was a major construction effort and involved modern day engineering (even though they brought in wood crafts-persons for many of the details).

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.2    2 months ago
There is a concrete structure (a building) behind the ark.   It is a building made to look like an ark.   As built, it is not even remotely sea-worthy. 

I tend to think Noah's Ark would also sink like concrete.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @9.2.3    2 months ago

It might, hard to say without the specific engineering specs.   I am sure Noah had them tucked away somewhere.

What is likely is that the ark (without any animals on it) would last a few days at sea before taking on so much water due to stress leaks that it sunk.   With all the animals it was charged to carry and all the supplies required for almost a year survival at sea, I doubt that it would be sufficiently buoyant to last a minute.   But, then again, the Bible is horribly vague about what animals would actually be loaded on the ark.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.4    2 months ago

Vagueness is what's needed to twist biblical stories to suit ones narrative. It essentially allows one to make things up as they go along. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
9.2.6  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @9.2.5    2 months ago

Makes things subjective to say the least.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @9.2.6    2 months ago

Indeed it does. It also reduces the veracity of those stories.

 
 
 
katrix
9.2.8  katrix  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.4    2 months ago

Imagine when it encountered a storm.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @9.2.8    2 months ago

Thing is, just normal ebb and flow of the waters would stress a wooden ship of those dimensions and expose leaks that would sink it.   Remember Bill Nye's argument on that and the fact that nobody in history (that includes the finest wooden ship builders that ever existed) has ever built a wooden ship of those dimensions that proved seaworthy.

 
 
 
Freefaller
10  Freefaller    2 months ago

Of course a literal interpretation of the Noah story is completely impossible (without magic).

However a couple things were missed in your well written article, an argument could be made that the ship would also had to carry fish as well.  This is due to the waters of the becoming brackish with all the flooding and most fish evolving to being able to only survive in either fresh or saltwater.  The other thing is how did we and all the animals avoid the genetic roadblock that would have followed an extinction event of this magnitude.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @10    2 months ago
Of course a literal interpretation of the Noah story is completely impossible (without magic).

Magic, miracles, divine intervention, whatever you want to call it, is the theistic deus ex machina.

However a couple things were missed in your well written article, an argument could be made that the ship would also had to carry fish as well.

I did say I was focusing on land animals. However, if marine life, or avian, amphibian, insect, ect. were to be included, then the number of animals can rise significantly, posing an even greater implausibility to the ark.

This is due to the waters of the becoming brackish with all the flooding and most fish evolving to being able to only survive in either fresh or saltwater. 

I alluded to that in the second point pertaining to paleontological evidence.

The other thing is how did we and all the animals avoid the genetic roadblock that would have followed an extinction event of this magnitude.

That is a separate matter with its own implausibilities and logical inconsistencies. That's why I said I wasn't going to look at the aftermath of the flood event.

 
 
 
MAGA
11  MAGA    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
11.1  MAGA  replied to  MAGA @11    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
11.1.1  MAGA  replied to  MAGA @11.1    2 months ago

Noah’s Ark was a massive ship, built at God’s command, that saved Noah, his family, and two of every kind of land animal from the global Flood that took place 4,350 years ago. It was 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high and easily housed the several thousand animal kinds God brought to Noah.

What Did Noah’s Ark Look Like?

Scripture does not elaborate about the shape of Noah’s Ark beyond those superb, overall proportions—length, breadth, and depth. Since the Bible gives proportions consistent with those of a true cargo ship, it makes sense that it should look and act like a ship, too.

How Many People Built the Ark?

The Bible tells us how many people were on board the Ark, but it does not tell us how many people were involved in building it. While we would not be dogmatic on this point, it is consistent with God’s Word to believe that more than eight people were involved in the Ark’s construction. A possibility is that Noah hired people to help him build the Ark.

How Many Animals Were On Noah's Ark?

Even without bacteria, fungi, plants, and sea creatures on the Ark, lots of species remain to be accounted for. The key is to understand the word used in Scripture, kind (Hebrew min ). The Bible does not say God brought every individual or every species to Noah.

Could Noah’s Family Care for All the Animals?

It is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles for the provision and daily care of the animals on the Ark. Many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.

Noah’s Ark Topics

 
 
 
MAGA
11.1.2  MAGA  replied to  MAGA @11.1.1    2 months ago

The Flood of Noah’s day (2348 BC) was a year-long global catastrophe that destroyed the pre-Flood world, reshaped the continents, buried billions of creatures, and laid down the rock layers. It was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness and only eight righteous people, and representatives of every kind of land animal, were spared aboard the Ark.

Was Noah’s Flood Global?

Did Noah experience a local flood which left only a few sediment layers, as floods do today? God’s record is clear: the water covered the entire globe and killed all the animals on earth. Such unique conditions are the only way to explain worldwide fossil-bearing layers thousands of feet deep.

Local Floods Help Us Understand Noah’s Flood Geology

Geologists repeatedly discover the catastrophic effects of local flooding on the earth’s surface, resulting in the same conclusion each time: that substantial amounts of water can have the same geological effect in a short period of time (even laying down rock layers) that hypothesized millions of years of slow water flow would have.

Noah Did More than Build an Ark

Like people today, almost certainly the people of Noah’s day were busy enjoying the pleasures of life and did not believe or care that judgment was coming. In 2 Peter 2:5 , Noah is described as a “preacher of righteousness.”

Psalm 104 and the Flood

Psalm 104:6–9 sheds important additional light on the geological effects of the Flood. “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them” ( vs. 8 ).

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @11.1.1    2 months ago

Do you have a point to make? I covered aspects of the ark itself in the article.

 
 
 
MAGA
11.1.4  MAGA  replied to  MAGA @11.1.2    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @11.1.2    2 months ago

None of that really addresses, much less refutes the points made in the article. You're just regurgitating a religious source without actually analyzing or discussing it.

 
 
 
MAGA
11.1.6  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.5    2 months ago

This is a religious topics group being seeded from and every argument I make on this issue is going to come from the Bible or Christian apologetics. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @11.1.4    2 months ago
Only to a secularist would an article about why God brought about the very real historically accurate flood be deemed off topic to one denying that the flood ever happened and this calling God a liar and in a group about religion no less.  

More meta and taunting and still not discussing the points of the article, much less supporting your assertions with any evidence or facts. Simply declaring the flood as "very real historically accurate" is meaningless and unconvincing without evidence to back the claim up. It certainly doesn't refute the evidence suggesting there was no such flood. Try again!

 
 
 
MAGA
11.1.8  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.5    2 months ago

The flood is real.  It happened as God told us in Genesis and it happened because of the extreme wickedness oh mankind at the time.  It is also an antitype example of a future event but not by water as the sign of the Rainbow proclaims.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @11.1.8    2 months ago
The flood is real. It happened as God told us in Genesis and it happened because of the extreme wickedness oh mankind at the time. 

That's nice. Prove it! Because the evidence provided suggests otherwise.

 It is also an antitype example of a future event but not by water as the sign of the Rainbow proclaims.  

Meaningless biblical tripe.

 
 
 
Ender
11.1.10  Ender  replied to  MAGA @11.1.2    2 months ago

Sorry Gordy, I had to.  Haha

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.12  author  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @11.1.10    2 months ago
Sorry Gordy, I had to.  Haha

No worries. I loved that bit. Robot Chicken is awesome. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @11.1.1    2 months ago

What point are you making?   Seriously, some of the content in your copy & paste correlates with what I have actually written here.   So are you trying to argue that the ark story could be true?   If so, make that argument.

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @11.1.2    2 months ago

Again, surely you have a point to make.   What is it?

 
 
 
MAGA
11.2  MAGA  replied to  MAGA @11    2 months ago

It’s the historical record on the issue.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @11.2    2 months ago
It’s the historical record on the issue.  

No, it's the biblical account and still an unconvincing claim. The bible is hardly a history book. The geological and paleontological record clearly disputes the idea of a flood. So start by refuting those records with something objective and empirical.

 
 
 
MAGA
11.2.2  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.1    2 months ago

I’ll discuss the issue of the very real ark and the historical global flood that you brought up as a topic as I see fit when where and how I see fit to do so and on my terms, not yours.  Creation by God in a literal calendar week is real and fact.  So to is the accounts of mankind before the flood. The Genesis account of the flood and where it happened is factual despite the holes the anti believers try to use their so called understanding to put in that reality.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @11.2.2    2 months ago
I’ll discuss the issue of the very real ark and the historical global flood that you brought up as a topic as I see fit when where and how I see fit to do so and on my terms, not yours.

Then you're commenting in the wrong article! 

Creation by God in a literal calendar week is real and fact.  So to is the accounts of mankind before the flood. The Genesis account of the flood and where it happened is factual despite the holes the anti believers try to use their so called understanding to put in that reality.  

Still waiting for you to prove it! Until you do, it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated religious claim with no credibility.

 
 
 
Gsquared
11.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.3    2 months ago

The only real support for his beliefs is that he believes.  He has faith, which, under his creed, prevails over reason.  He cites things as "facts" because he believes they are facts. He believes the Bible is the literal truth, that the universe was created in 7 days, that the entire planet was flooded because humans were evil, that a child was born to a virgin, that a man died and was then resurrected, because he has faith that those things, however absurd they may be, are true.  There is really nothing more to it. That is the essence of Christian philosophy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.4    2 months ago
The only real support for his beliefs is that he believes. 

Indeed. But as I often say, belief does not equal fact.

He has faith, which, under his creed, prevails over reason.

Or logic. Or science. Or facts.

There is really nothing more to it. That is the essence of Christian philosophy.

Sounds more like a disconnect from reality.

 
 
 
Gsquared
11.2.6  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.5    2 months ago

You and I may not understand or agree with how or why he thinks the way he does, but apparently, that is his reality.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.6    2 months ago
You and I may not understand or agree with how or why he thinks the way he does, but apparently, that is his reality.

Then it's a self delusion, plain and simple. It goes against established facts and reality, which is just irrational. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
11.2.8  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.7    2 months ago

And yet, think of the millions of people throughout history who have been of the same mind-set as him.  It's interesting.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.8    2 months ago
And yet, think of the millions of people throughout history who have been of the same mind-set as him. And yet, think of the millions of people throughout history who have been of the same mind-set as him. It's interesting. 

Mass delusion. It's also sad. It's that kind of mentality that led to such strife throughout history (and even today) and to the stagnation of scientific progress and discovery at various points over the centuries. But that is the predatory nature of devout religious belief-mental entrapment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.8    2 months ago

Just shows how susceptible our minds are to a sales pitch.   Especially well-honed pitches that have evolved over many centuries to hit the hot spots.

 
 
 
Gsquared
11.2.11  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.9    2 months ago

Unfortunately so.

 
 
 
Gsquared
11.2.12  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.10    2 months ago

Yes it does.

Humans are desperate for answers, or some kind of hope.

Religion has historically been a means of social control.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.13  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.12    2 months ago
Humans are desperate for answers, or some kind of hope.

Humans do tend to be an overly emotional, irrational species.

Unfortunately so.

What's equally sad and mind boggling is that, in this day and age, it still continues to various degrees despite all the available information, resources, and knowledge at our disposal.

 
 
 
Gsquared
11.2.14  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.13    2 months ago

We have to understand and accept that many, many people are of that mindset.  It is usually based on how they were raised by their parents and families, of course.  Some will change, some will not.  You can try to argue with them.  You can try to explain with the best reasoned and logical explanation you can make.  Sometimes that will change minds, and sometimes it won't. It may be frustrating, but that's the way it is.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.15  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.14    2 months ago
We have to understand and accept that many, many people are of that mindset.  It is usually based on how they were raised by their parents and families, of course. 

Which is a problem.

Some will change, some will not.

I have had theists (who are aware of my lack of religious belief or affiliation) ask me if I am open to believing in God [yes, show me the evidence]. I respond by asking if they are they are open to the possibly that their beliefs might be false? I am usually met with silence.

You can try to explain with the best reasoned and logical explanation you can make. 

That's the way I try to do it.

Sometimes that will change minds, and sometimes it won't. It may be frustrating, but that's the way it is.

I tend to think it's more often not than is. That just shows me how emotionally attached one is to their beliefs or how closed-minded they are because of their beliefs.

 
 
 
Gsquared
11.2.16  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.15    2 months ago

My wife is devout in her religion.  It makes her happy.  I have no problem with that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.17  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.16    2 months ago
My wife is devout in her religion.  It makes her happy.  I have no problem with that.

Nor do I. I doubt anyone would. Religion does bring emotional comfort to some. Nothing wrong with that. The problem arises when one tries to pass off religious belief as fact or "truth." I addressed that too in my previous article . At that point, one is inviting challenge.

 
 
 
Krishna
11.2.18  Krishna  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.12    2 months ago
Religion has historically been a means of social control.

As one of the Marx Brothers said:

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

 
 
 
Gsquared
11.2.19  Gsquared  replied to  Krishna @11.2.18    2 months ago

Zeppo

 
 
 
Krishna
11.2.20  Krishna  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.19    2 months ago
Zeppo

Gesundheit!

 
 
 
Gordy327
12  author  Gordy327    2 months ago
Only to a secularist would an article about why God brought about the very real historically accurate flood be deemed off topic to one denying that the flood ever happened and this calling God a liar and in a group about religion no less.  

More meta and taunting and still not discussing the points of the article, much less supporting your assertions with any evidence or facts. Simply declaring the flood as "very real historically accurate" is meaningless and unconvincing without evidence to back the claim up. It certainly doesn't refute the evidence suggesting there was no such flood. Try again!

This is a religious topics group being seeded from and every argument I make on this issue is going to come from the Bible or Christian apologetics. 

If all you're going to do is cut and paste from religious sites and proselytize, then every argument you make will be deleted for being off topic or proselytizing. If you want to engage in an actual discussion, then feel free to address the points made and support your position with something rational, analytical, and of relevance or value. Simply regurgitating something from a religious site and thinking that is sufficient or meaningful is a waste of time.

 
 
 
MAGA
12.1  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @12    2 months ago

Just quit proselytizing your pro science anti religion propaganda all over the place.  You will never convince us.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
12.1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @12.1    2 months ago
Just quit proselytizing your pro science anti religion propaganda all over the place.  You will never convince us.

You just can't help yourself with the meta, can you? Guess what? It isn't about you. So get off your pedestal. But I am curious: why is "pro-science" a bad thing?

 
 
 
charger 383
13  charger 383    2 months ago

Why would God make a perfect place like the Garden of Eden and put a trap that (God being all knowing) his top level creation would get in to?  

I tried to believe what they said in Sunday School and church when I was little but it did not make sense (even then) and when I asked the questions I had people got mad at me 

 
 
 
Gordy327
13.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @13    2 months ago
I tried to believe what they said in Sunday School and church when I was little but it did not make sense (even then) and when I asked the questions I had people got mad at me 

I remember hearing the same stories when I was a kid and even then I thought they were BS! Of course, trying to ask questions or pointing out logical inconsistencies with those stories didn't sit too well with some. I suppose some things don't change.

 
 
 
MAGA
13.1.1  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @13.1    2 months ago

And they never will. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
13.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @13.1.1    2 months ago
And they never will.

Of course not. Some people are too intellectually dishonest or stubborn to rationally question their own beliefs or the logically implausible biblical stories.

 
 
 
Kathleen
13.2  Kathleen  replied to  charger 383 @13    2 months ago
I tried to believe what they said in Sunday School and church when I was little but it did not make sense (even then) and when I asked the questions I had people got mad at me.
My dad was religious, but never talked much about it, but my mom would question it all the time. Although she would say, what is the harm in believing, at least if it's true, you can get into heaven. If it's not, no harm done.  
 
 
 
Gordy327
13.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @13.2    2 months ago
Although she would say, what is the harm in believing, at least if it's true, you can get into heaven. If it's not, no harm done.  

That's a Pascal's Wager.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @13.2    2 months ago
what is the harm in believing

Ever heard of Catholic or Baptist guilt?  There can be tremendous psychological harm in believing, depending on a particular denomination's doctrine.  Some fundamentalist churches (not all) teach that, just for the sin of being human, we are worthy of damnation.  We are born evil and wicked, and truly deserve an eternity of torment.  That kind of teaching from birth up can be pretty damaging to one's psyche.  And some churches take it to terrible extremes.  A college classmate of mine whose mother was terminal with breast cancer was told her mother must have done something sinful to deserve breast cancer.

 
 
 
Gordy327
13.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.2.2    2 months ago
Some fundamentalist churches (not all) teach that, just for the sin of being human, we are worthy of damnation.  We are born evil and wicked, and truly deserve an eternity of torment. 

Nothing like religion to teach one they're an inherent POS, right?

That kind of teaching from birth up can be pretty damaging to one's psyche.  And some churches take it to terrible extremes. 

It's psychological abuse, meant to manipulate and control others.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @13.2.3    2 months ago
It's psychological abuse, meant to manipulate and control others.

It's not meant to be, to believers.  They truly believe that they are helping people avoid eternal punishment by making them aware of the consequences of nonbelief.  But that's how it plays out.

 
 
 
Gordy327
13.2.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.2.4    2 months ago
It's not meant to be, to believers. 

Maybe they don't see it that way. But that's what it is.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
14  MonsterMash    2 months ago

Earth . The Hebrew for "earth" used in Gen. 6-8 (and in Gen. 2:5-6) is  Eretz  ( ërets ) or adamah, both of which terms literally mean "earth, ground, land, dirt, soil, or country"   In no way can "earth" be taken to mean the planet Earth, as  in Noah's time and place, people (including the Genesis writer ) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had no word for it. Their world mainly (but not entirely)  encompassed the land of Mesopotamia flat  alluvial plain enclosed by the mountains and high ground of  Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia ( the lands drained by the four rivers of Eden (Gen. 2:10-14). The biblical account must be interpreted within the  narrow limit of what was known about the world in  that time, not what is known about the world today

Biblical context also makes it clear that "earth" does not necessarily mean the whole Earth. For example, the face of the ground , as used in Gen. 7:23 and Gen. 8:8 in place of "e arth", does not imply the planet Earth. "Land" is a better translation than "earth" for the Hebrew eretz because it extends to the "face of the ground", we can see around us; that is, what is within our horizon. It also can refer to a specific stretch of land in a local geographic or political sense. For example, when Zech. 5:6 says " all the earth" it is literally talking about Palestine- - a tract of land or country, not the whole planet Earth. Similarly, in Mesopotamia, the concept of "the land" ( kalam in Sumerian) seems to have included the entire alluvial  plain, this is most likely the correct interpretation of the term "the earth" which is used over and over again in Gen. 6-8: the entire alluvial plain of Mesopotamia was inundated with water. The clincher to the word "earth" meaning ground or land (and not the planet Earth) In Gen.1:10: God called the dry land earth ( eretz ) . If God defined "earth" as "dry land" then so should we.

All, Every, Under Heaven. While these terms also seem to impart a universality to the Flood event, all three are used elsewhere in the Bible for local events, and so like the term " earth" do not necessarily have an all-inclusive or universal meaning.

https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14    2 months ago

Some people take the biblical account to mean the entire planet. But the fact that there are multiple interpretations and beliefs concerning the Flood event shows there is a lot of ambiguity where the Flood is concerned. This only serves to diminish any credibility or veracity to any claims made about the Flood event, including that Noah had 2 of every animal and the flood covered the planet.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
14.1.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @14.1    2 months ago
Some people take the biblical account to mean the entire planet

Obviously you do, I don't. It wasn't my purpose to argue with you, was trying to expand your train of thought by showing you're more than likely wrong about the Biblical Flood covering the entire globe. Choosing to remain closed minded shouldn't be one of your options, too bad you took that path.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14.1.1    2 months ago
Obviously you do, I don't. It wasn't my purpose to argue with you

I wasn't arguing. I was saying that some people in general (including certain individual/s here on NT) do take the biblical flood as literal and the the whole earth was literally covered by water. I do not subscribe to that point of view. Others might view it differently, perhaps in a more "toned-down" way such as it referencing a more localized or regional flood. Others pass it off as an embellishment or rewrite of other flood myths. My (point was that all the differing viewpoints makes the actual events of the flood (or its inspiration) rather vague.

was trying to expand your train of thought by showing you're more than likely wrong about the Biblical Flood covering the entire globe. Choosing to remain closed minded shouldn't be one of your options, too bad you took that path.

Again, I do not believe the Flood covered the globe. I explained in the article why such an occurrence is highly improbable.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
14.1.3  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @14.1.2    2 months ago
I was saying that some people in general (including certain individual/s here on NT) do take the biblical flood as literal and the the whole earth was literally covered by water. I do not subscribe to that point of view.

Nor do I, but I do think it isn't out of the realm off possibility there was a Great Flood as described in the Bible. Not saying there was or wasn't but I sure don't dismiss it as a fairy tail.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14.1.3    2 months ago

I have to look at the evidence and there is no evidence to support the assertion of a biblical flood. Current evidence suggests such an event was highly improbable, if not outright impossible. However, it is more likely that there was a regional flood which may have been catastrophic in its own right. That could account for the flood myths, with the biblical flood being an exaggeration of the actual account.

 
 
 
MAGA
14.2  MAGA  replied to  MonsterMash @14    2 months ago

Well I guess either when we get to Heaven or at the judgement we can get a clarification from on high the final answers to all these questions

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @14.2    2 months ago
Well I guess either when we get to Heaven or at the judgement we can get a clarification from on high the final answers to all these questions

Sounds like a version of a Pascal's Wager. Or more likely we get nothing at all.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.3  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @14    2 months ago
Earth . The Hebrew for "earth" used in Gen. 6-8 (and in Gen. 2:5-6) is  Eretz  ( ërets ) or adamah, both of which terms literally mean "earth, ground, land, dirt, soil, or country"   In no way can "earth" be taken to mean the planet Earth, as  in Noah's time and place, people (including the Genesis writer ) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had no word for it. Their world mainly (but not entirely)  encompassed the land of Mesopotamia flat  alluvial plain enclosed by the mountains and high ground of  Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia ( the lands drained by the four rivers of Eden (Gen. 2:10-14). The biblical account must be interpreted within the  narrow limit of what was known about the world in  that time, not what is known about the world today

That is perfectly reasonable, especially given the perspective of the ancients.   They would not know that they are on a planet.   They just knew what they could see, smell, feel and hear locally.

So what do you say to the many (and I am talking about the majority of Christian religions, Islam (disputes on this) and Judaism) that hold the Noah's flood story to be a worldwide flood?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
14.3.1  MonsterMash  replied to  TᵢG @14.3    2 months ago
So what do you say to the many (and I am talking about the majority of Christian religions, Islam (disputes on this) and Judaism) that hold the Noah's flood story to be a worldwide flood?

My view is they're wrong, but whatever floats their boat (pun intended) is OK with me jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.3.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14.3.1    2 months ago

I take the same view, especially considering the evidence. But there are those among theistic ranks who hold the flood happened and completely covered all land masses.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
14.3.3  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @14.3.2    2 months ago

My grandmother (born in 1892) was the original church lady, whatever the Bible said was literally true word for word in the way she interrupted it, If someone had a different interruption they were going to hell.

My older brother was a smoker, when he was 17 our grandmother (a notorious bad cook) told him if God wanted him to smoke he would have put a chimney on his head. He asked her that was in the Bible, she said "No" but God told her that.. My brother than asked if God told her if he wanted her to cook he would have put two burners on her chest instead of tits lol. Poor Grandma, I thought was going have a stroke  

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.3.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14.3.3    2 months ago

Ok, that's a good one, LOL

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @14.3.1    2 months ago

That is my position as well.   So when someone declares truth based on the inerrant divinity of the Bible, I challenge the declaration.   For example, given your reference, when someone deems homosexuality an abomination per God and thus deems all male homosexuals who follow their nature to be engaging in acts that God at one time assigned the death penalty, I challenge that way of thinking.   I will also typically point out the problem with people simply accepting as truth what other human beings tell them rather than engage in critical thinking based on extant evidence and our faculties for reason.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
14.4  Drakkonis  replied to  MonsterMash @14    2 months ago

Interesting information. Not sure I've heard this before but makes sense.

There's another area that hasn't been mentioned concerning the flood story, though. One consideration that no one has mentioned, I think. Everyone who claims the flood couldn't have happened gives natural reasons as to why. However, if God exists and He created the universe, then He would certainly be able to manage something like this. One could not claim He could not violate the laws of physics any more than one could claim a programmer couldn't modify his program. And, if your information provided here means the flood doesn't necessarily have to cover the entire planet, as most seem to think, there's less evidence against it. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4    2 months ago
However, if God exists and He created the universe, then He would certainly be able to manage something like this.

That sounds like a lot of extra steps and trouble for god to take in order to accomplish his task. But that is also an assumption that there is a god to begin with and that god uses magic, which is also a convenient excuse for just about anything one can imagine.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.4.2  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4    2 months ago
However, if God exists and He created the universe, then He would certainly be able to manage something like this.

I agree.   God, as defined in the Bible, could do anything that is logically possible to do.   So instead of building an ark, gathering animals, flooding the planet (or a portion), surviving afloat for almost a year, etc. etc. only to repopulate from the spared pairs, God could have simply vaporized every human being he found to be undesirable.

Instant fix with no mess and all those innocent animals (and all the plants, trees, etc.) would still be around.

In part, it is the nonsensical scenarios that the biblical authors invented as behavior for an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect sentient entity that most reveal that the Bible is merely the invention of ancient men with pens.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @14.4.2    2 months ago
it is the nonsensical scenarios that the biblical authors invented as behavior for an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect sentient entity that most reveal that the Bible is merely the invention of ancient men with pens.

But note all of the justifications, explanations, and rationalizations adherents to those stories give. It's a complete disconnect from reality.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
14.4.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.1    2 months ago
That sounds like a lot of extra steps and trouble for god to take in order to accomplish his task. But that is also an assumption that there is a god to begin with and that god uses magic, which is also a convenient excuse for just about anything one can imagine.

Well, first, define what "a lot of extra steps and trouble for [God] to take in order to accomplish [His] task"  for a being with infinite power would entail? 

Second, since the story is about the action God took, one has to assume God on some level in order to even discuss the issue, don't you think? So, in order to fully be able to debunk the story in the first place, the question would be, could the God described in the Bible pull off such a flood? If you don't do that, then you can't really debunk it. All the objections you list in your article go right out the window if it is plausible that God could indeed pull it off. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4.4    2 months ago
Well, first, define what "a lot of extra steps and trouble for [God] to take in order to accomplish [His] task"  for a being with infinite power would entail? 

Well, rather than command and wait for Noah to build the ark, gather all the animals He wanted, actually cause the flood, then remove all the water, and make a pretty rainbow at the end, ALL for the purpose of killing everything (that's just evil, btw), an infinitely powerful god could simply snap his fingers and remove anything that offended him. Quick, clean, and simple.

Second, since the story is about the action God took, one has to assume God on some level in order to even discuss the issue, don't you think?

Nope. Not necessary. The focus is on the plausibility of the event itself. Not what god could actually do.

So, in order to fully be able to debunk the story in the first place, the question would be, could the God described in the Bible pull off such a flood?

If one is taking the story literally, as some seem to do, then god does pull it off. If you will not, the analysis is on the literal claim of the story.

All the objections you list in your article go right out the window if it is plausible that God could indeed pull it off. 

Not al all. All god supposedly did was flood the world. There's nothing about him cleaning up after himself or removing all traces of the event. Doing that would have been even more extra steps and trouble for god.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.6  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    2 months ago
Well, rather than command and wait for Noah to build the ark, gather all the animals He wanted, actually cause the flood, then remove all the water, and make a pretty rainbow at the end, ALL for the purpose of killing everything (that's just evil, btw), an infinitely powerful god could simply snap his fingers and remove anything that offended him. Quick, clean, and simple.

"Snapping fingers" is an "operational maneuver" for God? Or, "BEWITCHED"? Sorry, Gordy! I could not resist.

An infinite God is not in any sort of human "hurry" to accomplish anything necessarily.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.6    2 months ago
"Snapping fingers" is an "operational maneuver" for God? Or, "BEWITCHED"? Sorry, Gordy! I could not resist.

It's all good. besides, finger snapping is more of a thing for Q of Star Trek:TNG.

An infinite God is not an any sort of human "hurry" to accomplish anythingnecessarily.

I don't know about god, but I'll bet his human worshipers were. After all, if an omnipotent deity told me to build an ark because he was going to flood the world, I'd try to get it done asap. Not to mention Noah wasn't a young man himself at that point. Unlike god, his clock was ticking along.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.8  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.7    2 months ago

Any idea how long Noah was stated to have lived? And if he lived sustained by God; he could live how much longer? Seeing that nothing dies in the 'company' of God. The reasoning goes God was (being God) showing compassion by giving mankind time to consider its way and revert to walking in agreement with its creator.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.9  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    2 months ago
The focus is on the plausibility of the event itself. Not what god could actually do.

This type of 'transaction' is not do-able without the unique agency of God. Noah had no Spirit power to command anything to come aboard the ark. Or, hold and keep its peace in the company of strange beasts once it did! The emanating animal and human scents along would have unnerving and off-putting to some of the animals. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.8    2 months ago
Any idea how long Noah was stated to have lived?

If I recall correctly, he supposedly lived to the age of 950. I think he was around 600-650 years old when he built the arc, according to myth.

And if he lived sustained by God; he could live how much longer? Seeing that nothing dies in the 'company' of God.

That is just an assumption that god actually did that. Even so, I doubt Noah wanted to keep god waiting and wanted to finish the ark asap. But I think we're starting to get a little off topic here.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.11  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.10    2 months ago

Actually God (and God's conduct throughout) is as much a part of this as Noah; if we are discussing the perception of a myth. And, not only denying the possibility of Noah's existence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.12  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.11    2 months ago
Actually God (and God's conduct throughout) is as much a part of this as Noah; if we are discussing the perception of a myth. And, not only denying the possibility of Noah's existence.

I'm discussing the aspects of the myth itself, not on Noah specifically or the events after the flood. But I did point out the implausibility of Noah, being unskilled, of actually building a functional, sea worthy ark.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.13  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    2 months ago
There's nothing about him cleaning up after himself or removing all traces of the event. Doing that would have been even more extra steps and trouble for god.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of not happening. After all, who in the modern era is doing the looking and under what set of parameters? I mean, I can not verify something as old as Noah's Ark in the modern age any more than I can guarantee biblical inerrancy. God has not ordered me to "write anything down in a book for the ages" - or the masses for God's sake.  NOTE: The writer of Genesis is clear he is writing about a time long before his own period too. Thus, he was not vouching for the content evidentially.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.14  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.9    2 months ago
This type of 'transaction' is not do-able without the unique agency of God. 

The article is not about what god could do. It analyzes what is claimed to have actually happened.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of not happening.

Without evidence, there is no reason to assume, much less claim with certainty that the Flood event occurred. But current evidence, as I pointed out in the article, explains why the Flood event likely did not occur. That's the only evidence there is to go on. If new evidence were to come to light, then the conclusion can be reevaluated.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.15  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.12    2 months ago

Of course, Noah would demand new information. Granted he lived long enough to acquire many more skills, if he lived 600 years during which he took his time building this vessel, perhaps? God would supply the information. (Noah expressed no complaint against the people. They had not sinned against him. Ark building and designing was a god-ordered activity).

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.16  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.15    2 months ago
Granted he lived long enough to acquire many more skills, if he lived 600 years during which he took his time building this vessel, perhaps?

Noah was already 600+ (which I do not accept btw) when he was told to build the ark and there's nothing to suggest he had the expertise at that point to actually build it.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.17  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.16    2 months ago

Here resides the Immovable object confronting the Irresistible force. Jesus does come along and tries to break this stalemate, by speaking of "the days of Noah" ( Matthew 24:37):

Mat thew 24:37 37 As it was in the days of Noah , so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man .

But Jesus suffers as Noah from an affliction of uncertainty about his existence. (Though Jesus' existence has been official established, which I will not care to venture into at this time.) Back to Noah and his ark.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.4.18  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.13    2 months ago
An absence of evidence is not evidence of not happening.

You are correct CB, but the absence of evidence for a claim so grand as God flooding the Earth, etc. for such a long time actually makes a decent argument that this never happened.  Not proof of course, but a decent argument.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.19  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.4.18    2 months ago

Not proof of course. Artifacts remain hidden which can expose a great many things positively or negatively.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
14.4.20  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4.4    2 months ago

To assume makes an ass out of u and me.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
14.4.21  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    2 months ago
an infinitely powerful god could simply snap his fingers and remove anything that offended him

Like in "Infinity War"? jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.22  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.21    2 months ago

Exactly. Look how simple and easy it was for Thanos to do. And God doesn't even need infinity stones. God was just creating more work for himself.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
14.4.23  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.22    2 months ago

Right. Seems like a lot of waste.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.24  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.23    2 months ago
Right. Seems like a lot of waste.

Indeed. Apparently God wasn't concerned about whom got caught in his retributive blast radius. Other people, animals, plants, ect., who cares, right? But the story also exposes god as not infallible, which seems to be a trait theists ascribe to him. Here we have a "perfect" being who creates and imperfect creation. And the design flaws of creation become so glaring that God Has to do liquid demolition and essentially start over. And He still screwed it up. WTF? I would expect a higher level of competence from a supreme deity.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
14.4.25  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.24    2 months ago

Kind of like saying that I'm an expert builder, but only on Minecraft. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.26  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.25    2 months ago

I suppose that means sinful humans are the Creepers on minecraft, Lol

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
14.4.27  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.26    2 months ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

24

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.28  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.27    2 months ago

jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
CB
14.4.29  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.24    2 months ago

Excuse my indulgence. If God created only perfection (that is, beings with nothing to strive for or achieve) how is that helpful? We would be 'little perfections' knowing nothing of anything else on the spectrum of knowing. How is that being an aid to God?

This screams of 'spoiled brats' everywhere! After all, just look at us now with all our hurts, damages, and physical limitations and outrages! Now beings who have had to face some 'notable hard times indeed,' been pruned, and hewed down-now we're getting to the good stuff!!!

By the way, somebody should define what  possibly a "waste of time" could be for an Infinite Being.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.30  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.29    2 months ago
If God created only perfection (that is, being with nothing to strive for or achieve) how is that helpful?

Do you not see the logical inconsistency of a supposedly perfect being creating something imperfect? Even more so when his "imperfect" creations surprise or upset him, like He didn't know it was going to happen?

How is that being an aid to God?

Why would an omnipotent god need aid for anything?

Us. Little perfections knowing nothing of anything else on the spectrum of knowing.

If we were "perfect," it's safe to assume we'd have perfect knowledge too.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.31  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.30    2 months ago

You have to define perfection as it is meant in scripture. God is not perfect, because God has no need of anything. That is taking perfection to the extremes. Scripture tells us in a larger sense that perfection is what a Supreme Being calls it to be. That is, God is not man's idea of extraordinarily flawless . That would truly be inconsistent! More later.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.4.32  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.31    2 months ago

I am not following this.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.33  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.31    2 months ago
More later.

No thanks. This is getting way off topic now. The discussion is not about god. 

 
 
 
CB
14.4.34  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.33    2 months ago

Yes. You are attempting to take Noah apart from the narrative and hold him up with his family, the animals, the ark, of course-the flood and hold a critical discussion about how any of it is possible (scientifically). In doing this, you strip God out and away. But. . .

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

When you read the story God is off-topic. When a Christian reads the account God weighs in "heavy." Indeed, apart from God the story loses any distinction. (Noah could never pull this 'off' by himself!)

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.35  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.34    2 months ago
Yes. You are attempting to take Noah apart from the narrative and hold him up with his family, the animals, the ark, of course-the flood and hold a critical discussion about how any of it is possible (scientifically). In doing this, you strip God out and away.

I am examining the story itself as it's commonly presented. Using god to fill in every gap and detail merely turns god into plot armor for the story.

(Noah could never pull this 'off' by himself!)

Now you're getting it!

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
14.4.36  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  CB @14.4.29    2 months ago

I didn't say anything about waste of time. I simply stated waste. I mean, was [as the story goes] the arc challenge a game God was playing? Seriously, why task a man with such things when it's really unnecessary if God exists, is infallible [which to me is obviously not true if we [the human race] sucked so bad in the first place that God had to "clean slate it all"], omnipresent, and omniscient? What is the point if God can wipe his own slate clean of those He believes were a wasted effort? To me, that suggests humans are his puppets to play His games if He is as Christians [et.al.] say is infallible, omnipresent, and omniscient. 

 
 
 
CB
14.4.37  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.35    2 months ago

I am not planning on bickering over it, G'. You can rip the story into anything you desire. As for as I am concerned, the only reason a Christian is interested in Noah is because Jesus referenced (pointed to) him in the New Testament and God commanded him in the Old Testament.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
14.4.38  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  CB @14.4.37    2 months ago

Not trying to bicker. We've had plenty of discussions in recent days. I'm simply asking questions based on religious texts that make people like me ponder. jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif And yes, I realize you were addressing Gordy, but I had questions regarding text from the OT.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.39  CB   replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.36    2 months ago

MsAubrey, this is the funny thing about "perfection" isn't it?

  1. God is "I Am What I Am" perfection (God defines what perfection is.)
  2. God is set apart (God can not be polluted.)
  3. God creates lesser beings (lesser beings are not wholly set apart).
  4. Lesser beings make better or worse choices in their own individual (and collective) conduct, behaviors, and activities.

I can not answer why God's methods are God's methods. Beats me. We're all here. We're all queer. And all plugging away at these larger mysteries.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.40  CB   replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.38    2 months ago

I love the interactions. It's how we relate, grow, and work through the thought processes. I say go for it!

One of the things that disturbs me, if when some push the text to say what it does not say or who are selective of what they will engage in the text. The text is a unified 'body' of work now in its distinct Old Testament and (separately) New Testament. That is, being a confessing Christian reading Jewish religious texts, does not make me Jewish or vice versa.  The distinctions to the works must hold.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.41  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.37    2 months ago

I'm not bickering. I said from the beginning that I would be objectively analyzing the story as its presented and why it's unlikely from a literal standpoint. If someone wants to defend the story and explain why it is likely, I would hope they can do better than merely citing something along the lines if "because god."

 
 
 
CB
14.4.42  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.41    2 months ago

The story of Noah is about what God has done. As the story goes. God did this and that culminating in all of it. Therefore, to selectively talk about what a powerless man like Noah could not do belies the meaning and purposes of the story. Sorry G', I don't mind the "Jefferson bible" approach, but when you explain to me this is not about God I will inform you that God is all over this (if it occurred at all). Again, concede something for the sake of this discussion.  Apart from extra-natural involvements, this could not have been pulled off (if it was accomplished). From the perspective of humans pulling it off - we can safely assume it ain't happening without a deep analysis of the natural 'behaviors' of all people and things involved.

Noah had no effectual power to do any of the things in these significant things in this account. Without God's power the story falls apart! As you are doing with it today.

With God all of it is possible! Without God, Noah has no hope of opening the waters under the Earth or calling sufficient rain down from the 'heavens.'

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.43  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.42    2 months ago
The story of Noah is about what God has done.

I am analyzing the story as it plays out, regardless of what go does

I don't mind the "Jeffersonbible" approach, but when you explain to me this is not about God I will inform you that God is all over this (if it occurred at all).

And I will tell you that god is largely immaterial to it.

Apart fromextra-natural involvements, this could not have been pulled off (if it was accomplished).

The problem is, supernatural involvement is the only way the story could occur. However, there is no evidence of the supernatural or god doing anything outside of someone basically saying so. Actual empirical evidence directly contradicts the occurrence of the Flood itself.

Without God's power the story falls apart!

Exactly! Your entire argument rests on the idea that "god did it." Not only is that only a belief and lacking any empirical support, but there is nothing to suggest anything in the story actually occurred, which only shows there was no divine involvement. So yes, the entire story falls apart from the literal context. It's more reasonable to look at the story for what it actually is, a story. And one probably borrowed from other cultures or sources. But the actual literal Flood as biblically depicted is not empirically supported.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.44  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.43    2 months ago
Exactly! Your entire argument rests on the idea that "god did it." Not only is that only a belief and lacking any empirical support, but there is nothing to suggest anything in the story actually occurred, which only shows there was no divine involvement. So yes, the entire story falls apart from the literal context. It's more reasonable to look at the story for what it actually is, a story. And one probably borrowed from other cultures or sources. But the actual literal Flood as biblically depicted is not empirically supported.

Nice try, G'! However, that won't do it. My argument is "God did it" and that because it happened once (if it happened. Similar to other myths it would have some basis in fact) you will have no means to reproduce this flood s cientifically . Much like the one of its kind singularity which birthed our universe, this Noah account can not be reproduced for research and study.  It is provided "as is" to be taken or left alone.

What one can not do is prove it to be a bald-face lie. Or, use it's 'steps' to assert that Noah did not exist!

As for the allegorical nature of the Bible, Noah is used in allegory manner by Jesus:

Matthew 24: 37 As it was in the days of Noah , so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Jesus could have stated: "As it was in the story of Noah,. . . ." He did not. Leaving us to wonder if the "days of Noah" were actual literal days. This will not be made any clearer until someone finds records of Noah's birth and death or his artifacts! 

If the story falls apart without God (which it does) then what is the point of bringing it up? The story has meaning for the Jewish people and Christians who point to Noah as a foreshadower of Jesus who is to come.' (Compare Jesus' forty days and nights in the wilderness without food and water)

One last thing:

Genesis 8: 1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountain s of Ararat . The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

If a ship comes to its "rest" on the top of a, any, mountain, such activity makes it explicitly clear that this was some great 'movement' of water. At least for the purposes of the account!

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.4.45  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.44    2 months ago
My argument is "God did it" ...

Then you could logically argue anything.   The presuppositions that God exists and that God has done whatever implausible thing is under debate ends all discussion.    In general, if someone is willing to stipulate:  'it was magic' in response to a challenge of 'how was this accomplished?' then there is no further intelligent discussion ... end of discourse.

 
 
 
CB
14.4.46  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.4.45    2 months ago

Certainly.

What I am saying is the Noah account is about what God did . There is no getting around the Bible's direct mention of the 'fingerprints' of God all over this event. For example: (From the article)

5. The Ark itself is implausible : Now we get to the centerpiece of the Flood Story, Noah's Great Ark itself. By now, many people are probably familiar with Ken Hamm's Ark Encounter park in Kentucky, where Mr. Hamm built a supposedly accurate, full-size replica of Noah's Ark. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use Mr. Hamm's Ark as a "functional" duplicate of Noah's Ark. So the Ark itself is 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high, smaller than the Titanic (and yet 12 millions animals were housed on board? Really?). I don't think the bible states Noah was a master carpenter or ship builder with the skill to construct a vessel of this magnitude or for the conditions it would face.

See below:

Exodus 31
The Skilled Craftsmen
1 Now the L ord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “See, I have called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. 3 I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship , 4 to make artistic designs for work in gold, in silver, and in bronze, 5 and in the cutting of stones for settings, and in the carving of wood, that he may work in all kinds of craftsmanship. 6 And behold, I Myself have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the hearts of all who are skillful I have put skill, that they may make all that I have commanded you: 7 the tent of meeting, and the ark of testimony, and the mercy seat upon it, and all the furniture of the tent, 8 the table also and its utensils, and the pure gold lampstand with all its utensils, and the altar of incense, 9 the altar of burnt offering also with all its utensils, and the laver and its stand, 10 the woven garments as well, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, with which to carry on their priesthood; 11 the anointing oil also, and the fragrant incense for the holy place, they are to make them according to all that I have commanded you.”

Continuing:

Presumably, Noah only had wood and the simple tools of his time to construct the Ark. The problem here is, wood is not the ideal material to construct large seagoing vessels. The largest wooden vessels built by master shipbuilders of the recent era was the 6 mast schooner Wyoming, which had an overall length of 450 feet. The problem with such large wooden vessels is that sea travel would cause the wooden hull to twist and warp, resulting in leaks or even structural failure . So the Ark, built by unskilled individuals with primitive tools, meant to remain stable on water rather than actually sail over it, somehow, even with all it's gross tonnage of material, animals, and any cargo, was able to withstand stormy weather and oceans without breaking apart or becoming water logged enough to cause sinking? That seems highly unlikely to me. as does the Great Flood story itself.

And the narrative recounts:

Genesis 7: 13 On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark, 14  they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds. 15 So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. 16 Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him .

"And the Lord closed it behind them." Is a clear reference to God placing God's seal on the project as God's handiwork. This sealing, approved by God, is another foreshadowing. Noah saves the world. As Jesus would do later in saving all mankind as Messiah.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.4.47  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.46    2 months ago

You know that I am going to reply by noting that the fact that the Bible makes a claim does not mean the claim is true.

 
 
 
MAGA
14.4.48  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @14.4.47    2 months ago

Everything the Bible says is true either literally or in the form of a parable or prophecy.  Without exception.  

 
 
 
CB
14.4.49  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.4.47    2 months ago

As stated above: This is a very old and unique account (Noah and the ark). It can be taken "as is" or interpreted for its (timeless) spiritual relationships and values. It is highly probable this account can not be is scientifically recreated.

 
 
 
MAGA
14.4.50  MAGA  replied to  CB @14.4.46    2 months ago

Who said anything about unskilled?  The people then were smarter and more intelligent until the present time people or more so.  The human race was still young then and less impacted by imperfections and longer living than even us.  Besides the instructions for the ship were from the creator Himself so we will assume God knew how to build a ship and instruct humans as to how to do so assuming they didn’t already know.  

 
 
 
CB
14.4.51  CB   replied to  MAGA @14.4.50    2 months ago
Who said anything about unskilled?

This article's #5.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.4.52  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.49    2 months ago

Did you notice what HA just wrote @14.4.48?   Do you agree with him?

 
 
 
Krishna
14.4.53  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    2 months ago
Doing that would have been even more extra steps and trouble for god.

Ah-- I can see you are an "unbeliever"!

(Not that there's' anything wrong with that).

But remember, God is omnipotent ("All Powerful".). So he can do anything he wants-- even many many tasks-- in a microsecond!

So you may be projecting your magical powers (actually the lack thereof) onto the situation. If you were a God...but you're not.

For people like you and me (who are not only mere mortals but vile "unbelievers" to boot!)...those extra steps would be annoying..challenging..and yes, very troublesome. 

But for an Omnipotent being such as the "Higher Power" ...its would be mere child's play-- if that!

 
 
 
CB
14.4.54  CB   replied to  TᵢG @14.4.52    2 months ago

I am not a Bible literalist, per se. And it is too late in the evening for me to consider this question. I am just not in that frame of mind right now. Incidentally, as I write this , I am listening on Biologos.org in my headphones: A Christian Response To Coronavirus: A Virtual Event with N.T. Wright and Francis Collins jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

Thank you for a timely link exchange!

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
14.4.55  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Krishna @14.4.53    2 months ago

"Shun the nonbeliever..." jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.56  author  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @14.4.53    2 months ago

"Unbeliever?" Uh oh, it looks like my secret is out. Lol

Even if the extra steps are nothing to an all powerful god, it is still an extra effort to achieve the same thing god wants. So if nothing else, the method chosen is less efficient, and therefore less than perfect.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.57  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @14.4.48    2 months ago

That's nice. Prove it! Of course, that would also require adequately explaining away the logical inconsistencies. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.58  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @14.4.50    2 months ago

All you're doing is making assumptions, which have no empirical backing. You're essentially using the "god did it" cop out.

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.4.59  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4    2 months ago
Everyone who claims the flood couldn't have happened gives natural reasons as to why.

Those natural reasons are observable and can be analyzed scientifically. So they do carry credibility against a flood event. I didn't even mention evolution in the article, which also argues against the flood.

However, if God exists and He created the universe, then He would certainly be able to manage something like this.

That's a big "if." However, there is no evidence of god causing the flood (as evidence contradicts the events of the flood as biblically depicted) much less there being a god to begin with. 

And, if your information provided here means the flood doesn't necessarily have to cover the entire planet, as most seem to think, there's less evidence against it. 

God's intention was to kill everything. Covering the planet was the sure fire way to accomplish that. If land surface was still exposed, it's possible something might have clinged to it and survived.

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.5  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @14    2 months ago
Biblical context also makes it clear that "earth" does not necessarily mean the whole Earth.

Okay let's make the assumption that the story is talking about a local flood (a local flood is likely the seed of this tale anyway).   That would then mean that God, per the story, was displeased with all the human beings in a local area and decided to drown them all (sparing Noah, et.al.).   He also, inexplicably, decided to drown all the animals (sparing the various pairs) and kill all plant life in this local area.

So the only animals on the ark would be those indigenous to the flooded area and did not exist elsewhere.   That would considerably help with logistics.   And one can suppose God carved out a 'swimming pool' of sorts that held this water while localizing the rain for 40 days and nights and keeping the flood water intact for almost one year.

In result, a spot on the Earth was eradicated (all plants and animals) while the rest of the planet was just fine.   The flooded spot is free of the evil human beings, all innocent plants and animals too.   The rest of the planet, however, apparently did not rise to the level of evil to warrant this treatment.  

Sure, makes sense.   God, of the Bible, is usually quite dramatic so He engages in this grand violation of the laws of physics instead of just vaporizing the offending human beings in this local area and moving on.

Somehow this does not ring very true.

 
 
 
Gordy327
15  author  Gordy327    2 months ago

Just wait until I dive into the Adam & Eve mythos! Perhaps for Part 2? jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MonsterMash
15.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @15    2 months ago
Just wait until I dive into the Adam & Eve mythos! Perhaps for Part 2?
Are you going suggest it was really Adam & Steve or Eve & Ethel?

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @15.1    2 months ago

That might make for an interesting twist. But no. Like this article, I'll examine the evidence to determine the probability of the biblical Adam & Eve.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
16  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

A view from a movie watcher:

Of course, many of the stories in the bible are allegorical at best, which could well be primitive descriptions of events that were not so catastrophic. But they also serve as sources for great speculative science fiction movies, such as the movie "2012", which used the Mayan prediction for 2012 as its impetus, but the world-wide flooding and the building of massive "arks" to save humanity (and animals) does borrow from the biblical story.  My question about that movie, which I never thought of until I read this article and comments here would be: "Where the hell did all that water come from?"

https://video.tudou.com/v/XNDQ0MTgzOTgwMA==.html?spm=a2h0k.8191414.0.0&from=s1.8-1-1.2

Looking forward to the next article, the "Adam and Eve" one - I've got a great Sci-Fi theory for that one. 

 
 
 
bccrane
16.1  bccrane  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @16    2 months ago

The water in the movie 2012 came from the destabilizing of the Earth's crust causing continents to sink and other areas to rise.

As for the Noah's ark story, this is my perception of it, Gilgamesh and Noah are different versions of the same event adapted to reflect the different societies using it as their history.  It was a tsunami on the Black Sea which was more expansive during the glacial melt and a mountain on the western side collapsed from water infiltration of its base into the sea.  What I take from the story is Noah, or whoever, knew ahead of time that he needed to prepare for a flood and felt so strongly about it that he took steps, no matter how much he was ridiculed, to insure some survived it.

 
 
 
Krishna
16.2  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @16    2 months ago
"Where the hell did all that water come from?"

But didn't it rain "for forty days and forty nights"? 

(Or am I confusing that with another movie?)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
16.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @16.2    2 months ago

I think that's happening in China these days - maybe God is teaching China a lesson for it's not letting Christians proselytize and Uyghurs commit terrorism.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
17  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 months ago

The story of the great flood fails all kind of common sense checks.  Many have been mentioned all through the comments here. 

There is one aspect that I find revolting in the whole fable.  If this is to be believed, only one family was spared death by drowning, Noah's.  We have Noah, his wife, his children and their wives  That would make the entire population of earth the result of incest.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @17    2 months ago
That would make the entire population of earth the result of incest.  

Just like with the Adam & Eve story. Then I think there was Lot & his daughters too. It seems biblical authors had certain fetishes.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
17.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1    2 months ago

I was going to mention those but your article focus on Noah and the flood.  Didn't want to stray.

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @17.1.1    2 months ago
I was going to mention those but your article focus on Noah and the flood.  Didn't want to stray.

I appreciate that. But I am always open to suggestions. I am currently working on the Adam & Eve story. I plan to post it soon.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
17.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1.2    2 months ago

I'll wait.  Don't want to be "that guy".

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @17.1.3    2 months ago
I'll wait.  Don't want to be "that guy".

It's all good.

 
 
 
Kathleen
18  Kathleen    2 months ago

My mom would say..." How did they get all those different species of animals on that boat!"

We use to laugh at that when she said it, now its a scientific question and a good one at that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
18.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @18    2 months ago
We use to laugh at that when she said it, now its a scientific question and a good one at that.

The reasons or "explanations" religion comes up with are equally laughable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
18.2  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @18    2 months ago

Note that we are deriding an idea.   This is what typically takes place.   This, however, is translated by some into 'Christian bashing'.    It is not, it is challenging (and bashing) unsubstantiated beliefs.

 
 
 
Kathleen
18.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @18.2    2 months ago

She was asking on a serious note, we where laughing because she would always come up bluntly with a question and not afraid what others thought.

 
 
 
TᵢG
18.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @18.2.1    2 months ago

My point is in reference to early comments from you about religious talk.   I am pointing out to you that this discussion is negative on an idea but is, as usual, not deriding people. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
18.2.3  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @18.2.2    2 months ago

No, I personally never thought this article was. I am sure you know what I mean when I say bashing.  He was breaking each detail down to why this event could have not happened.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
18.2.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @18.2.3    2 months ago
 He was breaking each detail down to why this event could have not happened.  

Exactly. I was trying to take an objective look at the evidence. I would have also looked at evidence supporting the story. Alas, there is none to support the story as depicted or interpreted in the bible. But the flood does become more plausible the more it gets scaled down.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
18.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kathleen @18    2 months ago

As a kid, I bought into the 2 of every animal and didn't question the logistics.  But as I got older the question of the logistics of it all come about as well as how they fed the animals (in some cases the food IS other animals).  

 
 
 
Kathleen
18.3.1  Kathleen  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @18.3    2 months ago

With all the species it would seem impossible. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
18.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kathleen @18.3.1    2 months ago

That's what I was thinking.

 
 
 
Gordy327
18.3.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @18.3.1    2 months ago
With all the species it would seem impossible. 

Which is what I determined.

 
 
 
Kathleen
19  Kathleen    2 months ago

One thing that always made me wonder was my Uncle was a highly intelligent man, very well educated. He believed in evolution and the Christian religion. I am not saying religious people are uneducated or not intelligent, I was referring to believing in both of these things at the same time. I thought you had to pick one or the other. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @19    2 months ago
I am not saying religious people are uneducated or not intelligent, I was referring to believing in both of these things at the same time. I thought you had to pick one or the other. 

No, that's a misconception. Look at Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. He is a renowned scientist and obviously a very intelligent and educated individual. But he is also a devout christian. The difference is, he doesn't posit religious belief or god as an explanation for something within a scientific practice. He could very well believe god is an explanation on a personal level for all I know. But it comes down to what the claim is and what the evidence is to support the claim. There is plenty of empirical evidence to support evolution and I think most christians are probably ok with that and accept it. However, when one takes a more literal view of the bible and creationism, such as YECs, then there is a conflict. YECs do not accept evolution and ignore any evidence for it. Instead, they adhere to their dogma that "god did it."

 
 
 
Kathleen
19.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @19.1    2 months ago

Evidently I posted something and it did not come our. Let’s try again.

 
 
 
Kathleen
19.1.2  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @19.1    2 months ago

It looks like he believed in the supernatural and a supreme being that has not been fully proven yet. Although it fits more into spiritually then organized religion. 

I still think it that it’s very difficult to do this unless you believe that God invented science and that would explain some of it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.1.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @19.1.2    2 months ago
It looks like he believed in the supernatural and a supreme being that has not been fully proven yet. Although it fits more into spiritually then organized religion. 

He didn't start out religious or have belief, but came into it on his own.

I still think it that it’s very difficult to do this unless you believe that God invented science and that would explain some of it.

I've heard people make that exact claim (sans evidence of course). Never mind the logical problems that can cause. But I think some people have a hard time separating scientific process from religious belief, depending on the level of religiosity. Ultimately, when they reach a point that cannot be scientifically explained or otherwise unknown, they resort to something along the lines of "god did it" as a final explanation.

 
 
 
Kathleen
19.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @19.1.3    2 months ago

Well, it would be a good way to explain things.  You mentioned Adam and Eve. That could be a problem. Adam and Eve were suppose to be the first humans, but then we have evolution.  That is a big problem.

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @19.1.4    2 months ago
Well, it would be a good way to explain things.

Not really. "God did it" is not an explanation for anything. It is a failure to explain and an intellectual cop-out. It's the theistic version of "I don't know" with a shoulder shrug. The honest answer would be "I/we don't know."

You mentioned Adam and Eve. That could be a problem. Adam and Eve were suppose to be the first humans, but then we have evolution.  That is a big problem.

I am currently working on that as Part 2. I intend to address that point too. I am also open to suggestions for future topics too.

 
 
 
Kathleen
19.1.6  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @19.1.5    2 months ago

A good way to explain things for someone that believed in science and religion I mean. 

Not for Atheists.

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @19.1.6    2 months ago
A good way to explain things for someone that believed in science and religion I mean. 

"God did it" is not scientific.

 
 
 
Kathleen
19.1.8  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @19.1.7    2 months ago

No, it isn’t.  That’s why I said it’s hard to put the two together like the man you mentioned.

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.1.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @19.1.8    2 months ago
 That’s why I said it’s hard to put the two together like the man you mentioned.

I agree it's hard for some. But not impossible. But like I also said, using "god did it" as a personal belief is one thing. Putting it out there as an explanation for anything (especially in science) is quite another.

 
 
 
katrix
19.1.10  katrix  replied to  Kathleen @19.1.8    2 months ago

Read Questions of Faith by John polkinghorn.  Some people manage to reconcile their faith with science. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @19.1.10    2 months ago

Or visit biologos

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @19    2 months ago

As a former believer with a strong background in science - it's compartmentalization.  Scientists who believe become adapt at compartmentalizing within their own minds the evidence for evolution, and keeping it separate from their faith in a creator. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
19.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2    2 months ago

Somewhat of what I said above.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.2  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2    2 months ago

I am not sure that is how it works. Consider Francis Collins of Biologos who is doing admirable work on many science and faith related discussions (evolution is one of his subject matters too) at Tig's @19.1.11 link! I am yet taking in all in!

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.2    2 months ago

Dr. Collins essentially does not deny any science (regardless of biblical conflicts) but rather holds that everything science discovers is simply the work of God and that science is a great way to better understand God through His work.

But, curiously, Dr. Collins does not seem to have problems with the parts of the Bible that do not conflict with science.   He seems (this is how I read him) to take the Bible at face value when he can and view it as allegorical when it clashes with science.   Not sure how he pulls that off and remain logically comfortable, but somehow he does.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.4  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.3    2 months ago

I will delve into your second paragraph more. It may take a 'minute' to get back to you on it, however. For the record, I am both reading and audiobook listening to "The Language of God" by Francis Collins. In it he should explain this point (to me) about his worldview. Will "cache" this comment in my personal memory to come back to it later on. (Smile.)

What is your "critical" view of Norman Geisler? He is not a scientist. However, he is knowledgeable and writes about a great many scientific and practical subject matters (his books are numerous). Can one who writes about profound and detailed matters and interests of science and faith be considered an 'expert' for our purposes?

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.4    2 months ago
Can one who writes about profound and detailed matters and interests of science and faith be considered an 'expert' for our purposes?

I do not see why not.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.6  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.3    2 months ago
But, curiously, Dr. Collins does not seem to have problems with the parts of the Bible that do not conflict with science .   He seems (this is how I read him) to take the Bible at face value when he can and view it as allegorical when it clashes with science .   Not sure how he pulls that off and remain logically comfortable, but somehow he does.

In The Language of God Chapter Four, by Dr. Francis Collins, he states he views the Bible as not being a science book. That, in this same way, many scientists/theologians or religious laypersons are comfortable with the spiritual "messages" percolating meaning throughout the Bible as a whole. In this manner, bible stories feed him morally and spiritually as science feeds his scientific naturalism . He refers to Stephen J. Gould for an explanation:

S tephen J ay G ould on Science, God, and Darwinism’s Compatibility with Religion

"Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge" in  Scientific American (July 1992), p. 118.

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of natur e. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God’s method of action).

Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example).

Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana , was a devout Christian . Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian , who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox.

Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs — and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.

Source of quote: https://afterall.net/quotes/stephen-jay-gould-on-darwinisms-compatibility-with-religion/

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.6    2 months ago
In this manner, bible stories feed him morally and spiritually as science feeds his scientific naturalism .

My curiosity is why he believes (assuming he does) that the creator is omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, eternal, omnibenevolent.   I certainly can see how Dr. Collins could believe that there must be a sentient creator of unknown origin and attributes, but to go several levels deeper into details on this creator and basically believe that the Christian God (as defined) is this creator is quite a mystery.

science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of natur e. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.

That is quite correct.   I wish more theists understood the above.   Those who ignorantly declare that science affirms or denies the existence of a creator (in the abstract) are wrong and, amazingly, seem unteachable.  They will likely continue to be wrong indefinitely because they seem to refuse to give this matter any thought and refuse to do research on what science really is.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.8  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.7    2 months ago
My curiosity is why he believes (assuming he does) that the creator is omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, eternal, omnibenevolent.   I certainly can see how Dr. Collins could believe that there must be a sentient creator of unknown origin and attributes, but to go several levels deeper into details on this creator and basically believe that the Christian God (as defined) is this creator is quite a mystery.

Dr. Francis Collins believes God is before the "beginning" of our universe. God must be older than 15 plus billion of our years. This implies omnipotence and omniscience at least as far as concerning us, humanity in total.  Perfection derives from being set apart and incorruptible. Omni-benevolence is God choosing to do what is best all schemes and plans considered.

Regarding God's perfection, I have often wondered about the curious name God is quoted as naming (God):

Exodus 3:14

14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Commentary on the above:

The Hebrew words in Exodus 3:14 for “I AM THAT I AM” are ehyeh asher ehyeh which should more accurately be translated “I will be what I will be” or as Rotherham translates it, “I will become whatsoever I may become.”  This expression in Exodus 3:14 is an idiom, an expression that has a meaning that cannot be understood by the individual words.  So, what does “I AM THAT I AM” mean?

By using the translation “I will become whatsoever I may become,” we see the relationship of this phrase to Yahweh – “He who becometh.”  They both use the word “become.” The use of ehyeh asher ehyeh in Exodus 3:14 was God’s way of assuring and pledging to Moses and Israel that God would become whatever they needed Him to become.

As a Bible reader, when one gets to this point in Exodus and has expectation of hearing the unique majestic name of God, this name construction leaves one wanting. However, by the end of the whole set of books one does come to understand that God's perfection is defined by God as being one of a kind. It is God defining God as multi-faceted, unchangeable, and incorruptible. As the sides of a multifaceted diamond radiates. . . .

This may not be a satisfying grouping of explanations, but God is not doing regular interviews with humanity!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.8    2 months ago
God must be older than 15 plus billion of our years. This implies omnipotence and omniscience at least as far as concerning us, humanity in total.

Omniscience and omnipotence are not a result of age.  Non sequitur.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.10  CB   replied to  CB @19.2.8    2 months ago

Oops, left off the source link to the commentary. https://chicagobible.org/why-did-god-call-himself-i-am-that-i-am/

 
 
 
CB
19.2.11  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.9    2 months ago

Hi Sandy! This is in context of the discussion Tig and I are sharing in. Foundationally, we know these characteristics are attributed to God. The question goes to why Dr. Collins (assuming it is so) believes God has these aforementioned characteristics. Having listened to the audiobook and having access to a read copy of, The Language of God, I can say Dr. Collins (in the book) describes the 'knowing' and 'power' of God as springing out of being wiser and older than all living things (we know of).

Hope this simplified reply helps. That is, Dr. Collins uses more commentary than I have posted here. I am being 'pithy.' If you need more of Dr. Collins' expression of the point I can pull it up in the book version text and post a bit more of it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.8    2 months ago
Dr. Francis Collins believes God is before the "beginning" of our universe. God must be older than 15 plus billion of our years. This implies omnipotence and omniscience at least as far as concerning us, humanity in total.  Perfection derives from being set apart and incorruptible. Omni-benevolence is God choosing to do what is best all schemes and plans considered.

A creator necessarily is older than that which it created.   So a creator, if one exists, is older than our universe.   That is all we could infer.   We cannot infer that the creator is eternal (we cannot even infer from the facts that the creator even exists).

Omnipotence is not required to create the universe.   The universe could be created by a sentient entity that is not truly all-powerful;  but it would certainly be extraordinarily powerful by our standards.

Omniscience really has nothing to do with the fact that the universe exists.   Perfection and omnibenevolence do not apply either.

In short, the existence of our universe, if we presume a creator, only tells us that the creator must be older than our universe.   However, if we explore our reality, we will discover evidence of what the ostensible creator had in mind.   If we were created then there is a reason why our sun will eventually destroy us.   There is a reason for why life consumes (destroys) life.   There is a reason for why entire galaxies collide and engage in massive mutual destruction.   There is a reason why we die.

We will not be able to infer the higher level intent of such a creator.   For example, we can find the reasons for why we die but they will all be tied to the product of the creator and not the mind of the creator.   To really know why we die we would need to communicate with the creator.   I have yet to see even a shred of evidence that any human being has been able to directly communicate with a creator.

This may not be a satisfying grouping of explanations, but God is not doing regular interviews with humanity!

To me the Bible is easily explained.   If one applies the principle of parsimony, the immediate hypothesis is that the Bible, as with many other 'accounts' before and after it, is a product of ancient human minds ... no divine editing.   That view requires no assumptions because we know for a fact that the Bible was indeed penned by ancient men.   Everything else is speculation.  

So, with that in mind, I would expect the Bible to include some history, some wisdom, cultural perspectives of the times, errors, omissions, contradictions, ambiguity, fantasy, adventure and confused logic.  And I would expect it to be static; unable to change over time.   The Bible delivers all of the above.   If the Bible were divine, I would expect perfection:  a clear message from the creator that is timeless.   I would also expect the Bible to deliver content that would be beyond the capabilities of even the most intelligent of ancient men.   It fails to do this.

Ergo, the Bible as a work of men is easily explained.   The Bible as the perfect word of God is, as of 2020, still impossible to explain ... but people keep working on the problem.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.11    2 months ago
we know these characteristics are attributed to God.

We know that men attribute these characteristics to God.  We don't know that they're right, or even that God exists.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.14  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.7    2 months ago
to go several levels deeper into details on this creator and basically believe that the Christian God (as defined) is this creator is quite a mystery.

Dr. Collins departs from "the legitimate methods of science" in order to commune with the Spirit and in spirit. His spirituality comes from fellowship in the words of the New Testament specifically:

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be c in you. 18  I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

I do observe that I have posted a rather extended tract of New Testament verses above. It is not an exaggeration or attempt at 'selling' you on God, Jesus, and Spirit. What that is above-is context:

  1. S cience simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God. (Gould, S. J.)
  2. (Verse 17 above) "the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him."

#2 above establishes that faith in God is personal (subjective). It is not given in an objective form to all. It is given to those who ask. This 'asking' is the journey Dr. Collins was on as an atheist, first reading C.S. Lewis writings and culminating in him experiencing spiritual awakening while observing a majestic waterfall (in three parts).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.14    2 months ago
His spirituality comes from fellowship in the words of the New Testament specifically:

And is therefore subjective in the extreme, and can therefore be dismissed as unsupported by fact.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.16  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.15    2 months ago

Is that being critical in the extreme, Sandy? If you can only look to science you simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God!

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.14    2 months ago
Dr. Collins departs from "the legitimate methods of science" in order to commune with the Spirit and in spirit. His spirituality comes from fellowship in the words of the New Testament specifically

I think the biggest mystery I have with Dr. Collins is how a mind so trained and skilled in a formal process of evidence, testing, falsification, etc. could simply accept as true that which is merely written in an ancient book.

To his credit, I do not see him compromising solid findings of science.  That is, he does not operate like the Ken Hams of the world who hold that scripture (literal read) is truth and any findings to the contrary, scientific or otherwise, are ipso facto wrong.   But Dr. Collins seems perfectly comfortable believing that which fills the gaps (as in God of the gaps) according to general Christian apologetics.   That is unusual and fascinating.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.18  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.13    2 months ago

This section of discussion is specifically an attempt to answer a member's question about Dr. Francis Collins' Christian faith (and other scientists who also lived personal lives of faith in God. @19.2.6.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.16    2 months ago

Is that being critical in the extreme, Sandy? If you can only look to science you simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God!

Science clearly cannot determine if God —defined as creator— exists or does not exist.   But one can use logic alone to prove that the God of the Bible is a contradiction and thus does not exist as defined.   There might be a creator, but it is certainly not that as defined in the Bible.
 
 
 
Gordy327
19.2.20  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @19.2.16    2 months ago
Is that being critical in the extreme, Sandy? If you can only look to science you simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God!

Science is the most objective means to examine things. Anything else is subjective by default. So if one believes in, "feels," or otherwise wants/needs there to be a god (for whatever reasons), then that is purely subjective.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.16    2 months ago

No.

You say he has fellowship with words in a book written by men.

That is no more evidence for the existence of God than my reading and enjoyment of the Harry Potter series is for the existence of Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Dumbledore.

There's no more evidence for his god than there is for any other god men have written about through the ages.

That's not extreme criticism.  It's subjecting Christianity to the same standards of evidence we use for everyone else.  If it is found lacking, that is due to the belief, not the process.  If it can only be supported by demanding special exemptions from critical examination, it is reasonable to suppose it is lacking.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.18    2 months ago

And?

 
 
 
CB
19.2.23  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.17    2 months ago
That is unusual and fascinating.

You must find all people in the sciences and continually in faith the world over unusual and fascinating. Perhaps, I am a little bit unusual and fascinating (to you) too? (Chuckles.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.23    2 months ago

Very few people have advanced to the level of Dr. Collins.   That is what makes him so fascinating to me.

In general, after a lifetime of observation and thinking about this question, my position is that most people who accept their religions as truth do so because it comforts them.   That is, they would feel lost, exposed, vulnerable, etc. without the comfort provided by their faith.   That, IMO, is the primary reason smart people keep their faith in spite of an ever increasing and ever available corpus of knowledge which contradicts the tenets of said faith.

In a word:  comfort.   Another word (at the next level of detail) is fear.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.25  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.12    2 months ago

Well, actually, this section of discussion is a tie-in to Dr. Collins' worldview and Faith. From my vantage point, at this time, I am not indulging in general musings about God and Naturalism. With this in mind, then other opinions, other definitions outside of the faith can never define what the Christian God or Faith means to Christians. That is, the naturalists are defining something other than Christianity.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.26  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.13    2 months ago

You are out-of-step with the discussion of the member and myself about Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collin's believes these characteristics about God. He is the point of this thread the several of us are on. That is, this is about a specific scientist and believer's perspective, not anybody else.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.27  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.19    2 months ago

What do you wish for me to say: that God is behaving illogically: however, how can you define logic as managed by God (the Creator) from a simple human perspective? What if we are not complete in our understand of, logic and it's corresponding rules? I'm interested to read your answer.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.28  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @19.2.20    2 months ago

I wrote similar (but not exactly) that @19.2.14, Gordy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.2.29  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @19.2.28    2 months ago

It doesn't change anything I said. It's still subjective.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.30  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.21    2 months ago

Now you are falling back on naturalism (as Dr. Stephen J. Gould stated must happen) and some rather worn-out insults which do not advance an exchange of ideas at all. Dr. Collins is a scientist, to move the discussion forward, exactly what do you know of his beliefs in God? And how he came to them? For that matter, how do you think an atheist, any atheist, come to believe in a spiritual existence of some kind?

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.27    2 months ago

I am not trying to get you to say anything;  I was just opining.

... that God is behaving illogically: however, how can you define logic as managed by God (the Creator) from a simple human perspective?

My comment was about how the Bible defines God.   For example, it defines God as omniscient yet notes that God is sometimes surprised, disappointed, changes His mind, learns, etc.   The Bible is contradicting itself in its definition of God.   While that does not mean there is no creator, it does absolutely mean that God as defined by the Bible does not exist.   An entity cannot exist that is both omniscient and not-omniscient.   (Just one example.)

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.32  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.26    2 months ago

Yes, I am discussing that.  I disagree with him.  Disagreement is not being out of step with the discussion.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.33  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.22    2 months ago

And what? Can you demonstrate respect what was being put forward for discussion, that is, Dr. Collins and the other scientists and people of faith in the comment? Or must you obligate to disparage, discount, and fall back on ridicule of the principles (of life) these men take most seriously?

I am sorry to be so forward, but this is becoming 'gritty.' May I suggest we put back up a discussion level?

 
 
 
CB
19.2.34  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.24    2 months ago

Those are fair estimations for some people? Question: Have you read that Dr. Collins' chose his faith walk because he was seeking after (spiritual) comfort of some kind or that he was fearful of lacking something important?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.30    2 months ago

Challenges aren't insults, Cal.  Why do you have to try to make personal that which was not personal?  I am aware the Dr. Collins is a scientist.  I do not know how he came to his religious beliefs, and they are no more valid than any other unsupported beliefs, regardless of the letters after his name.  A PhD in biology who also believes in fairies has the same amount of supporting evidence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.30    2 months ago
For that matter, how do you think an atheist, any atheist, come to believe in a spiritual existence of some kind?

I can only speculate.   Maybe Dr Collins had a mid-life crisis and started to seriously consider the fact that he will eventually die.   Maybe that caused him to go beyond science and try to find a way to become at ease with the concept of death.  

Again, I can only speculate.

As for any atheist, I think that some 'atheists' who become theists were likely agnostic theists to begin with.   But for those who were indeed not convinced a god exists, a traumatic event might open a need that religion can fill.  Other than that I do not know;  I cannot think of any reasoning that would move a genuine atheist to theist given the lack of evidence.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.37  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @19.2.29    2 months ago

@19.2.14 I explained that very point. The Bible writers are highly aware (across the spectrum) that they are not writing to the world-at-large. You are digressing.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.33    2 months ago

If you wish to discuss, you must take others' comments as they are, and refrain from trying to script their comments for them.  Dr. Collins's beliefs are not immune to criticism.  This forum exists to discuss religious questions, but is in no way closed to views which dissent with religious ones.  I would say that's pretty clear from the title of the article.

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.34    2 months ago
Question: Have you read that Dr. Collins' chose his faith walk because he was seeking after (spiritual) comfort of some kind or that he was fearful of lacking something important?

No, I was just speculating.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.40  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.35    2 months ago
A PhD in biology who also believes in fairies has the same amount of supporting evidence.

Was that a oblique reference to Dr. Collins? I can't tell because I have not read that he believes in typical "fairies." If you do not find him to be authentic in his writings about other aspects of his life—I am okay with that. And I have read that Dr. Collins is okay with his peers (who are not believers') unbelief too. It is not a point of contention or hill to die on for me anyway.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.41  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.40    2 months ago

It's a comparison, Cal.  Belief in fairies is not supported by evidence.  Belief in God is not supported by evidence.  Neither belief is supported by the intelligence of any of its followers.

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.2.42  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @19.2.37    2 months ago
The Bible writers are highly aware (across the spectrum) that they are not writing to the world-at-large.

Which makes the veracity of the bible and its claims highly dubious.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.43  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.31    2 months ago

When the Bible states God as omniscient (all-knowing) it goes on internally (of its books) to qualify the term as meant by the writers. Humans define words. And we do our best at it. However, no human can know what omniscience operates like in the realm of a spiritual being. (Such understanding is too marvelous for us, or at least has not been revealed to limited flesh creatures yet evolving.)

Writers invent the meaning of omniscience. And in context of what we label inspired writers, that is, prophets and holy men of old, we labor to explain something of the nature of God shared through revelation. However, with limitations.

Therefore, ultimately, while our faith informs us (people of faith) we study what is within the pages of our books, we are/should be wise not to go seriously beyond the pages to distortion or trying to state what is spiritually impossible for us to discern. (I am fully aware that some people do and make a fool out of themselves in the offing.)

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.2.44  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.41    2 months ago
Belief in fairies is not supported by evidence.  Belief in God is not supported by evidence. 

Which makes bother equally plausible. Or implausible, depending on the point of view.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.45  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.32    2 months ago

Why complain about his beliefs as a scientist and a person of faith at this time? Is it appropriate? How is it helpful to our train of discussion? I am fully aware that you disagree with supernaturalism long before now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.46  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.43    2 months ago
Humans define words. And we do our best at it. However, no human can know what omniscience operates like in the realm of a spiritual being.

Human beings wrote the Bible and certainly it is true that human beings define words.   My point is that the words of the Bible define a God who is omniscient.   Other words define a God who learns, is surprised, is disappointed, is persuaded to change His mind, etc.   Those words (and their meanings) are a direct contradiction.   Thus, per my comment, the definition of God per the words in the Bible is a contradiction and thus that God —as defined— cannot exist.

A God of some definition might exist, but the God as defined by the words in the Bible cannot exist.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.45    2 months ago
Why complain about his beliefs as a scientist and a person of faith at this time?

I'm not.  I'm explaining that his religious beliefs are not supported by evidence.  That's not complaining.  I don't care what his beliefs are, frankly.  I respect his scientific achievements, and I imagine that he's likely a good person.

Is it appropriate?

In a discussion about fallacies in Biblical stories?  Gonna have to go out on a limb here and say "yes".

How is it helpful to our train of discussion? I am fully aware that you disagree with supernaturalism long before now.

Ok, and?  Dr. Collins holds certain religious beliefs.  Somewhere way above, someone asked how such beliefs are reconciled with scientific achievement.  I answered "compartmentalization".  Pretty much everything in this discussion has tended to support that answer to some degree.  Dr. Collins's religious beliefs seem to exist alongside, and largely independent of, his scientific knowledge.  He just believes.  His intellect does not lend support to that belief.  If you want another answer, you're going to have to ask someone else, or write it yourself, and stop attempting to direct my answers to suit you just because we disagree and you seem to find disagreement to be disrespectful.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @19.2.44    2 months ago
Which makes bother equally plausible. Or implausible, depending on the point of view.

Exactly.

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.2.49  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.48    2 months ago

That should have read "Both equally plausible...." Lousy typo

 
 
 
CB
19.2.50  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.36    2 months ago

In Dr. Collin's case, I think you may be aware of this (testimony), we may have interacted on it in the distant past: Dr. Collins was a rather young atheist working in a North Carolina ward where he encountered sickly people who had strong faith in God despite what they were medically dealing with daily. One woman in particular with severe angina told him about her faith in God and then went on to ask him what he believed in. The question stunned him and (immediately) set him to reflect on it. He says, as a scientist he was obligated to look into the question—if only to formulate a conclusion of some kind. Long story short, he landed a copy of "Mere Christianity" and the rest of his journey of faith is history.

Here is an Amazon link to the page about it: It's quite forceful in the telling.

https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744#reader_1416542744   pages 20-21

 
 
 
CB
19.2.51  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.38    2 months ago

A standard retort. Okay, I caught it. I will hold on to it for you, too.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.52  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.41    2 months ago

As a comparison, it is weak. Dr. Collins has evidence for his faith. But, you will have to read up on his books to properly discuss it intelligently.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.53  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @19.2.42    2 months ago

You would have to have an open mind as an atheist to explore that line of thought. Have an open mind, Gordy? As a critical thinker, could you allow yourself to be vulnerable to data on spirituality?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.54  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.52    2 months ago

What evidence does he have?  The words of men long dead, recounting stories told by other dead men, motivated by power?

A "feeling" that he's right?

It's not evidence, Cal.  No more than legends of fairies or belief in their existence is evidence for the existence of fairies.

I understand that you don't like the comparison.  That does not invalidate it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.55  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.53    2 months ago

Explore the line of thought that Thor is every bit as likely to exist as the Christian God.  If you don't, shall we ask whether you have an open mind?

 
 
 
CB
19.2.56  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.54    2 months ago

Thank you for sharing. (Smile.) I'd like to end this with you here if you will grant it.

 
 
 
MAGA
19.2.57  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @19.2.42    2 months ago

No, it doesn’t.  

 
 
 
MAGA
19.2.58  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.54    2 months ago

Actually, it does.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.59  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @19.2.58    2 months ago

Just another unsupported declaration.

Care to present evidence?

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.60  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.52    2 months ago
But, you will have to read up on his books to properly discuss it intelligently.

If Dr. Collins has real evidence you could summarize it; no need for someone to read his collected works if you have already done so.

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.61  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @19.2.57    2 months ago

Why?

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.2.62  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @19.2.57    2 months ago
No, it doesn’t.  

Yes, it does! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.2.63  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @19.2.53    2 months ago
You would have to have an open mind as an atheist to explore that line of thought. Have an open mind, Gordy? As a critical thinker, could you allow yourself to be vulnerable to data on spirituality?

I've stated many times before I'm open to empirical evidence. But subjective and empty declarations is not convincing or persuasive. So lets see some evidence! Until then, as Sandy said, "Thor is every bit as likely to exist as the Christian God.  If you don't, shall we ask whether you have an open mind?" 

So, are you open minded enough to acknowledge your beliefs might be wrong and that there really is no god?

 
 
 
CB
19.2.64  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.46    2 months ago
My point is that the words of the Bible define a God who is omniscient.   Other words define a God who learns, is surprised, is disappointed, is persuaded to change His mind, etc.  

I could ask for the strongest example of God failing omniscience that you have in the Bible, but I am not sure it would accomplish anything to explain it (you might say, "away") using the Bible as its own inspiration. Best to let it end here (for now).

 
 
 
Gordy327
19.2.65  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @19.2.64    2 months ago
I could ask for the strongest example of God failing omniscience that you have in the Bible,

Anytime God became angry, surprised, disappointed, changed his mind, ect.. Take your pick. The Tower of Babel comes to mind. Perhaps that will be the basis for the next part in my biblical fallacy series.

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.66  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.64    2 months ago

What is wrong with the examples I provided?

 
 
 
CB
19.2.67  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.47    2 months ago
His intellect does not lend support to that belief.  If you want another answer, you're going to have to ask someone else, or write it yourself, and stop attempting to direct my answers to suit you just because we disagree and you seem to find disagreement to be disrespectful.

That's petty and condescending. You 'went' deep for that one, and in the process took my kindness for weakness. I shall not make such a mistake again.

I don't care what his beliefs are, frankly.  I respect his scientific achievements, and I imagine that he's likely a good person.

Dr. Collins cares about his beliefs and these other scientists @19.2.6:

Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana , was a devout Christian . Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian , who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs — and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.

. . . care about their beliefs. I am sorry that you take them for granted (or in the words of Dr. Collins consider them possibly, "enormously stupid.") These scientists/people of faith are not stupid. They share their ranks with many other scientists and doctors. Maybe no one here is stupid, or may be some here are.

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.68  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.64    2 months ago
I could ask for the strongest example of God failing omniscience that you have in the Bible

Also, I noticed a subtlety.   You wrote "God failing omniscience".   The suggests that you think I am criticizing God and that God exists.

What I noted was a contradiction in how ancient men defined God.    God might exist, but would not be as they defined Him.   Their definition of God is a contradiction.   It is not God at fault or failing, but rather the ancient men.  They defined an impossible God.

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.69  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.67    2 months ago
These scientists/people of faith are not stupid.

Nowhere does Sandy suggest they are stupid.  

 
 
 
CB
19.2.70  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.55    2 months ago

Another standard retort: Whataboutism. Shall we go full-on "Thor" now?! Can we respectfully drop this, Sandy?

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.71  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.70    2 months ago

I think the discussion is now gone.   If we cannot discuss the content without getting personal and angry, there is no point continuing.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.72  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.60    2 months ago

Why should I read for Sandy or anyone else for that matter, Tig? Did I @19.2.41 limit anybody's intelligence? May be I misunderstood the nuances of that comment? You can explain it to me if I did.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.73  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.67    2 months ago

Then consider accepting answers at face value, and refraining from accusations of insult when challenged.  Such unfounded accusations are tiresome and NOT kind.  And this discussion shows a pattern of admonishment by you toward me almost every time I've made a comment with which you do not agree, and equating such disagreement to disrespect.

I am sorry that you take them for granted (or in the words of Dr. Collins consider them, "enormously stupid.")

Kindly refrain from engaging in the dishonest tactic of putting words in my mouth.  I never said they, or anybody here, was stupid.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.74  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @19.2.69    2 months ago

Thank you.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.75  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @19.2.63    2 months ago

I have faith in God borne of the Spirit within me. It is not acceptable to you. So why belabor it?

This is about Dr. Collins I keep reminding some of you. Dr. Collins was an atheist now Christian. He is someone who intelligently waxes long about both  I just thought you would be curious why a scientist has a personal faith in God. No need to throw me under the bus, because of Dr. Collins' and other scientists (19.2.6). modern scientists, and doctors beliefs (in God). Science and Faith in the words of Dr. Gould are non-overlapping magisterials.

This is not about me, per se.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.76  CB   replied to  TᵢG @19.2.71    2 months ago

So now it IS about me. Nice work getting there "team." I'm out. Nice standard 'stacking.' Well, I depart with my head held high! See ya!

 
 
 
CB
19.2.77  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.73    2 months ago

These words come from Dr. Collins. I quoted him:

Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana , was a devout Christian . Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian , who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs — and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.

Parse his words any way you wish. It still comes out the same way, in my opinion. (Smile.)

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.78  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.77    2 months ago

You keep saying you want to end the conversation, then replying again.

Ok, this is what YOU said about ME.  I am not parsing words, YOU are attributing words I never said to ME.

I am sorry that you take them for granted (or in the words of Dr. Collins consider them possibly, "enormously stupid.")

That is a falsehood, Cal.  It's there for all to read, and I'm calling you out on it.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.79  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.74    2 months ago

Kindly refrain from making this all about naturalism; Dr. Francis Collins is a scientist and an individual of personal faith in God, both. Naturalism does not just get to 'win' because it trumps the table with disregard for what others believe. Stephen Jay Gould said so much:

Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.2.80  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @19.2.79    2 months ago

I have never said that science either confirms or denies the existence of God.  If you can point out where I have, please do so.

I have merely said there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God.  You have consistently presented none.  Your belief is not evidence.  Dr. Collins's belief is not evidence.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.81  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.72    2 months ago
Why should I read for Sandy or anyone else for that matter, Tig?

You offered that Dr. Collins has evidence.   It seems to me that since you have already done the research it would be nice of you to summarize it rather than expect Sandy, et. al. to read the collected works of Dr. Collins.

You have no obligation to do so, but it would be both courteous and helpful.

Did I @ 19.2.41 limit anybody's intelligence?

Sandy was stating that intelligence is not evidence.

May be I misunderstood the nuances of that comment?

Looks like you did.

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.2.82  TᵢG  replied to  CB @19.2.76    2 months ago
So now it IS about me.

No it is not.  I suggested that there is no point continuing because clearly you are upset.   So let's just move on because we know this will simply grow uglier.

 
 
 
CB
19.2.83  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.2.78    2 months ago
Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs — and equally compatible

Actually, it strikes me you keep replying to my reply. How could you not notice your doings? I'm calling you out. Now what comes next?! (Smile.)