Challenge to Creationists/IDers

[emilynghiem]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. "

disagree

Wouldn't something that's designed BE consistent some way? I don't really see your comment answering my question.

Dear Konradv: I think you are asking a fair question in essence.
Many people question the same things in different ways.
You frame a similar question using science patterns.

In general, ALL science, all knowledge and understanding is based on FAITH.
At any point, we could question what we know, and come up with some other
explanation or possibility that counteracts that. In truth, all truth we know
is based on FAITH.

So by that standard, we would have NO business teaching ANYTHING in schools
as if we know it as "fact" -- IF you want to push it that far.

You happen to question the 100% validity of creationism/ID.
The same questioning could be applied to evolution, as many people do.
some people question the 100% proof that smoking CAUSES the cancer
or is merely correlated with it. Etc. etc.

Anyone could question anything, and find on some level it is based on FAITH.

So welcome to the club!
Keep asking, I encourage you not to stop asking until you receive
the answers you are looking for. Everyone has a different way of asking,
so everyone has different answers in searching for the truth about the world
and how it works.

Best wishes in your search.
Yours truly,
Emily

P.S. Other ways people question the same supreme design of God's will:
A. if God's will is perfect, then how can people have free will. Then in fact, nobody has free will, just the illusion of it, and we are really following God's will if that is supreme.
B. If God's plans for justice are perfect, then how do you explain how innocent people are randomly killed by accidents or even murder; why are innocent children born with terrible diseases that cause undeserved suffering. What kind of just or loving God allows this?

P.P.S. Other ways people use science to point to a higher design beyond evolution:
A. Another friend of mine uses science to show there has to be a higher force that affects the world. He argues that if there is a Big Bang, that came from nothingness or a singularity, some force still had to act on it to make it expand from infinite nothingness to infinite universe. Something like that. What this tells me, again, given any theory or definition of laws or explanations we can give for the world, these can always be interpreted in ways that point toward belief in God as creator or can be interpreted to mean the energy in life directed itself without an intelligent mindset or consciousness governing the process.
B. One of my favorite examples was given by a Buddhist monk. Who points out that even when the frog is still forming in the egg, the cells are already designed to form an eye to see insects that the frog will eat. These insects are formed independently, as is the rest of the fauna and flora in the ecosystem. And yet all these living beings are created to live in interdependence and harmony. This is not linear in development, as the cause and effect we know, but came about in connection with other living things. So how can all these things develop as if they have knowledge of each other?

Some of my atheist friends still question:
Just because you believe in some kind of interactive intelligence or design going on,
what causes people to "make the leap" and believe in a "personal" God or creator?

I believe that is a fair question, as there is no reason to connect these two, except for convenience it seems, to align different people's views.

All I can say is that I find that when people revert back to their default beliefs (ie, BEFORE we were taught there were irreconciliable differences, before we perceived or stacked on biases or conflicts from different sources) then the natural state of mind is in harmony with others. Only when we become attached to conflicting views, then we lose the natural state of harmony we normally would have across different systems of thoughts and beliefs, including both religious or secular/scientific laws we use to define the world. So we end up having to "unlearn" all this conditioning, in order to see the universal truth of human nature in relation to the rest of the world, despite all the conflicts in how these are defined or taught, all being biased or flawed in ways.

By resolving or forgiving differences, we let go of barriers and blocks, and assumptions and biases we have that the next person does not under their system. And when we all let go of what we cannot prove 100%, then whatever is left by default, that universal truth is what matters. Things that are so true, that everyone agrees. That level of faith is the same one that tells people "there is a personal God" or "there is intelligent design" governing the events in the world, etc. -- however this universal level expresses itself in the minds of different people, it is all faith based (when you realize you don't really know, and it could all be false). It is like the program running in the background, and only by clearing everything else out that tells us contrary information, then we can tap into the default programming and find it is universal to all (though the expression of truth remains relative to each person). Any such expressions are going to be limited, even science, and could be wrong; they are all faith based on some level!!!

 

[Gadawg73]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. "

disagree

Wouldn't something that's designed BE consistent some way? I don't really see your comment answering my question.

Dear Konradv: I think you are asking a fair question in essence.
Many people question the same things in different ways.
You frame a similar question using science patterns.

In general, ALL science, all knowledge and understanding is based on FAITH.
At any point, we could question what we know, and come up with some other
explanation or possibility that counteracts that. In truth, all truth we know
is based on FAITH.

So by that standard, we would have NO business teaching ANYTHING in schools
as if we know it as "fact" -- IF you want to push it that far.

You happen to question the 100% validity of creationism/ID.
The same questioning could be applied to evolution, as many people do.
some people question the 100% proof that smoking CAUSES the cancer
or is merely correlated with it. Etc. etc.

Anyone could question anything, and find on some level it is based on FAITH.

So welcome to the club!
Keep asking, I encourage you not to stop asking until you receive
the answers you are looking for. Everyone has a different way of asking,
so everyone has different answers in searching for the truth about the world
and how it works.

Best wishes in your search.
Yours truly,
Emily

P.S. Other ways people question the same supreme design of God's will:
A. if God's will is perfect, then how can people have free will. Then in fact, nobody has free will, just the illusion of it, and we are really following God's will if that is supreme.
B. If God's plans for justice are perfect, then how do you explain how innocent people are randomly killed by accidents or even murder; why are innocent children born with terrible diseases that cause undeserved suffering. What kind of just or loving God allows this?

P.P.S. Other ways people use science to point to a higher design beyond evolution:
A. Another friend of mine uses science to show there has to be a higher force that affects the world. He argues that if there is a Big Bang, that came from nothingness or a singularity, some force still had to act on it to make it expand from infinite nothingness to infinite universe. Something like that. What this tells me, again, given any theory or definition of laws or explanations we can give for the world, these can always be interpreted in ways that point toward belief in God as creator or can be interpreted to mean the energy in life directed itself without an intelligent mindset or consciousness governing the process.
B. One of my favorite examples was given by a Buddhist monk. Who points out that even when the frog is still forming in the egg, the cells are already designed to form an eye to see insects that the frog will eat. These insects are formed independently, as is the rest of the fauna and flora in the ecosystem. And yet all these living beings are created to live in interdependence and harmony. This is not linear in development, as the cause and effect we know, but came about in connection with other living things. So how can all these things develop as if they have knowledge of each other?

Some of my atheist friends still question:
Just because you believe in some kind of interactive intelligence or design going on,
what causes people to "make the leap" and believe in a "personal" God or creator?

I believe that is a fair question, as there is no reason to connect these two, except for convenience it seems, to align different people's views.

All I can say is that I find that when people revert back to their default beliefs (ie, BEFORE we were taught there were irreconciliable differences, before we perceived or stacked on biases or conflicts from different sources) then the natural state of mind is in harmony with others. Only when we become attached to conflicting views, then we lose the natural state of harmony we normally would have across different systems of thoughts and beliefs, including both religious or secular/scientific laws we use to define the world. So we end up having to "unlearn" all this conditioning, in order to see the universal truth of human nature in relation to the rest of the world, despite all the conflicts in how these are defined or taught, all being biased or flawed in ways.

By resolving or forgiving differences, we let go of barriers and blocks, and assumptions and biases we have that the next person does not under their system. And when we all let go of what we cannot prove 100%, then whatever is left by default, that universal truth is what matters. Things that are so true, that everyone agrees. That level of faith is the same one that tells people "there is a personal God" or "there is intelligent design" governing the events in the world, etc. -- however this universal level expresses itself in the minds of different people, it is all faith based (when you realize you don't really know, and it could all be false). It is like the program running in the background, and only by clearing everything else out that tells us contrary information, then we can tap into the default programming and find it is universal to all (though the expression of truth remains relative to each person). Any such expressions are going to be limited, even science, and could be wrong; they are all faith based on some level!!!

Science is never based on faith.
Science is based on the scientific method.

 

[Youwerecreated]

God, the supernatural, whatever. It's 6 in one and 1/2 dozen in the other.

There is no point in addressing the "methodology" when the basic assumption is un-scientific.

Again, demonstrate how ID can be falsified and we can proceed.

Answer how hypothesis were created in the bible 3,500 years ago and it took modern day science to confirm the hypothesis ?

What hypothesis are you talking about?

I posted them with the 101 evidences earlier in the thread.

God said he hung the earth from nothing.

God said his throne is beyond the circle of the earth.

God said we were created the things that can't be seen and said we were created from the ground.

I don't believe man had this knowledge at the time of the writing of the bible.

 

[konradv]

Thanks Gawdawg, you saved me from saying the exact same thing. I'm sorry, Emily, but the equivalence you're seeking doesn't exist, IMO. My question in no way denies the existence of God, either. If He exists, it's evident in the Big Bang, when all the Laws of Chemistry and Physics were laid down. That has nothing to do with Creationism/ID, however. All the scientific facts indicate that abiogenesis and evolution were the mechanisms by which life came to earth. I have no problem with saying that was God's plan, but do not believe in a seperate creation or design of life as we know it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Answer how hypothesis were created in the bible 3,500 years ago and it took modern day science to confirm the hypothesis ?

What hypothesis are you talking about?

I posted them with the 101 evidences earlier in the thread.

God said he hung the earth from nothing.

God said his throne is beyond the circle of the earth.

God said we were created the things that can't be seen and said we were created from the ground.

I don't believe man had this knowledge at the time of the writing of the bible.

I respect you a lot but your argument is not scientific.
I also greatly respect your beliefs as I am a believer but God is not science and all religion is is a belief.
My faith is so strong I never attempt to equate my religous beliefs with science. Leave it alone as there is NO way to disprove your beliefs one way or the other scientifically.
Religion is belief only. Faith is your commitment to that belief. Neither are science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not true, the bible tells how to prevent sickness in some cases.

That's being generous. The Bible was printed prior to the germ theory of disease. The notion in the bible was that God inflicted pathology upon people as wrath. Person's with leprosy, now known to be of infectious etiology, were viewed to be in disfavor with God. Saying the bible addresses disease through monogamy and kosher foods is fine, but it's not a medical textbook.

We all eventually pay for our sins with death. Man made the choice and God letting us see this world under man's rule. So when God begins to rule again there will be no rebellion again.

That's great, but you are ignoring the question. What about diseases like leukemia that affect the pediatric population (which we can assume are innocent). It's the age old question: why does a loving God allow people to suffer?

I don't believe there is a good answer to that question, nor do I believe you can provide an adequate one.

However, I think it's a little absurd to claim that God is dropping down these miraculous scientific findings on our heads.

Agreed, he did punish. I believe God introduced bad bacteria as a form of punishment we are seeing the effects of bad bacteria and bad genes that have been passed from generation to generation.

All sin brings forth death, for some it comes quicker and i can't answer why.

What do you think creation was about ? if creation was the method used to bring about life does that not concern science ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wouldn't something that's designed BE consistent some way? I don't really see your comment answering my question.

Dear Konradv: I think you are asking a fair question in essence.
Many people question the same things in different ways.
You frame a similar question using science patterns.

In general, ALL science, all knowledge and understanding is based on FAITH.
At any point, we could question what we know, and come up with some other
explanation or possibility that counteracts that. In truth, all truth we know
is based on FAITH.

So by that standard, we would have NO business teaching ANYTHING in schools
as if we know it as "fact" -- IF you want to push it that far.

You happen to question the 100% validity of creationism/ID.
The same questioning could be applied to evolution, as many people do.
some people question the 100% proof that smoking CAUSES the cancer
or is merely correlated with it. Etc. etc.

Anyone could question anything, and find on some level it is based on FAITH.

So welcome to the club!
Keep asking, I encourage you not to stop asking until you receive
the answers you are looking for. Everyone has a different way of asking,
so everyone has different answers in searching for the truth about the world
and how it works.

Best wishes in your search.
Yours truly,
Emily

P.S. Other ways people question the same supreme design of God's will:
A. if God's will is perfect, then how can people have free will. Then in fact, nobody has free will, just the illusion of it, and we are really following God's will if that is supreme.
B. If God's plans for justice are perfect, then how do you explain how innocent people are randomly killed by accidents or even murder; why are innocent children born with terrible diseases that cause undeserved suffering. What kind of just or loving God allows this?

P.P.S. Other ways people use science to point to a higher design beyond evolution:
A. Another friend of mine uses science to show there has to be a higher force that affects the world. He argues that if there is a Big Bang, that came from nothingness or a singularity, some force still had to act on it to make it expand from infinite nothingness to infinite universe. Something like that. What this tells me, again, given any theory or definition of laws or explanations we can give for the world, these can always be interpreted in ways that point toward belief in God as creator or can be interpreted to mean the energy in life directed itself without an intelligent mindset or consciousness governing the process.
B. One of my favorite examples was given by a Buddhist monk. Who points out that even when the frog is still forming in the egg, the cells are already designed to form an eye to see insects that the frog will eat. These insects are formed independently, as is the rest of the fauna and flora in the ecosystem. And yet all these living beings are created to live in interdependence and harmony. This is not linear in development, as the cause and effect we know, but came about in connection with other living things. So how can all these things develop as if they have knowledge of each other?

Some of my atheist friends still question:
Just because you believe in some kind of interactive intelligence or design going on,
what causes people to "make the leap" and believe in a "personal" God or creator?

I believe that is a fair question, as there is no reason to connect these two, except for convenience it seems, to align different people's views.

All I can say is that I find that when people revert back to their default beliefs (ie, BEFORE we were taught there were irreconciliable differences, before we perceived or stacked on biases or conflicts from different sources) then the natural state of mind is in harmony with others. Only when we become attached to conflicting views, then we lose the natural state of harmony we normally would have across different systems of thoughts and beliefs, including both religious or secular/scientific laws we use to define the world. So we end up having to "unlearn" all this conditioning, in order to see the universal truth of human nature in relation to the rest of the world, despite all the conflicts in how these are defined or taught, all being biased or flawed in ways.

By resolving or forgiving differences, we let go of barriers and blocks, and assumptions and biases we have that the next person does not under their system. And when we all let go of what we cannot prove 100%, then whatever is left by default, that universal truth is what matters. Things that are so true, that everyone agrees. That level of faith is the same one that tells people "there is a personal God" or "there is intelligent design" governing the events in the world, etc. -- however this universal level expresses itself in the minds of different people, it is all faith based (when you realize you don't really know, and it could all be false). It is like the program running in the background, and only by clearing everything else out that tells us contrary information, then we can tap into the default programming and find it is universal to all (though the expression of truth remains relative to each person). Any such expressions are going to be limited, even science, and could be wrong; they are all faith based on some level!!!

Science is never based on faith.
Science is based on the scientific method.

Are you kidding ? many assumptions are built on faith and later proved wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What hypothesis are you talking about?

I posted them with the 101 evidences earlier in the thread.

God said he hung the earth from nothing.

God said his throne is beyond the circle of the earth.

God said we were created the things that can't be seen and said we were created from the ground.

I don't believe man had this knowledge at the time of the writing of the bible.

I respect you a lot but your argument is not scientific.
I also greatly respect your beliefs as I am a believer but God is not science and all religion is is a belief.
My faith is so strong I never attempt to equate my religous beliefs with science. Leave it alone as there is NO way to disprove your beliefs one way or the other scientifically.
Religion is belief only. Faith is your commitment to that belief. Neither are science.

Should not science be concerned with design and a natural process since neither has been proven ? There is evidence of design so why do they rule out God and creation ?

I believe because scientist see things that are imperfect they blame God, if there is a God but what they don't consider is that perfection went away with sin.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is perfectly sufficient to acknowledge that science finds answers that directly contradict the bible and that it is acceptable to cling to articles of faith to believe things that are contradicted by science (i.e. the great flood).

This is a curious statement. How does science contradict the occurrence of the Noahic flood? Are we talking about a literal flood? A metaphor? If a literal flood, are we talking about a regional flood? A global flood? When did this flood allegedly occur . . . or not occur? Precisely what hermeneutical paradigm did this "scientific" process of falsification employ? It appears that you're confounding theology with science, or biblical interpretation with science.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

ID does not make any assumptions. Fail. It makes three fundamental assertions. As soon as one states what those assertions actually are, we see the evolutionist's prattle for the political rhetorical that it is. Indeed, it's the very same kind of political rhetoric that is prattled by the hacks of global warming. I've told you what these assertions are; you simply cannot grasp them or will not acknowledge them.

What are the basic scientific assertions of ID? Hint: they are not what the evolutionist claims, and they are not what the average laymen thinks they are either, including those who are inclined to embrace ID theory. Ignorant of the prevailing first principles of biological science, they have been deceived as well.

ID can make it's own assertions. That is not the point. The point is that science has it's own rules. ID can not fit within those rules.

Why not?

Therefore, ID is not a scientific theory.

Why not?

ID doesn't get to create it's own scientific method.

It creates its own method?! What are you talking about? There's only one scientific method.

Now, if you want to contend that ID falls within the scientific method, fine. However, you have to defend that statement.

I already have on two different threads. I'm waiting for you to start making some sense and demonstrate that you grasp what you've been told. You just keep going on with these vague, empty insinuations, expecting me to understand what you're talking about.

You can start with something you refuse to answer: How is ID falsifiable?

Are you saying that the Pateurian law of biogenesis, which overthrew Aristotelian spontaneous generation and serves as the foundation of ID, is not falsifiable?

You still don't really understand what ID is all about even after being told repeatedly, do you?

 

[geauxtohell]

Answer how hypothesis were created in the bible 3,500 years ago and it took modern day science to confirm the hypothesis ?

What hypothesis are you talking about?

I posted them with the 101 evidences earlier in the thread.

God said he hung the earth from nothing.

God said his throne is beyond the circle of the earth.

God said we were created the things that can't be seen and said we were created from the ground.

I don't believe man had this knowledge at the time of the writing of the bible.

You need to learn the definition of what a hypothesis is (scientifically speaking).

A valid hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis. To claim that "God hung the moon" is a hypothesis would obviate the ability to show that "God did not hang the moon".

 

[geauxtohell]

Not true, the bible tells how to prevent sickness in some cases.

That's being generous. The Bible was printed prior to the germ theory of disease. The notion in the bible was that God inflicted pathology upon people as wrath. Person's with leprosy, now known to be of infectious etiology, were viewed to be in disfavor with God. Saying the bible addresses disease through monogamy and kosher foods is fine, but it's not a medical textbook.

We all eventually pay for our sins with death. Man made the choice and God letting us see this world under man's rule. So when God begins to rule again there will be no rebellion again.

That's great, but you are ignoring the question. What about diseases like leukemia that affect the pediatric population (which we can assume are innocent). It's the age old question: why does a loving God allow people to suffer?

I don't believe there is a good answer to that question, nor do I believe you can provide an adequate one.

However, I think it's a little absurd to claim that God is dropping down these miraculous scientific findings on our heads.

Agreed, he did punish. I believe God introduced bad bacteria as a form of punishment we are seeing the effects of bad bacteria and bad genes that have been passed from generation to generation.

All sin brings forth death, for some it comes quicker and i can't answer why.

What do you think creation was about ? if creation was the method used to bring about life does that not concern science ?

And, for your personal beliefs, that is obviously your prerogative and you can believe what you want to believe.

They are scientifically invalid arguments though.

Given the abundance of evidence that contradicts the Genesis account of creation, I am left to believe that most things in Genesis are metaphors or fables used by early man to explain our existence. I can't buy that the Earth is 6000 years old when we have so much data to the contrary.

All that aside, science is interested in the origins of life, but they can't use a supernatural power to explain that.

It's against the rules.

 

[geauxtohell]

It is perfectly sufficient to acknowledge that science finds answers that directly contradict the bible and that it is acceptable to cling to articles of faith to believe things that are contradicted by science (i.e. the great flood).

This is a curious statement. How does science contradict the occurrence of the Noahic flood? Are we talking about a literal flood? A metaphor? If a literal flood, are we talking about a regional flood? A global flood? When did this flood allegedly occur . . . or not occur? Precisely what hermeneutical paradigm did this "scientific" process of falsification employ? It appears that you're confounding theology with science, or biblical interpretation with science.

It contradicts the biblical account of the great flood where the entire Earth was flooded intentionally by God and destroyed every living thing on Earth not on the flood.

There is evidence for a regional flood:

PBS - Scientific American Frontiers | Beneath the Sea | Noah's Flood

And it makes sense that this would be incorporated into the Bible as man basically attributed every natural act to the power of God.

This is, not-so-coincidentally, why we keep the supernatural out of science now.

 

[geauxtohell]

ID does not make any assumptions. Fail. It makes three fundamental assertions. As soon as one states what those assertions actually are, we see the evolutionist's prattle for the political rhetorical that it is. Indeed, it's the very same kind of political rhetoric that is prattled by the hacks of global warming. I've told you what these assertions are; you simply cannot grasp them or will not acknowledge them.

What are the basic scientific assertions of ID? Hint: they are not what the evolutionist claims, and they are not what the average laymen thinks they are either, including those who are inclined to embrace ID theory. Ignorant of the prevailing first principles of biological science, they have been deceived as well.

ID can make it's own assertions. That is not the point. The point is that science has it's own rules. ID can not fit within those rules.

Why not?



Why not?



It creates its own method?! What are you talking about? There's only one scientific method.

Now, if you want to contend that ID falls within the scientific method, fine. However, you have to defend that statement.

I already have on two different threads. I'm waiting for you to start making some sense and demonstrate that you grasp what you've been told. You just keep going on with these vague, empty insinuations, expecting me to understand what you're talking about.

You can start with something you refuse to answer: How is ID falsifiable?

Are you saying that the Pateurian law of biogenesis, which overthrew Aristotelian spontaneous generation and serves as the foundation of ID, is not falsifiable?

You still don't really understand what ID is all about even after being told repeatedly, do you?

You have certainly not showed how ID is falsifiable. Claiming that Pasteur's law is the foundation of I.D. is laughable.

Once again, you haven't answered much of anything. You keep dancing around the issue and you aren't fooling anyone.

By all means, show me how you can falsify the existence of whatever supernatural force you are going to evoke to cite I.D. as a legitimate theory. It has nothing to do with Louis Pasteur. Attempting to bastardize good scientific methodology or thought doesn't legitimize I.D.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It contradicts the biblical account of the great flood where the entire Earth was flooded intentionally by God and destroyed every living thing on Earth not on the flood.

No it doesn't. It merely illustrates the limitations of the ancients' understanding of things and why the young earth creationist's hermeneutics is all wrong. The latter's paradigm amounts to the pre-scientific worldview of the ancients in many respects.

While the Bible makes some scientific claims and constitutes, among other things, a record of history, it is not a scientific treatise. According to the Bible, God leaves science to us.

The ancients thought the world was flat, literally upheld by pillars embedded in a nether region of firma floating atop the Great Deep. A spherical Firmament contained the temporal realm, including the Earth, the center of the universe, and the heavenly bodies, i.e., the Moon, the Sun and the other visible planets and stars. Hell literally resided in the center of the Earth. Beyond the Firmament were the heavens of the spiritual host, the seat of God's abode. "Precipitation" was a matter of waters surging up from the Great Deep, filling the hollow between the inner and outer walls of the Firmament. Then God would open "the flood gates" above. Rain.

See illustration.

In other words, the region of the Globe that was flooded was the entirety of man's earthly reality. From his pre-scientific perspective, the whole Earth was flooded. Hence, every living thing that was not on the Ark perished. For the sake of argument, let us assume for the moment that the Bible is in fact the inspired word of God, God expects post-scientific readers to use the mind He gave them and rightly understand the ancients' perspective for what it is.

PBS - Scientific American Frontiers | Beneath the Sea | Noah's Flood

Yes. I know.

And it makes sense that this would be incorporated into the Bible as man basically attributed every natural act to the power of God.

Sure. But the biblical account does not present this event as just another natural disaster, but one that occurred in accordance with a specific purpose, one involving actual persons of history whom God called and prepared for it. One either believes that or doesn't. Fine. But we have plenty of geological and archeological evidence aside from the biblical account backing up the contention that the Flood was an actual historical event, and science can neither verify nor falsify the spiritual narrative attributed to it by the human author (probably Moses or Aaron, by the way) to whom the oral tradition was handed down.

 

[geauxtohell]

It contradicts the biblical account of the great flood where the entire Earth was flooded intentionally by God and destroyed every living thing on Earth not on the flood.

No it doesn't. It merely illustrates the limitations of the ancients' understanding of things and why the young earth creationist's hermeneutics is all wrong. The latter's paradigm amounts to the pre-scientific worldview of the ancients in many respects.

While the Bible makes some scientific claims and constitutes, among other things, a record of history, it is not a scientific treatise. According to the Bible, God leaves science to us.

The ancients thought the world was flat, literally upheld by pillars embedded in a nether region of firma floating atop the Great Deep. A spherical Firmament contained the temporal realm, including the Earth, the center of the universe, and the heavenly bodies, i.e., the Moon, the Sun and the other visible planets and stars. Hell literally resided in the center of the Earth. Beyond the Firmament were the heavens of the spiritual host, the seat of God's abode. "Precipitation" was a matter of waters surging up from the Great Deep, filling the hollow between the inner and outer walls of the Firmament. Then God would open "the flood gates" above. Rain.

See illustration.

In other words, the region of the Globe that was flooded was the entirety of man's earthly reality. From his pre-scientific perspective, the whole Earth was flooded. Hence, every living thing that was not on the Ark perished. For the sake of argument, let us assume for the moment that the Bible is in fact the inspired word of God, God expects post-scientific readers to use the mind He gave them and rightly understand the ancients' perspective for what it is.

PBS - Scientific American Frontiers | Beneath the Sea | Noah's Flood

Yes. I know.

And it makes sense that this would be incorporated into the Bible as man basically attributed every natural act to the power of God.

Sure. But the biblical account does not present this event as just another natural disaster, but one that occurred in accordance with a specific purpose, one involving actual persons of history whom God called and prepared for it. One either believes that or doesn't. Fine. But we have plenty of geological and archeological evidence aside from the biblical account backing up the contention that the Flood was an actual historical event, and science can neither verify nor falsify the spiritual narrative attributed to it by the human author (probably Moses or Aaron, by the way) to whom the oral tradition was handed down.

And I believe my original point was that Scienctific advancement has basically forced us to abandon a literal reading of the bible.

We know now the entire Earth did not flood. We also know that it would be impossible for a small group of people to construct a ship that could house and feed two of every kind of animal in the world. The diversity of life further illustrates the fallacy of that notion. For example, for the literal definition to be true, animals only found in North America would have to be on the Ark.

I suspect there was a great flood that was regional. I suspect that, for lack of a better explanation, ancient man attributed it to God and assumed the entire world was wiped out.

We no that is not true. However, it makes a good point of why science should be not be a religious venture.

 

[Gadawg73]

Dear Konradv: I think you are asking a fair question in essence.
Many people question the same things in different ways.
You frame a similar question using science patterns.

In general, ALL science, all knowledge and understanding is based on FAITH.
At any point, we could question what we know, and come up with some other
explanation or possibility that counteracts that. In truth, all truth we know
is based on FAITH.

So by that standard, we would have NO business teaching ANYTHING in schools
as if we know it as "fact" -- IF you want to push it that far.

You happen to question the 100% validity of creationism/ID.
The same questioning could be applied to evolution, as many people do.
some people question the 100% proof that smoking CAUSES the cancer
or is merely correlated with it. Etc. etc.

Anyone could question anything, and find on some level it is based on FAITH.

So welcome to the club!
Keep asking, I encourage you not to stop asking until you receive
the answers you are looking for. Everyone has a different way of asking,
so everyone has different answers in searching for the truth about the world
and how it works.

Best wishes in your search.
Yours truly,
Emily

P.S. Other ways people question the same supreme design of God's will:
A. if God's will is perfect, then how can people have free will. Then in fact, nobody has free will, just the illusion of it, and we are really following God's will if that is supreme.
B. If God's plans for justice are perfect, then how do you explain how innocent people are randomly killed by accidents or even murder; why are innocent children born with terrible diseases that cause undeserved suffering. What kind of just or loving God allows this?

P.P.S. Other ways people use science to point to a higher design beyond evolution:
A. Another friend of mine uses science to show there has to be a higher force that affects the world. He argues that if there is a Big Bang, that came from nothingness or a singularity, some force still had to act on it to make it expand from infinite nothingness to infinite universe. Something like that. What this tells me, again, given any theory or definition of laws or explanations we can give for the world, these can always be interpreted in ways that point toward belief in God as creator or can be interpreted to mean the energy in life directed itself without an intelligent mindset or consciousness governing the process.
B. One of my favorite examples was given by a Buddhist monk. Who points out that even when the frog is still forming in the egg, the cells are already designed to form an eye to see insects that the frog will eat. These insects are formed independently, as is the rest of the fauna and flora in the ecosystem. And yet all these living beings are created to live in interdependence and harmony. This is not linear in development, as the cause and effect we know, but came about in connection with other living things. So how can all these things develop as if they have knowledge of each other?

Some of my atheist friends still question:
Just because you believe in some kind of interactive intelligence or design going on,
what causes people to "make the leap" and believe in a "personal" God or creator?

I believe that is a fair question, as there is no reason to connect these two, except for convenience it seems, to align different people's views.

All I can say is that I find that when people revert back to their default beliefs (ie, BEFORE we were taught there were irreconciliable differences, before we perceived or stacked on biases or conflicts from different sources) then the natural state of mind is in harmony with others. Only when we become attached to conflicting views, then we lose the natural state of harmony we normally would have across different systems of thoughts and beliefs, including both religious or secular/scientific laws we use to define the world. So we end up having to "unlearn" all this conditioning, in order to see the universal truth of human nature in relation to the rest of the world, despite all the conflicts in how these are defined or taught, all being biased or flawed in ways.

By resolving or forgiving differences, we let go of barriers and blocks, and assumptions and biases we have that the next person does not under their system. And when we all let go of what we cannot prove 100%, then whatever is left by default, that universal truth is what matters. Things that are so true, that everyone agrees. That level of faith is the same one that tells people "there is a personal God" or "there is intelligent design" governing the events in the world, etc. -- however this universal level expresses itself in the minds of different people, it is all faith based (when you realize you don't really know, and it could all be false). It is like the program running in the background, and only by clearing everything else out that tells us contrary information, then we can tap into the default programming and find it is universal to all (though the expression of truth remains relative to each person). Any such expressions are going to be limited, even science, and could be wrong; they are all faith based on some level!!!

Science is never based on faith.
Science is based on the scientific method.

Are you kidding ? many assumptions are built on faith and later proved wrong.

You need Biology 101 at your local community college.
My faith has never been science. I follow Jesus, not science.
I do not deny science and fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What hypothesis are you talking about?

I posted them with the 101 evidences earlier in the thread.

God said he hung the earth from nothing.

God said his throne is beyond the circle of the earth.

God said we were created the things that can't be seen and said we were created from the ground.

I don't believe man had this knowledge at the time of the writing of the bible.

You need to learn the definition of what a hypothesis is (scientifically speaking).

A valid hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis. To claim that "God hung the moon" is a hypothesis would obviate the ability to show that "God did not hang the moon".

I have a strong back ground molecular biology,i believe i know what a Hypothesis is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science is never based on faith.
Science is based on the scientific method.

Are you kidding ? many assumptions are built on faith and later proved wrong.

You need Biology 101 at your local community college.
My faith has never been science. I follow Jesus, not science.
I do not deny science and fact.

My exp is well beyond biology 101 but thank you for your concern.

Many people believe there is life out there in space ,because the universe is so vast, is that assumption based on evidence ? no it's an assumption based on faith now don't try and spin towards mathematics because then you would need mathematics to prove the theory of evolution since Neo-darwinism can be refuted pretty easily.

We will get into genetics if you like.

 

[geauxtohell]

I posted them with the 101 evidences earlier in the thread.

God said he hung the earth from nothing.

God said his throne is beyond the circle of the earth.

God said we were created the things that can't be seen and said we were created from the ground.

I don't believe man had this knowledge at the time of the writing of the bible.

You need to learn the definition of what a hypothesis is (scientifically speaking).

A valid hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis. To claim that "God hung the moon" is a hypothesis would obviate the ability to show that "God did not hang the moon".

I have a strong back ground molecular biology,i believe i know what a Hypothesis is.

Then why would you make such a silly claim?