Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?

[Hollie]

As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

All true, and well said.

Knowledge isn't understanding. Knowledge isn't wisdom.
All three require faith. Knowledge requires faith in the human mind. Understanding and wisdom require faith in something more.

I think I understand your argument but would offer a different perspective toward faith. Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to accept their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of reality.

The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. I have empirical trust that the laws of nature operate in ways that are measurable, consistent and predictable. Overwhelming, this is what we see in the reality surrounding us.

I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence -- in fact, gods only add an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). I don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind.

Late edit- BTW, I do appreciate the stimulating conversation.

 

[james bond]

There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.

Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right? Do you have a link? I may have been too late to see that one.

How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?

Why don't you answer my questions? You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy. He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.

What questions? You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers. I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.

Where is the link for your evidence that the Paluxy tracks are not human, but dinosaur? If there is irrefutable evidence of human and dinosaur tracks, then would that destroy evolution?

To me, coelacanth destroyed evolution since it was found living and does not develop legs. Same with chimps and apes not becoming bipedal. The present is the key to the past.

You showed that you are not credible. Basically, here is terrific evidence of humans and dinosaurs. This looks like a human foot with dinosaur track (dinosaur hunting human) compared to the Laetoli tracks. The Laetoli tracks are probably human tracks and not a transition.

Here is what I read about the Laetoli, "Team members led by paleontologist Mary Leakey stumbled upon animal tracks cemented in the volcanic ash in 1976, but it wasn’t until 1978 that Paul Abell joined Leakey’s team and found the 88ft (27m) long footprint trail referred to now as “The Laetoli Footprints,” which includes about 70 early human footprints.

The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk."

Leakey and her team theorized they were transitional and Australopithecus afarensis. That doesn't quite fit because Au af was likely a chimp.

What Mary Leakey, who believed in evolution, said is very revealing. Since secular/atheist scientists can never observe a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said, "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." Moreover, Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy who put together the original Au af, Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans. It goes to show the actual researchers do not buy into Darwin's common ancestor and tree of life scenarios.

 

[james bond]

you presented no research,,,only your opinion,,,

I asked for this research and he would not provide it and tried to change the subject. Moreover, he did not answer my questions.

If WinterBorn is credible, then he would have depths of sedimentary layers at Paluxy and evidence of human footprint being dinosaur and not human at his fingertips (preferably from someone other than the Kuban guy who sounds like a nutjobber).

 

[WinterBorn]

There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.

Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right? Do you have a link? I may have been too late to see that one.

How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?

Why don't you answer my questions? You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy. He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.

What questions? You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers. I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.

you presented no research,,,only your opinion,,,

I presented links to scientific research several times. You just dismissed them as opinion.

 

[WinterBorn]

you presented no research,,,only your opinion,,,

I asked for this research and he would not provide it and tried to change the subject. Moreover, he did not answer my questions.

If WinterBorn is credible, then he would have depths of sedimentary layers at Paluxy and evidence of human footprint being dinosaur and not human at his fingertips (preferably from someone other than the Kuban guy who sounds like a nutjobber).

First you said something about them removing layers of sedimentary rock, which you claim debunked my claim about the Paluxy tracks going against the global flood theory. But you never said what the depth of the sedimentary rock is at Paluxy. It is hundreds of feet deep, below the tracks. Which if laid down by the flood, would mean dinos survived the flood.

You dismiss Glen Kuban for vague reasons. I have presented a good deal of scientific research. The fact that you dismiss it does not change that. And one thing I have not done is attack either you or progressivehunter.

 

[james bond]

I presented links to scientific research several times. You just dismissed them as opinion

So you admit that your scientific research fit those of creation?

"When evolutionary philosophers criticized this historic discovery and claimed that someone must have made the human tracks with a hammer and chisel, a bull-dozer was brought to the site to uncover more of the bed-rock.

The heavy equipment carefully uncovered more of the Cretaceous bedrock and even more human tracks were discovered with dinosaur tracks! Humans and dinosaurs apparently roamed the earth together!"

Dinosaur Tracks

 

[progressive hunter]

you presented no research,,,only your opinion,,,

I asked for this research and he would not provide it and tried to change the subject. Moreover, he did not answer my questions.

If WinterBorn is credible, then he would have depths of sedimentary layers at Paluxy and evidence of human footprint being dinosaur and not human at his fingertips (preferably from someone other than the Kuban guy who sounds like a nutjobber).

First you said something about them removing layers of sedimentary rock, which you claim debunked my claim about the Paluxy tracks going against the global flood theory. But you never said what the depth of the sedimentary rock is at Paluxy. It is hundreds of feet deep, below the tracks. Which if laid down by the flood, would mean dinos survived the flood.

You dismiss Glen Kuban for vague reasons. I have presented a good deal of scientific research. The fact that you dismiss it does not change that. And one thing I have not done is attack either you or progressivehunter.

who said the layers under it were laid by the flood???

the earth existed before the flood,,,

 

[Hollie]

There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.

Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right? Do you have a link? I may have been too late to see that one.

How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?

Why don't you answer my questions? You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy. He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.

What questions? You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers. I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.

Where is the link for your evidence that the Paluxy tracks are not human, but dinosaur? If there is irrefutable evidence of human and dinosaur tracks, then would that destroy evolution?

To me, coelacanth destroyed evolution since it was found living and does not develop legs. Same with chimps and apes not becoming bipedal. The present is the key to the past.

You showed that you are not credible. Basically, here is terrific evidence of humans and dinosaurs. This looks like a human foot with dinosaur track (dinosaur hunting human) compared to the Laetoli tracks. The Laetoli tracks are probably human tracks and not a transition.

Here is what I read about the Laetoli, "Team members led by paleontologist Mary Leakey stumbled upon animal tracks cemented in the volcanic ash in 1976, but it wasn’t until 1978 that Paul Abell joined Leakey’s team and found the 88ft (27m) long footprint trail referred to now as “The Laetoli Footprints,” which includes about 70 early human footprints.

The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk."

Leakey and her team theorized they were transitional and Australopithecus afarensis. That doesn't quite fit because Au af was likely a chimp.

What Mary Leakey, who believed in evolution, said is very revealing. Since secular/atheist scientists can never observe a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said, "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." Moreover, Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy who put together the original Au af, Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans. It goes to show the actual researchers do not buy into Darwin's common ancestor and tree of life scenarios.

Please provide The Exact Citation of the Leaky "quote".

You did nothing more than cut and paste the "quote" from the charlatan Henry Morris at the ICR.

Convince readers you're not a fraud and provide The Exact Citation.

 

[james bond]

First you said something about them removing layers of sedimentary rock, which you claim debunked my claim about the Paluxy tracks going against the global flood theory. But you never said what the depth of the sedimentary rock is at Paluxy. It is hundreds of feet deep, below the tracks. Which if laid down by the flood, would mean dinos survived the flood.

You dismiss Glen Kuban for vague reasons. I have presented a good deal of scientific research. The fact that you dismiss it does not change that. And one thing I have not done is attack either you or progressivehunter.

Please, answer my question. What sedimentary layer that is "hundreds of feet deep" do you think we are talking about?

Dinosaurs on board Noah's Ark survived the flood. One just has to have small ones and representation of base species.

"Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.

The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!

But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe."

Did Dinosaurs Survive the Flood?

The sedimentary layers at Paluxy are not hundreds of feet deep. I debunked it showing a photo of the depth of the Cretaceous layers as not being very deep at all. The middle layer has the human and dinosaur tracks.

 

[Hollie]

There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.

Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right? Do you have a link? I may have been too late to see that one.

How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?

Why don't you answer my questions? You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy. He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.

What questions? You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers. I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.

Where is the link for your evidence that the Paluxy tracks are not human, but dinosaur? If there is irrefutable evidence of human and dinosaur tracks, then would that destroy evolution?

To me, coelacanth destroyed evolution since it was found living and does not develop legs. Same with chimps and apes not becoming bipedal. The present is the key to the past.

You showed that you are not credible. Basically, here is terrific evidence of humans and dinosaurs. This looks like a human foot with dinosaur track (dinosaur hunting human) compared to the Laetoli tracks. The Laetoli tracks are probably human tracks and not a transition.

Here is what I read about the Laetoli, "Team members led by paleontologist Mary Leakey stumbled upon animal tracks cemented in the volcanic ash in 1976, but it wasn’t until 1978 that Paul Abell joined Leakey’s team and found the 88ft (27m) long footprint trail referred to now as “The Laetoli Footprints,” which includes about 70 early human footprints.

The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk."

Leakey and her team theorized they were transitional and Australopithecus afarensis. That doesn't quite fit because Au af was likely a chimp.

What Mary Leakey, who believed in evolution, said is very revealing. Since secular/atheist scientists can never observe a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said, "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." Moreover, Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy who put together the original Au af, Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans. It goes to show the actual researchers do not buy into Darwin's common ancestor and tree of life scenarios.

Yet another fraud with your attribution to Frank Lovejoy.

"People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us," Lovejoy said. "

Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University


One of the truly disturbing attributes of religious extremists is their willing to commit fraud and dishonesty to press their agenda.

 

[Hollie]

First you said something about them removing layers of sedimentary rock, which you claim debunked my claim about the Paluxy tracks going against the global flood theory. But you never said what the depth of the sedimentary rock is at Paluxy. It is hundreds of feet deep, below the tracks. Which if laid down by the flood, would mean dinos survived the flood.

You dismiss Glen Kuban for vague reasons. I have presented a good deal of scientific research. The fact that you dismiss it does not change that. And one thing I have not done is attack either you or progressivehunter.

Please, answer my question. What sedimentary layer that is "hundreds of feet deep" do you think we are talking about?

Dinosaurs on board Noah's Ark survived the flood. One just has to have small ones and representation of base species.

"Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.

The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!

But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe."

Did Dinosaurs Survive the Flood?

The sedimentary layers at Paluxy are not hundreds of feet deep. I debunked it showing a photo of the depth of the Cretaceous layers as not being very deep at all. The middle layer has the human and dinosaur tracks.

"God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod"

None of the gods ever offered direct commentary in any of the bibles.

 

[WinterBorn]

I presented links to scientific research several times. You just dismissed them as opinion

So you admit that your scientific research fit those of creation?

"When evolutionary philosophers criticized this historic discovery and claimed that someone must have made the human tracks with a hammer and chisel, a bull-dozer was brought to the site to uncover more of the bed-rock.

The heavy equipment carefully uncovered more of the Cretaceous bedrock and even more human tracks were discovered with dinosaur tracks! Humans and dinosaurs apparently roamed the earth together!"

Dinosaur Tracks

Again, how much deeper does the layer of sedimentary rock go?

Do I admit my scientific research fits creationism? I can't think of any. Care to be more specific?

 

[Capri]

As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

All true, and well said.

Knowledge isn't understanding. Knowledge isn't wisdom.
All three require faith. Knowledge requires faith in the human mind. Understanding and wisdom require faith in something more.

I think I understand your argument but would offer a different perspective toward faith. Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to accept their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of reality.

The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. I have empirical trust that the laws of nature operate in ways that are measurable, consistent and predictable. Overwhelming, this is what we see in the reality surrounding us.

I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence -- in fact, gods only add an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). I don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind.

Late edit- BTW, I do appreciate the stimulating conversation.

I appreciate the stimulating conversation, too, and am glad that you do.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and for doing so clearly and well. I'd like to comment on your third paragraph.

You say it doesn't help to add the supernatural. I'd ask, "Help with what?" Help humankind in our quest for knowledge? I suppose not, and it's inarguable that at times it's hindered our quest for knowledge. Humankind seeks -- and needs -- more than knowledge, though. One thing we need is a moral code; I believe that Bible-based morality is humankind's best hope for guiding us to our best nature and highest potential.

But we're talking about the intellectual, not the moral. I mentioned wisdom.Gaining knowledge begins with one accepting that they don't know something. No Deity required. Gaining wisdom begins with humility. Humility requires accepting that one has limitations. On the scale of humankind, ultimate limitations. The empirical can tell us the what and the how; it can never tell us the why. Grasping the why requires wisdom and will perforce lead to the acceptance of (if not necessarily the worship of) a mind greater than the mind of man.

Of course, none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived. I believe that the simple fact that people seek God (in whatever manner or form) demonstrates the reality of God. If there wasn't something higher in us, why would we ever seek anything higher? If, indeed, "it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence" then why have we added it, for ages, everywhere? Because the why matters to us. Without a God, there is no answer to why. Without a God -- a real and imminent Higher Power -- there's no asking the question why.

I hope that all makes sense.

One of the truly disturbing attributes of religious extremists is their willing to commit fraud and dishonesty to press their agenda.

Agreed. The same thing can be said of anti-theist extremists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The same thing can be said of anti-theist extremists

 

[Hollie]

As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

All true, and well said.

Knowledge isn't understanding. Knowledge isn't wisdom.
All three require faith. Knowledge requires faith in the human mind. Understanding and wisdom require faith in something more.

I think I understand your argument but would offer a different perspective toward faith. Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to accept their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of reality.

The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. I have empirical trust that the laws of nature operate in ways that are measurable, consistent and predictable. Overwhelming, this is what we see in the reality surrounding us.

I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence -- in fact, gods only add an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). I don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind.

Late edit- BTW, I do appreciate the stimulating conversation.

I appreciate the stimulating conversation, too, and am glad that you do.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and for doing so clearly and well. I'd like to comment on your third paragraph.

You say it doesn't help to add the supernatural. I'd ask, "Help with what?" Help humankind in our quest for knowledge? I suppose not, and it's inarguable that at times it's hindered our quest for knowledge. Humankind seeks -- and needs -- more than knowledge, though. One thing we need is a moral code; I believe that Bible-based morality is humankind's best hope for guiding us to our best nature and highest potential.

But we're talking about the intellectual, not the moral. I mentioned wisdom.Gaining knowledge begins with one accepting that they don't know something. No Deity required. Gaining wisdom begins with humility. Humility requires accepting that one has limitations. On the scale of humankind, ultimate limitations. The empirical can tell us the what and the how; it can never tell us the why. Grasping the why requires wisdom and will perforce lead to the acceptance of (if not necessarily the worship of) a mind greater than the mind of man.

Of course, none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived. I believe that the simple fact that people seek God (in whatever manner or form) demonstrates the reality of God. If there wasn't something higher in us, why would we ever seek anything higher? If, indeed, "it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence" then why have we added it, for ages, everywhere? Because the why matters to us. Without a God, there is no answer to why. Without a God -- a real and imminent Higher Power -- there's no asking the question why.

I hope that all makes sense.

One of the truly disturbing attributes of religious extremists is their willing to commit fraud and dishonesty to press their agenda.

Agreed. The same thing can be said of anti-theist extremists.

I wanted to address your commewnt about morality and guidance for humankind. I would offer that religion absolutely served a purpose in the development of humankind but I think we are in a transition away from the religious beliefs thanks to the ever exploding, impossible-to-refute success of science and technology. There sometimes is the idea that science and reason are "sterile" but I think that's incorrect. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease?

As to ethics and morality, man's ethics and morality beats out god's by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:

Numbers 31:17-18

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


I'm not clear on what you mean by 'none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived'.

My perspective of the Biblical god is one that I take issue with. The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the Christian based idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian / Islamic- defined salvation program. I ask myself:

"Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"

I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus everyone being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment.

 

[james bond]

I presented links to scientific research several times. You just dismissed them as opinion

So you admit that your scientific research fit those of creation?

"When evolutionary philosophers criticized this historic discovery and claimed that someone must have made the human tracks with a hammer and chisel, a bull-dozer was brought to the site to uncover more of the bed-rock.

The heavy equipment carefully uncovered more of the Cretaceous bedrock and even more human tracks were discovered with dinosaur tracks! Humans and dinosaurs apparently roamed the earth together!"

Dinosaur Tracks

Again, how much deeper does the layer of sedimentary rock go?

Do I admit my scientific research fits creationism? I can't think of any. Care to be more specific?

You were trying to fit your argument to to the creation history and failed miserably as you do not understand Noah's Flood and pre-flood humans, creatures, and geology and post-flood humans, creatures, and geology. The historical and scientific evidence are the facts. We are trying to show which worldview fits it better and the creation science does a beautiful job.

It makes me wonder if you understand your own time chronology based on sedimentary layers. What I have shown is humans and dinosaurs made tracks in the Cretaceous layers at Paluxy and the evidence shows that. The human footprints look more like modern human prints than the much more recent Laetoli foot prints which you admitted are like modern human foot prints. That's what creation scientists think, too. They do not think it was made by Au af which was a chimp. Their gaits are different and one is a knuckle walker. It shows modern humans and Au af lived around the same time.

I've asked for your your evidence to counter it and have failed to do so once more, so will assume you do not know.. It's past the time I move on.

 

[Hollie]

I presented links to scientific research several times. You just dismissed them as opinion

So you admit that your scientific research fit those of creation?

"When evolutionary philosophers criticized this historic discovery and claimed that someone must have made the human tracks with a hammer and chisel, a bull-dozer was brought to the site to uncover more of the bed-rock.

The heavy equipment carefully uncovered more of the Cretaceous bedrock and even more human tracks were discovered with dinosaur tracks! Humans and dinosaurs apparently roamed the earth together!"

Dinosaur Tracks

Again, how much deeper does the layer of sedimentary rock go?

Do I admit my scientific research fits creationism? I can't think of any. Care to be more specific?

You were trying to fit your argument to to the creation history and failed miserably as you do not understand Noah's Flood and pre-flood humans, creatures, and geology and post-flood humans, creatures, and geology. The historical and scientific evidence are the facts. We are trying to show which worldview fits it better and the creation science does a beautiful job.

It makes me wonder if you understand your own time chronology based on sedimentary layers. What I have shown is humans and dinosaurs made tracks in the Cretaceous layers at Paluxy and the evidence shows that. The human footprints look more like modern human prints than the much more recent Laetoli foot prints which you admitted are like modern human foot prints. That's what creation scientists think, too. They do not think it was made by Au af which was a chimp. Their gaits are different and one is a knuckle walker. It shows modern humans and Au af lived around the same time.

I've asked for your your evidence to counter it and have failed to do so once more, so will assume you do not know.. It's past the time I move on.

Thank you. Please move on. I’m convinced you have no no idea of the damage to humanity meted out by the Christian Taliban.

 

[Capri]

As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

All true, and well said.

Knowledge isn't understanding. Knowledge isn't wisdom.
All three require faith. Knowledge requires faith in the human mind. Understanding and wisdom require faith in something more.

I think I understand your argument but would offer a different perspective toward faith. Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to accept their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of reality.

The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. I have empirical trust that the laws of nature operate in ways that are measurable, consistent and predictable. Overwhelming, this is what we see in the reality surrounding us.

I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence -- in fact, gods only add an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). I don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind.

Late edit- BTW, I do appreciate the stimulating conversation.

I appreciate the stimulating conversation, too, and am glad that you do.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and for doing so clearly and well. I'd like to comment on your third paragraph.

You say it doesn't help to add the supernatural. I'd ask, "Help with what?" Help humankind in our quest for knowledge? I suppose not, and it's inarguable that at times it's hindered our quest for knowledge. Humankind seeks -- and needs -- more than knowledge, though. One thing we need is a moral code; I believe that Bible-based morality is humankind's best hope for guiding us to our best nature and highest potential.

But we're talking about the intellectual, not the moral. I mentioned wisdom.Gaining knowledge begins with one accepting that they don't know something. No Deity required. Gaining wisdom begins with humility. Humility requires accepting that one has limitations. On the scale of humankind, ultimate limitations. The empirical can tell us the what and the how; it can never tell us the why. Grasping the why requires wisdom and will perforce lead to the acceptance of (if not necessarily the worship of) a mind greater than the mind of man.

Of course, none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived. I believe that the simple fact that people seek God (in whatever manner or form) demonstrates the reality of God. If there wasn't something higher in us, why would we ever seek anything higher? If, indeed, "it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence" then why have we added it, for ages, everywhere? Because the why matters to us. Without a God, there is no answer to why. Without a God -- a real and imminent Higher Power -- there's no asking the question why.

I hope that all makes sense.

One of the truly disturbing attributes of religious extremists is their willing to commit fraud and dishonesty to press their agenda.

Agreed. The same thing can be said of anti-theist extremists.

I wanted to address your commewnt about morality and guidance for humankind. I would offer that religion absolutely served a purpose in the development of humankind but I think we are in a transition away from the religious beliefs thanks to the ever exploding, impossible-to-refute success of science and technology. There sometimes is the idea that science and reason are "sterile" but I think that's incorrect. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease?

As to ethics and morality, man's ethics and morality beats out god's by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:

Numbers 31:17-18

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


I'm not clear on what you mean by 'none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived'.

My perspective of the Biblical god is one that I take issue with. The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the Christian based idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian / Islamic- defined salvation program. I ask myself:

"Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"

I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus everyone being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment.

You seem like a very thoughful person who's given this matter serious consideration. Thank you again for the well considered reply and the stimulating conversation.

What I meant by 'none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived' is that the moral code and the humility I spoke of require belief in a higher power but don't require the actual existence of a higher power.

I agree with your first paragraph but don't feel that the transition away from religious beliefs is a positive development. The success of science has definitely led the West away from religiosity, as you noted. It needn't have and shouldn't have been so. Biblical religion was never meant to explain the universe; it was meant to guide us on how to live in it. Science can teach us how things operate but not how we should operate. The technology science gives us help us live better in the material sense but does nothing to help us live better in the moral sense. I'd argue that it's done just the opposite, making us more self-centered, materialistic, and hedonistic.

Intending no disrespect: What you said about God's ethics and morality relative to man's is inaccurate...

The idea that God approves of slavery is a commonly held misconception. In the world of the Middle East 3500 years ago, any god that demanded a complete cessation of all forms of involuntary servitude would have been rejected completely, just as one that demanded an end to all animal sacrifice. Then, slavery was universal, and slaves were treated as nothing more than property that could be treated however an owner wished -- killed, raped, tortured, anything -- and having no rights at all. Into this world, God ended the ownership of people as property, permitting only indentured servitude. (The word translated as "slave" doesn't have the same meaning as the English word; it connotes only service to another, not ownership by another.) Indenture was limited to a maximum of 7 years. "Slaves" had rights; they could not be separated from their spouses or children, could not be raped or sexually abused in any way, had to have their needs provided for, could not be maimed, and so on. It was an enormous leap in humanity and compassion.

Meanwhile, humanity most certainly does not find slavery at all repulsive, as you said. Slavery, in the sense of the English word and in it's most repulsive form, is alive and flourishing in much of the world. Even in the West where involuntary servitude is illegal, many employed workers are treated with far less compassion than what the Bible commands regarding "slaves." Just one instance of what I mean: Not too long ago, when company presidents or CEOs went to church every week and had some fear of God in their hearts, most felt some obligation toward their employees, even to those at the lowest level. They were provided with living wages, medical insurance, pensions for their old age, and as much security with the company as possible. Now, when we've transitioned away from belief in the morality and ideas of justice and compassion the Bible demands, none of that is so and employees' livelihoods are taken away by layoffs with no regard for their well-being. The treatment of "slaves" God demanded beats out modern man's ethics and morality by light years, if I may turn your own phrase.

Regarding your other example, with God condoning or even commanding war, wanton murder and genocide, and rape, you're off-base. What you cited was a specific command to the Israelites regarding the tribe of Amalek. First, a command to wipe out a single tribe among the Canaanite people is in no way genocide. Moreover, that tribe manifested all the worst in humanity. It attacked the Israelites, thus warring against them was defensive. It targeted the children, the elderly, and the infirm in it's initial attack. It's practices were the most base of pagan religions, including child sacrifice to their gods. War is always awful; sometimes, it's justified and necessary. The slaughter commanded is horrific to our sensibilities but a quick death by the sword was far more compassionate that what the defeated typically suffered at the hands of the victor in that time and place.

As far as the rape you say God approved, reading further in the Bible tells us that was precisely not the case. Everywhere then, most places now, and in the West right through World War II, rape of the defeated's women was considered among the standard spoils of war. In this Biblical lesson, the women could be taken back to Israelite territory but not touched until after a period of time, during which they were permitted to mourn and had to be made undesirable physically (shaved head and such). Only after this were the men given the option of lying with them, upon which they had to be given the status of either wives or concubines with all the rights and privileges that came with it. Again, an enormous leap forward in compassion and morality and a lesson for all time to temper our zeal in wiping out evil -- as God commands of all His followers -- with compassion.

Your example was of one war with specific, exceptional circumstances. Let's look at the war of conquest waged by the Israelites when they took the land of Canaan. In that time and place, conquerors wiped out and exiled inhabitants of defeated territory with impunity. Joshua and the Israelites were commanded to offer all the tribes of Canaan the choice either to live in peace among them while obeying Israelite laws or to migrate. Only if they chose to fight could Israel war against them. When war was made, the environment was to be protected and all survivors of the defeated were to be integrated with the community of Israel. If only warfare in our modern world, where so many feel we've moved past the need for religion, were that compassionate.

And all this from only the Old Testament, without the added demand for universal compassion and love that permeates the New Testament.

If one believes in a living God imminent in this world, that God guides humanity forward. The Biblical religion of the ancient Hebrews was a major step in the evolution of human morality. Christianity another. The process continues forward, building on that foundation. There's a reason the Old Testament came when and where it did; it was then and there that humanity was ready to make that leap. Ditto the New Testament. Humanity proceeds from there.

As to the rest of your reply:

I don't know why you label God an "angry god" when throughout the Bible God's anger is only ever a response to man's immoral actions, always is accompanied by God's regret, and always followed by God's forgiveness and mercy.

While it's true that some streams of Christianity maintain that one must belong to the Church or suffer eternal torment, that's not fundamental to Christianity and not a universally held position by any means. For most, it's faith and behavior that determine the fate of one's eternal soul. Being an imperfect human being doesn't condemn the soul to eternal torment -- not in my Christian belief. Your stated concept of what follows death for everyone seems to me the cruel alternative. You said yourself that it's depressing, hopeless, and bleak. Only those who wallow in or celebrate their imperfection are condemned, and then only if until their last, dying breath they don't repent of it. Those who strive to overcome the worst in themselves -- no matter their religion but within the framework of Biblical morality -- are saved.

That the powerful people in the early Church attempted to manipulate the illiterate masses is an instance of the powerful behaving then as the powerful do now. Neither is exemplary of Biblical morality.

You say that if the God of the Bible exists there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego. I say exactly the opposite: If the God of the Bible does not exist, there's no sense in morality. If the God of the Bible exists, to try and live morally is the goal set for us by our Creator, what constitutes morality has been told to us by Him, and the effort is rewarded. If the God of the Bible does not exist, there is no justice, because the evil and the good share the same fate and what is just in this world is determined by only the people with the power. If the God of the Bible exists, there is ultimate justice for the good and the evil despite what we from our human perspective may see contrary. If the God of the Bible does not exist, we are basically nothing but slaves to our base, animal desires and our own egos rather than human beings with the breath of the Divine inside us, guided and loved and cherished by our Creator and striving to be the best we can be for Him and for humanity.

You say you're basically a good person. I've no doubt you are. Can you be a better person? If you would say no, I'd ask what ego are you worshiping? If you say yes, why would you bother trying to be better? We don't need "a Savior for being human." We need a Savior to help us become the best humans we can be.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We need a Savior to help us become the best humans we can be.

Clearly we don't, as our moral and ethical improvement over the millenia has come from secular ideas and has come in spite of religion. We need less religion and more intellectualism.

 

[Capri]

We need a Savior to help us become the best humans we can be.

Clearly we don't, as our moral and ethical improvement over the millenia has come from secular ideas and has come in spite of religion. We need less religion and more intellectualism.

I don't believe that religion and intellectualism are mutually exclusive. We could use more of both.

It's my belief that the moral and ethical improvement of humankind over the millennia has been a direct result of Biblical religion. Perhaps you could offer an example or two to illustrate your perspective; that might help frame the conversation, if you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks.