zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 21,495
- 2,163
- 140
... "God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. ...
We don't call god "Dr. god".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
... "God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. ...
... Moreover, repeating unsupported claims such as "the universe was designed for man" doesn't help your argument. In fact, it only makes you look silly, particularly when we find life somewhere other than on Earth, which is inevitable.
Heh..ok, THAT one. I see.The only one who claimed "I AM!"Which one?
Heh..ok, THAT one. I see.The only one who claimed "I AM!"Which one?
Not all scientist study in detail every aspect of evolution or uniformitarianism.I understood that the flood story was a myth long before I ever became an atheist.
At various times during human history, there have been natural disasters which nearly wiped out our species. 74,000 years ago, Mt Toba erupted and the entire planet was 'flooded' with ash. There was a 6 year nuclear winter and a 1,000 year ice age and our species was reduced to 10,000 adults worldwide, hunkered down in isolated refuges.
The details of Noah's flood story are irrelevant. Of course it's a myth. But, it's also an illustration of a very real aspect of the human journey.
The human journey does not include vengeful gods wreaking destruction upon the sins of mankind in floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions or any other disaster. The story of Noah is a symptom of what is wrong with much of religious dogma. It leads people to blame disasters on the 'alleged' bad behavior/thinking of people. It is ridiculous in its logic, and heinous in its consequences. It is immoral.
There are scientists who through study have come to the conclusion that evolution and uniformitarianism are both full of holes and actually create more questions than answers.
The problem is that secular society has been shanghaied into a stance that ANY investigation that promotes or fosters a belief in God is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Prove that the universe has to be as old as you say. Prove that everything that happens is simply a matter of chance. Prove that God does not answer prayer. Prove that Ezekiel and Jesus are not historical persons. Prove that God does not exist.That won't disprove a god but should destroy every man made religion...although I know it won't. Just look how 13.5 billion years vs. 7 days doesnt bother them. They can explain away anything and ultimately you can't disprove a god exists. Especially to someone who believes he visited.God did in fact create everything. Answering the question, "How did we get we get here?" with "It was a mere coincidence." Is not a scientific conclusion and not one even worthy of a moron.Answering the question "how did we get here" with "must be god" isnt a good answer. First how did you come to that conclusion? Secondly that answer requires more questions like who created god?You believe what you need to believe because it is convenient for your atheism. It is also likely necessary for you to get a job among those who have learned to depend on Uniformitarianism to explain everything under the sun. I still believe God spoke the Universe into existence and He doesn't need billions and billions and trillions of trillions of Cosmos years to make anything happen.
"Scientific" for you is constructing a "Mother Nature" story to circumvent the existence of the Creator. It is a total waste of time, money and energy and turns no one into a true Philosopher ----- one who can think outside the box man has fabricated entitled MATERIALISM. You cannot explain why you exist! You don't know where you are heading. And you don't even know WHY things are as they are! Without hope, joy or peace, one becomes nothing but a dull, selfish lout who fears growing old and becoming nonessential. Likely why so many are now committing suicide. It seems for many the only thing they can control. BUT what a total shock they will get once they arrive on the otherside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I came to the conclusion through studying history, witnessing human nature and Biblical investigation. I find that the Bible is the best most logical explanation for both our existence and our behavior patterns. Other texts either drift into convoluted prose or silently skirt around issue entirely. Some texts even depend entirely on the Bible for their own substantiation. Time belongs to God. God is not in subjection to time, and before creation what was there to measure? Time is the measurement of birth and decay. It was designed for mortals. The Universe was designed for man to illustrate the infinite power of God to a finite mind.
"God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. How we came about has religious implications for those who believe, but it explains nothing from a scientific perspective. Moreover, repeating unsupported claims such as "the universe was designed for man" doesn't help your argument. In fact, it only makes you look silly, particularly when we find life somewhere other than on Earth, which is inevitable.
I'd be OK with theists explanation of why god hides and can't be seen if theists didn't claim he once visited. Bullshit!
The human journey does not include vengeful gods wreaking destruction upon the sins of mankind in floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions or any other disaster. The story of Noah is a symptom of what is wrong with much of religious dogma. It leads people to blame disasters on the 'alleged' bad behavior/thinking of people. It is ridiculous in its logic, and heinous in its consequences. It is immoral.
The story of Noah in Genesis is woven together from the writings of at least 2 authors, known as J and P.
"In J, God is personal and involved: known by a personal name ("YHWH"), personally closing the ark, personally smelling Noah's sacrifice, described as "grieved to his heart." In P, God's name is not yet known ("God," in Hebrew Elohim, is not a name; it is what God is), and there are none of the anthropomorphic descriptions that are found in J."
NOVA The Bible s Buried Secrets Who Wrote the Flood Story PBS
Obviously, you object to the anthropomorphic descriptions of God, for starters. You can't get past that, and the story doesn't provoke any profound questions for you. So be it.
As P describes the situation, much more like the Babylonian myth of the flood, God is the process by which a parasite (the human race) is exterminated from the earth.
As someone who entertains the notion that the bio-sphere acts as a single self-regulating organism, the story of Noah provokes me to question our actions as a human race, especially our separation from the natural world.
... "God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. ...
We don't call god "Dr. god".
... Moreover, repeating unsupported claims such as "the universe was designed for man" doesn't help your argument. In fact, it only makes you look silly, particularly when we find life somewhere other than on Earth, which is inevitable.
What do you think what ETs could be? Gods? No! They are just simple human beings! It's completly unimportnat wether a human being has 6 legs or 4 or 2 or none. It's completly unimportant wether a human being has an IQ of 100±15 or 1000±150. It's unimportant wether a human beings grows like a plant in an ocean of silver - or lives in the womb of his mother. It's completly unimportant wether a human being is 1000 years old or only some days. Under all circumstances god allows not to kill his children.
And your belief what is "inevitable" is fascinating. Life is nearly impossible
Whether or not there is any truth in the above is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a global flood ever occurred. The simple fact of the matter is that a global flood is physically impossible.
Whether or not there is any truth in the above is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a global flood ever occurred. The simple fact of the matter is that a global flood is physically impossible.
From Luke: " And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed."
Obviously, his tax collectors weren't going to sail to South America. And when you look at the passage in the original Greek, the word οἰκουμένην is used, which is better translated as the inhabited world, or in this case the Roman world.
It's the same idea with the Noah story in Hebrew. The story is an adaptation of early Mesopotamian myths. It's highly likely that there was a devastating flood that effected the entire known Mesopotamian world. To me, that's irrelevant because I don't approach scripture as if it were a text of geology or climate science. That's not where the value lies.
"The language used in Genesis 6-9 does not insist that the flood was global.
First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel.6 Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19).7 If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood."
How should we interpret the Genesis flood account BioLogos
The only one who claimed "I AM!"Which one?
You really do discredit your argument when you link to ID'iot creationist sites such as Biologos.Whether or not there is any truth in the above is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a global flood ever occurred. The simple fact of the matter is that a global flood is physically impossible.
From Luke: " And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed."
Obviously, his tax collectors weren't going to sail to South America. And when you look at the passage in the original Greek, the word οἰκουμένην is used, which is better translated as the inhabited world, or in this case the Roman world.
It's the same idea with the Noah story in Hebrew. The story is an adaptation of early Mesopotamian myths. It's highly likely that there was a devastating flood that effected the entire known Mesopotamian world. To me, that's irrelevant because I don't approach scripture as if it were a text of geology or climate science. That's not where the value lies.
"The language used in Genesis 6-9 does not insist that the flood was global.
First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel.6 Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19).7 If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood."
How should we interpret the Genesis flood account BioLogos
So you say, but at the same time you claim that a flood affected the entire Mesopotamian world, and that simply is not true.
... "God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. ...
We don't call god "Dr. god".
Erm, what?
You really do discredit your argument when you link to ID'iot creationist sites such as Biologos.
So you say, but at the same time you claim that a flood affected the entire Mesopotamian world, and that simply is not true.
I didn't categorically make that claim. I said it's highly likely. Are the Tigris and Euphrates immune to flooding? Obviously, you aren't that stubborn. Wouldn't you admit that an ancient flood could have been so devastating and could have made such a profound impression on the Mesopotamian world that it became a central subject of stories that survive today, 4,000 years later?
... "God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. ...
We don't call god "Dr. god".
Erm, what?
We don't call god "Dr. God". With other words: Why should it be more important what someone says in the name of science about god? Could it not be more important what someone says in the name of farmers, millers or bakers about god?
You really do discredit your argument when you link to ID'iot creationist sites such as Biologos.
I think you agree with my basic argument that the Noah story in the Bible doesn't stand up to literal scrutiny, and that a flood never covered the entire planet.
Where we disagree is that I value ancient stories, and you find them to be worthless or even harmful.