Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not sure what your point is.

My point is that neither buddhism nor taoism are corresponding to modern scientific theories.
Of course not, they are not based on modern science yet it is interesting that nothingness is at the core of both.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,659
11,700
54
USA
✟294,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Genesis 1 is both creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and creatio ex materia (creation out of materials).

Creationism Test:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".
3. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
4. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
13. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?

With answers:


1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.

ex nihilo: from nothing (exp: nothing is a fiction, check there)
ex materia: from stuff (I made a sandwich from ingredients; my friend is making a baby from food.)

2. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".

Ego.

3. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.

Barbara

4. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

Ret con.

5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.

Space, stars, Sun, land (Earth), ocean (condensing on Earth), [life], trees, whales.

6. What day was Adam created on?

Ask his parents, but they probably won't reply, it's rather personal.

7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?

The Universe doesn't "run off of" any kind of energy. (This is horrid grammar.)

8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.

Let's see: "land water" sounds like lakes to me. Must be made of sturgeon.

9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?

There is more photosynthesis before "The Fall" than after. (a.k.a., Autumn). Cycle restarts in "The Spring".

10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.

Since an hour is defined as 3600 seconds and a second is 9 192 631 770 oscillations of the hyperfine ground state of Cs-133, then a 24-hour day has been measurable since the first Cesium formed with the death of the early stars.

11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."

Miracles are suspensions of the laws of Nature and do not happen. Magic is a stagecraft involving slight-of-hand, distraction, and deception to generate illusions.

12. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?

'Cause if ya go any further, then your making up your own version of creation.

13. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2

Poor editing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
8,871
3,553
N/A
✟145,482.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Of course not, they are not based on modern science yet it is interesting that nothingness is at the core of both.
You think that multiverse is nothingness? Or strings are nothingness? I do not understand what you mean.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You think that multiverse is nothingness? Or strings are nothingness? I do not understand what you mean.
I am not saying that they are. Much of the discussion on here has to do with the friction between religion and science, I am just pointing out the compatibility between Buddhism and science.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
8,871
3,553
N/A
✟145,482.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am not saying that they are. Much of the discussion on here has to do with the friction between religion and science, I am just pointing out the compatibility between Buddhism and science.
Where do you see the compatibility?
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
8,871
3,553
N/A
✟145,482.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Electrons are not people after death, though.

Also, these are just statements of few scientists, no direct comparison of statements of buddhism about nature and modern science. Who knows what they read and from where. Also, these quotations are quite ambiguous, not certain what is their context.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'll let the Judge of all the earth decide.
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

In short, science keeps many of my beliefs in check.

I can't believe in a flat earth, I can't believe in geocentrism, I can't believe in a static universe, and so on.

But then, the Bible keeps science in check.

Science can't speak for anything beyond its empirical observations.

It can't speak for God, for angels, for the tripartite nature of man (body, soul, spirit), miracles, and so on.
So you contradict your own standards with what you cannot believe in.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You contradicted your earlier claim that science doesn't deal in facts. And I still don't know what you think I copied.
You appear to have misunderstood a previous post. Quote and link please.

You contradict yourself quite often and it appeared that you were copying that correction.

EDIT: You may have conflated an earlier error that you made and a correction to it. Creationists quite often misuse the word "proof". Science does not do "proofs". But it does deal in facts.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You appear to have misunderstood a previous post. Quote and link please.

You contradict yourself quite often and it appeared that you were copying that correction.

EDIT: You may have conflated an earlier error that you made and a correction to it. Creationists quite often misuse the word "proof". Science does not do "proofs". But it does deal in facts.
Again you contradict yourself. Gravity, for example, isn't a fact. We only know that what we call gravity acts certain ways. Doesn't mean that the way we think it works is right.
And certainly evolution isn't fact but theory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Again you contradict yourself. Gravity, for example, isn't a fact. We only know that what we call gravity acts certain ways. Doesn't mean that the way we think it works is right.
And certainly evolution isn't fact but theory.
Gravity = observed phenomena, a fact. Theory of gravity explains how it works.

Evolution = observed phenomena, a fact. Theory of evolution explains how it works.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No it really isnt, but either way you where in error.
No, because it's not fact. But it comes down to the semantics of how you define the words.
I define evolution as the whole theory of origins, not just natural selection in an organism.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, because it's not fact. But it comes down to the semantics of how you define the words.
I define evolution as the whole theory of origins, not just natural selection in an organism.
Then your definition is in error too. Learn the basics, ignorance is not a virtue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,213
2,813
Oregon
✟723,987.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Gravity = observed phenomena, a fact. Theory of gravity explains how it works.

Evolution = observed phenomena, a fact. Theory of evolution explains how it works.
You can add electricity to the list. It's an observed phenomena, but we only have theories to explain how it works.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
8,871
3,553
N/A
✟145,482.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You can add electricity to the list. It's an observed phenomena, but we only have theories to explain how it works.
Actually, its electromagnetism :) One force.

I understand what @VirOptimus is saying - these forces are facts, because we can measure them and observe them.

Gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces.

To explain them perfectly is a totally different topics. Love is a fact, we experience it. But to explain love is much more difficult. It does not mean that love does not exist.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,709
51,428
Guam
✟4,897,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces.

To explain them perfectly is a totally different topics.
If I remember right, there's a theory that combines exectromagnetism with the weak nuclear force and calls it the "electroweak force."

Now all they have to do is combine electroweak with gravity and the strong nuclear force, and they'll have their Theory of Everything.

(But as one poster pointed out earlier, someone once said that something that explains everything explains nothing.)
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
8,871
3,553
N/A
✟145,482.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
(But as one poster pointed out earlier, someone once said that something that explains everything explains nothing.)

I think it will explain many things and it will help the humanity to move forward in technology:

 
  • Informative
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Electrons are not people after death, though.

Also, these are just statements of few scientists, no direct comparison of statements of buddhism about nature and modern science. Who knows what they read and from where. Also, these quotations are quite ambiguous, not certain what is their context.
You miss my point. For the second time, I am not making any claims on Buddhism and modern science beyond their compatibility. The link was on Modern Reception which I meant to be a window into their compatibility.
 
Upvote 0