Flood, literal or not?

AV1611VET · Feb 14, 2007

Beastt said:
God never demonstrated anything - ever.

Let me ask you what Zophar asked Job: Canst thou by searching find out God?

AV1611VET · Feb 14, 2007

Steezie said:
The flood is mathematically impossible.

There is not enough water on the planet.

If God can take 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fishes and feed 5000, think what He can do with the Mediterranean Sea.

FishFace · Feb 14, 2007

AV1611VET said:
If God can take 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fishes and feed 5000, think what He can do with the Mediterranean Sea.

Valid but not sound. Please support your initial premise.

JohnR7 · Feb 14, 2007

Beastt said:
Creationism is a myth

Creationism can not be a myth because Creationism is ANY science that supports the Bible. Unless you want to try to suggest that science is a myth.

Nathan Poe · Feb 14, 2007

AV1611VET said:
If God can take 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fishes and feed 5000, think what He can do with the Mediterranean Sea.

If people can write a small myth, think what they can do with a large one.

Nathan Poe · Feb 14, 2007

JohnR7 said:
Creationism can not be a myth because Creationism is ANY science that supports the Bible. Unless you want to try to suggest that science is a myth.

Except no science supports a literal interpretation of the Bible.

MrGoodBytes · Feb 14, 2007

AV1611VET said:
If God can take 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fishes and feed 5000, think what He can do with the Mediterranean Sea.

No doubt. Now all you have to do is to show us that this incident really happened, and you have an argument.

Wiccan_Child · Feb 14, 2007

JohnR7 said:
Creationism can not be a myth because Creationism is ANY science that supports the Bible. Unless you want to try to suggest that science is a myth.

By your definition, Creationism does not exist!

Hurrah!

LittleNipper · Feb 14, 2007

Nathan Poe said:
Except no science supports a literal interpretation of the Bible.

GOD does not support science either....

Wiccan_Child · Feb 14, 2007

LittleNipper said:
GOD does not support science either....

He must, if he is logical. And do you want to worship the irrational?

Beastt · Feb 14, 2007

LittleNipper said:
GOD does not support science either....

If God exists and God created the universe then God indeed not only supports science but provides the foundation of science because science is but a method for objective study of reality. If there is no reality then there is no science and there is no God. If reality exists, then science exists and if God does not support science then he is not part of reality and therefore, does not exist.

Trish1947 · Feb 14, 2007

Beastt said:
If God exists and God created the universe then God indeed not only supports science but provides the foundation of science because science is but a method for objective study of reality. If there is no reality then there is no science and there is no God. If reality exists, then science exists and if God does not support science then he is not part of reality and therefore, does not exist.

So in my book, God exists. I just don't think that He puts too much stock in the scientific aspect and thought it was necessary to present every detail and inner workings of how it was put together, when He asked us to live by faith. Lets face it, for alot of people (including myself) when the mathamatical and quotients, and all those unknowns, would be presented all written down, and with my ability to "get it"... I wouldn't understand anymore than I did before.

Beastt · Feb 14, 2007

JohnR7 said:
The Bible does not say any of that stuff. You clearly do not know the Bible. It is no wonder you do not believe the Bible, because you do not have a true knowledge or understanding of the Bible.

I promised to go through my list one by one and here are the first three items in my list, complete with the exact words from the Bible, John. If you actually read what the Bible says and stop changing it into saying what you prefer to have it say, you'll find that what I've suggested is exactly what it says. You simply can't see that because you insist that the Bible is 100% correct and if you allow yourself to actually read what it says, you find that it is filled with inaccuracies and false claims.
(Refer to Post #111)

The Earth was not formed covered with water and no planet without an atmosphere can support liquid water.

(Genesis 1:2 - Day 1) And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:6 - Day 2) And God said; Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

So here we see Genesis 1:2 proclaiming water was upon the Earth on Day-1 and Genesis 1:6 bringing the atmosphere into existence on Day-2 AFTER the Earth is already covered in water. That's backward. The atmosphere has to come first. The atmosphere is the means by which a planet captures and retains water. Remove the atmosphere and you have no way to capture the water, bound as ice, within comets nor can you prevent the water from evaporating off the surface and into space.

Plants were not growing on the Earth before the existence of the sun, (and the Earth didn't exist before the sun

(Genesis 1:11 - Day 3) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
(Genesis 1:14 - Day 4) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night: and let them be for days, and years:
(Genesis 1:15 - Day 4) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

So according to the Bible there were plants, (grasses, herbs and fruit trees), growing on the Earth BEFORE there was a sun because Genesis asserts that plants were growing on Day 3 but the sun wasn't created until Day 4. Plants require heat and light and the Earth receives both of these from the sun. Without the sun (and stars), there would be no light upon the Earth and the temperature of Earth would be about the same temperature of space - 454 degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. Try growing plants in a cryogenic freezer without light.

The moon, sun and stars do not reside "in" the Earth's atmosphere nor could they ever at any time.

)Genesis 1:14 - Day 4) (Genesis 1:14 - Day 4) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night: and let them be for days, and years:
(Genesis 1:15 - Day 4) And let them be for lights in the firmament[/u] of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

I have been to dozens of Christian sites which define the word "firmament" and the vast majority agree that it means "atmosphere". This is consistent with etchings based on Genesis and with the original Hebrew.

If you look into the sky from only an Earthbound perspective, the sun, moon and stars could certainly seem to be within the dome of the sky which in biblical days, was believed to represent an actual solid dome. Since light doesn't penetrate such solid materials, it seemed obvious to the writer of Genesis that the lights he perceived to exist in the sky were actually within the atmosphere rather than beyond it. So the Bible is showing nothing more than the perspective of men and not the perspective of God who is claimed to be the influence.

Note that all of these errors in the Bible are within the first 15-verses of Genesis. That doesn't even get us off page on of most Bibles. This is why most Christians today advise against reading what the Bible actually says. If you do, it shows itself to be nothing more than the perspective of people. To believe it holds credibility, you mustn't read what it really says. You have to provide copious edits and assert that the edits you provide are the true message the Bible is trying to convey. Man's edits are not God's words nor are words which expose an exclusively earthbound perspective, filled with inaccuracies.

You can't tell me this isn't what it says. I've included the Bible's words showing that this is exactly what it says.

Beastt · Feb 14, 2007

Trish1947 said:
So in my book, God exists. I just don't think that He puts too much stock in the scientific aspect

Science is the study and discovery of how the universe works. If God created the universe, then he devised the workings which science is exposing.

Trish1947 said:
... and thought it was necessary to present every detail and inner workings of how it was put together, when He asked us to live by faith.

The request to live in faith came from men.

Trish1947 said:
Lets face it, for alot of people (including myself) when the mathamatical and quotients, and all those unknowns, would be presented all written down, and with my ability to "get it"... I wouldn't understand anymore than I did before.

Which is likely why so many people hold a greater desire to believe a demonstrably incorrect book than to believe what can be demonstrated to them to be true. Believing the book really doesn't require much effort. Learning about the actual workings of the universe and how they differ from what the book claims takes a bit more mental energy.

thaumaturgy · Feb 14, 2007

Trish1947 said:
So in my book, God exists. I just don't think that He puts too much stock in the scientific aspect

Spoken like a person who simply doesn't care herself about science. So if YOU don't care then clearly GOD doesn't care.

Thanks for letting those of us who bothered to get science degrees and work daily as scientists know that we are wasting our lives.

Lets face it, for alot of people (including myself) when the mathamatical and quotients, and all those unknowns, would be presented all written down, and with my ability to "get it"... I wouldn't understand anymore than I did before.

I find it really sad when people are essentially proud of their ignornance. I am amazingly ignorant of many many things, but I'm not proud of it. It drives me to try to learn and explore.

Face it, if you believe in God then you have to admit God gave you a pretty cool physical world to explore. If you turn your back on it and are proud of that fact then you can't be worshiping God in any way he would find pleasing.

But if God does find that pleasing then I don't see why he would deserve worship in the first place.

Steezie · Feb 14, 2007

AV1611VET said:
If God can take 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fishes and feed 5000, think what He can do with the Mediterranean Sea.

I dont even know why Im responding to this, but I feel like torpedoing someone today.

You CANNOT cover the surface of the Earth with water. Mathematically it is impossible. There is not enough water on Earth to do it.

Moreover, if you have it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, you'd kill every living thing. The water vapor in the air would drown anything with lungs. Normally when it rains, there's water vapor in the air but not so much that it causes problems because it can dissapate to other areas where there is less water vapor in the air. If it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights all over, then the water vapor from the rain would drown anything that had lungs.

This kind of water level rise would also probably melt the polar ice-caps. This release of cold water into the world's oceans would cause a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (The exchange of cold and warm water in the oceans that helps regulate the planet's temperature). This would cause a new ice-age to encroach into North America and Europe.

You would also alter the salinity level of the oceans, killing off hundreds of species of fish and probably killing off a great number of the microscopic life-forms that are responsible for 73-87% of oxygen production on the planet ( http://www.ecology.com/dr-jacks-natural-world/most-important-organism/index.html ) Thereafter everyone would suffocate within...probably 50 years or so.

The flood is impossible. Period

FishFace · Feb 14, 2007

LittleNipper said:
GOD does not support science either....

That's his problem, not mine (or ours.)

AV1611VET · Feb 14, 2007

Steezie said:
You CANNOT cover the surface of the Earth with water. Mathematically it is impossible. There is not enough water on Earth to do it.

It is mathematically impossible to feed 5000 with five barley loaves and two small fishes?

Steezie · Feb 14, 2007

AV1611VET said:
It is mathematically impossible to feed 5000 with five barley loaves and two small fishes?

Yes

AV1611VET · Feb 14, 2007

Steezie said:
Yes

Would that then constitute a miracle?

Flood, literal or not?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Seeker for life, probably

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

Free to Believe

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Steezie

Guest

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Steezie

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency