The Bible and Nature

[Astrid]

There are plenty of Christian Scientist who say the same thing and the bible contradicts itself many times., the people who wrote belived the earth was flat, the center of the univerese, bad weather, sickness, all were casued by evil spirits. The flood story, if you follow the bible exactly you can find it when it hapened, roughly 4300 years ago. Here is the problem Genises says the waters were 20 feet the tallest mountain, even then it was everest. A flood covering the entire the planets 5 miles over the surface. That flood would have ripped the earth apart any man made building, any grave yards, everything would be obliterated. The Prymids which are about 5000 years old and show know water damage, the oldest man made settlements can be traced back 100k years. The flood would have destroyed all of it. I am not saying that the bible does not have truth and wisdom in it. But it was written by people who had know knowlege of Medical Science, Biology, Archeology, or Geology to name a few. There predjidices and superstitions were in those writing. Oh and the new testament you read was put together about 300 bc, It was edited and books were removed and its been transaleted hundreds of times, depending on the language a word or phrase can mean multiple things. The Catholic church designed Christianity to control the peasents. When a man name Corpernicus declared that the earth was not the center of the universe the Catholic Chruch went after him with a vengence. Anything that threatened there power they tried to destroy. So your biblical literalist, are rounding up all the wicans to kill, do not forget those who work on the sabath. Oh and if disease are caused by evil spirits why does medicine cure it.

How did they find the highest mountain underwater?

 

[Astrid]

No, I don't think that's impossible. There are passages that are straight forward, and some that require further examination. Most of the claims about the OT you cling to are from sources that read it as if things like understanding of the Hebrew language, and historical context are not needed.

I agree that the text is very clear about a global flood.


First off, for the record, scientists don't claim there was no flood. They agree there have been floods all over the world. What's in dispute is whether or not there was a flood that covered the entire planet.

Given that scientific theories have changed at times, do you think it's entirely impossible of there being a global flood?

Keep in mind, if you think the evidence against a global flood has been solidified, then as of 2024, we should never see any more references against it. I think what you're missing is that you wouldn't be seeing claims of counter evidence at all if there wasn't any evidence of a global flood.

First off thats just silly.

Thepties are not so transient as floodies
like to think.

And yes, it is impossible for the fllood story to be true.

Your last point - occssionally some
additional finding will go to the pop sci / tabloid press.

Usually pro- flood, like they found noahs ark again.

No scienftific attn is paid to such a moldy non issue

 

[Roderick Spode]

There are plenty of Christian Scientist who say the same thing and the bible contradicts itself many times., the people who wrote belived the earth was flat, the center of the univerese, bad weather, sickness, all were casued by evil spirits.

The beginning of Genesis is a revelation of creation. The revelation doesn't suggest a flat earth, or even a dome covering the earth. What people at that time thought about the earth and the firmament is another issue. The bible doesn't teach a flat earth, or a solid dome above the earth.

The flood story, if you follow the bible exactly you can find it when it hapened, roughly 4300 years ago. Here is the problem Genises says the waters were 20 feet the tallest mountain, even then it was everest. A flood covering the entire the planets 5 miles over the surface. That flood would have ripped the earth apart any man made building, any grave yards, everything would be obliterated. The Prymids which are about 5000 years old and show know water damage, the oldest man made settlements can be traced back 100k years.

Are you saying there are/were buildings dating back to 100,000 years?

The flood would have destroyed all of it. I am not saying that the bible does not have truth and wisdom in it. But it was written by people who had know knowlege of Medical Science, Biology, Archeology, or Geology to name a few.

It's silly to say they had no knowledge. As time progressed, we've increased in knowledge. You've stated you believe in God, or a god. Do you think it possible God gives humans increased knowledge over time?

There predjidices and superstitions were in those writing.

What prejudices and superstitions are you talking about?

Oh and the new testament you read was put together about 300 bc,

???

It was edited and books were removed and its been transaleted hundreds of times, depending on the language a word or phrase can mean multiple things.

Can you give me some examples?

The Catholic church designed Christianity to control the peasents. When a man name Corpernicus declared that the earth was not the center of the universe the Catholic Chruch went after him with a vengence. Anything that threatened there power they tried to destroy. So your biblical literalist, are rounding up all the wicans to kill, do not forget those who work on the sabath. Oh and if disease are caused by evil spirits why does medicine cure it.

What diseases are caused by evil spirits?

 

[Roderick Spode]

First off thats just silly.

You've lost me. What is?

Thepties are not so transient as floodies
like to think.

That's not the issue.

And yes, it is impossible for the fllood story to be true.

Show me a reliable source claiming it's impossible.

Your last point - occssionally some
additional finding will go to the pop sci / tabloid press.

Usually pro- flood, like they found noahs ark again.

No scienftific attn is paid to such a moldy non issue

Then how do you know it's impossible?

 

[Astrid]

You've lost me. What is?

That's not the issue.

Show me a reliable source claiming it's impossible.

Then how do you know it's impossible?

You responded to my " no flood" with such
as a creek overflowing. You didnt know thats
silly? You thought it was an " issue"?

"Not the issue"? Other than to imply that
theories always change, cant be trusted?

You tell me youd brting up that silliness.

The deep age of polar ice disproves "flood".

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me a reliable source claiming it's impossible.

Anything is impossible on paper.

Just claim it until you believe it.

Or just close your eyes and say, "It's impossible. It's impossible. It's impossible" over and over.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How did they find the highest mountain underwater?

It sticks up above the water and erupts occasionally, not right now, but just over a year ago it did.

Mauna Loa | U.S. Geological Survey

 

[Roderick Spode]

You responded to my " no flood" with such
as a creek overflowing. You didnt know thats
silly? You thought it was an " issue"?

No, I wasn't responding with such as a creek overflowing.

"Not the issue"? Other than to imply that
theories always change, cant be trusted?

I didn't say any given theory eventually changes, or couldn't be trusted.

You tell me youd brting up that silliness.

The deep age of polar ice disproves "flood".

So I take it that you're the reliable source?

 

[Roderick Spode]

Anything is impossible on paper.

Just claim it until you believe it.

Or just close your eyes and say, "It's impossible. It's impossible. It's impossible" over and over.

And I keep forgetting the golden rule:

"Anything is impossible!"

 

[Roderick Spode]

There may well be a God.
But not as described in parts of the bible

What parts parts eliminate?

 

[Roderick Spode]

My belief in God is based more on a life force that permeates the entire universe. The life force as I experience it is not a designer of anything, but is an infinitely free expression of creativity.

The foundation of most religions is their creation story. The creation story of an ancient middle-eastern nomadic tribe is carried forward in the Old Testament through the Jewish tradition. A new creation story based more on what the Universe itSelf is showing us is replacing the old outdated model.

Do you feel that we (and everything) are collectively part of God?

 

[Astrid]

No, I wasn't responding with such as a creek overflowing.

I didn't say any given theory eventually changes, or couldn't be trusted.

So I take it that you're the reliable source?

So I take it you've neither the intent nor capacity
to discuss in honest good faith.

 

[Roderick Spode]

So I take it you've neither the intent nor capacity
to discuss in honest good faith.

I don't think you have any intention in discussing this in honest good faith. When you use terms like nor capacity, incoherent, etc., it's pretty clear your intention is to make the other party appear ignorant.

A global flood covering the entire planet is not really the skeptic's problem. It's the source. If there was some sort of external evidence for this type of flood as opposed to a biblical reference, but still faced with the same given problems, theories on where the water may have came from, and where it went wouldn't really be an issue. If a creation scientist presents theories, no matter how plausible, the argument will descend into credentials. So it's not too difficult to determine where the discussion will lead to.

And this seems to be your primary focus. You've made quite a few wild claims about the bible, but never respond when
pressed. The conversation with you always reverts back to the flood. If scientists found never before seen evidence of a global flood, would you become a Christian?

 

[Astrid]

I don't think you have any intention in discussing this in honest good faith. When you use terms like nor capacity, incoherent, etc., it's pretty clear your intention is to make the other party appear ignorant.

A global flood covering the entire planet is not really the skeptic's problem. It's the source. If there was some sort of external evidence for this type of flood as opposed to a biblical reference, but still faced with the same given problems, theories on where the water may have came from, and where it went wouldn't really be an issue. If a creation scientist presents theories, no matter how plausible, the argument will descend into credentials. So it's not too difficult to determine where the discussion will lead to.

And this seems to be your primary focus. You've made quite a few wild claims about the bible, but never respond when
pressed. The conversation with you always reverts back to the flood. If scientists found never before seen evidence of a global flood, would you become a Christian?

You did respond in bad faith. To your credit, you
dont deny it.

So what do you do.
First, you attack me, and accuse me of your own
Ill behaviour.

Then you make up base and ignoble motives for things i
dont do.

Then you go on to invent intellectual dishonesty
...." no matter how plausible..descend...credentials."
for, in effect, me and the wotld scientific community.

Then you make up more for another line of attack.

" primary focus...wild claims...never"

False. Just thrashing about like a foul hooked alligator
trying to bite something.



Finally i am curious why one who believes he has buble, god, the angels, Truth and all reality finds that
he need debase his argument with such?


Now to a bit on topic. The rule after all is to debate topic .


You ask, " if new evidence..."


Depends. Like what? Fossil seashells in Kansas?
That wont work on any serious student on earth.

Discovery of Noahs ark? That happens every few yeqrs.
If someone REALLY found it that would mean the ark story is true.
That though is an ' if" the size of " if the moon is made of blue cheese ".

what evidnce do you have in mind?

Now to actual topic.


Here on earth, real world, in settling on whether
a theory has merit in law and science the final word is in
disproof.

The prosecution may have great quantities of excellent
evidence against you.

But proof that you were dining with Biden at the very hour
that the desperate crime spree took place at Pizmo Beach
disproves prosecution thepry. Not guilty.
Tho the prosecution is very guilty of false accusation, and,
a total failure of due diligence.

I mentioned polar ice.

I got you questioning credentials (almost
like totally ironic)

Again, polar ice. Its age disproves the
bible account.

If you have a sensible, evidenced response
to disprove that, go for it. If not, dont bother
to say anything and i will comsider this parting
well made.

 

[Yttrium]

If scientists found never before seen evidence of a global flood, would you become a Christian?

Just want to point out that there are at least a couple of other possibilities out there, namely Judaism and Islam.

If I found strong evidence for a global flood that covered all the mountains, I'd probably have a strong incentive to start following Judaism. But not mainstream Christianity.

 

[Astrid]

Just want to point out that there are at least a couple of other possibilities out there, namely Judaism and Islam.

If I found strong evidence for a global flood that covered all the mountains, I'd probably have a strong incentive to start following Judaism. But not mainstream Christianity.

Theres a lot more possibilities, incl
that said evidence isnothing of the kind


What might be an example of convincing evidence, for you?

We find that for those committed to literal bible
any sort of thing will do.

Google Image Result for https://londragazete.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/h1p1-4-715x700.jpg

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, polar ice. Its age disproves the bible account.

Polar ice age doesn't "disprove the bible account."

The "bible account" disproves the age of polar ice.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I found strong evidence for a global flood that covered all the mountains, I'd probably have a strong incentive to start following Judaism. But not mainstream Christianity.

This is one the the strongest reasons I disagree with people trying to prove the events in the Bible with science.

Even if they could, science allows wiggle-room for claims other than "God did it."

When the Rapture occurs, we assume the most "plausible explanation" scientists will come up with is alien abductions.

And when asked why it seems coincidental that only Christians were taken, the answer will be that they are being selective for now.

But as far as science confirming a global flood, I'd like to see that happen; since the Flood was a series of miracles that ended in a thorough clean-up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theres a lot more possibilities, incl

LOL -- thanks for the QED of what I just said.

 

[dlamberth]

Do you feel that we (and everything) are collectively part of God?

As an activity of God? Yes!