1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by NewGuyOnTheBlock, May 31, 2021.

  1. robocop (actually)

    robocop (actually) Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    4,312
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    Religion:
    two years re-baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    Once again, I'm not sure it was a flood.

    And if God is doing such a big thing, He might as well cover it up because if everyone knew He existed and rebelled against Him that would not please Him.

    For instance,

    if it says there was rain on the earth, that could just be symbolic of death. A lot of the five Books of Moses are symbolic anyway!
     
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    44,531
    Ratings:
    +26,836
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Wow! So much so wrong. Let's just go over the highlights. We know that man and chimp separated an estimated six to eight million years ago:


    Frequently Asked Questions | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program.

    We have also known for some time that our common ancestor with gorillas separated before that. So how is there any contradiction at all with that 10 million year date?

    That looks like a correct and therefore impressive prediction to me.

    Yes, we know that. But there are reasonable limits. That is why a Precambrian bunny rabbit would always refute evolution. Also there are other predictions besides just the timing of fossils. The theory also tells us that there would not be a failure of phylogeny. For example you will not find a feathered mammal

    No, that is not the case at all. We find basal examples, many of them extinct at the bottom. We do not find anything advanced at the bottom that still should have died and been buried right away. You don't get much slower than a sloth. Nor are they all that bright. But you find all of them on top of the much more intelligent and rapid predators of the Cretaceous such as T-Rex or velociraptor. The sloth should be way down at the bottom in your model.

    Yes, it is usually faster to date a strata by the fossils because we have already dated all sorts of layers around the world and always found certain fossils to occupy only certain time zones. One could always date strata again, but after a while one is just beating a dead horse. It is far more rapid in the field to date by fossils. The work has already been done. Why is this so hard to understand?
     
  3. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,970
    Ratings:
    +6,060
    So getting back to the topic, when someone cites Paul as writing about the flood as if it was a real event, and then says something like "So Paul was either telling the truth or lying", the first thing that comes to my mind is that there's at least one other possibility......namely, that Paul was just wrong. He wasn't lying, because he truly believed what he wrote (IOW, he didn't write something even though he knew it wasn't true).

    So that gives three possibilities: truth-teller, liar, or mistaken.

    And even within "mistaken" there are lots of sub-possibilities, some of which I covered earlier (e.g., maybe Paul misunderstood the Hebrew flood story due to differences in cultures).

    So at least on this subject, only one of us is limiting ourselves to a binary choice, and it ain't me.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. robocop (actually)

    robocop (actually) Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    4,312
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    Religion:
    two years re-baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    For instance, when it says the rain fell for 40 days and nights, that could mean there was general life destructive for that time, and when the waters took 150 days, that could mean it wasn't safe for another 150 days.
     
  5. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    2,169
    Ratings:
    +1,494
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    You're interpreting an ancient book literally, and in a way that even Jews don't interpret it, and it's their book. And these stories were written in an era that embellishment was common. So how do you justify your approach?

    Sure, since Jack is an actual person that all involved can hear and understand it can be resolved.

    Well then it looks like you'd better product this God so it can tell us who's correct. Thus far this God behaves as if it doesn't exist outside of human imagination.
     
  6. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    2,169
    Ratings:
    +1,494
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly but many experiments in science fail to meet the minimum standard. This usually means there were variables that they could not account for, and have to rework the way the test is conducted. Or if it fails miserably then it was a bad hypothesis. What does this tell us? That scientists are honorable. We don't see Creationists do honorable work.



    What you might be asking about is how findings can affect the overall scenario of data. For example the history of hominids and human ancestors gets adjusted sometimes when a new fossil specimen is discovered. This is how the process allows our understanding to become more accurate. Debate on what findings means is part of this process of understanding.

    You don't understand science. You don't even know what a hypothesis is. You could have taken 30 seconds to look it up before you embarrassed yourself.

    You are rejecting the experts in science when they present work that shows no global flood was possible. That's why you fail at this debate.

    Whatever that might be is has nothing to do with anything relevant to this debate.
     
  7. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,873
    Ratings:
    +5,293
    Religion:
    Pi π
    If the flood was symbolic, then such a flood never happened, then why God even bother to cover anything up that has never occurred?

    Do you not see how illogical your excuses are?
     
  8. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    2,169
    Ratings:
    +1,494
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    Funny how so many of the people God created end up pissed off at him. Maybe they knew something. Mob bosses are known to wack those who know too much.

    Symbolism is the best way to interpret it.
     
  9. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    16,518
    Ratings:
    +11,698
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are you serious?
     
  10. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    16,518
    Ratings:
    +11,698
    Religion:
    Christian
    Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Call on me. Can I answer that last one?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  11. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    16,518
    Ratings:
    +11,698
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yeah, interesting. That is the word I always reach for in such times.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,873
    Ratings:
    +5,293
    Religion:
    Pi π
    If the flood was symbolic, then such a flood never happened, then why God even bother to cover anything up that never occurred?

    Do you not see how illogical your claim about god hiding evidence of already nonexistent flood, don’t you?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. robocop (actually)

    robocop (actually) Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    4,312
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    Religion:
    two years re-baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    "For instance, when it says the rain fell for 40 days and nights, that could mean there was general life destructive for that time, and when the waters took 150 days, that could mean it wasn't safe for another 150 days."
     
  14. robocop (actually)

    robocop (actually) Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    4,312
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    Religion:
    two years re-baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    Exactly what you just said. Why reveal Himself when it will make some people even more ticked off? God doesn't want disobeyers and a knowing disobeyer is even worse. Looking out for others too as per how much they know.
     
  15. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,873
    Ratings:
    +5,293
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Sorry, but I think you are the one who is in need for education, because you don’t understand the process that are involved as to what is science and what isn’t science, because from what I quoted in your post you don’t understand the process.

    Of course, you wouldn’t accept a hypothesis being true by default and without testing the hypothesis.

    But you need to understand what a hypothesis is, first.

    A hypothesis is not merely just any “idea” that pop into people’s head.

    The “ideas” as you called them, are usually based on preliminary observations of the phenomena. A scientist would try to understand the observations of physical phenomena, by asking the WHAT & HOW questions, for instances:
    • WHAT is it?
    • HOW does it work?
    • If the scientist to provide adequate proposed answers to these 2 vital questions, other questions may follow, like -
      • WHAT applications does this phenomena may have?
      • HOW can I make it work or HOW do I implement this application?
    These questions are followed by the proposed explanations - known as the EXPLANATORY MODEL.

    If the scientist worked in physics-related field, you may supplement the “explanatory model” with the LOGICAL MODEL or the MATHEMATICAL MODEL. The logical or mathematical model, is usually come in the form of mathematical statements, often expressed as equations, formulas, numbers, variables, and constants or metrics. Physics equations are what scientists called proofs.

    Once scientist have formulated both explanatory model and mathematical model, he would then follow these with a 3rd model in a hypothesis - the PREDICTIVE MODEL.

    The predictive model is just as vital to science, and they are based on the 2 models that I have already explained to you. Predictive modeling is required, because you need to test the hypothesis.

    The predictions are used as a limiting factors, the boundary of what is required for the hypothesis to be TRUE or FALSE.

    So if the evidence or experiments meet the requirements of your predictions, then the hypothesis is probable and likely true.

    But if the evidence and experiments don’t meet the requirements of your predictions, then the hypothesis is improbable and likely false.

    So the hypothesis is a proposed model that needed to be tested first, before any decision can be made if it true or false.

    So no, nPeace. A hypothesis isn’t just a idea. There are lot more to hypothesis than just an idea.

    A hypothesis required explanations, required maths (especially for physics related fields) and it required predictions. And on top of these requirements, it required testing.

    Testings involved any form of observations, like evidence discovery and evidence gathering, performing experiments, compiling the essential data from these evidence and test results from experiments.

    Without testing, ideas don’t even qualify to being called a “hypothesis”.

    If the hypothesis is successful then a scientist can take the next steps, by presenting the hypothesis along with the tested data before PEER REVIEW.

    If it is successful, then a scientist shouldn’t even bother with Peer Review.

    A hypothesis that passed both Scientific Method and Peer Review have the chance of turning a hypothesis into scientific theory. A scientific theory is well tested explanations/predictions and is considered to be science.

    A hypothesis only has a POTENTIAL of being science, only if it has pass requirements of both Scientific Method and Peer Review.

    I said "potential", because even if you succeed with meeting the requirements, your hypothesis may fall because another scientist may have a better tested alternative hypothesis with more successful modelling than yours.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  16. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,817
    Ratings:
    +715
    Religion:
    Not religious
    :mad::mad: No! No! No! No! :mad::mad: nPeace disagrees with YOU. :D:D:D :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian
    If there where insects with teeth in the Fossil record, this would simply imply that teeth evolved before the insects diverged from vertebrates .


    Evolution would have accommodated to this data . This prediction is not that impressive.
     
  18. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,540
    Ratings:
    +399
    Religion:
    christian
    Based on molecular clocks evolutionist predicted that gorillas appeared 8M years ago , but then we found a 10Myo gorilla in the fossil record . .....but nobody makes a. Big deal, scientist simply say hey "maybe gorillas evolved earlier"

    Source.
    We used to believe, based on genetic information, DNA studies and molecular studies, that the splits between chimpanzees and the human line on one side and the gorilla line on the other side … happened around eight million years ago," said paleontologist Berhane Asfaw, who helped unearth the fossil. "But based on this new information, the split had to happen before 10 million years ago. It means that information has to be adjusted in every textbook."
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.672443






    .
    If there where feathered mammals in the fossil record, you would simply say that feathers evolved before birds and mammals diverged.

    A good and valuable scientific prediction ha to be specific and has to flow naturally and inescapable from the theory. For example eistein predicted exactly how clocks should be affected if you move at such speed. .....you don't have anything remotely analogous with evolution (talking about the fossil record)



    .
    1 as I told you before some exceptions are expected ...the point is that we do se a trend ....

    -marine animals are usually found at the bottom, flying animals at the top.

    -intelligent animals at the top, unintelligent at the bottom.

    -animals that instinctively run away from disasters at the top, animals that don't have this instinct at the bottom.

    We do see this trend and you know it.




    2 is not about speed it's about ability to scape from a flood (speed is just one of many important variables) , sloths can climb trees and they instinctively run away from naturally disasters , (t-rex probably didn't had this abilities )

    3 modern sloths are slow, but perhaps they had ancestors that where faster


    My point is that if one finds a fossil graveyard with rabbits, then by default it would not be precambic layers .....scientist would not date the rock to see if it's Precambrian, and any radiometric dating that concludes that the fossils are billions of years old would be dropped (scientist would assume contamination or something else)

    Do you grant this point ?
     
  19. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    16,518
    Ratings:
    +11,698
    Religion:
    Christian
    That this is your dismissive response is not that impressive. What is revealed here about your knowledge of these things is even less impressive. Insects did not diverge from vertebrates and could not have given that they are invertebrates.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,873
    Ratings:
    +5,293
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Not only that, Dan.

    Leroy doesn’t know that invertebrates didn’t diverge from vertebrates; it is the other way around.

    That one sentence of his, showed how little he know about Evolution and biology in general.
     
Loading...