AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
So I can expect no rebuttle then, as expected.
-
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!
God and Science agree -why don't we?
- Thread starter Etritonakin
- Start date
So I can expect no rebuttle then, as expected.
gnostic
The Lost One
etritonakin said:
Which scientists?
Sources, please. You're making claims about what scientists have said, then you should provide sources.
So, which scientists claimed that there were enough water to cause a global flood?
The truth of the matter is that no scientists have made such claims...unless those creationist pseudo-scientists are making the claims, hence they are not scientists at all.
Name a meteorologist, geologist, or marine scientist or oceanologist with real qualifications and experiences, and not those phony creationists.
Last edited:
Science denies the legitimacy of the bible. If the bible doesn't stand up then God doesn't stand up logically because the bible is the book of God.
Scientifically it is impossible .
1- there is not enough water to cover the totall land masses on earth
2- there are (if I am not mistaken ) almost 10 million different species living things on earth = they would never fit in a wooden vessel
3- wood is not strong enough to build such a huge vessel , it would crash under it's own weight
4 it is logistically impossible to gather a sample of every species in ones lifetime
5 if you have only one female and one male of each species you don't have enough genetic pool to create the next generation of that species
6 if whole world was covered with water all plantlife submerged under water would die and we wouldn't have any plants today except for algi and moss
7 seriously ? You believe in this ? Santa is more logical to believe .
Peace
1- there is not enough water to cover the totall land masses on earth
2- there are (if I am not mistaken ) almost 10 million different species living things on earth = they would never fit in a wooden vessel
3- wood is not strong enough to build such a huge vessel , it would crash under it's own weight
4 it is logistically impossible to gather a sample of every species in ones lifetime
5 if you have only one female and one male of each species you don't have enough genetic pool to create the next generation of that species
6 if whole world was covered with water all plantlife submerged under water would die and we wouldn't have any plants today except for algi and moss
7 seriously ? You believe in this ? Santa is more logical to believe .
Peace
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
There are quite a few religions that don't rely on the Bible... God is not disproved if the Bible is.
Likewise, proving something in the Bible does not prove God. No matter how desperate you are to find evidence to back up the more literary tales.
wa:do
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
All Abrahamics, the only religions that look to Jehovah, rely on the Torah. That scripture is disproved as well, right from Genesis 1 forward.
Doesn;t amtter if it's Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahiah, Mormons, etc. They all look tot he same god.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
And your point is?
wa:do
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
My point is that "god" isn't supported by "other religions".
While my beleifs state that all deities exist and all created by man, including Jehovah, the biblical Jehovah does not exist.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
How does a cultures deep history being couched in metaphor stop an omnimax deity from existing?
The fact that Santa Claus is a myth does not disprove the existence of Nicholas of Smyrnaa.
wa:do
The fact that Santa Claus is a myth does not disprove the existence of Nicholas of Smyrnaa.
wa:do
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
Selective reading, are we?
Does Jehovah exist? I already said we believe so.
Does Jehovah of the bible, ie demiurge, ultimate rewarder or punisher, etc exist?
No, especially when the ONLY source making those claims is discredited so thoroughly.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Actually it's not the only source... the Jews have more than one holy book... then there is the Koran, BoM and others.
Regardless of any books fact or fiction... it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. (especially an omnimax one)
The need to prove the biblical flood is a fools errand IMHO.
wa:do
Regardless of any books fact or fiction... it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. (especially an omnimax one)
The need to prove the biblical flood is a fools errand IMHO.
wa:do
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
The bible, quran, BoM, etc are all based on the same scripture. Said scripture is proven wrong time and time again to the point where it certainly not self-supporting evidence, nor any evidence whatsoever.
And, may I ask, why you are having so much trouble understanding that I am not saying Jehovah doesn't exist, oNly that the biblical version of Jehovah is bupkis?
And it's more than the flood, neighbor, it's the entirety of the first books, those that attempt to put that ultimate authority in jehovah, and those scriptrues themselves.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Who knows? But right now it's not important.
But this thread is about the flood... and I'll stick to the OP.
I think biblical literalists like the flood story because of all the stories in the bible, this is the one that should leave the most convincing evidence. It appeals to the idea that if you find the boat, you prove the whole book.
Sadly this also implies that if you don't find it... it's all worthless.
wa:do
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
Who knows? But right now it's not important.
Good, as long as we can lay that distracting strawman to rest.
Again, the OP may be flood related, but the books ne whole are what is the concern here. The cumaltive damage to credibility of the bible is simply overwhelming.
"Creation" is completely bullocks, stating that life began on the earth and all at once, for example. Adam and Eve is simply outragious. All parts of the flood myth do not stand up to simple examination either, not just the deluge part. Sodom and Ghamorrah, et cetera ad nauseum.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
And yet people continue to be fooled by "Creation science". I know people who were so angry about the lies the creationists use that when they found out, it shattered their whole faith.
Is defending literal dogma really worth that?
wa:do
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
I do not think so, no.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Have we arrived at any conclusions? I've been gone for a while.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I can definitely relate to that. Assumption and just plain making stuff up is dangerous. Such is not faith, however -and should be shattered -hopefully leaving the person intact.
I've seen the same sort of reaction when people find out that most of their beliefs and observances have nothing to do with the bible, but understanding is a good thing.
I have not specifically, scientifically, proven the flood did happen -nor have I been present with concrete evidence that it did not happen. I have become interested in it only recently, and will probably be studying it for a long time. It does not affect my faith in God, however. I have proven things far more important than the flood. Even the bible says "prove all things" -and so I will.
Realizing that people -both religious and scientific -can be full of "bovine excrement" need not shatter a person -or their faith. It can lead to greater understanding -and greater faith.
One might think such a huge occurrence as the flood would be easy to prove or disprove, but it's not that simple. Science is not perfect -nor are the religious. Scientists assured us cigarettes were just fine for us, and some religious assert that God created the earth 6,000 years ago with the appearance of age. So I'll continue to collect information until is proven or otherwise. If people were honest with themselves -both scientists and the religious (not that one cannot rightly be both) -they'd see they assume a great deal.
I may never have the time to adequately research the flood, but, in the end I'll either be able to ask God about it or simply decay -as will we all -so I don't see that it's worth getting too worked up about ....but I have proven enough to know that I will not simply decay. Flood or no flood, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us is still the way to go.
Thanks to those who genuinely wanted to help me understand!
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
etritonakin said:
Of course science is not perfect. Science don't believe in perfection in the first place.
In science, when taking measurement or whatsoever, scientists allow for margin of error even when they using the most accurate measuring device or instrument, when such measurements are taking place. The measuring device and instruments might be very accurate, but any good scientists would allow for margin of error to be taken with the measurements given.
And then you have to take into consideration of finding (or measurements) from other scientists. If you think for one moment that scientist rely on just the words of ONE SCIENTIST, then you seriously don't know what science is all about.
Something that can't be said when dealing with faith on religious dogma, such as literal creationism.
With the bible you not only have a calculation of 6000-year-old for the world as we know it, but you have the nonsense about the creation taking place in 6-day. And then this nonsense about light being created that give day and night, 3 days before the creation of sun and moon. Vegetation appearing in a snap of finger in just one day, and all the animals and human created in an instance of one day, on the 6th day.
The bible completely ignore the law of physics, ignore the law of nature (biology, not just evolution) and ignore simple astronomy that even children today know that such things are impossible.
If you think for one moment that science deals in perfection, then you have absolutely no understanding what is science.