ARGH!!!! why can't I do somethin as simple as a stupid link? lol.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Where does everyone stand in regards to...
- Thread starter Amateur_Expert
- Start date
-
- Tags
- widely
- Status
Look what happens when I dun look at the forum for a day...(15 pgs!)
ok...You can't "prove" either side, which I believed was mentioned early in this discussion.
I think, like some other people said that by God creating every animal, it could have been through evolution. The seven days? symbolic... we all know the entire animal population was not made in seven days. Maybe seven periods of time, etc.
So like somebody said earlier (sorry I'm not quoting anybody, hard to look back to every post) with the sculpture similie, if you say, make a program that copies itself, then you could say that you made all the copies as well. So God makes an animal, and it evolves and changes to become other animals... he made them all.
Now this Noah's arc thing...Who knows? Since God can make the
galaxy we believe... I"m sure he can make some water, get all the animals into a boat which he makes sure is sealed, preserves the plants in the brackish, distributes the animals back ...
The site is against the story in SCIENTIFIC reasoning, not in reasoning by faith and the power of God...even though it's against a story about the power of God.
The book for athiests which I think would be good...it uses reasoning that an atheist would find logical and very simple to comprehend is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis...
well that's enough for now
goodnight....have a day full of wonderful luck and happy encounters
ok...You can't "prove" either side, which I believed was mentioned early in this discussion.
I think, like some other people said that by God creating every animal, it could have been through evolution. The seven days? symbolic... we all know the entire animal population was not made in seven days. Maybe seven periods of time, etc.
So like somebody said earlier (sorry I'm not quoting anybody, hard to look back to every post) with the sculpture similie, if you say, make a program that copies itself, then you could say that you made all the copies as well. So God makes an animal, and it evolves and changes to become other animals... he made them all.
Now this Noah's arc thing...Who knows? Since God can make the
galaxy we believe... I"m sure he can make some water, get all the animals into a boat which he makes sure is sealed, preserves the plants in the brackish, distributes the animals back ...
The site is against the story in SCIENTIFIC reasoning, not in reasoning by faith and the power of God...even though it's against a story about the power of God.
The book for athiests which I think would be good...it uses reasoning that an atheist would find logical and very simple to comprehend is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis...
well that's enough for now
goodnight....have a day full of wonderful luck and happy encounters
G
Guest
Guest
Thats rediculous...[b said:
Ok the link works now, but im just gonna act like you and john and ignore wat it says and act like i never saw it. just like your signature.
[b said:
Funny thing is both you and john do dat
Droseradude, you're me only in scientific language! (see usernames lol)
I believe it states somewhere in the Bible that one day is 20,000 years to God... Er somethin like dat
I haven't read the whole thread, but I have a few cents to throw in...
Regarding Noah's Ark... beware of stories that require a lot of leeway and manipulation to become believable. Those stories reek far too much of human fabrication to ignore. I think it's reasonable to assume that a perfect being infinitely more powerful and aware of the workings of the world would have a much "cleaner" way of getting things done. Certainly it wouldn't be so flimsy that even today's school children could recognize critical flaws in the story, would it? I have to go with Ockham's Razor on this one.
There's a human signature on the ideas about Satan too, I think. When the comic book people came up with Superman, they soon realized a hero that could do anything unheeded didn't make for much of a story... the world would be cleaned up in no time. They needed a weakness to make the stories work, so kryptonite was born. Somewhat similarly, there's a very obvious conflict in the idea of an all-powerful all-loving God watching over a world filled with disaster and pain. To reconcile such a conflict and continue feeling like we were really being loved and taken care of, God had to have a weakness. People absolutely had to find this weakness or entire belief systems would be falling apart left and right. And naturally God would have to have this weakness willingly, or the "all-powerful" title would be rendered meaningless. So it isn't hard to envision how people's beliefs would consequently develop. I can't know either way, but personally it feels like a distinctly human story to me… things still don’t really add up.
Anyway... a general comment. A person can say "the universe is only 4000 years old and God made it appear that things have been around for billions of years", and no, technically there's no way to "prove" such a thing wrong. But the idea that the world is flat and propped up by giant turtles is equally feasible/probable/undisprovable as long as the turtles can somehow obscure our perception to make the world appear round. This is why the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Such statements may not be disprovable, however they can't validly be considered knowledge either… not remotely.
As far as I know no one here said the earth was 4000 years old thankfully, but this applies to some of the statements and "what ifs" I remember reading.
The main problem with all of the above is top-down thinking... i.e. determining the conclusion first and seeking out the evidence that supports it last. If you aim to prove something correct, you will. If you aim to prove the exact same thing false, you will. You'll favor (even just subconsciously) evidence supporting your theory and you'll devalue evidence against it. Any scientist who operates this way should have their credentials taken away from them. Real science is simply seeking truth, and being indifferent to what that truth may end up being. Solid results will lead to conclusions naturally with no fabrication required. If these religious beliefs are true, they are entirely scientific because science is merely the exploration of reality.
So no matter how logically and rationally you think you’re being (a general ‘you’, I’m not talking to anyone in particular)… if you’re using top-down thinking you’re failing miserably to think scientifically. Believing in God and angels and demons and then insisting on proving to yourself that they do in fact exist is not thinking scientifically. If evidence doesn’t support something very solidly and specifically on its own, there’s no reason to pick one conclusion over any of the other billion plausible conclusions. I’ve found that the ability to identify what is and isn’t top-down thinking alone can change your life, because it seems to be a very prevalent problem in the intellectual world.
So it’s ok to believe things that aren’t or can’t be proven (I believe plenty of them)… we’ve barely begun to figure out the world and life is too short to put our beliefs on hold until science gives the ok… but I feel you have to be very vigilant in not filing these things under “fact” in your mind, especially when you’re teaching them to someone else. It’s ok for these ideas to float in a place of uncertainty. By their nature they have to.
Anyway… I’m done rambling. My apologies to whoever actually waded through all this.
I’m glad there are people who appreciate epistemology on this board. They’re very hard to find on most of the boards I’ve been on.
Regarding Noah's Ark... beware of stories that require a lot of leeway and manipulation to become believable. Those stories reek far too much of human fabrication to ignore. I think it's reasonable to assume that a perfect being infinitely more powerful and aware of the workings of the world would have a much "cleaner" way of getting things done. Certainly it wouldn't be so flimsy that even today's school children could recognize critical flaws in the story, would it? I have to go with Ockham's Razor on this one.
There's a human signature on the ideas about Satan too, I think. When the comic book people came up with Superman, they soon realized a hero that could do anything unheeded didn't make for much of a story... the world would be cleaned up in no time. They needed a weakness to make the stories work, so kryptonite was born. Somewhat similarly, there's a very obvious conflict in the idea of an all-powerful all-loving God watching over a world filled with disaster and pain. To reconcile such a conflict and continue feeling like we were really being loved and taken care of, God had to have a weakness. People absolutely had to find this weakness or entire belief systems would be falling apart left and right. And naturally God would have to have this weakness willingly, or the "all-powerful" title would be rendered meaningless. So it isn't hard to envision how people's beliefs would consequently develop. I can't know either way, but personally it feels like a distinctly human story to me… things still don’t really add up.
Anyway... a general comment. A person can say "the universe is only 4000 years old and God made it appear that things have been around for billions of years", and no, technically there's no way to "prove" such a thing wrong. But the idea that the world is flat and propped up by giant turtles is equally feasible/probable/undisprovable as long as the turtles can somehow obscure our perception to make the world appear round. This is why the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Such statements may not be disprovable, however they can't validly be considered knowledge either… not remotely.
As far as I know no one here said the earth was 4000 years old thankfully, but this applies to some of the statements and "what ifs" I remember reading.
The main problem with all of the above is top-down thinking... i.e. determining the conclusion first and seeking out the evidence that supports it last. If you aim to prove something correct, you will. If you aim to prove the exact same thing false, you will. You'll favor (even just subconsciously) evidence supporting your theory and you'll devalue evidence against it. Any scientist who operates this way should have their credentials taken away from them. Real science is simply seeking truth, and being indifferent to what that truth may end up being. Solid results will lead to conclusions naturally with no fabrication required. If these religious beliefs are true, they are entirely scientific because science is merely the exploration of reality.
So no matter how logically and rationally you think you’re being (a general ‘you’, I’m not talking to anyone in particular)… if you’re using top-down thinking you’re failing miserably to think scientifically. Believing in God and angels and demons and then insisting on proving to yourself that they do in fact exist is not thinking scientifically. If evidence doesn’t support something very solidly and specifically on its own, there’s no reason to pick one conclusion over any of the other billion plausible conclusions. I’ve found that the ability to identify what is and isn’t top-down thinking alone can change your life, because it seems to be a very prevalent problem in the intellectual world.
So it’s ok to believe things that aren’t or can’t be proven (I believe plenty of them)… we’ve barely begun to figure out the world and life is too short to put our beliefs on hold until science gives the ok… but I feel you have to be very vigilant in not filing these things under “fact” in your mind, especially when you’re teaching them to someone else. It’s ok for these ideas to float in a place of uncertainty. By their nature they have to.
Anyway… I’m done rambling. My apologies to whoever actually waded through all this.
One more little comment I feel I have to add.[b said:Quote[/b] (SunDoode182 @ Dec. 29 2004,12:31)]I believe it states somewhere in the Bible that one day is 20,000 years to God... Er somethin like dat
Time is a component of space-time... the fabric that makes up the material world. It's a very physical thing.
So I'm always curious to know why people feel that a being above/outside the physical world experiences time (beyond the obvious fact that a realm where time doesn't exist is often too alien for people to envision). Believing that the being exists temporally would make as little sense as believing it exists materially, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't an all-knowing being outside of time be "observing" all of time/reality in its entirety (including the eons we haven't experienced yet) within a single eternal "moment"?
I have lived there, and my grandmother lives there full time, I think I do know how it works.[b said:
All they do is peacekeep, we carry on the struggle ourselves.
If they really want to help, they should give us food and jobs.
They should lift the law that children have to pay to go to hospital.
And whats god done for us? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Thats why I odnt believe he exists. If he did exist, he would have helped us.
And back on topic.
Mutations do occur, and they are signs of evolution.
Dont you see a mutated ping flower?
Or how about a deferoned and mutated sundew leaf?
They are all signs of evolution.
Ah, nothing like a good ol' bipolar discussion to provide about 20 minutes of good reading, much like the political threads about 6 weeks ago. This is one of those topics that has no right or wrong answer. No one knows the truth yet. Your opinion on the matter is largely shaped by your upbringing and education. Science and religion both "evolved" by the same mechanism: a basic human need to understand that which they don't understand. Personally, I pretty much will always side with science. However, I don't agree that evolution is based on fact. It's based on theory, just as creationism is. No one really knows. Scientists just take the information they have and formulate theories based on this information, much like the creationist side. There's really no concrete facts that prove or disprove either side of the arguement. Just look at how much science has changed in the past couple of hundred years - where will we be at a couple of hundred years from now. Look at the study of human evolution: it's been probably altered more than anything over the past couple of decades. We are actually kind of an enigma, evolutionarily speaking. We've gone from primitive ape-men to the civilizations of Egypt in an extremely short period of time, evolutionarily speaking. Science has yet to come up with a logical explanation for this. Perhaps aliens came down and did some "breeding". I think it's just as plausible as any other explanation. No one really knows at this point in time. Spending 8 years in college and grad school studying science, I pretty much will believe what science says. But who's to say there is or isn't a God. There is certainly less evidence in favor of creationism, but perhaps the science end has yet to discover this evidence. For the most part, they certainly don't want to look for it and would much rather be proven right than proven wrong, which is why science is biased in a way, and you shouldn't take everything science says as 100% fact. I guess when you die, you'll finally know whether or not there is a God in Heaven.
This is only to give you an idea of a possible time line. Remarkable agreement exits between the scientific view and the biblical view if you just simply make the "days" longer than a simple 24-hr day.
15-20 billion years ago (Genesis 1:1) The beginning
Initial creation of the universe (big bang if you will) where time space and matter are all brought into existence form the spoken word of God.
5-6 billion years ago (Genesis 1:2)
The earth and solar system were a mere nebula ("formless and void"). God moves/stirs the waters (nebula). The entire universe is made mostly of hydrogen, which is the main ingredient or element of water.
4.6 billion years ago (Genesis 1:3) 1st Day Starts
"Let there be light". God ignited the sun. With some nebula remaining - the earth would have been surrounded on all sides by light (reflecting off the gaseous glowing "clouds" of the nebula).
4.5 billion years ago (Genesis 1:4)
Separation of light from darkness. God cleared away the nebula, and allowed for there to be darkness for the 1st time on one side of the earth (the side facing away from the sun).
4 billion years ago (Genesis 1:6) 2nd Day starts
The earth cools... water in a liquid state becomes possible, crude atmosphere (air space between the water and thick clouds) starts to take shape.
2.5 billion years ago (Genesis 1:6) 3rd Day starts
The surface of the earth itself begins to take shape, dry land appears, the continents and seas form.
1-2 billion years ago (Genesis 1:11)
The first plants are created.
1 billion years ago (Genesis 1:14) 4th Day starts
The earth's atmosphere clears and clearly reveals the sun, moon, and stars. Now that they are visible, God designates them as timekeepers.
500 million years ago (Genesis 1:20) 5th Day starts
God creates animal life in the oceans, then insects, and then amphibians.
500 million years ago (Genesis 1:20) 6th Day starts
God creates reptiles and dinosaurs. A little later in the "day" he creates mammals.
10-50 thousand years ago (Genesis 1:26)
God creates Adam (modern man). Subsequently all the rest of the events of the Bible unfold
15-20 billion years ago (Genesis 1:1) The beginning
Initial creation of the universe (big bang if you will) where time space and matter are all brought into existence form the spoken word of God.
5-6 billion years ago (Genesis 1:2)
The earth and solar system were a mere nebula ("formless and void"). God moves/stirs the waters (nebula). The entire universe is made mostly of hydrogen, which is the main ingredient or element of water.
4.6 billion years ago (Genesis 1:3) 1st Day Starts
"Let there be light". God ignited the sun. With some nebula remaining - the earth would have been surrounded on all sides by light (reflecting off the gaseous glowing "clouds" of the nebula).
4.5 billion years ago (Genesis 1:4)
Separation of light from darkness. God cleared away the nebula, and allowed for there to be darkness for the 1st time on one side of the earth (the side facing away from the sun).
4 billion years ago (Genesis 1:6) 2nd Day starts
The earth cools... water in a liquid state becomes possible, crude atmosphere (air space between the water and thick clouds) starts to take shape.
2.5 billion years ago (Genesis 1:6) 3rd Day starts
The surface of the earth itself begins to take shape, dry land appears, the continents and seas form.
1-2 billion years ago (Genesis 1:11)
The first plants are created.
1 billion years ago (Genesis 1:14) 4th Day starts
The earth's atmosphere clears and clearly reveals the sun, moon, and stars. Now that they are visible, God designates them as timekeepers.
500 million years ago (Genesis 1:20) 5th Day starts
God creates animal life in the oceans, then insects, and then amphibians.
500 million years ago (Genesis 1:20) 6th Day starts
God creates reptiles and dinosaurs. A little later in the "day" he creates mammals.
10-50 thousand years ago (Genesis 1:26)
God creates Adam (modern man). Subsequently all the rest of the events of the Bible unfold
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Just like droseradude, I go a away for a few hours and 7 more pages go by. Fyresprite (Bonnie).... I'd like to introduce you Flytrapgurl (Tanya). You gals are cut from the same fun and refreshing mold.
As Mr. Chaos says (and FTG), there are a lot more born again Christians out there than ya'll realize that don't have a problem with creation accomplished by means of what we understand or perceive to be evolution. What it all boils down is to whether you accept that God is Creator.... or not. Who cares how long it took. So what if it took billions or trillions of years? Does that mean that God couldn't have done things that way? Why do we have to tell god what He can and can't do? The Genesis account merely tells us that God is THE Creator - and HE isn't limited by our limited understanding. check out the end of the book of Job, when God sets Job straight on things.
As Mr. Chaos says (and FTG), there are a lot more born again Christians out there than ya'll realize that don't have a problem with creation accomplished by means of what we understand or perceive to be evolution. What it all boils down is to whether you accept that God is Creator.... or not. Who cares how long it took. So what if it took billions or trillions of years? Does that mean that God couldn't have done things that way? Why do we have to tell god what He can and can't do? The Genesis account merely tells us that God is THE Creator - and HE isn't limited by our limited understanding. check out the end of the book of Job, when God sets Job straight on things.
heh.... what FACTS are WE ignoring?[b said:
Ecolution was the other way around. First came fossils, finches, etc.... and then darwin and others thought up Evolution.[b said:
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory and creationism is not even scientific let alone a (scientific) theory