PDA

View Full Version : "The God Who Wasn't There"



dreday
09-06-2009, 07:13 PM
link to trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_IjNPmIEI&feature=player_embedded)

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 08:53 PM
See my thread below this one.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 08:55 PM
How much anyone wanna bet the same false claims in Zeitgeist are repeated in this movie?

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 09:32 PM
How much anyone wanna bet the same false claims in Zeitgeist are repeated in this movie?

I know that you discredit everything that is in "Zeitgeist" because of some website that you read said it was false, but maybe you should actually find out for yourself how much of it is actually true. You may learn a thing or twelve.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 09:56 PM
I know that you discredit everything that is in "Zeitgeist" because of some website that you read said it was false, but maybe you should actually find out for yourself how much of it is actually true. You may learn a thing or twelve.I don't discredit everything in zietgeist.....my point has been.... how do we know what is true and what isn't? I provided a few examples of some things that were blatantly false...which points to the credibility of the producer, and the rest of the movie. It isn't a matter of what is true in his movie, but how do we know what is true.

Also, I posted a website that does a decent job of debunking the Christianity claims in zietgeist, only because it was convenient. There are many examples of the false claims made by this movie, and not just on the religious parts. Wikipedia is a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_Movie

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 09:59 PM
Please don't cite wikipedia in any sort of discussion. Wikipedia is a completely unofficial source, you or I could go on wikipedia and add false or misleading information if we wanted to.

Also, some of the claims that you posted were wrong. Take a look and research it for yourself.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 10:10 PM
Please don't cite wikipedia in any sort of discussion. Wikipedia is a completely unofficial source, you or I could go on wikipedia and add false or misleading information if we wanted to.

Also, some of the claims that you posted were wrong. Take a look and research it for yourself.I don't disagree with your hesitation in using wikipedia, I only posted the link to show you that there is valid criticisms of the movie and the info cited can easily be googled for further research.

Do you believe the movie is true?

Which claims did I make that are wrong?

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 10:22 PM
I don't disagree with your hesitation in using wikipedia, I only posted the link to show you that there is valid criticisms of the movie and the info cited can easily be googled for further research.

Do you believe the movie is true?

Which claims did I make that are wrong?

I believe that parts of the movie are true, and that there are valid and peculiar parallels between egyptian, persian, and greek mythology and the current biblical idea of Jesus.

I didn't say your claims were wrong but some of the claims from the people in the link you provided were wrong. That is what I said isn't it?

aesop
09-07-2009, 11:45 AM
I don't discredit everything in zietgeist.....my point has been.... how do we know what is true and what isn't? I provided a few examples of some things that were blatantly false...which points to the credibility of the producer, and the rest of the movie. It isn't a matter of what is true in his movie, but how do we know what is true.I don't discredit everything in the bible.....my point has been.... how do we know what is true and what isn't? I provided a few examples of some things that were blatantly false...which points to the credibility of the producer, and the rest of the book. It isn't a matter of what is true in the bible, but how do we know what is true.

Irony.

SpurzN703
09-07-2009, 06:45 PM
I don't discredit everything in zietgeist.....my point has been.... how do we know what is true and what isn't?

Well, we don't. And we never will. :)

Dolphan7
09-10-2009, 06:43 PM
I don't discredit everything in the bible.....my point has been.... how do we know what is true and what isn't? I provided a few examples of some things that were blatantly false...which points to the credibility of the producer, and the rest of the book. It isn't a matter of what is true in the bible, but how do we know what is true.

Irony.You provided example that "prove" the bible is false? Where?

aesop
09-11-2009, 12:05 PM
Are you serious? There's plenty of things in the Bible that are obviously and blatantly false. Start with the Ark, which was an obvious ripoff from the Babylonians.

Start with the whole getting 2 of every animal thing. Noah went around grabbing over 4 million different species and kept them all alive long enough (a literal impossibility for a lot of insects, not to mention the carnage that would go on inside of the boat with all the different species intermingling) to survive an epic, worldwide flood? How about all the sea animals, did he get them onto his boat too? Because it would surely be impossible for many of them to survive after fresh water was mixed with saltwater.

How about feeding? He also brought enough food for every animal, and every single type that each animal would need? The amount of food needed along with the amount of animals that would be on board would weigh the boat down further than the nautical technology of the time could take care of. It would take a boat 3 or 4 times the size of the titanic. How about the ridiculous amounts of fresh water that would be scarce, yet extremely necessary to keep each animal alive?

There has also been 0 sedimentary evidence to suggest that a universal flood occurred. If a flood on the magnitude that Genesis suggests occurred, fossils from all different time periods would have been mixed together. We find none of this. Although, it would make the bible's case more plausible. Human remains mixed in the same area as dinosaur fossils, etc.

So after this ark finally concludes it's mission and the flood is in remission, all the animals make their thousand mile trips back to their respective homes? Another literal impossibility. Many animals that only eat certain foods, such as a panda, would never be able to survive their trips back. Not to mention that they'd have to trek over thousands of miles of desert, ocean, and forest to even have a shot at finding the place where they came from and exist today. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that most of the earth's resources would have been ravaged by a flood on such a large scale.

So there is one undeniable, blatantly false passage. Thus, to get back to the original point, calling into question every other point made in the bible.

Dolphan7
09-11-2009, 12:27 PM
Are you serious? There's plenty of things in the Bible that are obviously and blatantly false. Start with the Ark, which was an obvious ripoff from the Babylonians.

Start with the whole getting 2 of every animal thing. Noah went around grabbing over 4 million different species and kept them all alive long enough (a literal impossibility for a lot of insects, not to mention the carnage that would go on inside of the boat with all the different species intermingling) to survive an epic, worldwide flood? How about all the sea animals, did he get them onto his boat too? Because it would surely be impossible for many of them to survive after fresh water was mixed with saltwater.

How about feeding? He also brought enough food for every animal, and every single type that each animal would need? The amount of food needed along with the amount of animals that would be on board would weigh the boat down further than the nautical technology of the time could take care of. It would take a boat 3 or 4 times the size of the titanic. How about the ridiculous amounts of fresh water that would be scarce, yet extremely necessary to keep each animal alive?

There has also been 0 sedimentary evidence to suggest that a universal flood occurred. If a flood on the magnitude that Genesis suggests occurred, fossils from all different time periods would have been mixed together. We find none of this. Although, it would make the bible's case more plausible. Human remains mixed in the same area as dinosaur fossils, etc.

So after this ark finally concludes it's mission and the flood is in remission, all the animals make their thousand mile trips back to their respective homes? Another literal impossibility. Many animals that only eat certain foods, such as a panda, would never be able to survive their trips back. Not to mention that they'd have to trek over thousands of miles of desert, ocean, and forest to even have a shot at finding the place where they came from and exist today. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that most of the earth's resources would have been ravaged by a flood on such a large scale.

So there is one undeniable, blatantly false passage. Thus, to get back to the original point, calling into question every other point made in the bible.LOL. Sir.....with all due respect.....you haven't even read the bible have you? The reason I ask this is because you have no idea of what it says about the Genesis flood. The comments you made above are wrong - the bible doesn't even mention most of the things you brought up.

Noah went out and gathered the animals? Bible doesn't say that at all.
He has to gather the oceanic ones as well. Bible doesn't say that either.
Life on the Ark and after are very plausible and possible.

As for evidence of a flood - ever hear of the Cambrian Explosion? Sudden appearance of all life forms known to man, all in their existing and current forms. Science still hasn't figured out how that could happen in a uniformitarian theory.

This is why I encourage people such as yourself to research past threads where these subjects were covered in depth. Nothing you have mentioned disproves anything, all you are doing is posing questions that you don't have answers for.

EvilDylan
09-11-2009, 01:58 PM
Noah had to collect the animals that breathed through nostrils. Meaning no insects, and I guess he had to collect some whales and dolphins?

The cambrian explosion has been taken out of context a few times by a few creationists. They try to minimize it by comparing it to a 24 hour clock etc...The fact is the cambrian "explosion" took place over a course of 6 million years.

Also if they were in their current forms, where are the cambrian bunnies, or humans for that matter? That quote, which I've heard from a discovery institute creationist is completely and utterly false and misrepresented across the board by creationists. Take a look at the cambrian era fossil record and you will see creatures that look absolutely nothing like what we see on earth today. It's a silly quote and I can't believe people actually think it's true. All it takes is one look and it's horrendously obvious how false it is.

Dolphan7
09-11-2009, 03:16 PM
Noah had to collect the animals that breathed through nostrils. Meaning no insects, and I guess he had to collect some whales and dolphins?

The cambrian explosion has been taken out of context a few times by a few creationists. They try to minimize it by comparing it to a 24 hour clock etc...The fact is the cambrian "explosion" took place over a course of 6 million years.

Also if they were in their current forms, where are the cambrian bunnies, or humans for that matter? That quote, which I've heard from a discovery institute creationist is completely and utterly false and misrepresented across the board by creationists. Take a look at the cambrian era fossil record and you will see creatures that look absolutely nothing like what we see on earth today. It's a silly quote and I can't believe people actually think it's true. All it takes is one look and it's horrendously obvious how false it is.No Sir. Noah didn't have to collect anything. Have you read the Genesis account?

The Cambrian Explosion is indeed a geological record of a sudden appearance of all the life forms within a short period of time. 6 million years compared to 4.5 billion? Small amount of time even in geological terms- even if you must insist the entire cambrian layer is indeed 6 millions years old. That gets into another ongoing debate over the age of the earth. Shelve that one for another time. And of course there are creatures we don't see today - because they are extinct. Now I will say at this point in time that based on the genetic diversity we find within species, that we would expect to find "different" or wierd looking creatures in the fossil record that are ancestors of what we see today - we call this "according to their "kind" - from Genesis 1. Take the dog for instance.....we would not expect to find lets say a labradoodle in the fossil record as this breed wasn't bred until this century. But we would expect to find an ancestor similar to the dog of today. This ancestor carried with it all the genetic material to breed and inbreed into the various breeds we see today - but always withing it's kind or genus. This is what we see in the fossil record. Also we see snap frozen wooly mammoths standing in place with food still in their mouths, as would be expected from a sudden global flood. And it isn't just mammoths, but we see thousands of such instances in the fossil record. As would be expected as a result of a sudden global flood.

Why don't we find humans in this layer? Several possibilities. One is that we have only uncovered ...what....1% of this layer (and all the others), which indicates that we could find humans at some point in time. Because we don't find any after looking at only 1% of the record doesn't mean they aren't there. The oceans still cover 2/3 of the earth, and have hidden her secrets. But there is another plausible explanation.

Lets say you were a pre-flood heathen. The rain starts to fall. After a while you realize that this isn't going to stop anytime soon and you seek higher ground. This and all your comrades are doing the same thing. Why? Because man is and was the smartest creature and would think to survive in any way shape or form. Animals are stupid relatively speaking and would die off first and get trapped in the earth as it floods over them. So mankind huddles on the ever shrinking higher ground until all succumb to drowning. their bodies then floating to the surface after bloating up, to be eaten by sharks or whales or whatever is out there. Any remains would be scattered over the sea floor bed. As I said earlier, the ocean covers 2/3 of the earth. How much evidence is buried at the bottom?

EvilDylan
09-11-2009, 03:45 PM
I find it laughable how you disregard scientific theory because if the use of a certain word like "may" or "possibly" yet the word "kind" means exactly what you want it to mean.

Do you see the similarities?

Was there an account of the earth instantaneously freezing before or after the flood? Or is that an assumption that biblical scholars are making? is that something that they are saying happened to aid in their belief that there was a massive flood?

The problem with creationists is that you try to get science to help you in your plight to prove the existence of god. yet most creationists who claim to also be scientists are not only lying about their credentials, but they are also just flat out liars. Take a look at Kent Hovind, the self proclaimed PhD who supposedly taught to students for 15 years about science. His interviews show that he fails even the most basic of concepts when referring to things of scientific nature. He thinks a massive 30" thick formed in the atmosphere above the earth? LOL!!! How ridiculous! his understanding of genetics is also severely lacking. OH yeah, he's not in jail serving a 10 year sentence for being a LIAR to the IRS. Then there's Ted Haggard, busted for meth fueled gay prostitute sex, while he preached against gays every day. Another LIAR....so do you see why it's hard to buy into the creationist movement?

When I read a peer reviewed piece of information proving against evolution and for the existence of god I will start to question myself. So if their evidence is so strong, I want to see it.

Dolphan7
09-11-2009, 05:12 PM
I find it laughable how you disregard scientific theory because if the use of a certain word like "may" or "possibly" yet the word "kind" means exactly what you want it to mean.

Do you see the similarities?

Was there an account of the earth instantaneously freezing before or after the flood? Or is that an assumption that biblical scholars are making? is that something that they are saying happened to aid in their belief that there was a massive flood?

The problem with creationists is that you try to get science to help you in your plight to prove the existence of god. yet most creationists who claim to also be scientists are not only lying about their credentials, but they are also just flat out liars. Take a look at Kent Hovind, the self proclaimed PhD who supposedly taught to students for 15 years about science. His interviews show that he fails even the most basic of concepts when referring to things of scientific nature. He thinks a massive 30" thick formed in the atmosphere above the earth? LOL!!! How ridiculous! his understanding of genetics is also severely lacking. OH yeah, he's not in jail serving a 10 year sentence for being a LIAR to the IRS. Then there's Ted Haggard, busted for meth fueled gay prostitute sex, while he preached against gays every day. Another LIAR....so do you see why it's hard to buy into the creationist movement?

When I read a peer reviewed piece of information proving against evolution and for the existence of god I will start to question myself. So if their evidence is so strong, I want to see it.I don't disregard scientific theory based on words. My argument has always been that Darwinian Macro Evolution has not been proven, and when people such as yourself bring all this "evidence" that supposedly "proves" evolution, it is littered with these words that leave it only as "supported", or "supposed". See the difference?

It is the same from the Creationist side. There isn't a smoking gun non-believers can point to that says - aha - there is proof of God.

It is all about what you believe in beforehand. Both sides have ample evidence that "support" their bias.

I know you probably don't mean this but you are following a pattern that is very prominent in the scientific community. When faced with contradicting evidence or theories or ideas, attack the credentials and personal life of the person bringing the argument. If you want to find people who are disengenous, you don't have to look very far....and that applies to both sides. I would rather just discuss the aspects of the debate and not the persons.

Most creationists scientists are lying about their credentials and are flat out liars?

This is why we can't have a respectful debate on the actual facts and data.

As far as the flood - yes if a global flood happened it would have changed the atmosphere of the planet, causing an immediate ice cap at the poles, of which we know that the most recent ice age started just a few thousand years ago. It is a rather fascinating theory and concept, of course we could have that discussion...but I don't know...seeing as how I am probably a liar. lol

EvilDylan
09-11-2009, 08:58 PM
I'm just using your exact same logic when I presented the Zeitgeist video, you said that they lied and therefore the rest of the evidence was out the window for you.

See the similarities?

Im presenting you with facts, but you find some bogus website claiming to debunk everything that has been scientifically proven. The people you are referencing are not real scientists, they have not been published, they have no REAL proof. The information that I have given you is researched, proven, published, tested, and validated.

This is why we can't have a debate, you refuse to accept anything that might not agree with your preconceived notions. Even if they are 100% proven in the scientific community. Why? Because you found a website that cited a paper saying research can be incorrect? WOW that's why its called research, to find the truth. You refuse to accept FACT. It's silly.

No I never said you are a liar, I am just pointing out that some of the biggest proponents of creationism are known liars. What does this say other than they don't practice what they preach, they just push an idea because it's their agenda.

Dolphan7
09-12-2009, 01:25 AM
I'm just using your exact same logic when I presented the Zeitgeist video, you said that they lied and therefore the rest of the evidence was out the window for you.

See the similarities?

Im presenting you with facts, but you find some bogus website claiming to debunk everything that has been scientifically proven. The people you are referencing are not real scientists, they have not been published, they have no REAL proof. The information that I have given you is researched, proven, published, tested, and validated.

This is why we can't have a debate, you refuse to accept anything that might not agree with your preconceived notions. Even if they are 100% proven in the scientific community. Why? Because you found a website that cited a paper saying research can be incorrect? WOW that's why its called research, to find the truth. You refuse to accept FACT. It's silly.

No I never said you are a liar, I am just pointing out that some of the biggest proponents of creationism are known liars. What does this say other than they don't practice what they preach, they just push an idea because it's their agenda.You haven't provided any facts that "prove" evolution. That has been my entire point. You provide research that "supports" evolution. ERV's Remember? I linked a site that simply listed all the questions this research on ERV's present. It isn't a cut and dried case. More research needs to be done. I am sorry that you can't make the "evolution is proven through ERV's" speech. Not yet anyway. Maybe one day evolution science will find something that will definitely prove without a doubt that it is indeed true. I doubt that will ever happen, but that is just me. There are thousands of "scientists" that put their faith in just such a thing happening - and the funding keeps coming in to continue that search.

The biggest proponents of creationism are liars? Really? So the whole lot should be discrarded right? By that logic - since Piltdown man was a hoax .....then we should simply discard all evolutionists right? Would it serve our time better to list all the evolution hoaxes and flat our fabrications? Don't we have better things to do?

Creationists don't attack the credibility of the scientist, but the data itself.
That is all I want to do. Just talk about the data and the research and what is really says, not what people want it to say, or assume it says.

aesop
09-12-2009, 11:03 AM
LOL. Sir.....with all due respect.....you haven't even read the bible have you? The reason I ask this is because you have no idea of what it says about the Genesis flood. The comments you made above are wrong - the bible doesn't even mention most of the things you brought up.

Noah went out and gathered the animals? Bible doesn't say that at all.
He has to gather the oceanic ones as well. Bible doesn't say that either.
Life on the Ark and after are very plausible and possible.

As for evidence of a flood - ever hear of the Cambrian Explosion? Sudden appearance of all life forms known to man, all in their existing and current forms. Science still hasn't figured out how that could happen in a uniformitarian theory.

This is why I encourage people such as yourself to research past threads where these subjects were covered in depth. Nothing you have mentioned disproves anything, all you are doing is posing questions that you don't have answers for.Regardless, you choose to ignore how all these animals, once off the ark, would have gotten back to their original habitats. How about how he fed all of them, or what they did with all the animal feces on board? Most of these animals would not have been able to survive very long wherever they happened to end up after the flood. All plants would be dead, so what does that leave? The other animals to eat each other? What about vegetarian animals? The ecosystem would be so irreparably destroyed from a flood of this scale that all the animals would die out very soon after.

Dolphan7
09-12-2009, 01:20 PM
Regardless, you choose to ignore how all these animals, once off the ark, would have gotten back to their original habitats. How about how he fed all of them, or what they did with all the animal feces on board? Most of these animals would not have been able to survive very long wherever they happened to end up after the flood. All plants would be dead, so what does that leave? The other animals to eat each other? What about vegetarian animals? The ecosystem would be so irreparably destroyed from a flood of this scale that all the animals would die out very soon after.I am not ignoring anything....these topics have been discussed in here many times, as well as in society in general. Google can also provide a great source for the answers to these questions. It has been a discussion among believers for centuries. Do some research. You may not agree with he conclusions, but at least you will be aware that the "so called" problematic conditions during and after the flood do have plausible answers.

aesop
09-12-2009, 02:29 PM
But you don't care to share them? We extensively posted about macro and micro evolution, yet you answer more in this thread..

HansMojo
09-12-2009, 11:53 PM
Regardless, you choose to ignore how all these animals, once off the ark, would have gotten back to their original habitats. How about how he fed all of them, or what they did with all the animal feces on board? Most of these animals would not have been able to survive very long wherever they happened to end up after the flood. All plants would be dead, so what does that leave? The other animals to eat each other? What about vegetarian animals? The ecosystem would be so irreparably destroyed from a flood of this scale that all the animals would die out very soon after.
The Bible doesn't provide us with a lot of details regarding the flood and so readers are free to fill in the blanks with their own theories and answers. The important thing for me is that the theories we come up with remain in harmony with what the Bible does reveal and that we remember that they are just that...theories.

With that said, my personal theory regarding your questions is that just as God gathered the animals and brought them to the Ark (not Noah), He is the one that redistributed them after the flood to their appropriate environments. Further, since God was obviously interested in preserving their lives, He could have replanted food for them or simply created food for them to eat in the environments He took them to until nature took its course. What about food while on the Ark? There are stories in the Bible where God multiplied a small amount of fish and bread to feed multitudes and so He could have done the same thing on the Ark. Feces? There could have been a poop chute they simply dropped the poop down that took it out of the boat. Further, the animals could have all been put into some kind of stasis and basically slept through the whole ordeal. Like the Creation story and many other events recorded within, the Bible basically states that the event happened while providing very limited details. This is likely because the original intended audience already accepted the event as fact or the divine abilities of God to take care of the logistics and so the author, in this case Moses, simply didn't provide a detailed explanation.

Given what the Bible does say about God, my theories are reasonable...but they are just that, theories.

Rafiki
09-13-2009, 02:09 AM
The word "faith" conflicts with the scientific method, and any attempt to link the two becomes mired in both semantics and morals. I wish agnostics and atheists would stop proselytizing their limited mindset.

EvilDylan
09-13-2009, 10:17 AM
The word "faith" conflicts with the scientific method, and any attempt to link the two becomes mired in both semantics and morals. I wish agnostics and atheists would stop proselytizing their limited mindset.

You've got to be kidding me. You are accusing agnostics and atheists of trying too convert people? What on earth is just about ever Christian trying to do? "Do you have questions you want answered, God has those answers." Or all the signs saying "You will go to hell if you don't ask your lord and savior Jesus into your heart!"

Yet you accuse atheists and agnostics of trying to convert...we aren't the only offenders, and we are by far less pushy about it. We don't threaten damnation or eternal misery, we threaten peace of mind, and answers to questions.

I'm sure Einstein had faith that his theory of relativity was correct, so faith and science to have a place together.

Funny post.

aesop
09-13-2009, 11:29 AM
The word "faith" conflicts with the scientific method, and any attempt to link the two becomes mired in both semantics and morals. I wish agnostics and atheists would stop proselytizing their limited mindset.http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2009/09/80523153-1.png

Rafiki
09-13-2009, 12:55 PM
Think about how much time you put into trying to convince others on your views on God. This is probably the first time I've posted in months on this forum.

Funny picture or not, you're proselytizing without even knowing it.

aesop
09-13-2009, 03:51 PM
What views on god do you perceive me to have, exactly? I'm agnostic. It's laughable for you to even suggest I'm trying to convert someone to something that doesn't have a single belief other than being open to many answers.

SpurzN703
09-15-2009, 12:01 PM
The Bible doesn't provide us with a lot of details regarding the flood and so readers are free to fill in the blanks with their own theories and answers. The important thing for me is that the theories we come up with remain in harmony with what the Bible does reveal and that we remember that they are just that...theories.

With that said, my personal theory regarding your questions is that just as God gathered the animals and brought them to the Ark (not Noah), He is the one that redistributed them after the flood to their appropriate environments. Further, since God was obviously interested in preserving their lives, He could have replanted food for them or simply created food for them to eat in the environments He took them to until nature took its course. What about food while on the Ark? There are stories in the Bible where God multiplied a small amount of fish and bread to feed multitudes and so He could have done the same thing on the Ark. Feces? There could have been a poop chute they simply dropped the poop down that took it out of the boat. Further, the animals could have all been put into some kind of stasis and basically slept through the whole ordeal. Like the Creation story and many other events recorded within, the Bible basically states that the event happened while providing very limited details. This is likely because the original intended audience already accepted the event as fact or the divine abilities of God to take care of the logistics and so the author, in this case Moses, simply didn't provide a detailed explanation.

Given what the Bible does say about God, my theories are reasonable...but they are just that, theories.

Isn't it kind of easy to just say God did all the collecting of the animals both before and after the flood? Of course he did it, he can do anything right?

HansMojo
09-15-2009, 01:37 PM
Isn't it kind of easy to just say God did all the collecting of the animals both before and after the flood? Of course he did it, he can do anything right?
It is pretty easy to say. :lol:

The truth is, the Bible doesn't say that Noah went and collected all of the animals, it says that they came to him. So it's not much of a leap to assume that if God cared enough to get the animals to Noah, that He is not going to just abandon them after the floods subsided. My explanation is simply a possible theory, but it makes a lot of sense and remains in harmony with the rest of the content found in the Bible as well as the ability level of an all powerful deity. But it is just one possible explanation.

SpurzN703
09-15-2009, 02:04 PM
It is pretty easy to say. :lol:

The truth is, the Bible doesn't say that Noah went and collected all of the animals, it says that they came to him. So it's not much of a leap to assume that if God cared enough to get the animals to Noah, that He is not going to just abandon them after the floods subsided. My explanation is simply a possible theory, but it makes a lot of sense and remains in harmony with the rest of the content found in the Bible as well as the ability level of an all powerful deity. But it is just one possible explanation.

I'm not saying it isn't possible that God did save the animals that survived. It's just easy to credit him b/c hey, he can do anything that ever needed to be done.

It just sounds like a cop out to me. Doesn't mean it is though

Dolphan7
09-15-2009, 02:22 PM
I am about 100 posts into the "Why do you believe in God" thread. It is a good re-read. I recommend it for everyone.

Rafiki
09-15-2009, 02:42 PM
What views on god do you perceive me to have, exactly? I'm agnostic. It's laughable for you to even suggest I'm trying to convert someone to something that doesn't have a single belief other than being open to many answers.

You want people to take a scientific approach when weighing their beliefs in God. It's nonsensical. Science doesn't define our universe, it is only a methodology to explain limited natural occurrences.

The science of today may one day be as laughable as "humour" science of the eighteenth century.

HansMojo
09-15-2009, 04:02 PM
I'm not saying it isn't possible that God did save the animals that survived. It's just easy to credit him b/c hey, he can do anything that ever needed to be done.

It just sounds like a cop out to me. Doesn't mean it is though
No, I totally feel you man. I was laughing in my 1st response because I totally understand what you mean. And believe me, I've heard answers like that to religious questions that even get on my nerves and I'm on the God squad. :lol:

But in this case it makes perfect sense to me (my theory) and I don't think it fits the type of cop out answer that you are referring to (but of course I'm biased since it's my theory). The whole event is a very unnatural thing and would have required God's direct interference in natural processes for any of it to take place. I believe the account in Genesis though and think that since the Bible does speak about God's intervention to bring the animals to the Ark (They came walking up in pairs for goodness sakes without human intervention - and in 7 pairs of clean and 1 pair of unclean no less) it fits that God would have intervened in keeping them alive and working out the logistics of the whole thing including getting them to suitable environments afterwords. Peace.

EvilDylan
09-15-2009, 04:21 PM
You want people to take a scientific approach when weighing their beliefs in God. It's nonsensical. Science doesn't define our universe, it is only a methodology to explain limited natural occurrences.

The science of today may one day be as laughable as "humour" science of the eighteenth century.


Asking people to take a scientific approach to weighing their beliefs in god is as nonsensical as the same people trying to use science to prove the existence of god or disprove evolution.

Sure the science of today might be laughable in a few hundred years, like calculus, physics, the properties of light, diffraction, and the laws of gravitation are now. Yes, lets all have a good laugh at Newton and his discoveries.

Rafiki
09-15-2009, 05:32 PM
Asking people to take a scientific approach to weighing their beliefs in god is as nonsensical as the same people trying to use science to prove the existence of god or disprove evolution.

Sure the science of today might be laughable in a few hundred years, like calculus, physics, the properties of light, diffraction, and the laws of gravitation are now. Yes, lets all have a good laugh at Newton and his discoveries.


I agree with your first statement.

However, with your second paragraph you make a mistake. Newtonian physics do not accurately describe the very big or very small. We've gone more towards relativity/quantum physics for that. Which actually proves my point. Thank you.

EvilDylan
09-15-2009, 05:42 PM
I agree with your first statement.

However, with your second paragraph you make a mistake. Newtonian physics do not accurately describe the very big or very small. We've gone more towards relativity/quantum physics for that. Which actually proves my point. Thank you.


Where is my mistake? I never said that Newtonian mathematics described the size of anything. I made a reference to your inference that 18th century science was laughable, in which I pointed out that Newton made several notable scientific discoveries and publications in the 18th century.

Rafiki
09-15-2009, 08:06 PM
Where is my mistake? I never said that Newtonian mathematics described the size of anything. I made a reference to your inference that 18th century science was laughable, in which I pointed out that Newton made several notable scientific discoveries and publications in the 18th century.

Newton's contributions are important, but they are inaccurate in describing our universe.

Anyway, he's an exceptional man. What of all the crackpot 'science' of the 18th century? I notice you've ignored all those. Or do you believe we're beyond making mistakes like that?

EvilDylan
09-15-2009, 08:19 PM
Newton's contributions are important, but they are inaccurate in describing our universe.

Anyway, he's an exceptional man. What of all the crackpot 'science' of the 18th century? I notice you've ignored all those. Or do you believe we're beyond making mistakes like that?


I just figured I would ignore that since you ignored the most important scientific discovery of that time.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Or does that not apply when it benefits your argument?

SpurzN703
09-15-2009, 08:28 PM
No, I totally feel you man. I was laughing in my 1st response because I totally understand what you mean. And believe me, I've heard answers like that to religious questions that even get on my nerves and I'm on the God squad. :lol:

But in this case it makes perfect sense to me (my theory) and I don't think it fits the type of cop out answer that you are referring to (but of course I'm biased since it's my theory). The whole event is a very unnatural thing and would have required God's direct interference in natural processes for any of it to take place. I believe the account in Genesis though and think that since the Bible does speak about God's intervention to bring the animals to the Ark (They came walking up in pairs for goodness sakes without human intervention - and in 7 pairs of clean and 1 pair of unclean no less) it fits that God would have intervened in keeping them alive and working out the logistics of the whole thing including getting them to suitable environments afterwords. Peace.

So was the ark Steve Carrell created in Evan Almighty similar? :d-day:

Dolphan7
09-15-2009, 08:37 PM
I am about 100 posts into the "Why do you believe in God" thread. It is a good re-read. I recommend it for everyone.
I am at post # 500 now. Man ......some good stuff in there.

HansMojo
09-15-2009, 09:10 PM
So was the ark Steve Carrell created in Evan Almighty similar? :d-day:
:lol:

HansMojo
09-15-2009, 09:12 PM
I am at post # 500 now. Man ......some good stuff in there.
Yeah, that was a great thread. :woot:

I had started re-reading it a few months back. I can't remember how far I got, but it was hard to put down.

Dolphan7
09-16-2009, 02:08 AM
Yeah, that was a great thread. :woot:

I had started re-reading it a few months back. I can't remember how far I got, but it was hard to put down.
It's kind of like a novel huh?

HansMojo
09-16-2009, 02:37 AM
It's kind of like a novel huh?
Yah man, good stuff. :up:

Rafiki
09-16-2009, 01:13 PM
I just figured I would ignore that since you ignored the most important scientific discovery of that time.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Or does that not apply when it benefits your argument?

I was speaking in general terms. Most of the science of the 18th century WAS crackpot. The father of our nation was probably killed due to the science of the day.

You bringing up Newton doesn't diminish that fact. And it doesn't diminish the probability that some of our hard scientific data is way off for one reason or another. When a paradigm shift happens, as it probably will, a lot of science may be thrown aside, but God will still be there.

EvilDylan
09-16-2009, 01:52 PM
I was speaking in general terms. Most of the science of the 18th century WAS crackpot. The father of our nation was probably killed due to the science of the day.

You bringing up Newton doesn't diminish that fact. And it doesn't diminish the probability that some of our hard scientific data is way off for one reason or another. When a paradigm shift happens, as it probably will, a lot of science may be thrown aside, but God will still be there.


Most of it was? Really can you give us a pie chart or something to back up your claim. The 18th century was referred to as the age of enlightenment partly due to the religious freedom that scientists were enjoying. If you want you can go back and take a look at the dark ages when almost no factual scientific progress was made thanks to the stranglehold of religion. The 18th century had remnants of crackpot science that was still somewhat biased by religion.

Paradigm shift or not, factual science will still remain factual science. The discovery of something important and fundamental to science does not change the truth, it just opens the doors for new truths that have yet to be found.

Of course god will still be there, so will the thousands of other gods out there, that doesn't make it any more or less true.

rev kev
11-15-2009, 12:10 AM
I don't discredit everything in the bible.....my point has been.... how do we know what is true and what isn't? I provided a few examples of some things that were blatantly false...which points to the credibility of the producer, and the rest of the book. It isn't a matter of what is true in the bible, but how do we know what is true.

Irony.

The Scripture is not God it is a Bible it is a grouping of books or as John points out in John 1 there is another "Word" he is not a map like the Scriptures but rather Spirit - the map can help lead us to this "Word" or what we understand to be the person of God himself..., in Jesus Christ...

Why get so hung up on a map...? I see many biblical statements that lean one way and others that lean another way - more important is the principle behind the text - the Bible is not God...