Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I wouldn't argue with that.

0 Replies

foxfyre

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of couse there was a flood. Almost every ancient culture has a flood story that is no more and no less plausible than the Noah story in the Bible. So it is reasonable to assume that there was a massive flood in the ancient world and, as the people had no way to assess the scope of it, and having no way to know how big the world is, they assumed that water as far as the eye could see covered the entire world.

You seem to agree on the implausability of the flood then? Why is it reasonable to assume that there was a "MASSIVE flood", if it left no evidence for us to assess its massiveness. See how circular all your logics are?
IF A were True, we could have a product AB , if B were true.

Then, while were still on the flood, RL claims that all the mountains were "lower" at that time (another little fact left out of the Bible) and that the heavens could contain greater amounts of water against the pull of gravity by some jkind of "VApor Cloud". See how totally more convoluted and untestable the basis for your belief in a FLOOD is?

Now, are you saying that some civilization had a local flood? Then why if there were such advance warning,build this ark>Why not just migrate?

WAit a minute, I think Ryan et al speak of that very thing with the Post Pleistocene inundation of the Black Sea. Gilgamesh also was a story of a local flood in which ole gil got away by building more of a raft.

Now, how about dinosaurs being vegematarians until after THE FLOOD? or the fact that somehow , RL wants us to believe that dinosaurs and humans lived together.
The Bible is silent on all of these points and yet youall claim it to be scientific ally accurate.

0 Replies

God gave us a rainbow as a sign that there would never be another flood.

Now since we have God's sign that there will never be another flood then isn't it logical to assume that there once was one Question

Don't need to hear any BS about refraction, reflection, prismatic effects or billiard tables either Exclamation

Don't try to confuse me with facts. I have an inspired teacher Exclamation

0 Replies

Omission of facts doesn't deter bible-thumpers; what the bible says is gospel. Omissions are not important; it was purposely left out by god.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxfyre
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of couse there was a flood. Almost every ancient culture has a flood story that is no more and no less plausible than the Noah story in the Bible. So it is reasonable to assume that there was a massive flood in the ancient world and, as the people had no way to assess the scope of it, and having no way to know how big the world is, they assumed that water as far as the eye could see covered the entire world.

You seem to agree on the implausability of the flood then? Why is it reasonable to assume that there was a "MASSIVE flood", if it left no evidence for us to assess its massiveness. See how circular all your logics are?
IF A were True, we could have a product AB , if B were true.

Then, while were still on the flood, RL claims that all the mountains were "lower" at that time (another little fact left out of the Bible) and that the heavens could contain greater amounts of water against the pull of gravity by some jkind of "VApor Cloud". See how totally more convoluted and untestable the basis for your belief in a FLOOD is?

Now, are you saying that some civilization had a local flood? Then why if there were such advance warning,build this ark>Why not just migrate?

WAit a minute, I think Ryan et al speak of that very thing with the Post Pleistocene inundation of the Black Sea. Gilgamesh also was a story of a local flood in which ole gil got away by building more of a raft.

Now, how about dinosaurs being vegematarians until after THE FLOOD? or the fact that somehow , RL wants us to believe that dinosaurs and humans lived together.
The Bible is silent on all of these points and yet youall claim it to be scientific ally accurate.

No. I think it quite plausible that there WAS a flood and that it became woven into the legends and lore of ancient cultures most of which were more myth than fact but that were based on real events. Do I find the Noah story plausible as history? No. Do I find it plausible as a legend built around a real person? Personally, I think it quite possible that there was a man named Noah, but as to the flood and ark story related to Noah, no. But I don't need to believe that Noah was real to believe the theological lesson to be learned from the story of Noah. Nor do I have any evidence that there was not a Noah nor does anybody else, and as I believe in a very great God, I have no problem with anybody who accepts the Noah story as real.

Nor should you.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Of couse there was a flood. Almost every ancient culture has a flood story that is no more and no less plausible than the Noah story in the Bible. So it is reasonable to assume that there was a massive flood in the ancient world and, as the people had no way to assess the scope of it, and having no way to know how big the world is, they assumed that water as far as the eye could see covered the entire world.

A) All civilizations have flood stories
B) Noah is a flood story

All civilization flood stories are about Noah--QED

When you consider that every civilization had its onset in a river valley, and floods are expected occurrences in river valleys, is it so unusual to understand why every ancient civilization had a flood story or three? As for combining all those floods together---that to me is a syllogistic leap of wild faith.

Rap

0 Replies

It's not a leap of wild faith, but blind and not logical.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

(The Bible) has so many..... omissions.......

Really?

How many things are omitted?

Somewhere between 1 and a number greater than the number of canon entries.

Why does the exact number matter? Are you ready to argue that the roman church has not edited the bible?

T
K
O

It's an interesting discussion when someone argues that they don't agree with what is IN the Bible.

It's hysterically funny when someone argues about what ISN'T in the Bible.

There's no maps of Argentina in the Bible. It's omitted. hmmmmmmmmm maybe the Bible isn't accurate because of this glaring omission...........

Well for starts, there was no Argentina at the time the Bible was crafted. Also the bible certianly isn't a geography book, but it along with the church certainly promoted the idea of a flat earth. You're trying to dodge the cold hard irrefutable fact that the Bible is a collection or cherry picked entries. The rest of the entries are OMITTED.

T
K
O

There are many facts which are not included in your post. They have obviously been omitted on purpose.

Your address and phone #, for instance. Factual info that you have intentionally omitted.

Therefore, your post is not to be trusted, is it? Too many omissions.

Weak sauce RL.

The bible omits writings directly related to the topics covered in the remainder of the mythology.

My post certainly omits my address and phone number, but neither are relavant to the credibility of my post.

Question: If the writers of the bible were all inspired/writen by God, then why aren't all the writer's works included?

Answer: Because the writing often conflict about certain details of events, the role of the church, and even the nature of God. If people were given these raw passages, they'd be forced into free thought. Free thought could lead to the rejection of all the passeges. Therefore, in the name of self preservation, edits and omissions were made.

A song and dance of dishonesty.

T
K
O

0 Replies

In 1872, the translation of the Sumerian tablets relating the tale of Gilgamesh having occurred 5,000 years before the first book of the Bible was written down shook the Christians of Europe to their bones. Suddenly, the believers were confronted by the reality that their myth was just one copied from one much older.

Twenty years before that, Darwin had shown that Genesis could no longer be taught as Natural Science.

Yet here we are. The Biblists still clinging to the idea that their particular book contains something besides myth and poetry.

Joe(It's the world's oldest case of plagiarism)Nation

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Of couse there was a flood. Almost every ancient culture has a flood story that is no more and no less plausible than the Noah story in the Bible. So it is reasonable to assume that there was a massive flood in the ancient world and, as the people had no way to assess the scope of it, and having no way to know how big the world is, they assumed that water as far as the eye could see covered the entire world.

A) All civilizations have flood stories
B) Noah is a flood story

All civilization flood stories are about Noah--QED

When you consider that every civilization had its onset in a river valley, and floods are expected occurrences in river valleys, is it so unusual to understand why every ancient civilization had a flood story or three? As for combining all those floods together---that to me is a syllogistic leap of wild faith.

Rap

No, you are pretending to draw conclusions from conclusions I didn't jump to. Most ancient civilizations with a flood story in their mythology didn't know anything about the ancient Hebrews or Noah or the Hebrew God. The point was however that there was a huge flood or floods that inspire such mythology. If you focus really hard and try, I'm sure you can see that such a thing is possible. The land I live on is now is high desert. It was once ocean and it was once rain forest. Had people lived in those times, the stories they would have left behind would be much different than those of the Anazazi which are among the oldest that we have here.

0 Replies

Fox, There's a huge difference between a "world" flood, and other floods. No comparison. Floods are natural; remember the tsunami that hit Thialand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. If this had happened five thousand years ago, people would have believed it was a world flood.

0 Replies

Snaps.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

In 1872, the translation of the Sumerian tablets relating the tale of Gilgamesh having occurred 5,000 years before the first book of the Bible was written down shook the Christians of Europe to their bones. Suddenly, the believers were confronted by the reality that their myth was just one copied from one much older.

Twenty years before that, Darwin had shown that Genesis could no longer be taught as Natural Science.

Yet here we are. The Biblists still clinging to the idea that their particular book contains something besides myth and poetry.

Joe(It's the world's oldest case of plagiarism)Nation

The examples of the oldest Hebrew writings closely resemble the ancient Phoenician writing that was developed roughly 2000 BC. The ancient Hebrew stories precede that period by millenia and anthropologists conclude they had passed the stories down for generations before they had the ability to record them in writing. Serious scholars have no clue whether the Hebrews copied from the Babylonians for the flood story or whether the Babylonians copied from the Hebrews-- there was extensive intermingling between these two cultures, and the stories in Genesis are by far not the oldest manuscripts in the Old Testament. Or maybe it was a shared experience. Who knows? Each writes of the other in their ancient texts.

At any rate the Sumerians, Persians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and other East Africans all also had flood stories in their cultural lore suggesting either a massive universal event common to all occurred at some time or perhaps a series of smaller floods. Again if there is water as far as the eye can see, the people had no means to know how vast the water is. It would be quite reasonable for them to assume that the world was under water.

Despite the eagerness with which non Christians seek to demoralize and/or demonize and/or ridicule Christians, most of us figured out the problems with Genesis and scientific realities even before we finally got to science class. The difference between smart Christians and ignorant non-Christians, however, is that smart Christians understand the difference between a theological statement expressed by non scientists and that science which was discovered millenia after the stories of the Bible were written down.

And those who can appreciate the style and substance of theological writings as we look a the world through the eyes of the ancients are not in the least bothered by scientific inconsistencies as they are unimportant to the intent of the text.

Sorry to disappoint you.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

At any rate the Sumerians, Persians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and other East Africans all also had flood stories in their cultural lore suggesting either a massive universal event common to all occurred at some time or perhaps a series of smaller floods. Again if there is water as far as the eye can see, the people had no means to know how vast the water is. It would be quite reasonable for them to assume that the world was under water.

I am going to jump way out on a limb here and suggest that the stories were of localized smaller floods for if they were all related to the Noah event, there would not have been any survivors to tell the story.

Quote:

Despite the eagerness with which non Christians seek to demoralize and/or demonize and/or ridicule Christians, most of us figured out the problems with Genesis and scientific realities even before we finally got to science class. The difference between smart Christians and ignorant non-Christians, however, is that smart Christians understand the difference between a theological statement expressed by non scientists and that science which was discovered millenia after the stories of the Bible were written down.

The smart Christians IMHO are ones that would agree with the letter in the Clergy Letter Project and are not concerned that children may be exposed to scientific truth.

0 Replies

This is all well rehearsed and touchingly simple.

If Darwin found fossils of sea creatures the ancients would have done. And mythological stories wove the explanation into the mesh of other stories all being altered and adapted to various uses and explaining other things to an audience of simple peoples.

There are stories in media which omit lots of things.

I keep pointing out things omitted from wande's stories but you don't want to know about them.

Doesn't the Noah story convey a sense of the heroic nature of man who is beginning to overcome natural calamity.

It establishes a male authority figure and inculcates respect for adults in kids.

Nobody think Homer is scientific truth. But it lays bare psychological categories which human nature is subject to.

I get the sense that not much of Homer or the Bible have been seriously read by these AIDs-ers. My impression is that the capacity to read is not what it ought to be after years of expensive schooling.

What serious writer ever belittled the Bible?

0 Replies

Quote:

Creationists 'peddle lies about fossil record'
(By Lucy Cockcroft, Daily Telegraph, February 28, 2008)

Some Christians claim there is a lack of "missing link" fossils, halfway between two major groups of creatures.

They say this proves Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a fallacy and that God created each living species from nothing.

But, in an essay published in the magazine New Scientist today, geologist Donald Prothero claims that reports of "huge gaps" in the fossil records have been greatly exaggerated.

Dr Prothero, a professor of geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, said: "Life does not progress up a hierarchical ladder from 'low' to 'high' but is a branching bush with numerous lineages splitting apart and coexisting simultaneously.

"For example, apes and humans split from a common ancestor seven million years ago and both lineages are still around.

"For this reason the concept of 'missing link' is a misleading one. A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another.

"It merely needs to record aspects of evolutionary change that occurred as one lineage split from another."

When Darwin first proposed the idea of evolution by natural selection in 1859, the fossil record offered little support. He even devoted two entire chapters of the Origin of Species to the imperfection of the geological record, but predicted that it would eventually support his theories.

Dr Prothero said the creationists are ignoring a wealth of transitional fossils found since Darwin's era which provide proof of the evolutionary process.

He said: "The idea still persists that the fossil record is too patchy to provide good evidence of evolution. One reason for this is the influence of creationism.

"Foremost among their tactics is to distort or ignore the evidence for evolution; a favourite lie is 'there are no transitional fossils'.

"This is manifestly untrue. We now have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils."

0 Replies

Wandel, IDers have to lie to make their case sound plausable. That religion itself is built on lies and innuendo; it's just repeated during history - like the Bush term in the white house.

They must continually lie to themselves, because the alternative is to destroy what they believed in for most of their lives. That's an impossible task for most.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
Creationists 'peddle lies about fossil record'
(By Lucy Cockcroft, Daily Telegraph, February 28, 2008)

Some Christians claim there is a lack of "missing link" fossils, halfway between two major groups of creatures.

And some people stand on street corners and rant about the end of the world. I see little difference. Both viewpoints are uninformed and irrational.

0 Replies

Isn't it interesting too that those who say there are witnesses to the world flood can't add two plus two. If there indeed was a world flood, who were the witnesses at all those different locations?

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

IDers have to lie to make their case sound plausable.

Where have I lied c.i. You really didn't ought to be calling people liars without offering some proof. That's a totalitarian procedure. And the most vulgar of breaches of TOS. But I don't suppose you notice.

Why don't you come out and support totalitarianism properly. It's the logic of your case.

And as you never answer the points I make it can only be that they are all too plausible and you daren't debate them, a wise decision. Stick to attacking The Flood and nutcases on street corners. They are easy targets. Nothing to do with this topic mind you and that has you trolling and even worse than that trolling with no development. Same stuff as when you started. Same old record. Minds shut like gin-traps with you stuck fast in them.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know