Bible vs. Science

Quote:

I asked you to point the finger at someone related to the supposed "Ark" discovery. You have not done so. Then you try to divert attention away from this fact by accusing me of saying nobody in the entire history of the world has tried to refute God exists. You are either practicing a dubious debating tactic to divert attention away from the original subject or you are showing everyone here that you are illiterate by not comprehending what "in relation" means. I suppose either method will work for someone who will ignore every path of rationality to "float their boat (ark)."

Well, if I had been talking about anyone specifically that would be a different thing. I made a general statement about not understanding why some would accept that the religious (not your exact words) may further their agenda by promoting certain things and yet not seem to consider there are those that would do the opposite. I wasn't pointing any specific fingers at anyone. So, the answer to your question is, I don't know that anyone has tried to do that thus far concerning this find.

Quote:

God creates a flood to slowly and painfully murder practically every man, woman, child, animal, plant, etc. on Earth. Then God cleans up the crime scene by getting rid of the corpses and then wiped away the blood that is smeared on the sides of the mountains. Then God inspires men to write it down in the Bible so that people may accept through faith that he brutally murdered nearly everyone except the few who were worthy of saving. And that of those who were worthy of saving were naked drunkards (Noah), and incestual homosexuals (Ham and Canaan.) Aren't such things considered trademarks among those in insane asylums?

And people accuse me of rhetoric? Just had to throw those emotional words like painfully murder in there, huh? And perhaps you should look up the word murder. God doesn't murder. Yeah, all those people died. They were wicked people. God makes the rules. Not me.

0 Replies

Quote:

You don't know what lab these samples are supposedly being sent to. You don't know that scientists that work in that lab. As such, you cannot be certain any sample was ever sent to a lab for analysis. Then again, I guess a scam could be interesting...

And it already starts? All the information isn't in yet but you are already implying it's a scam? Guess you proved me right when I said there are those that will try to discredit it.

0 Replies

Quote:

The B.A.S.E. Institute's samples are being examined at labs in Texas and Florida. B.A.S.E officials concede that there would be no way to conclusively prove that their finding is actually Noah's Ark.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2133311&page=1

0 Replies

momma wrote:

So, who is to say that God did not wipe away the evidence of the flood claimed in the Bible?

I don't blame him. The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not a crime one should be proud of. But, by your belief, he brags about it in the Bible.

Also one can say "who is to say"....anything. As I have said, if one works on the premise of total ignorance any story, conjucture or speculation is logical for the religious so long as it backs up the Bible. Even such silly things as all the dinosaurs in the ark were infants so one can find some "logical" way to fit them in Noah's boat.

0 Replies

Real

Just how high were the mountains during Noah's day. If you claim Everest was not 29,000 feet because the Bible didn't say anything about Everest does that mean anything the Bible fails to mention did not exist? Just how high were mountains in Noah's day? Can you back up your answer with Bible verse?

0 Replies

MA

Quote:

And I don't know what your problem is with me but if you can't just tell me flat out what it is and try to resolve it then we don't have anything else to discuss. I'm not battling with you or anyone else.

. Contrary to your opinion, I dont have the slightest knowledge of you except for the persona you present herein. So Ive not earned any right to have any problems "with you". . I see you for what you write in these posts. And on most of those points I disagree grestly.
When backed to a wall, you exhort us by a "well its my belief and my belief is every bit as good as yours" Thats untrue.
If we cant evidence it, it aint worth believing.thats my stance. So far, you and the other of the Biblical literalists have provided nothing in the way of evidence to support your cases. At best, some have attempted , by weak arguments, to try to discredit what science has discovered

If God is transcendnt and beyond the scope of natural phenomena, just say so and we can easily move on. Please dont try to block up the road with simplistic fairytales that have no possible evidence that are even remotely supportive.There are many of us that DO care about what our kids are taught in school that poses as science , geography, or history. Ive got a collection of school biology, geology and "natural philosophy" texts of the late 18OOs and theearly 1900's. It is amazing how blatantly pro-religious these texts were, even so much as having Biology proving "Gods miraculous plan when he Created all life" Weve moved from this and have made great strides forward beginning with Darwin and Mendel. Now , just to satisfy a vocal minority viewpoint, we are , in some corners of this country , actually considering stepping back into this(pe-technological) time period. (and still try to remain competitive with the rest of the world)

0 Replies

Um, how many years ago was it that Pluto was "discovered"? When was the newest planet "discovered"? Did they exist before they were "discovered"? Just wonderin.....

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

. . . I don't blame him. The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not a crime one should be proud of. But, by your belief, he brags about it in the Bible. . .

Let's get this straight:

If you don't believe the bible account, how did you arrive at the assertion that the people were innocent, or that there were 100's of thousands?

0 Replies

They don't have to believe it, they just have to use the parts that help their saying the whole thing is spurious.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

If God is transcendnt and beyond the scope of natural phenomena, just say so and we can easily move on.

Please don't let me derail a discussion if it's entertaining anyone, but I belive that MA has already told us that the above statement is the case for her.

The only remaining confustion seems to be that MA is trying to reconcile our type of physical evidence against her belief, and that's just never going to go anywhere.

0 Replies

Bless You Ros! Thank you. Yes, that's what I've been saying and have said. And I realize there is no common ground on the evidence vs. belief issue. The common ground I was searching for is a civil exchange of ideas, and it looks like we've got a winner in you Ros! Thanx again! Laughing

0 Replies

Neologist wrote:

If you don't believe the bible account, how did you arrive at the assertion that the people were innocent, or that there were 100's of thousands?

I suppose your going to tell me that fetus', babies and little kids were guilty. Just who put them all on earth to begin with? By your belief God did. So he gives them life, allows them to reproduce knowing they were "evil" and kills them.

Very logical and very humane. Perhaps we should follow his example. He is perfect after all.

How many people do you thing inhabited the earth at thet time....a hundred? Mind you we're also talking about North and South America. Or maybe they didn't exist yet. I don't recall the Bible saying anything about them.

0 Replies

The question is not "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

The question is... Did God give us brains and not want us to use them?

Bible literalists are so funny.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Real

Just how high were the mountains during Noah's day. If you claim Everest was not 29,000 feet because the Bible didn't say anything about Everest does that mean anything the Bible fails to mention did not exist? Just how high were mountains in Noah's day? Can you back up your answer with Bible verse?

Are not marine fossils often found on high mountains?

Perhaps there were atmofish, now extinct?

The bible deals with why we have war and crime and sickness and death and what God intends to do to bring about relief. It was written for the common man and and is not intended as a science textbook.

0 Replies

So I suppose what Momma is saying is she believes in something that's not real as there is no evidence to support her beliefs. What is real and anything that is supported by evidence she will not belive in if it conflicts with her unsupported beliefs.

Better believe in a fairy tale than reality. Reality is too ugly. I just sit there and dream of all those babies and children screaming and crying as the flood waters cover their evil little faces and they slowly drown in God glorious flood. Isn't God wonderful?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:
God creates a flood to slowly and painfully murder practically every man, woman, child, animal, plant, etc. on Earth. Then God cleans up the crime scene by getting rid of the corpses and then wiped away the blood that is smeared on the sides of the mountains. Then God inspires men to write it down in the Bible so that people may accept through faith that he brutally murdered nearly everyone except the few who were worthy of saving. And that of those who were worthy of saving were naked drunkards (Noah), and incestual homosexuals (Ham and Canaan.) Aren't such things considered trademarks among those in insane asylums?

And people accuse me of rhetoric? Just had to throw those emotional words like painfully murder in there, huh? And perhaps you should look up the word murder. God doesn't murder. Yeah, all those people died. They were wicked people. God makes the rules. Not me.

Yes, I had to throw those words in there. Any other description of the event is incomplete because it lacks details and desperately attempts to not conjure up mental images of the murdered. "Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: 'While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement'" (Politics and the English Language by George Orwell.) I am against such phrases. I am against the avoidance of the blatantly obvious. Your position is truly no different than the English Professor, in George Orwell's example, that tries to defend Russian totalitarianism. You purposely avoid conjuring the mental images that accompany the horrible deeds. You avoid truth.

The act of murder is to intentionally kill and to do so with premeditation. God murdered these people. The men, women, and children all frantically tried to swim to the top in an attempt to avoid being murdered. Their air passages are stopped and they cannot breathe so they gasp for air for the few seconds they are able to get their heads above water. The parents and children that could not reach eachother had to watch the other drown and sink toward the bottom of the abyss. Parents tried their damnedest to keep their children above water but fail and they both drown and die in eachother's arms. Many of the men, women, and children had their skulls smashed into the side of the mountains. The corpses slowly decended into the darkness of the waters until they hit the ground. The bacteria inside the stomach slowly eats away at the sugars and proteins and excrete gases causing the bodies to float back towards the surface of the water. The water violently tosses the dead bodies and the boat against eachother. Flesh is torn and bones are broken. The waters drain and the lifeless bodies rest on the ground. Then God removes the evidences of his mass murder by removing the lifeless bodies from the ground and wiping the blood off the mountain's sides. It is not surprising he became a drunkard afterwards. What person with any bit of decency can look upon such a deed as being merciful, just, loving, or noble? Not one of them can. If you don't like my "rhetoric" then this is what I have to say to you: tough **** if you don't like the implications of your own beliefs.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Neologist wrote:
If you don't believe the bible account, how did you arrive at the assertion that the people were innocent, or that there were 100's of thousands?

I suppose your going to tell me that fetus', babies and little kids were guilty. Just who put them all on earth to begin with? By your belief God did. So he gives them life, allows them to reproduce knowing they were "evil" and kills them.

Very logical and very humane. Perhaps we should follow his example. He is perfect after all.

How many people do you thing inhabited the earth at thet time....a hundred? Mind you we're also talking about North and South America. Or maybe they didn't exist yet. I don't recall the Bible saying anything about them.

If you had actually read the bible, you would know that those who died never knowing the truth about God have been promised a resurrection during which they will have the opportunity to regain for themselves the promise that Adam and Eve lost.

That applies to nearly all humans past and present.

God has never abandoned his original purpose for humans to live forever on earth. The Edenic rebellion has produced what will someday be viewed as a mere hiccup in the stream of time.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

xingu wrote:
Neologist wrote:
If you don't believe the bible account, how did you arrive at the assertion that the people were innocent, or that there were 100's of thousands?

I suppose your going to tell me that fetus', babies and little kids were guilty. Just who put them all on earth to begin with? By your belief God did. So he gives them life, allows them to reproduce knowing they were "evil" and kills them.

Very logical and very humane. Perhaps we should follow his example. He is perfect after all.

How many people do you thing inhabited the earth at thet time....a hundred? Mind you we're also talking about North and South America. Or maybe they didn't exist yet. I don't recall the Bible saying anything about them.
If you had actually read the bible, you would know that those who died never knowing the truth about God have been promised a resurrection during which they will have the opportunity to regain for themselves the promise that Adam and Eve lost.

That applies to nearly all humans past and present.

God has never abandoned his original purpose for humans to live forever on earth. The Edenic rebellion has produced what will someday be viewed as a mere hiccup in the stream of time.

He can make the bodies disappear without a trace but he insists on watching all of them drown in extreme pain. Face it, they were murdered for entertainment and little else.

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
Neologist wrote:
If you don't believe the bible account, how did you arrive at the assertion that the people were innocent, or that there were 100's of thousands?

I suppose your going to tell me that fetus', babies and little kids were guilty. Just who put them all on earth to begin with? By your belief God did. So he gives them life, allows them to reproduce knowing they were "evil" and kills them.

Very logical and very humane. Perhaps we should follow his example. He is perfect after all.

How many people do you thing inhabited the earth at thet time....a hundred? Mind you we're also talking about North and South America. Or maybe they didn't exist yet. I don't recall the Bible saying anything about them.
If you had actually read the bible, you would know that those who died never knowing the truth about God have been promised a resurrection during which they will have the opportunity to regain for themselves the promise that Adam and Eve lost.

That applies to nearly all humans past and present.

God has never abandoned his original purpose for humans to live forever on earth. The Edenic rebellion has produced what will someday be viewed as a mere hiccup in the stream of time.

He can make the bodies disappear without a trace but he insists on watching all of them drown in extreme pain. Face it, they were murdered for entertainment and little else.

This is about as silly a comment as I have ever read. Laughing

0 Replies

Xingu,

If you will excuse me saying this, but you guys need a new script! This one is so worn out.

1. Blame God if you want that's your decision. If you think you don't have free will trying going out there and killing someone and tell me how that works out, ok? You have the free will to make choices between right and wrong. And, as far as children go, they are not held accountable for their actions until they reach the age of reason (they know right from wrong) so, sorry, that dog don't hunt.

2. How many times must you and others be told I DO NOT REQUIRE PROOF (Caps for Emphasis Only)? I don't want proof. I don't need proof. My experiences with God, my faith, my beliefs, etc., are my evidence of God but they are not the types of evidence you and others are wanting or would accept. I don't know what makes you require proof anymore than I know what makes me not require proof. I just don't.

3. If you could just get the concept of God you just might understand a bit of this. God is on one end of the spectrum so perfect, pure, and holy and we are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Even the tiniest sin (in man's eyes) is wicked in the eyes of God because of His pureness, His holiness and His perfection. God's ways are higher than that of men.

4. Do me a favor? Look up the Midianites. That's another part of the "script" I'm talking about. Yeah, God wiped them out. He sure did. Thing is, your (not literally your) script leaves out the fact that the Midianites actually had children just so that they could sacrifice them in the fires of Molech. Xingu, that would be the parents throwing their own children into fire. If that is not wicked and evil, I don't know what is. The priests shouted and played on drums so that the children's screams could not be heard. Now, you tell me Xingu, you think these people were worthy of living?

As long as you and others will seemingly believe that man and intellect are greater than God you won't understand any of this and it will sound like foolishness to you.

0 Replies

Bible vs. Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know