ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Hoops]

LOL Because it is so hard to discuss with people like yourself wjho know so little of the sciences is why I haven't said much in this thread. You have to be the one to take the time, which is much more then anyone can do for you in this thread, to learn.

I've stipulated that you're a brilliant scientist. What more do you want.

According to a literal interpretation of the story yes, but then the real point went way over your head. I expect this due to your ignorance.

Yes, of course.

Again the point goes way over your head.

No, the point, apparently goes over your head. You are defining the Biblical record in your terms where it is not necessarily warranted. Basically, you're saying: "I've defined what a species is, now make the Bible fit my definition."

It conflicts with a literal view of a global flood. If that's is not your view then you are not really that literal in your views of the Bible.

It certainly does not. The Biblical account is in its nature supernatural. You are expecting the Bible to appeal to your naturalis world view when it never had any intention to do so. Then, when it doesn't, you claim it as false. It may indeed be false. But it is not false by the grounds you claim.

I suggest doing some study about it. Then you might actually realize the problem.

I suggest you study the Biblical account and study it. Feel free to incorporate the hundreds of commentaries as well. Then, when you have fully grasped what the account actually is and is not then criticize to your heart's content.

Not at all, but their ignorance is shown by their lack of knowledge when you start talking to them about it. There are many topics they would have more knowledge then me and I would be more ignorant then they on that topic.

Their lack of knowledge of what? Again, a meaningless indictment. Frank cited a phd in biology. That might put him on par with you, I don't know. Yet you've dismissed him for no other reason that I can surmise than he disagrees with you.

So?

Agreed.

Again, not at all. I am more knowledgeable then they on this, but they are more knowledgeable in other areas. I don't think they are stupid, just ignorant. Being ignorant is is ok, but being willfully ignorant is not.

Oh I love the equivocation now. Ill let your words speak for themselves.

I suppose saying false things about me is all you can really being to the discussion. Is it a wonder why I and many others don't want to say much when you know they are not interested in learning about it anyway.

I can only go by what you write. You're intention was clear, despite your backpedaling now. But let's not get off track here. I am interested in learning and I would love to learn from you and many others hear. I just have little time for pretentios, arrogant know-it-alls who look down their professorial noses at the little people. I've been dealing with university professors for years. There's little diversity in them.

[_keithb]

How could you possibly know this?

Are you really this dumb? Seriously? Okay, go mix a bunch of salt water with fresh water and see how many times these two DON'T mix. Then, we'll talk.

Now, i you're willing replicate a world wide flood to show that no such situations existed and therefor salt and fresh water had to mix all the time, every time, please go ahead.

I don't have to replicate the sun to know that it would burn a piece of paper shot into it. I don't have to replicate a world flood to know that the salt water and fresh water would mix.

You're amazing. Biblically speaking, how much time was the earth covered in water? Are you saying that this level of evaporation would have occurred in that amount of time?

The earth has never been covered completely in water, so it's a nonsensical question. Biblically speaking ... who the hell cares what the goat rapers that wrote it thought about science?

Of course that's what you would say. That's ALL you say.

If the shoe fits ...

[_huckelberry]

Miracle
Noun: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature (hence illogical) and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God (hence impossible for man to perform without divine intervention).

Edits mine.

I think a second look at this definition could help. It refers to an event if which people do not see a natural explaination. In the context of natural causes it appears irrational,that is it does not fit, so a larger or adjusted context is required to view the event as rational. In this case rational meaning possessong an explaination. In the the adjusted context it become rational.

It is usual to reject the miraculous by say that there are portions of the purported event which were misunderstood which if properly understood would explain it without divine action. Or the other approach of simply seeing the story infused by imagination can reject the miraculous. Either of those approaches of rejecting miricacles is stronger than simply saying all miracles are false because they do not have naturalistic explaination.

People who reject Jesus resurection have usually followed either of the two paths mentioned above. An old favorite is proposing that a secret group gave Jesus a drug rendering him appear to die. The miracle appears due to incomplete information. More modern is the simpler approach proposing the resurection story is fiction growing just enough later in time to allow fiction to fill in unknowns about Jesus death. Either of those paths seem more honest or at least interesting than simply rejecting miracles to start with.

[_Sethbag]

If you believe that there are miracles that happen which are things that could not have happened naturally, but could only have happened through the intervention of a God, then show me one. I'm not the first person in this thread to ask this.

There's not one event ever on Earth which can be demonstrated to have happened, which could not have happened naturally. Not one. If you disagree, please feel free to provide your evidence.

The resurrection of Jesus doesn't count, because it can not be demonstrated to have happened.

If you want to define miracles as things which A) require God's intervention, and B) cannot be demonstrated to have happened, that's fine by me.

But that definition just admits that it cannot be demonstrated that any miracles have ever happened.

[_huckelberry]

If you inundate water on hillsides, deserts, and other areas not normally subject to a lot of erosion to the point of creating a global ocean I think you end up with more than a thin muddy layer of sediment. You would have had the major relocation of large quantities of material.

This is kind of interesting as an example of how much variety people can read into the general picture of Noah flood. Some young earth folks want the flood to break up the whole crust and account for all sedimentary rock in this one event. The story doesn't say this nor can I imagine how the boat would survive.(catching myself in the same problem of how miricale and nature mix.) However to my mind the sedimentary and igneous mix of rock clearly show this one time sediment event is not what happened.

A person might imagine large amounts of the new water falling from the sky washing away hillside soil into basins where a clearly visable deposit would form. We do not see evidence of this, the layer of deposit doesn't exist.

I figure if the extra water was primarily formed in the ocean then an evenly rising ocean would bury mountaians with very little erosion. I suspect this hypothetical scenerio would not leave a clear layer because mud or dying ornanic material would not be gathered anywhere but instead evenly dispersed.

[_huckelberry]

If you believe that there are miracles that happen which are things that could not have happened naturally, but could only have happened through the intervention of a God, then show me one. I'm not the first person in this thread to ask this.

There's not one event ever on Earth which can be demonstrated to have happened, which could not have happened naturally. Not one. If you disagree, please feel free to provide your evidence.

The resurrection of Jesus doesn't count, because it can not be demonstrated to have happened.

If you want to define miracles as things which A) require God's intervention, and B) cannot be demonstrated to have happened, that's fine by me.

But that definition just admits that it cannot be demonstrated that any miracles have ever happened.

Even if a miracle happens it remains logically impossible to demonstrate that it happened. There is zero chance of proving all possiblities have been considered. The event cannot be repeated so there is no way of testing it. Once it happens it is irrevocable in the past which is the rhealm of uncertain reports, misunderstandings and urban legions. There is absolutly zero chance of proving any miracle no matter whether it happens or not.

Do not base your faith on miracles. They are uncertain.

[_Themis]

I've stipulated that you're a brilliant scientist. What more do you want.

I don't want anything, but it would be nice yo see you be less biased and actually spend some time learning about science.

No, the point, apparently goes over your head. You are defining the Biblical record in your terms where it is not necessarily warranted. Basically, you're saying: "I've defined what a species is, now make the Bible fit my definition."

Over your head again. I am talking about a global flood event and what would happen to all life on earth, and how we see no evidence for this, and we have mountains of evidence that no such event took place. I haven't defined what a species is, but society has and it is very simple.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species It really is not the issue here, and the Bible says nothing about it that contradicts what the word means. In fact it suggest that people did understand what it means if they were to ever have been told how we today define it. The Bible just mentions animals and plants as a kind.

It certainly does not. The Biblical account is in its nature supernatural. You are expecting the Bible to appeal to your naturalis world view when it never had any intention to do so. Then, when it doesn't, you claim it as false. It may indeed be false. But it is not false by the grounds you claim.

I don't see where the Bible ever says supernatural, or that what God does is against the laws of nature. That is just what some people make up to try and avoid the evidence. God is a deceiver if he is all powerful and causes a global flood only then to hide it and make it look like no event took place. In the end the evidence we have clearly conflicts with the literal view of Noah's flood.

I suggest you study the Biblical account and study it. Feel free to incorporate the hundreds of commentaries as well. Then, when you have fully grasped what the account actually is and is not then criticize to your heart's content.

I have studied it, and I notice you still avoiding what you think it says. Now this discussion is about the literal view of the Bible and whether it fits with the evidence we have. I have never said anything about other interpretations.

Frank cited a phd in biology.

I haven't read every post here, but did he cite a phd, or did he say he was a phd in biology? Having read some of his posts, I would bet everything I have that he is not. Now sure you will find a very small number of educated people who believe in a literal global flood. So what. We can find them with a bunch of other clearly incorrect beliefs. Bias can have a powerful effect on people, even very educated ones. I bet if you look, you will see the vast majority of them who are christian don't believe in a global flood.

Their lack of knowledge of what? Again, a meaningless indictment. That might put him on par with you, I don't know. Yet you've dismissed him for no other reason that I can surmise than he disagrees with you.

Dismissed who?

Oh I love the equivocation now. Ill let your words speak for themselves.

Ah more false things to say about me. Again I don't think I am smarter then they or you, but more knowledgeable about this issue, and less biased. It's interesting that for those issues where religion and politics have know influence that people tend to have almost universal agreement when plenty of evidence is available.

I can only go by what you write. You're intention was clear, despite your backpedaling now. But let's not get off track here. I am interested in learning and I would love to learn from you and many others hear. I just have little time for pretentios, arrogant know-it-alls who look down their professorial noses at the little people. I've been dealing with university professors for years. There's little diversity in them.

It's funny becuase I see your posts as being arrogant, thinking you know more about the Bible, yet not really backing it up. All you are doing here is just attacking me because I disagree and think you are very ignorant on the issues here. It's like the statement you made about salt water and fresh water not mixing. This shows ignorance. They do mix over time. A number of things may occur to change the rate of mixing.

[_SteelHead]

Well if you can not base faith on miracles nor rationale, what can you base it on? What is left?

[_Equality]

The resurrection of Jesus doesn't count, because it can not be demonstrated to have happened.

Exactly. If the resurrection had actually happened, Jesus should have stuck around for the last 2000 years. There would still be skeptics who would try to explain away his existence. But the believers would at least have something, one piece of evidence at least, to support their claims. As it is, they have big bag of nothing. What is it, exactly, that Jesus had to do in heaven that he couldn't stick around on earth to provide some basis for belief in his wacky claims?

[_Sethbag]

Exactly. If the resurrection had actually happened, Jesus should have stuck around for the last 2000 years. There would still be skeptics who would try to explain away his existence. But the believers would at least have something, one piece of evidence at least, to support their claims. As it is, they have big bag of nothing. What is it, exactly, that Jesus had to do in heaven that he couldn't stick around on earth to provide some basis for belief in his wacky claims?

If Jesus had stuck around the last 2000 years, we wouldn't need faith, because we'd have actual, demonstrable knowledge. And faith is so important because, because, um, because it's all the believers have got at this point, so it'll have to serve.