ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_sock puppet]

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

Wanting to be accepted into the 'club'?

[_Nightlion]

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?

Aw come on. How many times do I have to knock these pitches out of the park? While Jesus was in the world, he was the light of the world. If he did not leave the gift and power of the Holy Ghost could not come. That is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Hello! That is true religion, to have to do with God. To be born of God, to be made a new creature and a son or daughter of God by power and raised up to a new state of existence.

There were intelligences that were left behind and never got organized, lots.
There were organized intelligences that were left behind and never got a spirit body, lots.
There are those who will be left behind and never become the children of God, lots.

You ignore everything about it and then call it wacky? Not fair.

[_SteelHead]

How is that knocking a pitch out of the park? The statement was you can not base faith on miracles, but you reference Jesus being the light of the world, the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, being born again by power, all requiring supernatural power. So faith based on a miracle.

The difficulty with supernatural explanations is that they are impossible. Impossible to either prove or disprove.

[_Hoops]

we'd have actual, demonstrable knowledge.

Why is that the only knowledge you accept?

[_Hoops]

Exactly. If the resurrection had actually happened, Jesus should have stuck around for the last 2000 years.

Says who?

But the believers would at least have something, one piece of evidence at least, to support their claims.

Well, we do have the written testimony of the Bible.

As it is, they have big bag of nothing.

No. You may not accept the evidence, it may not be enough for you, or you just may choose to dismiss it, but it's not a 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?

What is it exactly He had to do on earth that He had not already done?

[_SteelHead]

Sorry the Bible as a witness is demonstrably hear-say. Genesis is written by Moses. The gospels were not written by the apostles to whom they are attributed. Wouldn't stand as credible evidence in a court of law.

All you are left with is witness of the spirit, and since so many different people receive so contradictory witnesses from the spirit, well it also seems less than reliable.

[_Hoops]

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

One could say the same for you.

I haven't defined what a species is, but society has and it is very simple.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

So? The point here is not what society's definitionn of a species is, the point is that society (as you call it) has a definition that was constructed outside of Biblical concerns. Which is perfectly fine, of course. But it also means that one cannot force the Bible to fit that definition.

and the Bible says nothing about it that contradicts what the word means.

No, it doesn't. But one could surmise that what the Bible means by "kind" is different than how we would use that word. Given the size of the ark, etc.

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.

fI see your point. I was probably using the term too broadly. No, you're right, strictly speaking, the flood is not supernatural. However, it is a one time event - that's more of where I was headed.

I

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.

Or you just choose to disbelieve. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make God a deceiver.

In the end the evidence we have clearly conflicts with the literal view of Noah's flood.

Then what do you make of those who make scientific assertions to the contrary?

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.

You constantly bring this up but never actually ask about it. What exactly do you want me to answer? When I replied to Steelhead, i mentioned that the Bible clearly does not include beetles as being one of the annimals that were saved. Because insects do not have the breath of life. That was my evidence that he doesn't know the Bible as he claims. What are you asking me?

I have never said anything about other interpretations.

Nor have I. I mentioned commentaries.

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.

See.... because they support a global flood, then they must be ignorant or biased?

Ah more false things to say about me.

Nothing false about my statement. I simply said that I would let your words speak for themselves. What's false about that? Your words can't speak for themselves? Or is it your habit, is it seems here, to just toss out accusations for the sake of deflection.

Again I don't think I am smarter then they or you,

Lol. Okay.

but more knowledgeable about this issue, and less biased.

If you say so.

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.

Sec.

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.[/quote]

[_Hoops]

Sorry the Bible as a witness is demonstrably hear-say.

Generously speaking, yes. That's not my point. Sethbag (I think) said the evidence for the resurrection was a big bag of nothing. This is untrue. YOu may not like, you may disagree with it, you may even say it doesn't count, but it does exist.

Genesis is written by Moses. The gospels were not written by the apostles to whom they are attributed.

One would assume this would be for another thread, but how in the world could you possibly know this.

Wouldn't stand as credible evidence in a court of law.

Is it supposed to?

All you are left with is witness of the spirit,

Bull.

and since so many different people receive so contradictory witnesses from the spirit, well it also seems less than reliable.

More bull. I don't accept the premise of your assertion, so we should start there.

[_DrW]

How is that knocking a pitch out of the park? The statement was you can not base faith on miracles, but you reference Jesus being the light of the world, the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, being born again by power, all requiring supernatural power. So faith based on a miracle.

The difficulty with supernatural explanations is that they are impossible. Impossible to either prove or disprove.

Steelhead,

While in general agreement with your position, I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the above statement. In fact, supernatural explanations are easily discounted by application of a few simple rules or principles for evaluation of evidence or determination of weight of evidence.

These simple rules or principles include the following:

Law of Parsimony or Occam's Razor: Among the available and equally plausible explanations or hypotheses (and here we will give the supernatural a big pass on plausibility) the best explanation or hypothesis is the one that requires the fewest contingencies or new assumptions.

Falsifiability: An explanation or hypothesis that is falsifiable is preferred to one that is not, or in more strict terms, any valid explanation or hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Science uses these two principles, with overwhelming success, to distinguish between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy, truth and falsehood. This distinction is made on the basis of relative probabilities, not on the basis of possibility. Mopologetic "credible deniability" or "wiggle room", while of possible importance to religionists, do not count for much when it comes to scientific evaluation of a given assertion or hypothesis.

Before claiming supernatural miracles, folks should understand that, in the natural world, the supernatural cannot, and does not, exist (pretty much by definition).

[_Buffalo]

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.

Zing!