ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_SteelHead]

I am going to call you out again Hoops. How do insects not have the breath of life? Support this assertion. Is it consistent with Jewish tradition?

[_Themis]

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.

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.

This has nothing to do with the discussion. We already know millions of different animals existed before any claimed global flood and after. Another words no flood happened covering the earth since we see none of the evidence that would exist if it did. Your problem really is ignorance of all the sciences and what they have learned about the earth and it's past, and what would happen or need to happen for water to cover the whole earth. This is why you and others just make things up without thinking about them like fresh water and salt water not mixing. I think bias plays a huge role as well since even those who have a little knowledge realize how unlikely it is.

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.

What does a one time event have to do with calling something supernatural. My point is that the Bible does not say supernatural for anything.

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

The idea is based on some claiming God hide the evidence for a global flood. This would make God a deceiver.

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

I haven't yet seen any assertion that fits the evidence, even from those who have a scientific education. Can you show one that does?

You constantly bring this up but never actually ask about it. What exactly do you want me to answer?

You have made the claim multiple time that other do not understand the Bible, or have gotten it wrong, but do not show how?

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 see no where the Bible saying this. This is just your interpretation of breath of life. Beatles do need oxygen, and give off CO2 just like other animal. In fact they are considered an animal. You can't show where the Bible excludes them, but who cares. They could not survive like most other insects in a global event. How the heck did all the viruses, etc? How did so many animal like the kangaroo get back to the same area they lived before the flood.

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

I am willing to look at what they propose. So far I have not seen anything that comes close. Do you have anything to propose. So far what you have shows how little you know, and why it would not work.

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.

You said more then that like "pretentios, arrogant know-it-alls ", but I am not going to worry about it.

If you say so.

I am open to other explanations, but I do think ignorance and bias play a large role when it is obvious that a person does not understand why something they propose is clearly wrong and not thought out. Bias is why people can believe things clearly wrong. I had bias for a literal view. That is thew world I grew up in.

[_Hoops]

I am going to call you out again Hoops. How do insects not have the breath of life? Support this assertion. Is it consistent with Jewish tradition?

Here's one that I visit. Albeit, infrequently, to my shame. I haven't addressed this subject in quite a while but I might be able to dredge up more. What are you thinking?

http://www.myjewishlearning.com

The word nefesh is often used to mean "person" or "living being". In the Torah, however, animals may also possess this life force--a "nefesh behemah." The term nefesh is particularly associated with blood, as in "the life [nefesh] of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).



Lev 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[c] 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”

[_SteelHead]

I've seen the blood argument before..... But I am not sure how consistent it is with the use of the word remes for creeping things. I've seen people/apologists exclude various critters from inclusion in the ark up to and including reptiles and rodents as well as insects. I've also seen the criteria for breath of life as having nostrils. All of the distinctions are somewhat debatable which is why I turn to Jewish tradition for guidance... But even then there seems to be debate.

Regardless of where you draw the line, how did the critters that weren't on the boat survive? Or did the flood somehow not kill the non "living" things?

As an aside most of the crowd that believe reptiles weren't included on the ark believe that dinosaurs lived up until the flood and went extinct as a result of the flood.... What is your take?

[_Hoops]

This has nothing to do with the discussion.

You're right. It doesn't.

We already know millions of different animals existed before any claimed global flood and after. Another words no flood happened covering the earth since we see none of the evidence that would exist if it did.

Fair enough.

Your problem really is ignorance of all the sciences and what they have learned about the earth and it's past,

Yes, thanks for pointing out my problem to me. I'll consider your recommendation.

This is why you and others just make things up without thinking about them like fresh water and salt water not mixing.

I referenced an article stating how/when sea water and fresh water may not mix. My response was specifically to Jersey Girl's question implying that the two always have to mix. I simply said that is not always the case and here is an example why. You (or someone) wrote something along the lines of in a gobal flood they would have to mix. I responded with how one would know that since we have no way of testing this phenomenon. Therefor, we are left with situations where sea/fresh water may not mix.

I think bias plays a huge role as well since even those who have a little knowledge realize how unlikely it is.

Of course it's unlikely. That's the point.

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.

What does a one time event have to do with calling something supernatural. My point is that the Bible does not say supernatural for anything.

I've given ground on your point. I used the word poorly. What do you want?

The idea is based on some claiming God hide the evidence for a global flood. This would make God a deceiver.

That's not my claim. Ask them. My claim is simple: for one to criticize the Biblical account, one should know what it reads, and what it does NOT read.

I haven't yet seen any assertion that fits the evidence, even from those who have a scientific education. Can you show one that does?

That's fine. However, =your claiming that for one to be a biblical literalist one must therefor be ignorant of science. That's certainly difficult for an actual, practicing scientist. Not impossible, but the chances are good that a scientist will know... well.... science. And in her particular field as well.

You have made the claim multiple time that other do not understand the Bible, or have gotten it wrong, but do not show how?

I think I've cited several examples. I'm dealing with one below.

I see no where the Bible saying this. This is just your interpretation of breath of life.

Yes, the old "intepretation" gambit. I can't do anything about that.

Beatles do need oxygen, and give off CO2 just like other animal.

Seee below.

In fact they are considered an animal.

Not by God.

You can't show where the Bible excludes them,

See below.

but who cares.

I do. It's part of the narrative.

They could not survive like most other insects in a global event. How the heck did all the viruses, etc? How did so many animal like the kangaroo get back to the same area they lived before the flood.

How much do want the Bible to explain to you?

I am willing to look at what they propose.

If you are going to criticize the Biblical record, II would hope so.

So far I have not seen anything that comes close. Do you have anything to propose. So far what you have shows how little you know, and why it would not work.

Ok. I have never, ever offered my science expertise (or lack of it) in an argument. I am not a biblical scholar either. However, I have attempted to show where those who are criticizing the Biblical record have the record wrong.

You said more then that like "pretentios, arrogant know-it-alls ", but I am not going to worry about it.

That's my opinion based on the evidence so far.

If you say so.

I am open to other explanations, but I do think ignorance and bias play a large role when it is obvious that a person does not understand why something they propose is clearly wrong and not thought out.

That's fine. But doesn't apply to me. I'm not proposing anything. I am saying, however, that there is a lot lot more in the Biblical record that has to be fleshed out. I don't think this violates my literalist view and I'm not convinced that the Biblical record must violate established science so far. In short, and I think you would agree with half of this, science has a lot more to explore just as the Bible does.

Bias is why people can believe things clearly wrong.

That's fine. But first establish what is clearly wrong and determine that they actuall believe that.

I had bias for a literal view. That is thew world I grew up in.

And the world I grew up in was just the opposite. So what?

[_Hoops]

I've seen the blood argument before..... But I am not sure how consistent it is with the use of the word remes for creeping things. I've seen people/apologists exclude various critters from inclusion in the ark up to and including reptiles and rodents as well as insects. I've also seen the criteria for breath of life as having nostrils. All of the distinctions are somewhat debatable which is why I turn to Jewish tradition for guidance... But even then there seems to be debate.

As have I. And, yes, this certainly is debatable. However, my position is that excluding insects is viable when considering the whole of the Bible.

Regardless of where you draw the line, how did the critters that weren't on the boat survive? Or did the flood somehow not kill the non "living" things?

I don't know. And, to be clear, I'm not sure how important answering this question is. I'm not expecting the Bible to address every or even most questions that we pose from our exploration of Creation. Nonetheless, the question is worth asking. But, perhaps, it is a question that one would ask further down the line - maybe after we've developed a workable thesis for how the earth became repopulated. I don't know that we don't have one either. Either way, we (not necessarily you) should be wrestling with both what science tells us and what lay deeper in the Bible.

As an aside most of the crowd that believe reptiles weren't included on the ark believe that dinosaurs lived up until the flood and went extinct as a result of the flood.... What is your take?

My opinion? I don't know. I don't know if the flood happened as a cursory reading of the Bible would indicate. I don't know if dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern man.

I do believe this: a literal reading of the Bible is the best way to get from it what it has to offer. But a literal reading does not mean there are not deeper, more nuanced meanings, when taken comprehensively, that we can glean.

[_SteelHead]

I think the insect question is valid. Take for instance 17 year cicadas that live under ground till they emerge. How would such a species survive global flooding?

Or mayflies that require cold clean running water to live, grow and reproduce. You remove their specific niche for 150 days, destroy the whole population and next generation, the eggs and nymphs would not have survived, and yet we have them. How do such survive?

I for one am not sufficed with the Bible does not speak to it so it is not relevant answer.

[_Hoops]

I think the insect question is valid.

So do I. And stated so.

Take for instance 17 year cicadas that live under ground till they emerge. How would such a species survive global flooding?

Are you requiring that the Bible answer this question for every species?

I for one am not sufficed with the Bible does not speak to it so it is not relevant answer.

Why not? Why should it?

[_DrW]

I've seen the blood argument before..... But I am not sure how consistent it is with the use of the word remes for creeping things. I've seen people/apologists exclude various critters from inclusion in the ark up to and including reptiles and rodents as well as insects. I've also seen the criteria for breath of life as having nostrils. All of the distinctions are somewhat debatable which is why I turn to Jewish tradition for guidance... But even then there seems to be debate.

As have I. And, yes, this certainly is debatable. However, my position is that excluding insects is viable when considering the whole of the Bible.

Regardless of where you draw the line, how did the critters that weren't on the boat survive? Or did the flood somehow not kill the non "living" things?

I don't know. And, to be clear, I'm not sure how important answering this question is. I'm not expecting the Bible to address every or even most questions that we pose from our exploration of Creation. Nonetheless, the question is worth asking. But, perhaps, it is a question that one would ask further down the line - maybe after we've developed a workable thesis for how the earth became repopulated. I don't know that we don't have one either. Either way, we (not necessarily you) should be wrestling with both what science tells us and what lay deeper in the Bible.

As an aside most of the crowd that believe reptiles weren't included on the ark believe that dinosaurs lived up until the flood and went extinct as a result of the flood.... What is your take?

My opinion? I don't know. I don't know if the flood happened as a cursory reading of the Bible would indicate. I don't know if dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern man.

I do believe this: a literal reading of the Bible is the best way to get from it what it has to offer. But a literal reading does not mean there are not deeper, more nuanced meanings, when taken comprehensively, that we can glean.

What do you think the Old Testament has to offer exactly? You have essentially conceded that it is probably not a factual record (or at least not a reliable recording of facts or real events). As such (and as was asked earlier in the thread), why should the superstitions and myths of one group of ancient nomads be given any kind of precedence over those of another group?

[_Hoops]

What do you think the Old Testament has to offer exactly?

Plenty. It offers us a perspective of God's ... um... loyalty, if you will. Also, living in the church age/age of grace, one can see this dispensation developing. And a lot more. I can list them if you wish.

You have essentially conceded that it is probably not a factual record (or at least not a reliable recording of facts or real events).

Uh... no I haven't. If that's what you understand, then I retract.

As such (and as was asked earlier in the thread), why should the superstitions and myths of one group of ancient nomads be given any kind of precedence over those of another group?

I reject the premise of your question.