Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

[Jagdaddy]

The OT is not a history book. Wheter or not God parted the red sea (just one tiny example) is not important to me and dosen't interfer with my belifs.

However, Christ actually walked this earth. A man named Jesus Christ walked this planet, historically, and did worked many wonders. He was hung on the cross. The rest is faith, but historically that much is true. Did he rise? Was he the Son of God? Why is He still remembered today, 2,000 years later, if he were just another man?

It is in part a history book. What's questionable is the assertion that the history it provides is entirely accurate.

 

[Bleed S & G]

John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

It's possible God created a world with free-will, so that through the fall of man He may express the greatest love of all. "God is love."

 

[Bleed S & G]

It is in part a history book. What's questionable is the assertion that the history it provides is entirely accurate.

It was not written as a history book, IMO. That book should never be used for that purpose. Those who challenge the authenticty of the Book is understood, but the OT is NOT a history. It provides history, but that is not the intent. It was not written to be put to a test of validating it. Whats faith if it can be proven?

EDIT: Why is that questionable? It should not be defended or questioned in that matter. Whos to say the 'flood' isn't a metaphor for something we can't comprehend.. the possibilites are endless..

but there is a boat thats the same dimensions of the one written about located in Turkey.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I suppose the fairest way to say it is that I'm troubled by your explaination. First, it seems to me that the solution that God was present in the whole whoring situation, and presumably "looking upon the evil" that that represented, undercuts the contention that God didn't bother himself with the Nazis.

I'm not grasping what you are saying here. Sorry....

Likewise, the suggestion is - and maybe it's fully intended - that God has abandoned us since he cared enough to hang around the tabernacle when whoring around was the big deal, but hasn't seemed particularly interested in Nazis or Terrorists for that matter.

You have the "suggestion" correct to a certain degree. I would not say he wasn't interested, but that he allowed men to pursue their choices because their heart's desire was to follow their own will instead of His. The idea that God has abandoned us is correct in the sense of what Paul wrote:

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves" (Romans 1:21-24)

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful (Romans 1:28-31)

Can't one assume his failure to address these "evils" is A) and indication that these activities meet with his approval or B) he doesn't care about this stuff - meaning: it is meaningless from his perspective of reality. (which of course, would lead one to the conclusion that the OT stories of God's physical intervention are written for effect to teach a different rule... which would be in line with my understanding of what the Bible is)

First, I would not use the term failure. To do this would be to judge God's actions, which is a absurd notion (as I've argued with you before, how can the finite judge something beyond the infinite?).

Second, you must not forget that the Bible gives numerous examples of God allowing evil to prosper in order to punish other evil. An example of this would be the rise of the Babylonian Empire and its ability to capture Jerusalem and destroy the Temple. Babylon was an evil (like Nazis or Muslim terrorists) that was allowed to prosper to punish the Jews for not following God's commandments and bringing idol worship into their religious practices.

As for your conclusion, I see how you are making connections. Seems like you made a leap without explaining it--at least from my perspective.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well I'm glad that we can agree that people claiming bones were 60 million years old without having witnessed it is absurd.

Edit: Link I'm somewhat concerned that about what you just said and how that jibes with a theory that

Of course it lacks empirical evidence. One cannot - to my knowledge - physically test the existence of another universe.

And, I think you misunderstood.... I certainly did not mean that I think people claiming bones are 60 million years old without having witnessed it is absurd. I think people claiming they are NOT that old is absurd. Especially when their rallying point is that the science behind the claim is that the Bible doesn't seem to allow for such a conclusion.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This opening sentence is where your essay goes astray. Perfection in this context is the state of sinlessness, and man was indeed created in such a perfect state. Free will gives man the ability to depart from that state, and though man may have been sinless he was also weak, and you know the rest...

I actually explained in my "essay" why what I said was not necessarily correct with respect to perfection and sin. However, I would note, forgiving what I said .....

If a perfect thing is sinless, even with the addition of free will, a perfect thing would not choose the sinful choice, otherwise his decisionmaking is not perfect, which would mean he was not created perfect.

 

[BayBuck]

I actually explained in my "essay" why what I said was not necessarily correct with respect to perfection and sin. However, I would note, forgiving what I said .....

If a perfect thing is sinless, even with the addition of free will, a perfect thing would not choose the sinful choice, otherwise his decisionmaking is not perfect, which would mean he was not created perfect.

Imperfect decision-making sounds like a pretty good synonym for free will. Man was "perfect" until he chose not to be.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Bgrad - what I was saying is, it seems to me that God takes the situation in Numbers 25 seriously enough to intervene and doesn't seem to take Terrorism or the Holocaust seriously enough to do anything about it. That strikes me as highly unusual, if we are to accept there are such things as good and evil, and grades of each.

But, your answer to me - "who is the finite to question the judgment of the infinite" is one which is impossible for me to get around, but it begs the larger question, far as I'm concerned. What I mean is, the answer is no answer at all. It's akin to the following docudrama:

My son: Dad, can I have ice cream?
Me: No.
Son: Why not?
Me: Because I said so.

It's an answer and it is final... but it doesn't address the question, which in this case was "What is your reason for saying no." I avoid answering the question with a reason that isn't really a reason but instead a preference/demand of mine.

It is answers like that, which to me, show how easily Biblical literalism breaks down. Rather than addressing the question, the answer says "You can't even ask that." Which, of course, I can and have.

As you know, my interpratation of the Bible is that there is at a minimum (and in my view, more than simply a minimum) there is a kernel of some spiritual truth in it. So, in that respect, I find your quotes of Paul instructive (though short of authoritive or conclusive). In other words, yeah, Paul's opinion is worth entertaining and considering but - and this isn't your complaint but instead LVs and I guess TbuckeyeScott's - at the end of the day its relying on something that other than willingness to accept as "true" you have no reason to rely on. LV would contest "scientific" (quotes for LVs benefit) proof of the age of a fossil, for example. Yet seems unwilling to apply the same critical analysis to, say, Paul. That's not anything other than choosing to believe one thing instead of another, and is of course without any force whatever.

As should come as no surprise to you, bgrad, is my following remark: Accepting science or Bible as "true" is inconsequential, as doing so is acceptance of the same thing.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Imperfect decision-making sounds like a pretty good synonym for free will. Man was "perfect" until he chose not to be.

Hmmmm.... then it would seem to me that affording man free will was a mistake.

Sorry, Baybuck, you cannot get around the fact that a perfect thing cannot choose to be imperfect if it is indeed perfect to begin with. Pefection and free will cannot co-exist where the choice is between sinning and not sinning . A perfect thing cannot choose "the wrong thing"

So, either sin isn't wrong (as I would contend, a choice is nothing but a chioice) or man is not perfect. (again, my disertation on required actions consequent of perfect parameters notwithstanding) I truly don't even understand why it's so important to folks that Man be perfect in the first place. Suppose he's not. What does that say about God? Nothing. Again, God's ABILITY to make a "perfect man" does NOT require he actually DO SO.

 

[Jagdaddy]

but there is a boat thats the same dimensions of the one written about located in Turkey.

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

 

[CookyPuss]

Imperfect decision-making sounds like a pretty good synonym for free will. Man was "perfect" until he chose not to be.

Not necessarily. This assumes that man has perfect knowledge of good and evil. Without perfect knowledge, it is not a choice to do evil.. it is inevitable. Free will is more than just choosing whether or not to sin (disobey God/do evil). These things are within the heart of man (Gen 8:21). Free will is also the choice to love God. This is the more important choice. An atheist or follower of another faith can keep God's moral code (especially with perfect knowledge).

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

No my rallying is not only some book, but that the "science" used to get 60 million years is bad science. Let me demonstrate. You've heard of the Gas Laws right? For brevity's purpose we will use Charle's law: The volume of a Gas is directly proportional to its temperature: the rate at which a gas's volume increases is the same as the rate at which its temperature increases(all other factors being equal). We can indepently verify this formula. Given a gas increase its temperature by 25% and its volume also increases 25%(all other factors being equal) and measure its volume it will also increase 25%. It's verifiable. Radiometric dating is not like a gas law though. Radiometric dating spits out a date that we are unable to verify because we weren't around 60 million years ago to verify that's when the rock was formed. The only way scientists verify rocks being old is comparing them with other rocks dated the same way. That's the kind of circular reasoning people like to accuse us of. But see we do know when some rocks were formed. For instance those formed after Mt St Helen's erupted in 1980. Those rocks we can verify are formed under 30 years ago. These rocks were sent to be dated to various dating companies only to be dated between 1 Million and 2 Million years old. Do you see the problem?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

No my rallying is not only some book, but that the "science" used to get 60 million years is bad science. Let me demonstrate. You've heard of the Gas Laws right? For brevity's purpose we will use Charle's law: The volume of a Gas is directly proportional to its temperature: the rate at which a gas's volume increases is the same as the rate at which its temperature increases(all other factors being equal). We can indepently verify this formula. Given a gas increase its temperature by 25% and its volume also increases 25%(all other factors being equal) and measure its volume it will also increase 25%. It's verifiable. Radiometric dating is not like a gas law though. Radiometric dating spits out a date that we are unable to verify because we weren't around 60 million years ago to verify that's when the rock was formed. The only way scientists verify rocks being old is comparing them with other rocks dated the same way. That's the kind of circular reasoning people like to accuse us of. But see we do know when some rocks were formed. For instance those formed after Mt St Helen's erupted in 1980. Those rocks we can verify are formed under 30 years ago. These rocks were sent to be dated to various dating companies only to be dated between 1 Million and 2 Million years old. Do you see the problem?

Yeah, I see the problem. Here's the problem: You are incorrectly assuming those rocks tested were created 30 years ago. I'd be more impressed with your question if you were using as an example a volcano which actually creates rock - say Kilauea - and not an explosive volcano like St. Helens which didn't do much more than throw old rocks around ("much more" meaning with respect to the rocks, not damage, gas emissions, etc.) St. Helens is a particularly bad example for you to appeal to for another reason, that being that an entire side of the volcano blew apart, and there is no reason to believe the rock that composed that side is about 30 years old, considering that it was the side of the friggin volcano before it erupted and all.

If you can show me radio carbon dating of a lava flow which is known to be ... say weeks old.... which says those rocks are a million years old, then you're on to something. (And even then, we'd have to consider other factors such as when does a rock become "created?" When it's still magma? When it becomes cooled surface material? I'm not sure) Otherwise, you're ignoring factors relevant merely so you can have a specious reason to hold on to a dream.

 

[BayBuck]

Hmmmm.... then it would seem to me that affording man free will was a mistake.

Sorry, Baybuck, you cannot get around the fact that a perfect thing cannot choose to be imperfect if it is indeed perfect to begin with. Pefection and free will cannot co-exist where the choice is between sinning and not sinning . A perfect thing cannot choose "the wrong thing".

Like I said, I believe you are misinterpreting the word "perfect" in this context, which should instead be considered synonymous to "sinless" (in which context the sinless Jesus is probably the one "perfect" human in our history). A sinless being with free will can very certainly choose to sin (and as was proposed in the movie "The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ", I believe even Jesus had the capacity to sin if he so chose, otherwise the import of his sinlessness and fending-off of Satan's temptations is diminished).

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Yeah, I see the problem. Here's the problem: You are incorrectly assuming those rocks tested were created 30 years ago. I'd be more impressed with your question if you were using as an example a volcano which actually creates rock - say Kilauea - and not an explosive volcano like St. Helens which didn't do much more than throw old rocks around ("much more" meaning with respect to the rocks, not damage, gas emissions, etc.) St. Helens is a particularly bad example for you to appeal to for another reason, that being that an entire side of the volcano blew apart, and there is no reason to believe the rock that composed that side is about 30 years old, considering that it was the side of the friggin volcano before it erupted and all.

If you can show me radio carbon dating of a lava flow which is known to be ... say weeks old.... which says those rocks are a million years old, then you're on to something. (And even then, we'd have to consider other factors such as when does a rock become "created?" When it's still magma? When it becomes cooled surface material? I'm not sure) Otherwise, you're ignoring factors relevant merely so you can have a specious reason to hold on to a dream.

Even if it was just rock from the side of the mountain you're ignoring the rest of the argument about aside from radiometric dating not being verified but by radiometric dating. The bad science part.

But the Eruption did produce magma which produces igneous rock which when cooled and hardened is when the rock is formed. Also rock exploded from the side of the mountain would not be igneous