rhutchin

I don't think scientists have done anything to sort out the situation nor have they spent much time addressing the issue.

Toto

Scientists address the alleged global flood

More in the Evo-Cre forum.

Wooster

What?

I used the word "when", as in a general question "When reality disagrees with you, who is correct? You or reality?"
I didn't say anything specific about you and reality, I just asked you how you handle a conflict between reality and what you believe in.

Is the question difficult to grasp?

rhutchin

I see no conflict between reality and that which I believe.

Maybe you are the one having a problem with reality.

rhutchin

Isaak asks a lot of questions built on speculation but nothing much beyond that. It settles nothing.

Wooster

I must be mistaken then, I apologize if that is the case.

You don't believe in a literal six day creation of the universe some 6000 years ago do you? And I take it then that you have no issues with evolution either?

But then again, you never answered my question. can you please do so?

I'll repeat it here:
"When reality disagrees with you, who is correct? You or reality?"

aa5874

But, what does 'the word of God" really mean? If I carry my KJV Bible to certain countries, they would say I have the "words of the Devil".

The "words of God" is directly dependent on your geographical location.

IamJoseph

'AND THE LORD *SAID* LET THERE BE LIGHT' [Genesis 1/1].

The word 'SAID' refers to language; utterence; words. At this juncture, there were no elements and components as yet created - thus this is not a mythical or non-imperical assumption.

Literally, creation was ushered with a WORD. Even 'time' and 'space' did not yet exist. Thus the Ten Commandments are said to be 10 Utterences - all of the ten utterences are said to have been issued simultaniously at the same instant [in the 'perfect' tense, incorporating past/present/future - namely for all generations]; the alphabets dangled unconnected in the stone tablets [independently of 'space']; there was no echo [no force could withstand the utterence].

'SPEECH' [as opposed 'communication'] is a Gdly attribute, and the sole factor which makes speech endowed humans the most superior entity in the universe [creation]. Thus the first of all moral/ethical Commandments [3rd at Sinai] refers to HONESTY of one's word [NOT TO TAKE THE NAME IN VAIN]. What kind of belief or love without honesty? All Commandments become negated without honesty.

'ALL MY POWER IS IN MY MOUTH' [K. Solomon].

Doug Shaver

I have no idea what you mean by sorting out the situation. As far as spending time on evidence for a global flood, as I said, it would not have been necessary. It would have been so conspicuous that geologists could not have missed it, never mind whether they were looking for it.

But perhaps you know of some facts to the contrary that you'd like to tell us all about?

Craigart14

Many Christians were moving away from a "literal" reading of the Bible in the 19th century, in part because of a flood of scientific discovery and many new theories, Darwin's theory being perhaps the most troubling. In America there was a backlash as many people insisted on the Fundamentals of Christian belief. The Fundamentals are: the six-day Creation; the global flood; the virgin birth; the resurrection; the atoning death; Biblical inerrancy.

Most of these are claims of fact. Fundamentalists accept these claims as true, and there are millions of fundamentalists in the US, including the followers of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ted Haggard (his replacement, actually), Jerry Falwell (his replacement), Ken Ham, Bob Jones, and a host of others.

We can argue 'til the cows come home about what the word "literal" means and whether any document can be literally true, but there really isn't any need. Many, many Christians don't really know what their church's doctrines are, and probably couldn't explain the difference between their sect and another. Many, many Christians will say that the Bible is true, until you point out things like, oh, Jesus' three different sets of last words, the two different versions of the Creation in Genesis, Judas Iscariot's two different deaths, the flat earth, etc., and they start backpedaling, talking about subjective interpretations, scribal errors, Old Testament vs. New Testament law, etc. Personally, I don't care if the OT writers didn't know the value of pi (they describe the round "sea" on top of Solomon's altar as ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference, which makes pi an even 3) or if they were guesstimating, or if God was keeping it simple so as not to confuse them. It's a very minor point, like whether or not rabbits chew the cud.

We can't reasonably argue over the fundamentals. Either God created the world in six days or He didn't. (Science says no.) Either there was a global flood that left only eight living humans or there wasn't. (Science says no. Even if there was a very large flood or many very large floods at the core of the Noah story, there wasn't any boat big enough to house breeders of all the world's animal species and enough food to last all of them well over a year.) Either Christ was born of a virgin or He wasn't. (Science says no, that a woman cannot be impregnated by a spirit.) People do not rise from the dead if they are well and truly dead. If there was a Jesus and he intended his death as an atonement for the sins of humanity we'll never know. Biblical inerrancy, of course, is easy to disprove.

We don't have to argue over details or interpretations or scribal errors. Five of the six fundamentals above are literally untrue and demonstrably so, yet millions of Christians insist they are literally true. The fundamentalist believer is expected to accept them as fact, not metaphor, not symbol, not poetic license, but fact. He or she may back off from minor points such as whether or not 500 corpses walked the streets of Jerusalem on the first Good Friday, but he or she will not back off from the fundamentals. Science says what? No, no, no, no, and no again.

For decades, a common response from Christians when you point out the differences among the Gospels is: "So? One person saw it this way, another one saw it this way, and another one . . . ." So Christians (no doubt unwittingly) accept the gospel stories as subjective interpretations of actual events. From that position, it's not much of a leap to the perfectly reasonable position that they are subjective embellishments of imaginary events, very much like midrash--not factual, but "true" if you believe them. The problem is, of course, once you understand that part of a sacred book was made up by humans, how can you reasonably say that any part of it wasn't? Or as Ken Ham says in Religulous, "If you don't believe this bit here, how can you believe that bit over there?"

Well said, Ken, well said indeed. Believing the fundamentals as fact, not metaphor, is utterly untenable. Just ask the Crusaders who laid down their weapons and marched seven times around the walls of Antioch, chanting and singing in imitation of Joshua, hoping the walls would come tumbling down.

The walls stayed put.

Craig