Godless Wonder

Jim, if you don't believe that abiogenesis is possible, and that some kind of deity must be involved, for life to have been created, that's one thing, but how do you connect the dots to conclude that the God which is described in the Bible is this very same creator deity, and that the Bible is not just some old book written by men?

rlogan

I suppose there is a tad bit of irony here, yes. I think though that a rastifarian could make an equally good (as compared with the Pope) articulation of Catholicism after a few mega-tokes off a big fattie.


So I was hoping to parse Matthew 24, or the Luke counterpart since it has been identified as the source for Jesus' supposed assertion that the flood story was true. But we're drifting into E&C material.

Jim I realize you're juggling all of these lions. Sven did start the thread and he does have some points about that OT God looking pretty scary with such capricious behaviour.

But I've quoted Matthew and all it says is "as in the days of Noe". It does not say that Noah was real.

So I'm wondering if you can concede that it is not true that Jesus stated the flood happened. He didn't. He said "as in the days of Noe..." Moreover, the point of that passage had nothing to do with truth or falsehood of the flood. It was an analogy.

Is using a story as an analogy proof that it happened?

Ellis14

and
Obviously all that studying has not improved your critical thinking, Jim. Life is complex? So what? Did irreducible complexity figure in all the things you studied? Was micro adaptation and miniscule mutation over millenia included in this study of yours?

Your argument is illogical. If logic and evidence are irrelevant to your position of faith, which they obviously are, based on the first quote of yours above, then you have no right to use your own "logic" to say that evolution is nonsense. If you are going to use logic, then use it but use it consistently. You cannot say "I believe God created life, whether that's logical or not" but then attack our claims as illogical. You have refuted yourself.

Besides, to assume that God must exist because life is complex is Arguing from Ignorance and Begging the Question; you must assume God exists in order to assume that only He could have created such "complex" life. The argument from design is a dead end, I wouldn't waste my time trying to use it, if I were you.

Whilst I am prepared to take your word for it that you have studied the things you have claimed, you obviously have not thought critically about them, and your resultant reasoning is fallacious.

Angrillori

Jimbo, you have a problem with:
Stratas and layers of sediements??????

Explain, please the deposition of fossils within these strata then, please.

Why are old fossils found below young fossils? Or, if you disagree with aging, why are specific species found ALWAYS below other species?

Keep in mind, swimming abilities won't apply to plants. Running speeds will be quickly shown useless by the existence of flying fossils below running ones.

If there is one, ONE bit of evidence that throws the whole flood thing out the window, I imagine this is it.

I mean even Kent Hovind tries to explain it away with his dinosaurs outrunning each other to high ground, but he always forgets some of those fast moving plants, and floating cities. Even he has to admit in his head he's lyin' for Jebus.

Doctor X

WOW!!!

So . . . like we should find late fossils of small mammals below the big dinosaurs. . . .

It amazes me how much people will lie to preserve a fantasy.

Anyways, back to topic, the allusion of Junior no more "proves" a Flood Myth than the fact that the biblical myths depend on earlier myths prove those myths.

--J.D.

Ellis14

Oh I don't know, there's the fantasy that life came about through natural progession of adapting biological organisms and the self-contradictory, inconsistent, illogical and non-sensicle story that an almighty god decided to drown the entire planet because man was evil, then promises never to drown them again because: man was evil.

It seems to me that the real deceiver is the one who claims total truth for a myth that is so riddled with flaws and has no supporting evidence.

Amaleq13

I didn't say that. What I did say was:

What "seems" true based on common sense often turns out to be false when the evidence is considered scientifically.

I guess I should be flattered that you seem to have as much difficulty understanding me as you do the Bible.

Again, I didn't say that. I denied your assertion that Jesus claimed the story about Noah was literally true. I never said nor has anyone suggested that Jesus declares the story a myth. Please try to avoid creating straw men and focus on what is actually being said to you.

You mean again? I've already done this in my earlier post. Jesus is referring to the story and his audience's knowledge of the details. His comparison clearly does not require that they believed it to be literally true. It only requires their familiarity with the sudden nature of the flood in the story.

I'm not saying the text makes it "impossible" to impose your literal understanding of the flood onto Jesus, I'm saying it is not required by the text. Is it possible for you to suspend your a priori assumptions momentarily and read the passage as though Jesus is referring to the story of the flood as a familiar parable? If you can manage this, I think you will find there is nothing in the passage that prevents this from being a legitimate interpretation.

Specifically, he is comparing the sudden and unexpected arrival of the flood with the sudden and unexpected arrival of the Son of Man:

`And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers of the heavens -- except my Father only; and as the days of Noah -- so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man (24:36-37 YLT)

The emphasis isn't on the totality of the destruction but, again, on the sudden nature of the flood's arrival:

and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man. (24:39, YLT, emphasis mine)

I notice that you felt compelled to look elsewhere to support this claim. Perhaps that is because there is no such statement in the passage in question. Instead, Jesus tells them that those not chosen will be "left":

Then two men shall be in the field, the one is received, and the one is left;
two women shall be grinding in the mill, one is received, and one is left. (24:40-41, YLT)

Presumably, they have been "left" to face the judgment but there is nothing to suggest he expected them to be suddenly destroyed. Please note that it is the presence of the Son of Man being compared and not the fate of those "left" in the previous verse (i.e. 24:39). It is the sudden arrival of the flood not the total elimination of life that is important to Jesus' point. The literal truth of that total destruction is not necessary for Jesus to make his point but awareness of the sudden arrival of the flood is. That is the theme of the entire reference to the story of Noah's flood.

dado

i'm not touching any part of that...except the big fattie you're passing to your right.

Amaleq13

I certainly hope you brought enough for the entire class, young man.

Qinopio

What bothers me about people reading those statements by Jesus as inextricably tying the Flood story to Christianity is that Jesus himself said that there were things he didn't know. Day or hour of his return, at least. It's not possible to believe that Jesus knew everything. Also consider Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and with people." You can't increase wisdom if it's already infinite. I don't see a problem with someone believing that there wasn't a Flood (at least according to the common interpretation) and still being a conservative Christian.