GunnerJ

Technically, you are right on the second point: the FWD is relevent to the "Why couldn't God have made everyone incapable of evil?" line of argumentation. However, just asking this question is not an invokation of the problem of evil: Vicar was not trying to invalidate the idea of an omnimax diety due to the existance of suffering, he was pointing out an alternate scenario to the flood.

Regardless, my request that this discussion be kept off the topic of PoE and FWD stands. (You'll notice that I addressed ot to everyone, which includes Vicar.)

The Lone Ranger

Sometimes, it's necessary, alas.

I had what ultimately turned out to be a very good experience in that vein a few years ago. I was teaching an introductory biology class, and after we had spent most of a week discussing evolutionary theory, several of the students in the class expressed the notion that I should -- to be "fair" -- devote equal time to the "scientific" case for Creationism.

So I did.

I went back and spent some time reminding them of what science is, and how it's done. Then, I brought one of Henry Morris' books (What is Creation Science?) to class and had them read Morris' "case" for Creationism being legitimate science themselves.

I was careful to provide references, showing that almost all of Morris' "evidence" for a Young Earth was outright fabrication. After examining Morris' case, the students were unanimous in declaring Creation "Science" to be an oxymoron. Many of them expressed disgust at the bad logic and the outright mendacity that characterizes the Creationists' "arguments."

It's sad that I had to waste precious class time with such baloney, but the outcome was quite encouraging.

Cheers,

Michael

Mageth

This is a moot point anyway - because if you believe in God and the global flood, who the heck cares where the water went?

That's right - if you believe in God, ignorance is the preferred way to go. Ignore the evidence, goddidit! Who needs explanations, goddidit! Science, pah - goddidit! Close your eyes, cover your ears, stick your head in the sand, and keep that 2000+ year old myth alive as history in your head!

Magus, in case you haven't noticed, many of us around here don't believe in God or the global flood, and for good reason. Lack of evidence, lack of a viable explanation, the stories don't fit the facts; in summary modern science has shown that these stories aren't history, but myth.

If biblical literalists have any hope of convincing anyone with a reasonable mind and a good handle on the facts, they must provide good theories and evidence to support the biblical tales as history and not myth. Unfortunately for you, that's a hopeless cause, as your quoted statement clearly illustrates - modern science has clearly revealed these tales as myth, not history. You know that, and so you're left only with the "goddidit" defense.

You would do yourself a big favor by recognizing that much of the bible (esp. Genesis) is myth, not history, and was intended that way when written. You could easily keep your belief; belief in god does not hinge on considering these tales as history. In fact, if you recognized them as the myths they are, it might even open your eyes to the metaphors which they include, and which are intended to teach you something about the human condition.

For the flood, your claim:

A lesson to those who read Genesis - as in us - to see the penalty for disobeying God and spreading so much evil, and then when He gives ample warning - ignoring it - expecting nothing to happen.

This is not the lesson that the flood myth is intended to teach (that's a wrong lesson that may be deduced if one considers the Flood a historical account). Hint: Joseph Campbell's writings are an excellent place to discover the metaphorical meaning of the flood myth and other myths of the bible (most if not all of which, including the flood myth, occur in many other mythologies, as Campbell clearly describes).

Magus55

Mageth, whats the difference to you whether i take Genesis literally, or accept is just a metaphorical story? Either way, you think im stupid and delusional for even believing in God, let alone the Bible - so why do you care? Science has not proven the Bible is myth, because science is not fact. Scientists change their minds about things daily and I haven't seen any undoubtable, or concrete evidence to accept science over God. God can't be in error, humans can. I don't give a crap what scientists say because they are many times wrong. I'd rather God tell me i was a fool for not trusting humans and science, instead of Him, then for God to tell me i was foolish for trusting science, instead of Him.

Science does not have all the answers, and guess what - the Bible doesn't either. The Bible is just a small part of God's creation. You notice how it doesn't go into a lot of detail of how God did it? It just shows us that He did. And until humans become infallible, or travel back in time - I have no reason to accept their lame attempt at understanding a universe infinitely more complex than any human mind can conceive over God.

You can doubt God and the Bible all you want. You can trust fallible humans explanation to everything. But if and when the time comes, and you do find out God is real - you are gonna feel really stupid for believing so many lies.

Kevbo

No one cares if you delude yourself and call it faith. What gets rational people riled up is that people who believe these myths think that they can back it up with "creation scientists," and then go screwing around with our kids' educations with the help of the Religious Reich's political power. Curing the superstition of the Religious Reich is the only way to save the United States.

Science has most definately demonstrated that Noah's flood and a creation ex nihlo 6000 years ago are myths. There is no such thing as "proof" in science, but these things are sure far beyond a reasonable doubt.

[quote]Scientists change their minds about things daily and I haven't seen any undoubtable, or concrete evidence to accept science over God.

And, guess where you get all your "information" about God? Fallible humans. Why trust science, which gives you things like the computer you're typing on and an 80+ year life-span, when you can listen to mythologists and be wrong every time? You put your trust in an ancient sheepherder concept of God, which has been changed and passed down by fallible humans.

So, if we don't know all the answers yet, we should just make them up? That didn't get Neil Armstrong to the moon.

Until humans become infallible or travel back in time, why should anyone assume that the bible is anything more than a small cross-section of mythological stories written by ancient sheepherders?

Explanations like...*gasp*... god?

Standard hell disclaimer, right. Well, when you die, you're not going to have a great time when you meet the Invisible Pink Unicorn and he rips you a "spiritual new one" for your blasphemy.

Spenser

Magus, this has to stupidest thing I have ever heard. Yes, I'll concede that 70 something percent of the Earth is covered by water, plus I'll concede that the deepest ocean basins are deeper than the highest mountains. The big chunk of logic that you have over looked is that the water is already where its at and it isn't covering the entire world. You would need MORE water to add to the oceans in order to increase their elevations high enough to cover the mountains. THERE ISN'T! This is called a fact and it seriously wounds the idea of the flood. Even if all tha glaciers melt there wouldn't be nearly enough water.

There is enough water in the ocean to sufficiently reach...

Sea Level. :banghead:

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
Mageth, whats the difference to you whether i take Genesis literally, or accept is just a metaphorical story?

I actually care about people, Magus, believe it or not. I hate to see so many people misinterpreting a myth as history, thus destroying any real benefit they may get from the myth if they interpret it correctly (though I think it's time we leave the Biblical myths behind and view them only as a relic of the past).

Either way, you think im stupid and delusional for even believing in God, let alone the Bible - so why do you care?

So much potential of the human species has being wasted by applying the Biblical myth as history. The Biblical myths may have served some purpose at one time, for the Hebrews 2500 or so years ago for whom it was written, but their usefulness has long since passed.

As far as me thinking you are "stupid" or "delusional", what I really think is that the concepts about the world you appear to hold and present here are 2000-year old concepts about the way the world works. Our knowledge and thinking have left them far behind; they no longer serve a useful purpose. You're not stupid; I think you are capable of doing better for yourself. I think that, if you and others like you abandoned the notion that the Bible is literal history, and is somehow applicable in today's world (which it is not), then you would open yourself up to the true potential you have. Abandon your primitive superstitious beliefs and move into the 21st Century, Magus.

Science has not proven the Bible is myth, because science is not fact.

Science has clearly demonstrated that the Genesis stories are myth. That is a fact. Move into the 21st Century, Magus.

Scientists change their minds about things daily and I haven't seen any undoubtable, or concrete evidence to accept science over God.

So the next time you get really sick, or are seriously injured in an accident, you're gonna go directly to the church for intense prayer and not bother going to the hospital to let modern, scientific medicine treat you? Good luck, and let us know how your experiment works out, if you survive.

God can't be in error, humans can.

And who wrote the bible? Humans. And, note, that the originators of the Genesis myths (and they originated in other forms than you see in Genesis, and were borrowed and modified when recorded there) weren't in error; they knew the stories they were creating were myths.

I don't give a crap what scientists say because they are many times wrong.

Then stop using the computer, Magus. Don't fly in any airplanes. Don't use electrical lights and don't listen to the radio. Don't take any perscription drugs, and don't go to the doctor when you're sick. Science is responsible for all that. Become Amish. Sheesh.

I'd rather God tell me i was a fool for not trusting humans and science, instead of Him, then for God to tell me i was foolish for trusting science, instead of Him.

Science collects and examines evidence and, from that evidence, generates hypotheses and theories to best explain aspects of Nature based on the evidence. New evidence or new thinking may modify or even replace those hypotheses and theories. That's a good thing. This is the best way, the way in which we can place the most trust, of understanding the natural world.

And people that believe in god should have enough sense to tell fact from fiction, and to recognize when Science clearly indicates that something that was formerly misinterpreted as fact must now be understood as fiction.

If god is real, I think he'd probably tell you that you are a bit foolish not to use the brain he gave you and trust Science.

Science does not have all the answers, and guess what - the Bible doesn't either.

Science has some of the answers, and is working on others; I've not found any answers in the Bible, only fictions to account for what wasn't understood at the time, and it sure isn't working on finding any new ones.

The Bible is just a small part of God's creation. You notice how it doesn't go into a lot of detail of how God did it? It just shows us that He did.

I notice how what it does tell us is largely myth. It provides myths to account for things that had no other explanation at the time. There are tons of other myths that people dreamed up to account for the same things, in slightly different ways, BTW.

And until humans become infallible, or travel back in time - I have no reason to accept their lame attempt at understanding a universe infinitely more complex than any human mind can conceive over God.

Lame attempt my ass. Science represents the first reliable attempt at understanding the universe we humans have made. Without science, for example, followers of the bible would still consider the earth the fixed center of the world, with the moon, sun, planets and stars all circling the earth on their respective heavenly planes.

You can doubt God and the Bible all you want. You can trust fallible humans explanation to everything.

The Bible, as science has clearly illustrated, is a prime example of fallible human explanations to everything. Science

But if and when the time comes, and you do find out God is real - you are gonna feel really stupid for believing so many lies.

The only thing I feel a bit stupid about is that I spent so much of my life believing the Bible.

RBH

Alix askedCoragyps and The Lone Ranger provided some of my reasons. (Especially Coragyps' remark about "argumentative old ..."!)

The other reason not yet given is that having participated on ARN and ISCID as an ID critic, and having published 8 essays on YEC and evolution 15 years ago, when the YEC/IDist coalition tried a push into my local school district recently, I could readily, fluently, and (IMHO, anyway) effectively slap down their various "scientific" arguments.

My target in that effort was not those that could not be convinced (due to the triumph of assimilation over accommodation in their heads), but the larger majority (including several members of the school board) who are not ideologically committed either way but who could have been swayed by the scientific-sounding arguments of the YEC/IDist coalition. For example, having worked through the issue of "fairness" already, it was easy to write a one-page summary of why science is not in fact fair: it discriminates against conjectures contradicted by the evidence. Having read (and having debated their arguments on ARN and ISCID) Behe and Demsbki, I could readily summarize the vacuity of "irreducible complexity" in lay terms, again showing that the YEC/IDist coalition was bringing nothing of substance to the table. Having participated on ARN and ISCID, I knew the arguments that were likely to come and was prepared to counter them.

These are real political battles in real schools, and the best preparation for them is knowing the opponents' arguments cold and having practiced and developed counters ready.

If the YECs and IDists were not trying to spend my tax money on nonsense I'd probably be less involved, though I am a cantankerous old misanthrope. As far as I'm concerned, they can home-school their kids, teach them whatever damnfool nonsense they want, and selection for reliable scientific knowledge in the outside job market can have its way with the ignorant little nippers. But it's public schools supported by tax money that's the target, and that is out of bounds as far as I'm concerned.

RBH

Magus55

And what would happen if you lowered the mountains, and raised the ocean floor?

pz

Well, then, one must wonder why there was all the ruckus over rain and floods in the bible, while such a cataclysmic geological event was occuring. The ark story becomes even more ridiculous, because no boat, even one of magical gopherwood, was going to keep its passengers alive during a catastrophe that flattened the Himalayas and raised the Marianas Trench.

Oh, and if you want to claim that the earth was smooth as a billiard ball before the flood, then you have to explain how the post-beaching-at-ararat catastrophe, when the Himalayas lept up and the Marianas sunk down, that should have destroyed all life far more effectively than the flood, managed to get omitted from that silly old book.