eMTee Posted May 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 There are verses in the Bible that suggest the Earth is flat, and that it does not move. So yes, observations and theories from many scientific fields are simply not compatible with the Bible - whether we want it or not. hmmm? what verses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 this "religion" is a unique "religion", no other one is like it. The Bible is proven historicaly accurate in several of its detailed stories, and there has not been found geological evidence proving it to be fake in its historical claims, it has been uniquely preserved down threw the ages and translations, it is also the oldest book known to modern day. It has also been proven true in it's claims having to do with science. no other religous book can claim such. I have faith in it. Egyptian religious texts pre-date the bible by almost 1600 years...aprox 3100 BCE. Only Genisis is credited at about 1450 BCE It would probably be helpful to convince people of you being right if you could not mis-quote facts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 In terms of scientific reasoning... Lets just take Noah for a moment... Perhaps there was a flood.Perhaps Noah gathered up two by two everything execpt the dinos..A simple thing called genetic diversity would indicate that we would all be long gone... A pair of a species is not a viable population. Period. <---(Science and the bible not getting onlg well with each other..perhaps a timeout would be in order...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 Ok...to everyone, everyone does not know all the facts..Yes....but can the egyption books stand up to testing as well as the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 Ok...to everyone, everyone does not know all the facts..Yes....but can the egyption books stand up to testing as well as the Bible? I would say so....but just about any religious text is as reasonably viable of science as the bible, if that is the absolute stance you take... Why not accept that the universe is a giant disk setting upon the back of three elephants floating through the cosmos on the back of a giant turtle. I see nothing wrong with faith....but one must understand that faith is not science. And all faiths are equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 And I do believe that Noah took also dinasours on the ark..I believe in the flood story, here is some reasons... becaose there has been evidence found in goelogy of the Earth (though you say no to that), and ancient stories found of such an event all over the globe, several of which are very similar to the Bible's story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 Why not accept that the universe is a giant disk setting upon the back of three elephants floating through the cosmos on the back of a giant turtle. because that is not what the Bible says...and that is completely incorrect, and thus the claim is fake. And does or did that religion at one time teach and believe that the Earth was flat, and setting on a turtle? The Bible never taught such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 And I do believe that Noah took also dinasours on the ark..I believe in the flood story, here is some reasons... becaose there has been evidence found in goelogy of the Earth (though you say no to that), and ancient stories found of such an event all over the globe, several of which are very similar to the Bible's story. Although i think there are all kinds of holes in the flood myth, I granted such as a possibility. The only problem is the lack of any resultant viable population. (Not to mention a global flood would wreck havoc on the salinity of the oceans and therefore any marine organism would have been toast as well.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 Consider only two kinds of dogs and how much diffrent ones they can come up with...I believe that mutations can cause change in genetics..but not change one animal into a completely differenk kind of animal. Mutations usualy all the time cause harm rather than help..in fact, have you ever run into any random mutation causing better things? such an uplifting as monkeys to man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 SO I guess by this theory you can have mutant babies with your sister...Maybe why Africans and Eskimos don't look like Jews?? Noah etal must gotten bored on the ship... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 wait wait wait, you think some guy named noah put dinosaurs on his ship????? and fish, that is a very intelligent, valid point in post #127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 Other problems with the ark....Space. Most accounts of the dimensions (Gennisi 6:15 "15. "This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits."). You have a vessle 300x50x30 cubits. 1 cubit is 45.72 cm. This means the volume of the ark was 450,000 cubic cubits or 43,006.21 cubic meters. With aprox 30 million insect species, that would only allow enough space for each to have 700 cubic centemeters...about the size of a coke can. That does not include ANY other species..or crew or food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 hahaha! ESPECIALLY dinosaurs. i mean...come on?? fish, i have to thank you personally for that post. the mathmatical perspective just blew me away. I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 Other problems with the ark....Space....Gentlemen- I thought I would insert here that by convention, I generally avoid discussion of anything before Genesis 12 in a public forum. But I decided (since this discussion is going on so long) to bend a rule. (FYI- Genesis 12 is where Abraham shows up). Even for conservative Christian scholars, these are VERY difficult passages to interpret. eMTee- I know you take lot of these stories as literal truth, and that is your province to do so. I would just like to reiterate that many conservative Christians who believe the Bible is true take a lot of these texts as poetic and hyperbolic. Ergo, Fst, "all animals" would not mean all insects (or even necessarily all mammals), the "whole earth" would not mean the entire surface of the globe. The writers would have had no idea about those concepts and it is reasonable to consider that they were writing about stuff they understood, not about stuff they didn't. Further, the writers will speak (as we do) in whatever their normal usage was for Hebrew. It is fair to suggest that we have only a vague impression of their use of idiom in text that old. As an example, I have never seen an interpretation of the first half of Genesis 6 that I understand. (This is the somewhat bizarre seciton about "sons of God" and "daughters of men".) It is fair to say that almost no one has an authoritative position on it. And that is the section just before the flood story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 wait wait wait, you think some guy named noah put dinosaurs on his ship????? and fish, that is a very intelligent, valid point in post #127 Yes I do, and I believe that the ark was big enough to hold every kind of animal needed..and that does not exempt dinasours. I believe that the flood covered the entire world..I believe that Noah was 600 years old when he started..I believ that God brought the animals to him. who's the foolish one..the atheist that believes in no god..or the one that believes in a god? When it comes to creation..the evidence you want is evidence that leaves you speechless, without one thing left found to question in your minds...is it possable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 you know exactly what i mean.you believe noah put dinosaurs on his ship.i don't.that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 A valid point, Bio. I too try to avoid arguments (All about discussions though...)involving faith..I just get irked at times when there are those that proclaim their faith as truth and no other faith is right (Including scientific theorums that are at odds with the faith). This is a bold point and one that I find a bit offensive, so I tend to disect certain points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts