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

[Bleed S & G]

Why? God can pretty much do whatever he wants. If he want's to forgive man his original sin, he doesn't need to do anything except say "I forgive them." He probably doesn't need to even say that... he just does what he wants to.

God made the world and man perfect. we sinned. A fair judge cannot pardon law breakers. Overlooking it would have made Him unjust as well. The punishment is death - sepration from God in 'hell.' For love to be real, it has to be choosen, not forced.. and we sinned. However, God gave adam and eve hope that one day they could return, through the sacrfice of a sinless Man, as told by the prophets. God paid for our sins Himself, so that through physical death.. you dont have spirtual death.

I don't entirely accept what you're saying here in the remainder, but that should be obvious from my other posts. But, I do like what you say about "God does violate his own laws, such as raising the dead" And "we humans assume these laws to be based of of a little to no knowledge of the workings of the universe...." It's not tortured reasoning, trying to make it "all right" or whatever... it's flat out fair and honest. And you appear willing to accept the world around you without feeling that your God is potentially voidable becaue of what the world around you reveals (via scientific discovery, among other things). That, I can certainly respect, even if I disagree with the particulars of your belief. I mean, hell, I doubt you accept the particulars of mine, so... I shouldn't expect you to believe my beliefs any more than I am willing to believe the whole of yours...... thus leading me to the problem of "the church" or organized religion.... exclusivity. Good news, indeed.

Yes sir, thats why i agree with you on 'the church'.. religion is very personal

 

[lvbuckeye]

Well I gave you another reason other than OT v. NT, Law v. Grace (which by the way, I believe is an incorrect teaching of the Bible--has much more to do with Luther's theology than the writings of the apostles).

What do you think of my explanation?

to be honest, i don't think it's that simple. Christ did not come to destroy the law but to fufill it.

 

[Bleed S & G]

What I find ironic about this comment is you worry about a book that is "bound by corrupt men", but then you base your belief on what you believe to be Christ's teachings. The only reason you know what Christ taught is from that book "bound by corrupt men". How is this not a contradiction?

And Jesus and his followers never taught that unconditional love is the way to enter the kingdom. Unconditional love, which is something we should strive for, has to do with living a righteous life, not entering the kingdom of heaven. Entrance to the kingdom only comes through justification due to Christ's actions on the cross and his subsequent resurrection because no one can live a righteous life.

In addition, there are plenty of examples in the Bible (again the same source as Jesus' teachings) to show you were righteous killing occurs. I would advise you to read the story of Phinehas in Numbers 25.

I admit it is a contradiciton..

i myself have searched through tons of scripture not included, for various reasons. the bible was made for the masses. not the elect, not the enlightened.. the general public. those who compilied left things out that weren't consistent with their own beliefs, political agendas so on & so forth.. so my knowledge on Christs teaching has expanded out from the bible into diffrent books, writtings, etc.. but yeah it was a contadictory.. but isn't the message of the OT & NT? classic eye for an eye v. turn the other cheek?

All I precieve is God as man, was a pacifist. Christ told us as humans to forgive, and let God judge.

 

[Jagdaddy]

Well, Nietzsche argued that both the believer and the non-believer is fooling themselves when it comes to morality. The believer is the fool because God does not exist. The non-believer is the fool because he still allows himself to be restricted by a false morality that is ultimately derived from the original morality claimed by the believers. Under such a situation, the only morality that exists is that of power.



The fault of believers not acting differently lies with believers, not the message they believe. The validity of the message is its own internal logic and not the actions of those who subscribe to it since they can always fail to follow the message, whereas the message cannot fail itself unless it is self-contradicting.

From the Christian perspective, one cannot sin if they allow the Holy Spirit to direct their thought and actions. Unfortunately, even the most mature Christians struggle with surrendering themselves over the control of the Holy Spirit at all times.

As for a non-tautological definition of morality--I don't think one can exist. Morality is based upon who has power. We Christians claim God has that power. To assign it to anything else is to say morality does not exist or that it belongs simply to those who currently hold power (once again, getting to Neitzsche's point).

Fair enough. I'm not sure that there's a point to morality if that's all it is, but I don't think your POV is subject to proof or disproof so I'm not going to do more than respectfully disagree with it. Based on your definition, I would question whether true morality is any better for the world than the false kind, and I do think (subjectively I suppose) that "better for the world" should be the litmus test.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

You're being serious, right? This mistake free perfect creator created things that are disobedient to him and need to be killed? Riddle me that one. And, when you're finished with that, explain to me what exaclty "killing" means to God, assuming you believe in immortal soul.

Part of the free will thing we've been talking about. God created beings with free will. Because created things that only obeyed Him would not be worth anything. Killing means seperating a soul from the body.

Yes, I consider self defense murder. I also consider your analysis of the US's role in begining the current Iraq war under-informed at best, and out and out making up facts to fit your perspective at worst. Regardless, it doesn't matter to me, I don't consider self defense anything other than murder. You're talking about a legal justification for murder, not whether the act is or is not murder. Your God doesn't sound like the kind of guy who wants to hear excuses. "I said don't kill. You killed." "But, God, I was just defending myself" "Listen, tell me where this is incorrect - I said, "don't kill" and you killed anyway, even if you thought you had to. Did I leave any caveat on the 10 commandments? Because I'll tell you, I don't remember doing that, and I've got a really good memory."

I'll refer you to BGrad's posts about murder not = to killing and killing being actually permissable sometimes by God But even then There is a defined process for execution. The accused is given a trial just like now.

Justify your wars any way you have to, but the idea that War and God can go together is outlandish, and any parrish the teaches that should be laughed at unmercifully.

I probably should have steered clear of the war as BGrad had said because it is politics and not part of Gospel.

Besides, if your mistake free perfect God gives half a shit about Iraq and terrorist and bad guys in general, no doubt he's powerful enough to deal with them on his own. If God can break his own rules (as LV contends, supercedes them) then let him deal with Terrorists. If he's not killing off the terrorists, I suppose we should assume 1 of 2 things, he likes their activities or 2 he doesn't care. In my way of thinking, God doesn't care. This reality we have... it's not his reality. If I "die," so what. In saying that, I concede at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if people fight in a war, kill, etc. And, I can live with that. What I can't live with is people believing two incongruant things and claiming some sort of religious superiority over me - holding eternal salvation over my head. I'm not saying you've done the necessarily.... just saying it's these reasons why organized Christianity.. organized religion generally is complete bullshit. In fact, if you ask me, Church is "just business." Religion is something very different.

So, you do have a different God than LV. Got ya. Well, which one of you two is damned for believing in the wrong God? I'm guessing you're the saved one, yes?

Actually no, I'm pretty sure lv depends directly on Jesus Christ for his salvation. lv and I have differed on other parts of scripture but we've both got the main thing right. So then we would still be both saved. FWIW I didn't see where lv said that man was created a sinner.

Allow me to ask you this, if God is God as you know it... that is, if God is omnipotent, then how could it be that we have free will?

So just to be clear you are asking me how an all-powerful supreme Being could do something? Most of the answer is I don't know how God does a lot of things. If I did know how God did everything I would be God right? As it is what exactly would keep an all powerful God from being able to create a free-willed human being?

Do you listen to yourself? Yes, I said he seems to enjoy damning things, including his "own son" Very brutal God you have there. Enjoy him. By the way, don't you think maybe some self mortification is in order so God knows you're serious?
God died for you? How exactly did an immoratal die. Riddle me this.... What's the point in an all powerful God going through such a motion.... if he wanted to "forgive us our sins" why didn't he just say to himself, "Self, let's just forgive them their sins" Your all powerful God doesnt seem very efficient, and agian, seems to really like setting people up to expierence pain. You can have him.
Glad he took you instead of me. Enjoy the torture.

But he didn't even damn his own Son. Jesus defeated death and rose again in 3 days and now sits with his father in Heaven(that wouldn't be damned). Its hardly damning when He knows who wins. And you've read the Bible as you said. Jesus's death was not enjoyed by the Father, it tore him up: darkening of the sky, earthquake, removing his presence from the Temple, and the top to bottom tearing of a thick veil that separted the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple. The Bible does tell us that wages of sin is death. We have all sinned so the wages have to be paid. The only person who could pay the wages for someone else has to be perfect in order not to have to pay the wages for him(or Her)self. Jesus was the only one who could pay those wages. If the Father just had got together with the Son and said hey, lets just forgive them their debt w/o any payment we wouldn't have one of greatest evidences of His love for us. Sure God could have done it in a different way. But prove a way that's better. Go ahead.

 

[Brewtus]

oh really?

turtle shells found in the White River badlands. supposedly from the Oligocene.

I couldn't find the website that explained exactly what genus and species these fossils represent so sorry I can't respond more appropriately, but I'd venture to say that while they are in the order of Testudines they are not the same genus or species as any living turtle. If you can provide a reference I'll respond in greater detail.

what does that mean? there are fossils of them

Please do some homework before blindly posting photos. This coelacanth is not the same genus or species of the same order that currently lives in the Indian Ocean. The website you linked this from identified it as Whiteia woodwardi whereas living coelacanths are Latimeria chalumnae, two separate genus and species.

all summed up, i see...

trilobites are lower because they were aquatic bottom dwellers. why should be anywhere other than the bottom is that's where they lived? funny how they appear all over the world in deposits that are on dry land, though. i wonder how they got there. i do know that in 1968 in Utah a fossilized footprint was found with a crushed trilobite in the heel.

Trilobites aren't at the "bottom", whatever that is supposed to mean. They are only found in Cambrian geological formations, however similar sized animals are found in lower/earlier sediments and higher/more recent sediments where Trilobites are not found. How does your Liquefaction theory address this? Fossil remnants are found in stone, both on dry land and under water. They are most frequently dug up on dry land because they are easier to find that way. The reason they are currently on dry land is that sea levels have fluctuated throughout history, but not just a single time related to a global flood. And please include a link if you're going to make claims about footprints and trilobites, otherwise I'll just assume you're making it up.

placoderms- i don't even know what the fuck a placoderm is. i would tend to think that the armor wa rather dense and would have weighed the fish down.

Good thing paleontologists don't rely on the same method that you do for analyzing evidence.

pleiosaurs- shit, for all i know, Nessie is still around... there are only 855 google hits for pleiosaur, so i'm guessing that no one knows very much about them. i know that scientists recently recovered a baby pleiosaur from Antarctica, and again i have to ask, what the fuck was a marine creature doing on land?

If you want to have a serious and meaningful discussion on the topic, then please do a bit of research. I'm not an expect on this stuff either, but I do know the basics and can do a bit of searching to get more detailed information. Please do the same if you want to be taken seriously.

Ammonites- you mean the ancient tribe that the Children of Isreal warred against? i think the Isrealites extincted them. oh, you mean the nautilus? um... they're still around.

No, all ammonites are extinct. It would have taken you 15 seconds of research to find that out.

ichthyosaurs- hmm, they found fossils of those on land too...

What does that have to do with why we don't find these fossils in the same strata as any living species?

[/color]
[/url]

"Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ( Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.p.19-20)

"There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." (ibid, p.20)

"...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." (Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991. p 50)

"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time."(ibid, p 57)

And now you've hit bottom and are "quote-mining". I don't know who Ranganathan is but Johnson is a well-known Creationist who has a background in law, so I wouldn?t say he's an unbiased source.

i'm trying. you never addressed my post regarding liquification, and instead began lobbing questions back at me.

I am addressing liquefaction and illustrating why it doesn't account for what is found in the fossil record.

 

[CookyPuss]

Well, Nietzsche argued that both the believer and the non-believer is fooling themselves when it comes to morality. The believer is the fool because God does not exist. The non-believer is the fool because he still allows himself to be restricted by a false morality that is ultimately derived from the original morality claimed by the believers. Under such a situation, the only morality that exists is that of power.

As for a non-tautological definition of morality--I don't think one can exist. Morality is based upon who has power. We Christians claim God has that power. To assign it to anything else is to say morality does not exist or that it belongs simply to those who currently hold power (once again, getting to Neitzsche's point).

Neitzche was a moral relativist so he didn't believe in universal truth. Essentially, there is no right or wrong, only what is best for me in this situation. True altruism only exists when one acts against one's own best intersts without expectation of reward. He would say that true altruism is stupid. Interestingly, his opinion of secular science wasn't much better than religion.

Moral absolutism would assert that there are absolute right and wrongs, good and evil. This is the political forum, so I'll say that George W. is a pretty good example of a moral absolutist. He refers to the "Axis of Evil" in his speeches. Christians, Jews, and Muslims who subscribe to this view would state that God creates the standard.

Moral pluralism is the veiw that there are differing or even opposing points of view. This view asserts that there are competing values and at times one must be selected over another. Our government is basically set up according to these principles. Opposing views (Republican vs. Democrat) and a means to sort them out. We in essence come to a pluralistic agreement of what is "right" and "wrong" which may shift over time.

So, in a long answer to your question. A moral relativist would say that everything is situational and morality is defined individually. In its extreme form, there are no moral principals.

A moral absolutist would say that you cannot have morals apart from God, because God sets the morals. (You could have another mechanism for esstabilshing who sets the standard, but it is typically God).

A moral pluralist would say, sure. Anybody can develop a system of morality and collectively we need to come up with a system to assure that basic rights aren't violated. This is your non-tautological view of morality.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I couldn't find the website that explained exactly what genus and species these fossils represent so sorry I can't respond more appropriately, but I'd venture to say that while they are in the order of Testudines they are not the same genus or species as any living turtle. If you can provide a reference I'll respond in greater detail.

Please do some homework before blindly posting photos. This coelacanth is not the same genus or species of the same order that currently lives in the Indian Ocean. The website you linked this from identified it as Whiteia woodwardi whereas living coelacanths are Latimeria chalumnae, two separate genus and species.

so they are different because they have differing taxonomic labels attached to them. i can't argue with that, though judging by the name of the fossil, i'd say it's named after whoever found it.

Trilobites aren't at the "bottom", whatever that is supposed to mean. They are only found in Cambrian geological formations, however similar sized animals are found in lower/earlier sediments and higher/more recent sediments where Trilobites are not found. How does your Liquefaction theory address this? Fossil remnants are found in stone, both on dry land and under water. They are most frequently dug up on dry land because they are easier to find that way. The reason they are currently on dry land is that sea levels have fluctuated throughout history, but not just a single time related to a global flood. And please include a link if you're going to make claims about footprints and trilobites, otherwise I'll just assume you're making it up.

a fluctuation sea level does not properly address the issue of the fossilization process which involves rapid inundation before the organism has a chance to decay. we are finding fossils of sea creatures on dry land, all over the world, though that apparently does not mean anything to you.

as for the fossilized footprint with the trilobite in it, don't worry, i already know that your boy Glen Kuban has 'discredited ' it.

Good thing paleontologists don't rely on the same method that you do for analyzing evidence.

no shit. "we know the fossil is this old because we found it in this rock. we know the rock is this old because we found this fossil in it."

If you want to have a serious and meaningful discussion on the topic, then please do a bit of research. I'm not an expect on this stuff either, but I do know the basics and can do a bit of searching to get more detailed information. Please do the same if you want to be taken seriously.

i will never be taken seriously by you because we have completely different ideologies. you have your Darwinian religion and i have my Biblical religion.

No, all ammonites are extinct. It would have taken you 15 seconds of research to find that out.

okay.

What does that have to do with why we don't find these fossils in the same strata as any living species?

really? i think they're still alive and well.

you tell me?

I am addressing liquefaction and illustrating why it doesn't account for what is found in the fossil record.

because you refuse to accept the possibility of a global flood.

 

[Brewtus]

so they are different because they have differing taxonomic labels attached to them. i can't argue with that, though judging by the name of the fossil, i'd say it's named after whoever found it.

Many fossils are named after the discoverer. Paleontologists can have big egos too! :)

a fluctuation sea level does not properly address the issue of the fossilization process which involves rapid inundation before the organism has a chance to decay. we are finding fossils of sea creatures on dry land, all over the world, though that apparently does not mean anything to you.

Isn't this what we would expect to find if sea levels have been fluctuating and crustal plates have been shifting horizontally and vertically for millions of years? The sea creatures were in a shallow pond or sea at one time, then died and were covered, the seas drained or lands shifted upward due to plate tectonics, fossils were created, weather eroded the rock and then man found the fossils.

as for the fossilized footprint with the trilobite in it, don't worry, i already know that your boy Glen Kuban has 'discredited ' it.

Okay, that was easy.

no shit. "we know the fossil is this old because we found it in this rock. we know the rock is this old because we found this fossil in it."

No, you leaned that from a Creationist website or publication. That is not how fossils are dated.

i will never be taken seriously by you because we have completely different ideologies. you have your Darwinian religion and i have my Biblical religion.

For the millionth time, Darwinism is not a religion.

really? i think they're still alive and well.

you tell me?

Once again, please don't post pictures without providing some kind of taxonomic description. I'm not a paleontologist and can't determine the exact species from a photo.

because you refuse to accept the possibility of a global flood.

Because there is no evidence for it. It's just that simple.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Because there is no evidence for it. It's just that simple.

None?

 

[GoBucks89]

I don't disagree, but again the debate was on the purpose of science.

Gaining knowledge. What's to debate?

However, at the end of the day, even most scientists agree that science does not adequately explain things such as where we came from, where we go when we die, the existence or non existence of a god.

Anything can be explained. Science can be helpful, but it cannot provide verification in all cases. Sometimes the explanation for a historical event is something that cannot be detected even under the best of circumstances.

No, that is not the purpose of science.

I never said it was the purpose of science. I asked a simple yes or no question about whether you exclude supernatural causes. If not, then you cannot deny lv's theory using science. You can say you don't accept it, but nothing more.

But throughout the history of science, many supernatural causes have been excluded. (A god does not drag the sun across the sky; Thor does not cause thunder; Isis does not do whatever she supposedly did; etc).

They were not excluded a priori, they were disproven by research on readily observable phenomena. The Genesis flood is a one-time event in history, and therefore it cannot be observed.

Perhaps this is the basis of your misunderstanding of my comment. I have never claimed that science rules out he supernatural. All I ever said was that science does not look for explanations for things premised upon matters of faith.

There is no need for lv to premise his argument upon the existence of God. He merely has to allow for that possibility. The Genesis account clearly speaks of God. Thus, if he has not excluded God a priori, then the evidence of the written account establishes God as a premise. I understand that you don't accept the Genesis account as evidence, but that outcome is pre-determined by your philosophical belief system. Examining historical accounts is a science in itself. All sources of evidence must be considered if the goal is merely to gain knowledge.

 

[GoBucks89]

You morphed from the distinction between science/faith into my personal beliefs. I absolutely deny the existence of god, but that has nothing to do with the definition of science. Really not sure why you can't separate the two.
...
Which theory is that, that Noah's flood created the grand canyon? If so, yea I sure can say more about that than just a blanket disagreement based upon my atheist status.
...
Wrong and wrong. Science has debunked many historical accounts/myths.
...
And I once believed the myth of Noah's arc, so the evolution of my thought process is the reverse of what you suggested.

All of the comments you are responding to here were directed at Brewtus. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[buckeyegrad]

A moral pluralist would say, sure. Anybody can develop a system of morality and collectively we need to come up with a system to assure that basic rights aren't violated. This is your non-tautological view of morality.

I guess I would disagree as those who create a "system to assure basic rights aren't violated" would still be working from a tautological view. To determine what rights need to be protected requires such a view, you can't prove it from reason or logic because one's values will ultimately determine what rights need protected and values are tautological. In the end, the moral pluralist is deceiving himself because the agreed upon morality still becomes the rule of those who hold power.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I admit it is a contradiciton..

i myself have searched through tons of scripture not included, for various reasons. the bible was made for the masses. not the elect, not the enlightened.. the general public. those who compilied left things out that weren't consistent with their own beliefs, political agendas so on & so forth.. so my knowledge on Christs teaching has expanded out from the bible into diffrent books, writtings, etc.. but yeah it was a contadictory.. but isn't the message of the OT & NT? classic eye for an eye v. turn the other cheek?

All I precieve is God as man, was a pacifist. Christ told us as humans to forgive, and let God judge.

Maybe we should start another thread on this topic......I'll do it if you are interested in carrying this conversation further. I for one would be interested in discussing what other writings you have been reading and how you perceive the evolution of the Bible.

Futhermore, I'm not sure how you see a contradiction between the OT and NT. For example, the difference between an "eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" are not contradictory as they address different concerns. The first deals with carrying out justice in a community. Specifically, it is saying that if someone commits an offense as outlined in Torah, then the community has the responsibility of carrying out a punishment of equal standing. However, the rabbis at the time of Jesus had taken this saying beyond its original meaning and were using it as a justification to take personal revenge on others who wrong you. This is what Jesus was teaching against, he was not changing or altering Torah. We must always remember that Jesus had a Jewish perspective of the Law and he would not contradict anything in it--after all, he would be contradicting himself if he did.

 

[CookyPuss]

I guess I would disagree as those who create a "system to assure basic rights aren't violated" would still be working from a tautological view. To determine what rights need to be protected requires such a view, you can't prove it from reason or logic because one's values will ultimately determine what rights need protected and values are tautological. In the end, the moral pluralist is deceiving himself because the agreed upon morality still becomes the rule of those who hold power.

You are correct that in practice it often becomes tautological (essentially Nietzsche's criticism). As a philosopical position, it is the non-tautological view. The pluaralist states that there can be multiple equally correct tautological views. Protection of rights is not an essential part of the view, but a practical necessity because the mulitple, equally correct views conflict. What makes it non-tautological is that unlike moral relativism and moral absolutism it does not say one particular view of morality is correct and by definition does not allow for other views. Pure democracy is the best example of this. In pure democracy, everyone has equal power although each one may have a different view of morality.