God and Science agree -why don't we?

[Etritonakin]

is that sarcasm i sense??
the question still stands: do you know how your idol was created?

More like apathy. :sleep:

I have a feeling, however, that I'm going to have to endure the explanation. Please try to throw in some new material -as I've heard just about everything you are probably about to say. (That was sarcasm -and I'm not sorry.)

 

[painted wolf]

I try to be respectful and honest.... but in the spirit of honesty, I don't have as much patience as I used to.

But I will always accept an apology given in good faith.

Hope your night gets better.

wa:do

 

[Luminous]

More like apathy. :sleep:

I have a feeling, however, that I'm going to have to endure the explanation. Please try to throw in some new material -as I've heard just about everything you are probably about to say. (That was sarcasm -and I'm not sorry.)

hahaha no. i have no idea how your idol was created. I was asking you, because only you know...its YOUR idol.

 

[Etritonakin]

hahaha no. i have no idea how your idol was created. I was asking you, because only you know...its YOUR idol.

"Idol" -in my estimation -not only equals "idle" -but "counterproductive".

An idol is not simply powerless, but we give it power to do us harm.

The bible has affected mankind greatly -and extremely positively -though it has often been used as an excuse for that which it denounces.

Even if you believe it to be fiction, it has moved many to treat their fellow man as they would be treated -and to examine how they truly would be treated.

Those who have used it as an excuse to do otherwise would have done so regardless.

As for how the collection of writings we know as "the bible" came into existence...
it is either a collection of purely human ancient writings which delve into concepts even modern scientists or sci-fi writers have difficulty getting their heads around....

...or, God decided which words would be set before which people at which time -and gave them accordingly -not to mention making them understandable to some at various times -and blinding some to their meaning at various times -as is stated in the bible.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What I said was... "What is written in the bible cannot be proven false by science"

Here is where you go wrong in your thinking.
If I were to make the fantastical claim that last night, I climbed up on my roof, flapped my arms, and flew all over the night sky, and when questioned about it said, "You cannot prove that what I have claimed is false", would you accept that what I claimed was true?
Despite the fact that my claims defy the very Laws that govern the Universe?

Of course one cannot "disprove" miraculous claims. By invoking miracles the claimant gets a free pass over the natural and counters any argument with, "you cannot disprove the supernatural with the natural."

Which is why, in the scientific method, it would be up to the claimant to provide empirical evidence of the claim. Without such evidence, the claim can be dismissed as being against known natural laws.

There are many such miraculous claims in the Bible. But to reconcile these claims with science, you cannot invoke supernatural explanations. It is not up to science to disprove the miraculous, it is up to the claimant to provide evidence that the claims are true.

 

[Luminous]

"Idol" -in my estimation -not only equals "idle" -but "counterproductive".

An idol is not simply powerless, but we give it power to do us harm.

The bible has affected mankind greatly -and extremely positively -though it has often been used as an excuse for that which it denounces.

Even if you believe it to be fiction, it has moved many to treat their fellow man as they would be treated -and to examine how they truly would be treated.

Those who have used it as an excuse to do otherwise would have done so regardless.

That...or:
1. Idols are meaningful and moving only to those who hold them as idols.
2. Idols are very powerful, but have NO power to harm us. they're just inanimate objects. guns don't kill, people do.
3. the bible is hardly read or understood for what it is, and has affected humanity in a very negative way. It has often been used as an excuse for Ignorance.
4. The various bibles were and are not necessary.
5. those who used it as the reason to do good, do not deserve to be called good. and even if it did inspire good people, they would have been good regardless.

As for how the collection of writings we know as "the bible" came into existence...
it is either a collection of purely human ancient writings which delve into concepts even modern scientists or sci-fi writers have difficulty getting their heads around....

...or, God decided which words would be set before which people at which time -and gave them accordingly -not to mention making them understandable to some at various times -and blinding some to their meaning at various times -as is stated in the bible.

or.... it is a collecting of purely human anti-agnostic believes and lies which delve into concepts so trivial, paradoxical, and bizarre that modern scientists and sci-fi writers have no use for.

or... God decided that he suddenly cared again about humanity's religion...unlike he did before. making "his word" very vague and maluable so that it could be used by various people for various reasons. he decided that for us, he would make it purposefully extravagant and useless. furthermore, he decided to make random people that he liked from the middle east and roman empire to have the knowledge to write the original content of their various books and scriptures. then, when Christians were killing eachother over what was true Christianity...to the disgust of Emperor Constantine, he decided that by random drawing he would chose which books were cannonical and would best serve the needs of Constantine. Then God decided that he would remove many of the powers of the "Universal Christian (Catholic)" Church by inspiring King James of England to approve his own version of the Jewish and post Jewish scriptures, since the Pope would not grant him a divorse...or w.e. that could be just a story.
etc. its not so black and white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/xn-canon.html
http://www.biblica.com/bibles/about/7.php
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm
the last two are christian sources and are thus very vague.
In anycase, the idol scripture that is any version of any book that is idolized are flawed creations of men, inspired by men's believes and general stupidity.

anyway: we come closer to the agnostic truth that God inspires in us by shedding away from idolizing material things.

 

[Etritonakin]

Here is where you go wrong in your thinking.
If I were to make the fantastical claim that last night, I climbed up on my roof, flapped my arms, and flew all over the night sky, and when questioned about it said, "You cannot prove that what I have claimed is false", would you accept that what I claimed was true?
Despite the fact that my claims defy the very Laws that govern the Universe?

Of course one cannot "disprove" miraculous claims. By invoking miracles the claimant gets a free pass over the natural and counters any argument with, "you cannot disprove the supernatural with the natural."

Which is why, in the scientific method, it would be up to the claimant to provide empirical evidence of the claim. Without such evidence, the claim can be dismissed as being against known natural laws.

There are many such miraculous claims in the Bible. But to reconcile these claims with science, you cannot invoke supernatural explanations. It is not up to science to disprove the miraculous, it is up to the claimant to provide evidence that the claims are true.

Let me rephrase....

That which is written in the bible can be proven true by science.

You go wrong in apparently thinking I am trying to prove anything to anyone. They can prove it -but how many are willing? I have proved it (proven?). I have not scientifically proven every word of the bible thus far -but I have proven much at which "science" would scoff.

If you do not believe the things therein MAY be possible, your preconceptions would taint any experimentation.

As for that which you can't prove.....
There are actually many scientists throughout the world looking into some very "miraculous" things.
In other words, some very very freaky stuff is happening in the world that important people don't like to openly discuss -but the bible describes it thusly....

Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

...which may sound ridiculous, but is nonetheless true.

There are many official "programs" that deal with the "supernatural" -but, in my experience, many of those involved do not acknowledge the possibility of said programs being affected by -or even manipulated by intellects superior to theirs -with powers superior to theirs -who lend their power toward their own ends (which -in the case of demons -is OUR end). They see short-term results, and are thereby sold (and blinded to the big picture).

(There are some who do acknowledge the existence of "spirits", but apparently do not understand their nature.)

This brings up an excellent analogy...

The fact that the "spooky people" keep things as hush-hush as possible doesn't mean they're not happening. Most don't have a clue what's really happeneing in the world -as our perception is limited. Yet -given opportunity by permission or chance occurrence -one might prove these things are happening.

Likewise, the things of God can be proven, but he also has the ability to withhold information and opportunity.
In fact, he has set down certain guidelines to follow in order to draw near to him. A scientist would have to acknowledge that this could be a factor.

 

[Lin Ji]

If you do not believe the things therein MAY be possible, your preconceptions would taint any experimentation.

Referring to tumbleweed41's words and example (with which I agree), let me just rephrase what you are saying, or at least show the faults in your claim:

"if you do not -believe- that I possibly MAY fly all over the night sky, then I will fail any try to show you that I can." :rainbow1:

This is just absurd. If someone tells you that he has invisible wings and can fly, you will never believe this possible. Rather you'll suggest him to go to the neuropsichiatric hospital. And if he claims that it's your prejudice about his wings and his power to fly, which impedes him to actually DO it in front of you, you will just have the prove that he's schizophrenic. :angel2:

And believe me, the real issue is NOT "very much complex" than this example, because in the Bible and other sacred stuff, we find claims just similar to tumbleweed41's one!!

*Adding: regarding your very first line on this topic, well, true God cannot be disproved, just like the Flying Teapot Orbiting Mars or the claim that the world has been created last thursday. Scientific claims, instead, CAN be disproved. This is the difference between religious and scientific claims, which makes the second ones significant, experimentable and reliable, and the first ones useless just like fables and "visions" of mad and deluded people.

 

[David M]

Let me rephrase....

That which is written in the bible can be proven true by science.

And that which is written in the bible can be proven false by science.

So science and the bible do not agree.

 

[logician]

The true God and true science cannot be refuted.

Men, however, often just make stuff up.

"Creationists" have made wild assertions based on misunderstanding of scripture.

Scientists have denied the existence of God without scientific proof -but by their ability to disprove what some creationists believe.

What is written in the bible cannot be proven false by science -and any (real -actually proven) scientific discovery certainly cannot be made false by what is written in the bible.

Both "sides" make false assumptions and assertions.

God and science are correct -we are just newbs arguing with each other.

(Slightly off-topic, but when the "science-minded" try to disprove the biblical flood, they often begin with ruling out that it was possible (not 100% scientific, but understandable) -and looking for things they think are possible which would give reason for the "myth"-and finding evidence for that... or try to disprove false assumptions about the bible -which may have been asserted by errant creationists...

Scientists:
My question is (and I sincerely want to understand)....assuming it is possible -such a miraculous mega-flash-flood (humor me here).... What would be the scientific evidence left by what was written in the bible -based on what science knows (not what creationists claim) to be the state of the earth/people/flora/fauna between ...say ...6,000 to 2,000 BC?

If it actually rained for 40 days and 40 nights -and the springs in the ground put forth water -and God made available enough water -so that waters did not subside for 150 days -what would be the scientific evidence thereof?? If it all happened at once -everywhere -would things really have changed much? If so, how? Rather than flowing from one area to another, what would a simultaneous flood everywhere do?
Note that a height of 18 cubits (about 22 feet) is specified in the bible -which is apparently 22 feet over the highest mountains given the language in the bible -and the fact that the ark is recorded as having come to rest on "the mountains of Ararat" -though not necessarily at the highest peak.

And...
What would such an occurrence do today?

A rather ridiculous premise. Niether have any relationship to each other.

 

[Etritonakin]

Referring to tumbleweed41's words and example (with which I agree), let me just rephrase what you are saying, or at least show the faults in your claim:

"if you do not -believe- that I possibly MAY fly all over the night sky, then I will fail any try to show you that I can." :rainbow1:

This is just absurd. If someone tells you that he has invisible wings and can fly, you will never believe this possible. Rather you'll suggest him to go to the neuropsichiatric hospital. And if he claims that it's your prejudice about his wings and his power to fly, which impedes him to actually DO it in front of you, you will just have the prove that he's schizophrenic. :angel2:

And believe me, the real issue is NOT "very much complex" than this example, because in the Bible and other sacred stuff, we find claims just similar to tumbleweed41's one!!

*Adding: regarding your very first line on this topic, well, true God cannot be disproved, just like the Flying Teapot Orbiting Mars or the claim that the world has been created last thursday. Scientific claims, instead, CAN be disproved. This is the difference between religious and scientific claims, which makes the second ones significant, experimentable and reliable, and the first ones useless just like fables and "visions" of mad and deluded people.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if I saw tumbleweed flying all about the night sky, I might look into the matter more deeply. If I then flagged him down, had him demonstrate the feat -and went and told everyone else... they'd probably call me crazy -understandably.

s'all I'm sayin'.

If I tell you people can be miraculously healed, I would understand your reluctance to believe it.

If you were miraculously healed, your viewpoint would change -you would have proof -and other people would think you were crazy.

You think these things false because you haven't experienced them, and apparebtly don't understand much of what is written in the bible -but that's belief and perspective, not science.

I understand people don't believe the things written in the bible -and I'm not trying to convince them otherwise.

I'm not making an argument. I'm stating the fact that I know whereof I speak -have proven many things you have no interest in proving -and am totally cool with you not believing. When you experience these things, you will believe them -until then, you can't.


(But... if you stumble across some of the programs of which I speak -and try to speak about them to others -don't be surprised if they throw you in a psych ward and make you schizophrenic with psychotomimetics [or by other darkly spiritual means]!)

... and it IS inextricably COMPLEX

 

[Etritonakin]

And that which is written in the bible can be proven false by science.

So science and the bible do not agree.

Please provide an example of something actually written in the bible which science has proven false (not which science has proven unlikely -and not that which people believe about the bible which science has proven false -but that which is actually written in the bible. You can go with the 6 day creation thing if you'd like, but understand that what is recorded in Genesis is a renewal of the earth -not its original creation, etc.. etc.. )

ScienTISTS and the bible do not always agree -but GOD and SCIENCE cannot disagree.

ScienTISTS often disagree even with each other.

 

[Etritonakin]

A rather ridiculous premise. Niether have any relationship to each other.

which is why I wrote "slightly off-topic"... I didn't mean to say they had any real relationship -maybe it was more than slightly off-topic.... I just happened to think of the other after the one, and didn't want to bother with putting it in another thread.

 

[darkendless]

Please provide an example of something actually written in the bible which science has proven false (not which science has proven unlikely -and not that which people believe about the bible which science has proven false -but that which is actually written in the bible. You can go with the 6 day creation thing if you'd like, but understand that what is recorded in Genesis is a renewal of the earth -not its original creation, etc.. etc.. )

ScienTISTS and the bible do not always agree -but GOD and SCIENCE cannot disagree.

ScienTISTS often disagree even with each other.

Did you not read my first post?

 

[Etritonakin]

To get back on track.... the main topic and the question I asked were not necessarily related -I just stuffed them into the same thread -my bad....

...and the question was about a MIRACULOUS flood which would have been about 4,000 (four thousand) years ago -give or take.

I understand why some scientists believe it could have happened or did happen-and some believe it could not have happened or did not happen, etc...

I understand that some people do not believe the miraculous CAN happen -but am asking even them to assume that it could for the sake of the question.

It's just a loose hypothetical question at this point which I am casually considering.

-Assuming the miraculous, simultaneous flooding of the earth from above and below to a height above the mountains of Ararat -and the receding thereof within 150 days -not easy for someone who does not believe it possible... just looking for input on what sort of evidence might be left (assuming all the rest was not "miraculous").

It has been said there is not enough water available to the earth to do such -hence God would have had to miraculously (not necessarily unscientifically) cause it or gather it from elsewhere.

(Perhaps, but we apparently don't know how much water lies beneat the surface of the earth/floor of the ocean -could such be forced out by heat/pressure -then withdrawn by cooling, etc...???? [even if miraculous?])

Y'all don't believe it -I get that -but to say you've proven it impossible is not true.

But... It's just a question to ponder...

 

[gnostic]

There's a bit error in your calculation.

Scientists:
My question is (and I sincerely want to understand)....assuming it is possible -such a miraculous mega-flash-flood (humor me here).... What would be the scientific evidence left by what was written in the bible -based on what science knows (not what creationists claim) to be the state of the earth/people/flora/fauna between ...say ...6,000 to 2,000 BC?

1) The bible does not give a specific date for the initial creation of the earth. Some have assumed it to be when Adam was created -nearly 6,000 years ago -but this is not the case.

2) Nothing in the bible suggests that dinosaurs and trilobites existed 6,000 to 2,000 BC.

And again, here:

I am asking that we do assume, for argument's sake, that the flood was miraculously possible -but that everything else was as science says it was between 6,000 and 2,000 BC.

If Adam was created 6000 years ago, then your 2nd point should read 4,000 BC -

4,000 to 2,000 BC.

6000 years ago = 4000 BC; not 6000 BC.

I just thought I put that out to you, Etritonakin.

 

[gnostic]

Scientists have denied the existence of God without scientific proof -but by their ability to disprove what some creationists believe.

Etritonakin, if you understand science at all, then you should know that scientists required evidences.

Evidences that that can be observed and tested. And if each evidence can be found independently from another set of evidence, then the more chances you have in verifying if the science is correct or not; the more evidences there are, the more better your chance of proving the science.

We have no evidences of god or anything remotely supernatural. With no evidences, then the proof is actually against god's existence. Until such evidences become available, then this god is nothing more than figment of collective sombody's imagination.

So, do you think God can spare his divine clipped toenail for us to examine? More would be better...

 

[Etritonakin]

There's a bit error in your calculation.



And again, here:


If Adam was created 6000 years ago, then your 2nd point should read 4,000 BC -



6000 years ago = 4000 BC; not 6000 BC.

I just thought I put that out to you, Etritonakin.

Unless you reference the post I was initially answering with the first -and realize the second was not referring back to the same -and my statement is still correct -and appropriate as is.

I am not a scientist, but I can count kinda good -

I do realize that if Adam was created about 6,000 years ago (4,000-ish B.C.), the flood would have been later -and I was too lazy to look up the years separating Adam and the flood according to the lineages in the bible -so I threw out some vague numbers -but thank you for pointing out specifics which I fully understand -and which have no bearing on anything extremely interesting -and all under a false assumption.

:slap:

(Sarcasm -I'm a bit tired)

 

[Etritonakin]

Etritonakin, if you understand science at all, then you should know that scientists required evidences.

Evidences that that can be observed and tested. And if each evidence can be found independently from another set of evidence, then the more chances you have in verifying if the science is correct or not; the more evidences there are, the more better your chance of proving the science.

We have no evidences of god or anything remotely supernatural. With no evidences, then the proof is actually against god's existence. Until such evidences become available, then this god is nothing more than figment of collective sombody's imagination.

So, do you think God can spare his divine clipped toenail for us to examine? More would be better...

WE do not.

I DO.

YOU will later.

If you're really interested in proving he exists, do what he says to do and see what happens -otherwise, why waste your time?

 

[gnostic]

I do realize that if Adam was created about 6,000 years ago (4,000-ish B.C.), the flood would have been later -and I was too lazy to look up the years separating Adam and the flood according to the lineages in the bible -so I threw out some vague numbers -but thank you for pointing out specifics which I fully understand -and which have no bearing on anything extremely interesting -and all under a false assumption.

Not good with your maths, are you?

Ok, let's me do the maths for you.

If the creation of Adam happened somewhere in your 4000 BC (give or take 20 years (margin of error)), then the Flood would have happened in 2344 BC.

I arrived at that number because I have already done the calculation between Adam's creation and the Flood. According to all the English translation of bibles (kjv, nkjv, niv, nasb, etc) that relied on Masoretic Texts, the flood happened 1656 years after the creation.

(Note that had I used the Greek Septuagint Bible, then my calculation would have been quite different.)

Look at the 2nd table of my webpage - the Timeline of the Patriarchs (from Dark Mirrors of Heaven). (Ignore the 2nd column (Current Timeline Estimate column) in the table, because the number would just confuse you. It is 1st column that you should be interested in.)

The Wikipedia put the date of the Flood about 2340 BC, which would mean the creation of Adam would have happened in 3996 BC.

and which have no bearing on anything extremely interesting -and all under a false assumption.

It may have no bearing, but 2000-year error is a big mistake.