God and Science agree -why don't we?

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

The true God and true science cannot be refuted.

Thats what people call the true scottsman argument.

 

[Etritonakin]

Rabbits do not chew the cud, that is the error there.

Not according to your definition, perhaps. They actually do chew the cud, but only after they poop it!

The fact that a rabbit eats its own poop has been used as an argument against intelligent design, but it's rather efficient, and doesn't seem to hurt the rabbits' chances at makin' it with other rabbits.

We, however, lurk with night-vision lenses waiting for rabbits to poop and then eat it, and make breakfast cereal shaped like rabbit poop -using a rabbit character to sell it!

 

[Etritonakin]

Thats what people call the true scottsman argument.

If it's no' Sco'ish, it's crap!

 

[tumbleweed41]

Not according to your definition, perhaps. They actually do chew the cud, but only after they poop it!

The fact that a rabbit eats its own poop has been used as an argument against intelligent design, but it's rather efficient, and doesn't seem to hurt the rabbits' chances at makin' it with other rabbits.

We, however, lurk with night-vision lenses waiting for rabbits to poop and then eat it, and make breakfast cereal shaped like rabbit poop -using a rabbit character to sell it!

Actually the correct translation of שָּׁפָן (shaphan) is not hare or rabbit. It is referring to the Rock Hyrax. The Rock Hyrax makes a loud grunting sound while moving its jaws as if chewing. Thus the writers of the OT thought the Hyrax was 'chewing it's cud'.

 

[painted wolf]

Not according to your definition, perhaps. They actually do chew the cud, but only after they poop it!

Cud is regurgitated... not pooped.

The fact that a rabbit eats its own poop has been used as an argument against intelligent design, but it's rather efficient, and doesn't seem to hurt the rabbits' chances at makin' it with other rabbits.

Actually it's not very efficient at all. Certainly are not as efficient as cows or even pigs. Unless the designer has a twisted sense of humor, there is no intelligent reason for rabbits to be coprophagous.

wa:do

 

[Etritonakin]

Odelay!

'sall I'm sayin!

A rabbit eatin' its poop is of greater purpose than this forum!
At least the rabbit gets SOMETHING out of it!

If the rabbit eating its poop is not advantageous -WHY WOULD EVEN EVOLUTION SELECT IT?????????????

(DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME -FOR BUNNIES ONLY!)

 

[painted wolf]

I didn't say it wasn't an evolutionary advantage (evolution works with what it has).. just that it clearly isn't "intelligently designed".

You don't have to yell. :tsk:

wa:do

 

[AxisMundi]

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?

Firstly, science and religion are exclusionary to one another. Science seeks to explain nature, religion attempts to explain the origins of nature. Science makes no attempt to qualify or disqualify your god, as no deity is a measurable, testable quality.

However, the bible is certainly easily disproved, and it doesn't take any "misreading" of any of it. Or much effort. The deluge myth for example...

1. There isn't enough water on, or in, the planet to completely inundate the surface. Waterworld just cannot happen. This alone disproves the deluge myth.
2. A massive die off of virtually every plant, animal, bird, insect, reptile, etc would have left a massive layer of fossils. There isn't any.
3. Tens of millions of animals, fish, reptiles, insects, birds etc, plus their food for decades, if not centuries (including raw meat), plus tons of plant seed to reforest the planet are not going to fit aboard any ship, even one that far exceeds the structural capabilities of wood, and whose dimensions would see it continually barrel-rolling without multiple tons of ballast, which would take up more space.
4. There is the problem of Minimal Population Viability. Each and every species that could be crammed into said craft would be extinct within generations, including us. The vast majority of species, including human beings, has a MPV number around 50 mating couples.

Creation, as in Genesis 1, is also easily debunked as well.

1. We know the universe, including the stars which are claimed to have been created on the fourth day, is ten plus billion years old. The earth, we know, to be only some 4.5 billion years old.
2. We know that water came well after the "land", and that life began in the oceans. Both concepts are backwards in the bible.
3. We also know that all of the different types of life on this planet did not spontaneously appear. Like it or not, Evolution is a proven fact.

These are just some of the most easily identifiable portions of the bible which has been disproved by science, without science attempting to do so, which I find quite eloquent.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Actually the correct translation of שָּׁפָן (shaphan) is not hare or rabbit. It is referring to the Rock Hyrax. The Rock Hyrax makes a loud grunting sound while moving its jaws as if chewing. Thus the writers of the OT thought the Hyrax was 'chewing it's cud'.

Odelay!

'sall I'm sayin!

A rabbit eatin' its poop is of greater purpose than this forum!
At least the rabbit gets SOMETHING out of it!

If the rabbit eating its poop is not advantageous -WHY WOULD EVEN EVOLUTION SELECT IT?????????????

(DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME -FOR BUNNIES ONLY!)

 

[Etritonakin]

I didn't say it wasn't an evolutionary advantage (evolution works with what it has).. just that it clearly isn't "intelligently designed".

You don't have to yell. :tsk:

wa:do

It works for the rabbit. We just find the whole poop-eating thing blechhh because we're not rabbits -that's not the same as it being UN-intelligent -whether designed or not.

I wasn't yelling, I was merely...... emphatic.

 

[Etritonakin]

Actually the correct translation of שָּׁפָן (shaphan) is not hare or rabbit. It is referring to the Rock Hyrax. The Rock Hyrax makes a loud grunting sound while moving its jaws as if chewing. Thus the writers of the OT thought the Hyrax was 'chewing it's cud'.

Obviously -because they were confused about cud back in the day -and you can read the minds of people who lived thousands of years ago -who -if alive today -would totally be agreeing with you and saying "oh, I thought it was a bunny." :no:

 

[Etritonakin]

....and who cares whether the verse was referring to the rabbit -or if the material is regurgitated or pooped before being munched??????? Just because you define it as regurgitation doesn't mean they did. It is not a mistake -and this discussion is getting ridiculous.

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It works! Quit pickin' on the bunnies!

 

[Etritonakin]

Firstly, science and religion are exclusionary to one another. Science seeks to explain nature, religion attempts to explain the origins of nature. Science makes no attempt to qualify or disqualify your god, as no deity is a measurable, testable quality.

However, the bible is certainly easily disproved, and it doesn't take any "misreading" of any of it. Or much effort. The deluge myth for example...

1. There isn't enough water on, or in, the planet to completely inundate the surface. Waterworld just cannot happen. This alone disproves the deluge myth.
2. A massive die off of virtually every plant, animal, bird, insect, reptile, etc would have left a massive layer of fossils. There isn't any.
3. Tens of millions of animals, fish, reptiles, insects, birds etc, plus their food for decades, if not centuries (including raw meat), plus tons of plant seed to reforest the planet are not going to fit aboard any ship, even one that far exceeds the structural capabilities of wood, and whose dimensions would see it continually barrel-rolling without multiple tons of ballast, which would take up more space.
4. There is the problem of Minimal Population Viability. Each and every species that could be crammed into said craft would be extinct within generations, including us. The vast majority of species, including human beings, has a MPV number around 50 mating couples.

Creation, as in Genesis 1, is also easily debunked as well.

1. We know the universe, including the stars which are claimed to have been created on the fourth day, is ten plus billion years old. The earth, we know, to be only some 4.5 billion years old.
2. We know that water came well after the "land", and that life began in the oceans. Both concepts are backwards in the bible.
3. We also know that all of the different types of life on this planet did not spontaneously appear. Like it or not, Evolution is a proven fact.

These are just some of the most easily identifiable portions of the bible which has been disproved by science, without science attempting to do so, which I find quite eloquent.

The bible does not say the earth is not 4.5 billion years old.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That means the earth and the stars, etc..
Then the earth BECAME formless and void....

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;

The word translated WAS above is....

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass...........

There is no amount of time specified between the initial creation of the earth (at which the angels shouted for joy as described by God in the book of Job), and its becoming ruined.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, etc.... refers to arrangement of what was created to definte the day, month, etc... not their original creation...

Some parts of "Evolution" are proven -some are not -some are just horsepucky. Also, what is proven about evolution does not rule out creative influence. Both can be true and not contradictory.

Scientists are realizing there is plenty of water available to cause such a deluge if pushed up from beneath -as described in the bible. Fossils need the right condistions to form -it's would only have been a few thousand years, anyway, etc....

etc... etc... I think some of this has already been addressed... I realize you are probably going off what creationists have claimed about the bible -which has often been ridiculous -but science has not disproven what the bible actually says. It is understandable to doubt what it says, but it has not been proven false by science -and some scientists ig nore facts based on preconceptions just as some creationists do. If you do not believe it is possible that a being exists with the power to cause the sun to stand still in the sky, for example ... you're not going to believe any of the rest, either -until you experience such things -and that is perfectly understandable -but such preconceptions -assumed to be true -can affect how even a scientists views facts or results of experiments. Someone previously commented on huge rocks being moved many miles, saying they could have been moved by glaciers rather than a huge flood -and this may be absolutely correct. However (and I'm not picking on the poster of said statement, but merely using the example), a scientist who believes there is no God and that there could have been no huge flood based on their beliefs and CURRENT DATA might miss something by these assumptions. Scientists like to think they are completely logical, but they are just as human as the rest. Scientists -if they are worth anything -are often proving themselves WRONG. Everything seems one way until one piece of data is factored in -which changes everything!

Science does not KNOW everything it says!!!! It assumes much! It has to in order to discover new things -and when new things are discovered, they sometimes prove the intial assumption FALSE -even though it seemed logical given the EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.

What is proven about evolution is true. What is not is not -and this does not mean God can not also instantaneously create a whole live chicken ready to lay eggs if he so desired.

 

[painted wolf]

It works for the rabbit. We just find the whole poop-eating thing blechhh because we're not rabbits -that's not the same as it being UN-intelligent -whether designed or not.

Oh I have not ick factor with the rabbit habits. But if the designer were intelligent then all plant eaters would have stomachs like cows. (and whales wouldn't have stomachs like cows, because they don't need them). The rabbit way is inefficient in comparison (though not nearly as inefficient as the Panda or Goose).

But to get back to the flood...
Rocks dragged by Ice leave very distinctive marks... Rocks carried by water leave different marks. Unless God was messing with the evidence to trick people, then the rocks were carried by ice.
I'm afraid that to have a literal world wide flood... you would need a sneaky jerk of a God. It's the only way to explain the lack of global unambiguous evidence of a massive world wide year long flood.

wa:do

ps... just in case you are curious... this is a rock hyrax. Hyrax are wicked cool for many reasons, one of which is the fact that they are closest in relation to the elephants.

 

[tumbleweed41]

....and who cares whether the verse was referring to the rabbit -or if the material is regurgitated or pooped before being munched??????? Just because you define it as regurgitation doesn't mean they did. It is not a mistake -and this discussion is getting ridiculous.

But you said science and the Bible agree....

But if you think it does not matter....

 

[AxisMundi]

The bible does not say the earth is not 4.5 billion years old.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That means the earth and the stars, etc..
Then the earth BECAME formless and void....

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;

The word translated WAS above is....

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass...........

There is no amount of time specified between the initial creation of the earth (at which the angels shouted for joy as described by God in the book of Job), and its becoming ruined.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, etc.... refers to arrangement of what was created to definte the day, month, etc... not their original creation...

Some parts of "Evolution" are proven -some are not -some are just horsepucky. Also, what is proven about evolution does not rule out creative influence. Both can be true and not contradictory.

Scientists are realizing there is plenty of water available to cause such a deluge if pushed up from beneath -as described in the bible. Fossils need the right condistions to form -it's would only have been a few thousand years, anyway, etc....

etc... etc... I think some of this has already been addressed... I realize you are probably going off what creationists have claimed about the bible -which has often been ridiculous -but science has not disproven what the bible actually says. It is understandable to doubt what it says, but it has not been proven false by science -and some scientists ig nore facts based on preconceptions just as some creationists do. If you do not believe it is possible that a being exists with the power to cause the sun to stand still in the sky, for example ... you're not going to believe any of the rest, either -until you experience such things -and that is perfectly understandable -but such preconceptions -assumed to be true -can affect how even a scientists views facts or results of experiments. Someone previously commented on huge rocks being moved many miles, saying they could have been moved by glaciers rather than a huge flood -and this may be absolutely correct. However (and I'm not picking on the poster of said statement, but merely using the example), a scientist who believes there is no God and that there could have been no huge flood based on their beliefs and CURRENT DATA might miss something by these assumptions. Scientists like to think they are completely logical, but they are just as human as the rest. Scientists -if they are worth anything -are often proving themselves WRONG. Everything seems one way until one piece of data is factored in -which changes everything!

Science does not KNOW everything it says!!!! It assumes much! It has to in order to discover new things -and when new things are discovered, they sometimes prove the intial assumption FALSE -even though it seemed logical given the EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.

What is proven about evolution is true. What is not is not -and this does not mean God can not also instantaneously create a whole live chicken ready to lay eggs if he so desired.

Sorry, but bolding things don't make you right.

1. Counting the generations from "Adam & Eve" forward, we arrive at a date of approximately 6,000 years of age for the earth (and universe) according to your scripture. This also places your flood myth at app. 2,200 BCE. We have a large selection of ancient writtings from civilations far older, and none mention so much as a passing damp.

2. What do you think those little lights in the night sky are called? Last time I checked, we called them stars. Stars were indeed, according to scripture, "created" on the fourth day.

3. Evolution is a scientific fact. Sorry, I know that puts a major crimp in your believes. Abiogenesis is still under investigation, of course, but considering that amino acids are the most abundant compound in the universe, and that hydrogen and oxygen are the two most abundant gases, there is no real mystery to abiogenesis.

4. No, scientists are not "realizing that there is enough water". Creationist YECer pseudo-scientists perhaps are trying to prove this unprovable hypothesis, but legitimate science knows there isn't enough water on, or in, the planet to completely inundate the surface. Feel free to link to these "scientists who are realizing". There simply ISN"T any water deep within the earth. There is magma, but no water, sorry.

5. Many of these scientists who realize most of the bible is allegory and not historical fact are Christians themselves, so your "Atheist scientist out to discredit religion" is merely an argument fallacy. Each and every myth in your bible has indeed been disproved by simple sciences, from Creation to Adam and Eve to the Flood to the Ark, etcetera ad nauseum.

6. Science does indeed question itself, this is part of the Scientific Method. However, there is no "data being overlooked" in the disproved myths of your bible.

7. Again, Evolution is a proven fact. I believe, in the usual willful ignorance of those who cannot have their religion challenged, you confuse abiogenesis with Evolution. And there are great inroads into proving the former was not the work of some creator deity.

 

[Etritonakin]

Oh I have not ick factor with the rabbit habits. But if the designer were intelligent then all plant eaters would have stomachs like cows. (and whales wouldn't have stomachs like cows, because they don't need them). The rabbit way is inefficient in comparison (though not nearly as inefficient as the Panda or Goose).

But to get back to the flood...
Rocks dragged by Ice leave very distinctive marks... Rocks carried by water leave different marks. Unless God was messing with the evidence to trick people, then the rocks were carried by ice.
I'm afraid that to have a literal world wide flood... you would need a sneaky jerk of a God. It's the only way to explain the lack of global unambiguous evidence of a massive world wide year long flood.

wa:do

ps... just in case you are curious... this is a rock hyrax. Hyrax are wicked cool for many reasons, one of which is the fact that they are closest in relation to the elephants.

I wasn't using the rocks as a specific example, but general -and not saying you are wrong about the rocks -and yah -hyrax are cool.

 

[Etritonakin]

But you said science and the Bible agree....

But if you think it does not matter....

That's just cheap and petty -and they still agree.

 

[Etritonakin]

Sorry, but bolding things don't make you right.

1. Counting the generations from "Adam & Eve" forward, we arrive at a date of approximately 6,000 years of age for the earth (and universe) according to your scripture. This also places your flood myth at app. 2,200 BCE. We have a large selection of ancient writtings from civilations far older, and none mention so much as a passing damp.

2. What do you think those little lights in the night sky are called? Last time I checked, we called them stars. Stars were indeed, according to scripture, "created" on the fourth day.

3. Evolution is a scientific fact. Sorry, I know that puts a major crimp in your believes. Abiogenesis is still under investigation, of course, but considering that amino acids are the most abundant compound in the universe, and that hydrogen and oxygen are the two most abundant gases, there is no real mystery to abiogenesis.

4. No, scientists are not "realizing that there is enough water". Creationist YECer pseudo-scientists perhaps are trying to prove this unprovable hypothesis, but legitimate science knows there isn't enough water on, or in, the planet to completely inundate the surface. Feel free to link to these "scientists who are realizing". There simply ISN"T any water deep within the earth. There is magma, but no water, sorry.

5. Many of these scientists who realize most of the bible is allegory and not historical fact are Christians themselves, so your "Atheist scientist out to discredit religion" is merely an argument fallacy. Each and every myth in your bible has indeed been disproved by simple sciences, from Creation to Adam and Eve to the Flood to the Ark, etcetera ad nauseum.

6. Science does indeed question itself, this is part of the Scientific Method. However, there is no "data being overlooked" in the disproved myths of your bible.

7. Again, Evolution is a proven fact. I believe, in the usual willful ignorance of those who cannot have their religion challenged, you confuse abiogenesis with Evolution. And there are great inroads into proving the former was not the work of some creator deity.

No point. It's not See Spot Run, dude -and I love to have my beliefs challenged. It leads to greater understanding.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's just cheap and petty -and they still agree.

Sorry, no.

Hyrax do not chew cud.
Bats are not birds.
Insects have six legs.
Pi does not equal 3
Colored sticks do not influence genetics.
No Biblical Global Flood.
Man is not created from dust.
Linguistics do not support Babel.
The Earth is around 4.5 billion tears old.
Mankind has been around for approximately 195,000 years.
etc.....