The Bible itself contradicts Flood Geology

[foofighter]

Funny - i don't know if this is a widely known argument used by science against the bible - i have never seen it - but it is amazing now that i think about it.

 

I was reading Genesis, the relevant chapters in the Noah story - time and again, it is emphasized that EVERY living beast on land, as well as critters and flying creatures (fish are an exception), came into the ark. "From all flesh with the spirit of life in it" is a phrase used again and again. So that being the case, according to Creationists why would God leave out all extinct animals from the ark? Because he wanted to? If he could fit elephants inside, surely he could fit in Compsognathus LOL - especially if the bible repeats again and again "all flesh came into the ark". Thus the Bible itself testifies against Flood Geology, because these animals should be alive according to the verses that say "everything came into the ark". Has anyone heard this argument before?

[SH3RL0CK]

I've heard that arguement before. And the arguement about the ark not being large enough for specimens of all the animals in the world. But then you have to define "world" in the sense of someone writing if thousands of years ago. Is all the land Noah and his culture knew about, the world as he knew it? Of course. If so, then the flood only needed only to cover perhaps a small island to completely flood Noah's world. As such, there would have been plenty of space in the ark, and he could have easily had specimens of each creature known in his world.

 

As an aside comment, I don't view any valid debate as science against the bible and your inference to this confuses me. They each have different purposes, and where they interlap they agree or at least can be interpreted in a manner which does not disagree. The Bible wasn't meant to answer every science questions and likewise science cannot answer every spiritual question.

[Phi for All]

Funny - i don't know if this is a widely known argument used by science against the bible

Science doesn't argue against the bible as a whole. Science can point out flaws in reasoning, physiology, biology and other scientific fields and show where the bible is inaccurate, but for the most part science is not a good tool to use on something that is inherently supernatural, such as God.

 

So that being the case, according to Creationists why would God leave out all extinct animals from the ark?

"From all flesh with the spirit of life in it" probably wouldn't include animals that had been extinct at the time of the flood. Remember, creationists claim God put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool the unbelievers into thinking the world is very old. To hear some tell it, it was because God knew that someday humans would turn to science and away from faith, so He played the omnipotence card and made everything appear geologically to be billions of years old, so the faithful could do the math from the bible and figure out that God was just tricking *us*.

[mooeypoo]

Science doesn't argue against the bible as a whole. Science can point out flaws in reasoning, physiology, biology and other scientific fields and show where the bible is inaccurate, but for the most part science is not a good tool to use on something that is inherently supernatural, such as God.

 

"From all flesh with the spirit of life in it" probably wouldn't include animals that had been extinct at the time of the flood. Remember, creationists claim God put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool the unbelievers into thinking the world is very old. To hear some tell it, it was because God knew that someday humans would turn to science and away from faith, so He played the omnipotence card and made everything appear geologically to be billions of years old, so the faithful could do the math from the bible and figure out that God was just tricking *us*.

 

Actually, Science doesn't argue anything, Scientists argue.

 

That's a big distinction -- science is a methodology of rational thinking and avoiding bias in experimentation and observation (simplified, i know, but it makes the point).

 

I agree with you, Phi, I just think that the distinction between science as a method and scientists who use the method is important - specifically in all these 'science vs. religion" argument.

 

Different people have different personal reasoning, which is how there actually *are* religious scientists.

 

 

~moo

[Daecon]

I thought it was "Satan" tricking people with fossils?

 

I wish these people would make up their minds...

[NeonBlack]

Oh Christ. Creationists argue lots of things. They should get their story straight.

Hell, I heard one guy claiming that Noah brought baby T-Rex's on the ark.

 

When I was younger, I was a Christian until I sat down and read the Bible. You could spend your whole life finding contradictions in the Bible. However, this isn't the place to discuss this. If this thread doesn't die, it will probably end up being locked. For some reason, religious discussions are no longer tolerated, but atheist discussions are. That always seemed kind of goofy to me, but that's the way is it, I guess.

[iNow]

For some reason, religious discussions are no longer tolerated, but atheist discussions are. That always seemed kind of goofy to me, but that's the way is it, I guess.

 

Atheism is not a shared set of principles, doctrines, nor moral codes. It is simply a lack of theism. To suggest that you can lump all people with a "lack" of belief in some concept or another is rather telling, but not very useful.

[NeonBlack]

iNow, I know that's what atheism is in principle, but I think in practice, it is becoming an institution. It's just my opinion, but I feel that it's best to avoid these discussions altogether.

[iNow]

iNow, I know that's what atheism is in principle, but I think in practice, it is becoming an institution. It's just my opinion, but I feel that it's best to avoid these discussions altogether.

 

Your implication being that "it becoming an institution" is somehow bad or somehow makes it wrong. That's a bit like saying that eating healthy is bad because more people now take it seriously and more people are now doing it...

 

However, you're right. SFN is not the place.

[Daecon]

For some reason, religious discussions are no longer tolerated, but atheist discussions are. That always seemed kind of goofy to me, but that's the way is it, I guess.

 

That's because atheism applies to every religion past and present, whereas religious discussions are always biased.

[iNow]

Atheism itself is an interesting label, as it just makes it easier for those who are religious to type caste and dismiss.

 

It's not like we have a special word for everything people are not. That'd be silly.

 

We don't have a special word like a-astrologers.

We don't have a special word like a-numerologists.

We don't have a special word like a-santa clause-tologists.

We don't have a special word like a-unicorn-believers, or a-leprechaun-accepters...

 

Atheists. It's just a way to denegrate and dance around a true, reasonable, and rational dialog.

[mooeypoo]

I don't think saying that atheistic discussions are permitted (as opposed to theistic ones), it's more that RATIONAL debates are allowed (and preferred) here. And religious debate rarely avoids logical fallacies.

 

It's not about atheism; it's about rationality. You can be rational *and* religious, there are people who prove that.

[Daecon]

You can be rational *and* religious, there are people who prove that.

 

Name two.

[mooeypoo]

Name two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#Living

 

Regardless, even if I can't name them, that doesn't mean they do not exist.

 

I, too, think that religion and science contradict one another, but some people obviously find the balance, and I have absolutely no problem with that; it's a personal view, and they're entitled to believe whatever they want.

 

The only thing I have a "problem" with is when people are irrational or insist to insert irrationality to *my* life (school / tv / politics / etc).

 

Otherwise? it's a personal thing, which doesn't hurt anyone, and I have no right to tell people how to live their lives.

 

~moo

 

 

p.s - Ken Miller is the best example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller) he's not only religious + scientist, he's also an activist against creationism and the intelligent design movement.

[tvp45]

Name two.

 

The Dalai Lama

Rabbi Avrohom Katz

[YT2095]

Name two.

 

me!

 

that`s one.

[ydoaPs]

me!

 

that`s one.

 

pfft, they wanted two rational religious people.

[iNow]

Name two.

 

I strongly come out against religious faith frequently. I find it detrimental and often toxic, and suggest that many of the benefits attributed to religious faith are often better explained by the social side of religious experience... the community effect, as opposed to the spritual or faith.

 

However, despite my strong opposition to (what I see as an irrational) faith, I reject what you've implicitly implied with your question to mooey above.

 

To suggest that there are no rational people who have religious faith as a central part of their life is plainly ludicrous. These individuals may suspend their rationality as pertains to questions of faith, but to suggest that this somehow makes them an entirely irrational (even illogical) being is both an invalid and inaccurate assertion.

 

 

 

 

 

pfft, they wanted two rational religious people.

 

Do multiple personalities count as more than one? If so, he's good on two irrational ones!

[YT2095]

yeah me too!

 

actually the thing I find most interesting is How was all that rain / Flood supposed to have hurt the fish or aquatic mammals?

if we ignore the more than obvious genetic bottleneck making the whole idea impossible, and the fact that the water all had to come from (and Go somewhere).

[insane_alien]

isn't it obvious? it would have drowned them:P

[ydoaPs]

Saltwater fish die in freshwater and freshwater fish die in saltwater, no? The final concentration(depending on the salinity of the added water) should be detrimental to one if not both kinds, right?

[insane_alien]

there are species that can tolerate both or exist at medium saltiness. a lot would die but there would be a large number of fish that would thrive.

[iNow]

there are species that can tolerate both or exist at medium saltiness. a lot would die but there would be a large number of fish that would thrive.

 

And, hence, reproduce more successfully than those which did not and dominate the current "fish" landscape. Yet another chink in the armor of the story.

[SH3RL0CK]

And, hence, reproduce more successfully than those which did not and dominate the current "fish" landscape. Yet another chink in the armor of the story.

 

Yet again, this is not a conflict if only a small portion (but all of it that Noah knew about) of the earth flooded. Its also not a conflict if the story is meant to be an allegory.

 

There are very many ways to interpret the Bible, different people hold differing views on the flood story, on evolution, on creation, etc. Some religious people believe in a 6 day (= 144 hours) creation and others believe in a 6 "days = unspecified period of time" = about 14 billion year creation. Who am I to say which is the correct interpretation (although I agree with the interpretation which best matches science as we know it today). I once read that at one time science believed the universe was only 6,000 years old (before nuclear science was known somebody calculated that the sun, as a chemical fire, could be no older than this). This was the basis of the 6,000 year old creation story, someone else tried to fit the Bible to Science .

 

For some interesting perspective on this, you could go to:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml

 

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#young_earth_vs_old_earth

 

Science and faith simply do not address the same questions in my opinion, it is silly to suggest that they do.

[iNow]

I disagree. I think that the method of science itself proves, by definition, that nothing is beyond it's purview. The idea of faith adds literally nothing to the equation and questions we ask, except but perhaps comfort to human insecurities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For some interesting perspective on this, you could go to:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml

 

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#young_earth_vs_old_earth

Or here... Here is good, too:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html