NFB: Does God have a sense of irony?

[fastTa]

Already did. Oops, I forgot, you are not allowed to test your god by drinking poison. Guess we'll never know why Jesus even bothered to mention that, if not to point out a "benefit" of being a believer (like take a note, but don't ever try it, it's not a party trick darn it). OK, I'll settle for a lay on hands. Tell me what type of wounds I can expect to get healed (a list maybe). I pick the victim, you choose the healer. Or did we not agree on definitions for that passage?

Or how about some science behind the flood. Where did all the water come from? Where did it go? How much water was it? Scientific model please, not vague quotes from Genesis.

Speaking of vague. Or the dinos. Were there dinos on the ark? Why or why not? Don't you think such a large population of immense, dangerous, and near the top of the food chain creatures would get more than a very obscure mentioning. Last discussion we had you bring up behemoth and it sounded quite interesting. So I do some research and find that alternate translations (rather than the King James PC version) make his privates as big as a cedar. Not his tail (or should it be tale)! Do contradictions between translations count?



I consider those to be minor. Just because their relevance isn't big, or because we've all heard them, doesn't excuse any inaccuracies they may have. It is either a factual historical document or not. It does not get the benefit of excusing minor, statistically accepted inaccuracies (like a modern textbook) because it is divinely inspired and free of any human error. Right?

I spent the large number of my young years wrapped up in the bible (approx. 5-11 yrs old, every Sunday, every summer bible camp, every night at the table). I have invested enough time with that particular story book already. At this point it would be far more enlightening for me to study religions (and the psychology behind them) in general. At least then I would get more than just one side of the story (and a minority side at that).

Oversimplification coming -

The creationist origin position in two sentences:

I will dedicate my life to defending our creator's perfect 7-day story from the satan inspired scientific opposition who wish to use intentionally falsified information to maximize their opportunities to sin. Please believe my book because tornados don't make jetliners, the 2nd Law of TD says only god can make natural order, and they are missing fossils (because they only have a table full, and they're faked) too.

The scientist origin position -

Wish I knew where the heck I came from, because their sure is a lot of different opinions out there. I guess I'll dedicate my entire career/life to trying to find out more than we know today through hard work, countless failures and successes, and the relentless criticism of those who already have the all the answers.

Sean

I have to admit when I was reading this I nearly mistook this post for one of John Kerry's pre-debate practice speeches and was nearly lulled into believing what was posted as he is so eloquently known for......then I woke up and realized it was just a dream.....a very bad dream.

[Camaro4-2]

Don't you see Tracez, these are exactly the facts that N20 is disputing. He is actually claiming that our calculation of the speed of light is way off. Not just slightly, but enough to turn a billion year old universe into a 10,000 yr old one.

I still wanna know when our errors become obvious because the moon was exactly where we calculated. And we have spacecraft near the edge of our solar system, that guess what, is right where we calculated in distance.

Like I said, this debate is rather futile, cause an all powerful God could just create a universe that has an illusion of being old. We (science)are on the side that admits it errors and faults. They are on the side that never has, and never will be wrong in the slightest. I wonder how it feels to absolutely know you are always correct? On that note, how would one know for sure that they are absolutely corrrect and without error. Oh yeah, they have book! Now I am convinced.

N20, if you and I are the only ones discussing the fine details, do you really think the tornado foolishness is a new one to me. Please, give me more credit than that. The only idea more crazy than a tornado making an F-body, is guy that looks like a human snapping his fingers and creating a universe in an instant.

Isn't the way things really happened amazing enough for your creator? The problem is your whole world is built on that book of 100% true stories, if one thing is incorrect in it, it jeapordizes the accuracy of the whole.

Cheers,Sean

I've been hating to bring this horrible comparison on board, and please excuse it... On a computer you can create an environment, lets say to simplify it somethign like the 3d shooter games. You can create an entire world with the 3 dimensions, a set of physical rules, thinking learning beings, and you can do whatever you want with that environment. You can make it as vast as you want and only work on the one section you can create a story and history but to the AI involved in it...its subject to whatever is in its environment and not the real truth...You created this world its history its rules. Bad to compare to organisms life and reproducing beings in this world, but its a simple illustration in modern terms to show maybe whats around us isn't what science of the world tells us.

So I do some research and find that alternate translations (rather than the King James PC version) make his privates as big as a cedar. Not his tail (or should it be tale)! Do contradictions between translations count?

on behalf of the bible being acurrate...Look at all the different ancient greek and latin literature. Homer's Iliad has the most manuscripts to compare from...next to the Bible. The Iliad written 500 years before our the first copy we have, with 643 copies of it to compare it to....the New Testament with the earliest copy being 25 year after its written, with over 24,000 different manuscripts to comapre it to. Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt whereas 765 lines of the Iliad are questioned. This fiver percent textual corruption compares with one-hlaf of one percent of similar emendations in the New Testament.

[Camaro4-2]

I have to admit when I was reading this I nearly mistook this post for one of John Kerry's pre-debate practice speeches and was nearly lulled into believing what was posted as he is so eloquently known for......then I woke up and realized it was just a dream.....a very bad dream.

Ha come on now....lets not flame lets keep a clean discussion going...I'm finding both side of this interesting. We want to keep a debate not start an argument.

[fastTa]

Ha come on now....lets not flame lets keep a clean discussion going...I'm finding both side of this interesting. We want to keep a debate not start an argument.

No flaming, just my opinion......the exact premise of this thread.

[N20LT4Bird]

Already did.

Or how about some science behind the flood. Where did all the water come from? Where did it go? How much water was it? Scientific model please, not vague quotes from Genesis.

If you havent researched the science of the flood, then you should. The science of the flood accounts for a lot of the old age and fossil record that we see today. It really is interesting stuff. One of my favorite books is Henry Morris's "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science". There is so much good stuff out there from young earth creationist, old earth creationists, christians and even ATHEISTS that dispute the evolutionist's account of history. Thats right, I have read a book written by an atheist that shoots a million holes in Darwinian evolution. Just the fact that you question IF there is any real science involved in creation science, tells me that you really HAVE NOT looked into it. I have researched BOTH points of view and know the evolution as well as the creation and have made an educated decision based on the FACTS as well as the scripture. If the scripture is true, than the facts will line up - and they do.

I spent the large number of my young years wrapped up in the bible (approx. 5-11 yrs old, every Sunday, every summer bible camp, every night at the table). I have invested enough time with that particular story book already. At this point it would be far more enlightening for me to study religions (and the psychology behind them) in general. At least then I would get more than just one side of the story (and a minority side at that).

I realize that you were probably advanced beyond your years as a 5-11 year old, but why dont yo utake another look as an educated adult. And REALLY look, without skepticism. You just might find something.
Oversimplification coming -

The creationist origin position in two sentences:

I will dedicate my life to defending our creator's perfect 7-day story from the satan inspired scientific opposition who wish to use intentionally falsified information to maximize their opportunities to sin. Please believe my book because tornados don't make jetliners, the 2nd Law of TD says only god can make natural order, and they are missing fossils (because they only have a table full, and they're faked) too.

Sean

Sounds good Its just that simple because we're all a bunch of morons (inc. Einstein)...

[TODD 2000 V6 CAMARO]

I think it has already gotten to argument form. I have read enough posts of guys laughing at our beliefs, and basically insinuating that believers are idiots. "Don't cast your pearls among the swine" Not to call anyone here swine, it's a metaphor. One of those metaphors that the bible is attacked about because it could mean anything, right? I know what is meant by it, so...I'm done with this thread.

[Camaro4-2]

I think it has already gotten to argument form. I have read enough posts of guys laughing at our beliefs, and basically insinuating that believers are idiots. "Don't cast your pearls among the swine" Not to call anyone here swine, it's a metaphor. One of those metaphors that the bible is attacked about because it could mean anything, right? I know what is meant by it, so...I'm done with this thread.

Todd I love this one too...1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
I love the heaviness of the words of scripture carry with them(for me anyways).
and it goes on and i love this
19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[3]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
EDIT: and paraphrased in Message Remix:
19It's written,
I'll turn conventional wisdom on its head,
I'll expose so-called experts as crackpots.
20So where can you find someone truly wise, truly educated, truly intelligent in this day and age? Hasn't God exposed it all as pretentious nonsense? 21Since the world in all its fancy wisdom never had a clue when it came to knowing God, God in his wisdom took delight in using what the world considered dumb--preaching, of all things!-to bring those who trust him into the way of salvation.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Not much to say here...

[Sean 94z28]

I have to admit when I was reading this I nearly mistook this post for one of John Kerry's pre-debate practice speeches and was nearly lulled into believing what was posted as he is so eloquently known for......then I woke up and realized it was just a dream.....a very bad dream.

That is what is very ironic in my case (actually scientists come from all religious, political, and cultural backgrounds, go figure, even ones that believe in a creator and GASP evolution- considered not true believers in the Young Earth crowd BTW):

- I am relatively conservative politically.
- I will vote for W in November.
- I support lower taxes,
- am pro-business and capitalism
- pro-war on terror - even Iraq (although I am disappointed that the Iraq threat level was inaccurate for our credibilitys sake)
- I love our troops (you guys are sending them stuff right? - huge thanks to those serving!!!!)
- I hate the type of lawyers the dem candidates are
- smaller gov't / campaign finance reform / insurance reform!
- personal responsibility
- you can keep God on the money and in the pledge
- abortion shouldn't be illegal, but also shouldn't be tax funded
- legal marriage in it's current form should not include same sex (although I support their right to live their life anyway they please - barring no harm to others of course).
- pro gun rights
- and will fight for my right to own an American, tire spinning, gas guzzling, leave ricer in the dust fun machine (form GM not a tornado

You also want a challenge fastTA - Find where I said I didn't believe in God or said your God didn't exsist. My PRIMARY challenge, since first posting, has been for religion to embrace science. I called into question the technical accuracy of your ONE of many religious texts. You could have replied that it served its purpose through common life lessons, does an overall good, or was slightly prone to literary error because is was written by imperfect humans (like all religious texts ACTUALLY are). Only one person replied, N20, and said it was 100% factual. We have a different definition of fact/evidence and I found it intellectially stimulating to hear both sides.I think one person even brought into question the DSS tranlations problems.

Actually, the pro-creation crowd would never even be bothered to ask what somebody else believes. It is completely irrelevant to them. The book told them to spread the gospel, not take others religious beliefs seriously or even respectfully (a very common religious flaw - fundementalism).

And eloquence is what the creation position is all about. They are far better at it than I. Take then general population's ignorance of science and exploit it. Tell them that things happening on a molecular level are the same as how cakes and automobiles are made. Surely any respectable challenger to an established theory would have, let's say, more fossils (or thousands of archy digs under their belt) to refute the fossil evidence of current theory. They must have petrified wood, that they can prove was made by Mt St Helens, that carbon dates exactly the same as "ancient" material. And enough of it to have the theory tested and retested many times over?

When they have these things and become 90%+ accepted majority in the scientific realm, instead of the 8-10% (total of scientists polled that believe in "creation-science"), I will give them the credibiltiy they so rightly will have earned. That is how ALL of our current understanding of the sciences have been established.

I have no problem seeing through fancy words (like all politicians deliver). I am sorry that you are pursuaded easily through words, when you always have the option to demand proof - that is free will.

May your God comfort you through eternity,

Sincerely
Sean

[Sean 94z28]

If you havent researched the science of the flood, then you should. The science of the flood accounts for a lot of the old age and fossil record that we see today. It really is interesting stuff. One of my favorite books is Henry Morris's "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science". There is so much good stuff out there from young earth creationist, old earth creationists, christians and even ATHEISTS that dispute the evolutionist's account of history. Thats right, I have read a book written by an atheist that shoots a million holes in Darwinian evolution. Just the fact that you question IF there is any real science involved in creation science, tells me that you really HAVE NOT looked into it. I have researched BOTH points of view and know the evolution as well as the creation and have made an educated decision based on the FACTS as well as the scripture. If the scripture is true, than the facts will line up - and they do.

I too have researched both sides and that is why I brought it up. It is still one of the points I could use more knowledge in. If you had a link to a real MODEL, that would have been great. And my memory may be poor, but the source you cite still relies on the "earth could have been very different before the flood" theory (Genisis interpretation based). It doesn't go so far to present an actual mass/size or earth before/after, water volume, rates of accumilation, etc. I will check the libary today, to see if I am mistaken.

I realize that you were probably advanced beyond your years as a 5-11 year old, but why dont yo utake another look as an educated adult. And REALLY look, without skepticism. You just might find something.

No but I believed almost anything I was told. You are witnessing the way MY adult brain "takes another look". Sorry if it doesn't suspend all disbelief like before. Your God gave me this brain and the opportunity to use it as it functions for me, talk to him if it isn't automatically hardwired to jump on board.

Sounds good Its just that simple because we're all a bunch of morons (inc. Einstein)...

Did Einstein ever say that he CAN'T be wrong? That it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to be wrong? You place yourself in good company. Congrats! BTW you do have a written Einstein theory of YE origin for us right? Link? Since YE and him see directly eye to eye scientifically.

When did I say I was smart and you were a moron? I didn't call anyone any names. I said you'll defend your book at any cost, you said I'll attack it so I can sin. I have complimented it on it's social, literary, and artistic value. Obviously one of the most influential texts in the history of mankind. Does that MAKE it true? That's for induviduals to decide.

Still no healing eh? That one would have social benefits that even the stoutest believer can't deny. Is Benny Hinn real?

If you feel insulted, sincere apologies from this end. I always consider all you my friends from what we have in common. Not because we have differences. And only the truest of friends can speak honestly of their deep personal beliefs. Thank you for caring enough to listen and reply.

Peace
Sean

[Sean 94z28]

Ha come on now....lets not flame lets keep a clean discussion going...I'm finding both side of this interesting. We want to keep a debate not start an argument.

I did not take it as flame, and hope it was not intended as such. In fact, it was semi-complimentary to those who educated me in English. I am not that Orange though!!!

[DeWynter]

What I find very interesting is "What we know as fact” 200 years ago man "knew" that the earth was flat. 1000 years ago man "knew" the sun circled the earth. More recently Freud "knew" how the mind worked and most of his work has since been proven wrong. Just think what we will "know" tomorrow.
What I'm saying is yes we are an advanced civilization, we live by our "Scientific Laws" and we tell ourselves how the universe works. As science moves forward new things are discovered. Scientists are by far harder to convince that an old idea is wrong and a new one is right, hence they ask for "proof" of validity. I am totally for proof. Who here is qualified to say the bible is wrong, or that science is wrong. I don’t believe either is "wrong". I believe that the bible is true and I believe in God. I also believe in science. Do I think there are errors in the bible? Sure there are, but the whole bible is not wrong. Do I believe the scientists are wrong? No but I don’t believe they are perfect I believe they make mistakes. Mistakes are all over the scientific community, they just don’t advertise these things. I’m not going to say carbon dating is wrong or that it is absolutely right as there is no way to prove the earth is 10 billion years old or that it is not as we don’t have a whiteness. I can’t prove what is scientifically right or wrong as there is no way to prove absolutely that it is right. I know your going to say we can recreate the tests over and over with the same result. Well go to mars and do them then to alpha centari then to Pluto then to all the reaches of the universe, then tell me it’s a law. Either way it takes faith to believe in either side of the discussion. Man and science said you cannot break the speed of sound, they did, they say you cannot exceed the speed of light, we don’t know, maybe we can, I guess we will find out in time. I will still believe in God even after this discussion and I will still believe we are progressing in science, but by know means do I think science is perfect or that they have all the answers. I also believe that in this discussion we should refrain from grouping God and Religion in the same boat as religion is “Man Made” and is by no means prefect.
Just my $.02

[N20LT4Bird]

I think it has already gotten to argument form. I have read enough posts of guys laughing at our beliefs, and basically insinuating that believers are idiots. "Don't cast your pearls among the swine" Not to call anyone here swine, it's a metaphor. One of those metaphors that the bible is attacked about because it could mean anything, right? I know what is meant by it, so...I'm done with this thread.

Yea, I looked at my last few posts and I have debated with a "tone". I do not intend to anger anyone, as I am debating mostly for the sake of the debate. I dont have any renstment towards anyone, and if I have come off that way I apologize. I love a good debate, and what is debate without passion for the subject matter? So, If I continue ot debate with passion, please dont mistake it for discontent or anger.

[N20LT4Bird]

Did Einstein ever say that he CAN'T be wrong? That it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to be wrong? You place yourself in good company. Congrats! BTW you do have a written Einstein theory of YE origin for us right? Link? Since YE and him see directly eye to eye scientifically.

I never said Einstein was even a creationist. He is one that acknowledges that "this" could not have happened ny chance. He believed in a creator, thats all I was saying.

When did I say I was smart and you were a moron? I didn't call anyone any names. I said you'll defend your book at any cost, you said I'll attack it so I can sin. I have complimented it on it's social, literary, and artistic value. Obviously one of the most influential texts in the history of mankind. Does that MAKE it true? That's for induviduals to decide.

Still no healing eh? That one would have social benefits that even the stoutest believer can't deny. Is Benny Hinn real?

I have know of people healed beyond all scientific reason. Were hands laid on? I know a few instances. Was it an immediate healing like Jesus performed? No, but healing the less.

If you feel insulted, sincere apologies from this end. I always consider all you my friends from what we have in common. Not because we have differences. And only the truest of friends can speak honestly of their deep personal beliefs. Thank you for caring enough to listen and reply.

Peace
Sean

Oh no, youd have to do a lot better than you are to insult me. I look at this as an exercise of the mind that passes some free time. Better for me than TV

[Sean 94z28]

Yea, I looked at my last few posts and I have debated with a "tone". I do not intend to anger anyone, as I am debating mostly for the sake of the debate. I dont have any renstment towards anyone, and if I have come off that way I apologize. I love a good debate, and what is debate without passion for the subject matter? So, If I continue ot debate with passion, please dont mistake it for discontent or anger.

I too will try to keep my passion in check. I never meant to devalue challenges to current scientific thought. Those challenges are the basis of science. Even if I am not "on board" with creation-science, I do appriciate the depth and scope of their arguement. There is obviously a lot of time and hard work invested in their research. But they have to earn the acceptance of the scientific community, a community with very high standards of proof. The most critical opposition FORCES the establishment to continually re-evaluate their claims. It is mostly the MAGNITUDE of the scientific error claimed that I reject. Not the possibility for error. It is not like Darwin is my hero or something, just another contributor to our vast knowledge of our exsistance. Major contributor to the majority of scientists - yes. Considered error free among scientists - No way! Considered error free by fringe minority or Evolutionists- of course!

sincerely,
Sean