Questions to a Bible-Believing Christian

[Soldieringon]

(07-09-2010 04:46 AM)2buckchuck Wrote:  

Quote:I don't hate him for it. Though I do think it's a little odd.

I wouldn't literally hate someone for having a particular set of beliefs, but my reaction to such is that this is someone with whom I'm not likely to agree about much of anything, since I'm a scientist, trained to base ideas on credible evidence, as opposed to faith.

Sometimes I use a turn of phrase without thinking how it sounds to others. I never meant to imply that ANYONE hated Barley. That phrase (I don't hate him for it) is thrown around a lot at work, much like the phrase "that's his business", or "it is what it is..."

Sorry for any confusion, I will refrain from using it on the forum again.

(07-09-2010 04:46 AM)2buckchuck Wrote:  It seems to me that a young Earth creationist must be basing that set of beliefs on a literal reading of the Bible, which I assume is more or less consistent with fundamentalist "thinking". For instance, the figure of 6,000+ years for the age of the earth is based on some medieval "analysis" of biblical lineages, starting with Adam and Eve. That is, it's based on accepting the literal words of the Bible - not metaphorical or allegorical interpretations of those words.

That's kind of the impression I had as well. It seems to me that to believe in a young earth requires a very literal reading. You HAVE to count the 'begats' and do the math on each descendant of Adam, take that number, and then make the rest of the world fit it.

Seems very fundamentalist, but without the anger. I think I like young earth creationists. I think they're wrong, but I like anyone who can stand up for their opinion. Especially given the mountain of evidence against them. That certain stubbornness attracts me. And as long as there are no hard feelings between Barley and I, then I think we can continue to discuss religion for a long time.

[Alex Lopez]

Pardon my ignorance guys. Far as I can tell Adam and Eve only had sons, so how did they populate the entire planet, aside from the whole incest debate. Is this a valid argument?

Also, I've tried to debunk the whole Noah's ark story by simply mentioning the idea/theory that 98% of everything that has ever existed is now extinct. I can't imagine a boat housing two of every living species that exists today let alone everything that ever existed. If God created everything, then the extinct 98% percent of species would have to be on that boat as well. Is this a valid argument?

I rather not label myself an Atheist as I feel it forces those with different opinions to put up a wall, but make no mistake, I don't believe that any God exists, or ever existed.

Thanks.

[TruthAddict]

(09-09-2010 09:46 AM)Alex Lopez Wrote:  Pardon my ignorance guys. Far as I can tell Adam and Eve only had sons, so how did they populate the entire planet, aside from the whole incest debate. Is this a valid argument?

Also, I've tried to debunk the whole Noah's ark story by simply mentioning the idea/theory that 98% of everything that has ever existed is now extinct. I can't imagine a boat housing two of every living species that exists today let alone everything that ever existed. If God created everything, then the extinct 98% percent of species would have to be on that boat as well. Is this a valid argument?

I rather not label myself an Atheist as I feel it forces those with different opinions to put up a wall, but make no mistake, I don't believe that any God exists, or ever existed.

Thanks.

I think he's gone but...

We don't need to "debunk" anything. It is the religious folk who must prove to us the historical validity of their claims. Until they do that, we simply don't accept their existence if no evidence has been provided that they exist.

Obviously Noah's Ark is practically impossible (considering there are millions upon millions upon millions of species on the earth). Again, until validation is provided, the stance of skepticism is the default position one must take.

You may not label yourself an atheist, but by definition you are...

Don't worry. Here you can be as open as you want.

[Unbeliever]

(09-09-2010 09:46 AM)Alex Lopez Wrote:  Pardon my ignorance guys. Far as I can tell Adam and Eve only had sons, so how did they populate the entire planet, aside from the whole incest debate. Is this a valid argument?

Yeah, but expect either "the human genome could have been different enough to support years of incest 'cause Adam and Eve were more perfect than us" or "there were other people the Bible didn't mention".

Quote:Also, I've tried to debunk the whole Noah's ark story by simply mentioning the idea/theory that 98% of everything that has ever existed is now extinct. I can't imagine a boat housing two of every living species that exists today let alone everything that ever existed. If God created everything, then the extinct 98% percent of species would have to be on that boat as well. Is this a valid argument?

I think so, but another, equally valid one is "Where did the water come from?" Another is "How do you explain the fossil record and geological layers?"

Quote:I rather not label myself an Atheist as I feel it forces those with different opinions to put up a wall, but make no mistake, I don't believe that any God exists, or ever existed.

Then you're an atheist. That's the definition.

[Alex Lopez]

Unbeliever and TruthAddict, thanks for the response.

Unbeliever, yea I heard that whole Perfect Adam and Eve story in this thread, I read the entire thing, good stuff by the way.

As for my 98% extinct argument, I choose this to try and keep it really simple, even young adults can grasp this concept, not to sure if they would understand the whole fossil record carbon dating argument, and I'm sure I'm not educated enough to pull that one off if backed into a corner. I found myself blurting this out, without even preparing an argument, while talking to my nieces and nephews about Noahs ark and was shocked at how much sense I thought it made, and they ate it up. Just wanted to be sure I wasn't feeding them horse shit, appreciate the responses guys, keep up the good work.

[No J.]

(09-09-2010 09:46 AM)Alex Lopez Wrote:  Pardon my ignorance guys. Far as I can tell Adam and Eve only had sons, so how did they populate the entire planet, aside from the whole incest debate. Is this a valid argument?

It is a valid arguement. The other possible answer is that Adam and Eve's sons must have lain with apes to beget their off spring, which means one way or another we are related to apes.

---

(09-09-2010 09:46 AM)Alex Lopez Wrote:  Also, I've tried to debunk the whole Noah's ark story by simply mentioning the idea/theory that 98% of everything that has ever existed is now extinct. I can't imagine a boat housing two of every living species that exists today let alone everything that ever existed. If God created everything, then the extinct 98% percent of species would have to be on that boat as well. Is this a valid argument?

Not nessessarily. Some YECs believe dinosaurs were too big to fit through the doors of the ark, which is why they went extinct. Darwin is, as far as I know, was the first documented account of a person to laugh at this statement.

[TruthAddict]

1.87729 trillion tons. That is the total biomass of the earth today. I'll assume it was roughly the same amount at the supposed time of the "flood."

If Noah even put representatives of an absolutely minuscule percent of that total biomass, it still would be beyond the capacity of ships even today. Of course, he had God's help. Got it.

What happened to all the other species? Did God just bring them back after the flood? Why bother with wiping out all life in the first place then?

Where did the water come from? If the implication is that there was no water before the flood, that is clearly bullshit by so many different methods it is not even questionable (Not to mention the Bible refers to rivers when describing the location of the Garden of Eden). If the water was added onto already existing oceans, where did it go? Did God just make it disappear? What is he trying to entertain himself? This seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through just to teach humanity a lesson. Why not just snap your fingers and make all humans except Noah + family go to hell?

Then of course, we have even more in-breeding, as if origin from 2 individuals was not enough incest.

Sadly, Barley will probably never answer these questions.

[Dregs]

I've always had the thought, why a flood? I mean there are way way easier ways to kill off a population, no? I'm just saying.

[UnderTheMicroscope]

well guys we have more questions than answers it seems, but fear not, because God said he wouldn't flood the earth again... next time he'll use fire.

[TheSixthGlass]

(10-09-2010 10:41 AM)Dregs Wrote:  I've always had the thought, why a flood? I mean there are way way easier ways to kill off a population, no? I'm just saying.

Especially from an all-powerful God. If things had gone so wrong, why could he not just snap his fingers and call a re-do? Why does such a powerful being feel the need to make sure every living thing (including children, of course) dies by drowning? - which is, personally, one of the more horrible ways that I could think of to go. A God of infinite love and mercy, my ass. Of course, all this would be assuming the story is true.

The tale probably comes from a much older verbal tradition, which probably started after some people actually experienced a particularly bad storm and flood.

edit: Actually, regarding how true the flood story is, I just came across this from Penn and Teller's Bullshit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0dBFqJZc0