[vertical954rr]

ahh similiar stories yet world aparts.. like the epic of gilgamesh and the flood of noah.. but what about the flying chariots of Van Danikkens book "Chariots of the Gods" .. To Serve Man

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by vertical954rr

here ya go, links to the great repository of religious knowledge:

Some good info there vertical....thanks!

Originally Posted by lanbrown

I would like to add that it is region based as well. A great flood could be a small part of the world and not the entire planet.

Which would mean that when the Bible says that the planet was flooded to cover the highest mountains...it just isn't true. Makes you wonder what else in the Bible isn't true.

It could take months to go a short distance by todays standards. It is not like they had a great communication system back then either.

True enough! It makes you wonder why this Christian god chose a bunch of desert goatherds in such a remote backwater to 'spread his word'. You'd think he would have chosen the Egyptians or some other great civilisation.

[vertical954rr]

hey, at least they wern't scruffy looking Nerfherders!!

[vertical954rr]

Maybe they really were Egyptian....

The Ark of the Covenant

Egyptian and Pagan Themes in Christian Tradition

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by vertical954rr

Maybe they really were Egyptian....

The Ark of the Covenant

Egyptian and Pagan Themes in Christian Tradition

Yes, I do have to smile when I hear Christianity making claims that their beliefs are "unique."

[vertical954rr]

Judaism makes the same claims... but they borrowed from Egypt too

Egyptian & Old Testament Scriptural Correspondences

Hebrew Peoples in Egypt

[blue1000rr]

Originally Posted by denzee

Too many beautiful and incredible things on earth not to have had a creator behind it. Sorry but it's too hard to swallow the idea we started from a fish in a mud puddle that dried up billions of years ago.

i my self am a creationist. im not saying that there wasnt a little bit of evolution involved in how some things came to be but i think for the most part everything was created by a higher power. quite frankly i find it hard to believe that i came from a dust particle floating through space that one day decided to spontaneously combust. i also dont think i came from a damn monkey. the main idea/theory i believe in is the flood. if you look at how sediments were placed it makes sense. this theory also says that the earth is roughly 10,000 years old.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by blue1000rr

quite frankly i find it hard to believe that i came from a dust particle floating through space that one day decided to spontaneously combust.

...but you don't find it "hard to believe" that your god scooped a handful of dust, blew on it and created humans?

i also dont think i came from a damn monkey.

Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys....it never has. Sorry but you give the impression that you know absolutely nothing about evolution...other than what you have gleaned from Bible apologetic sites.

the main idea/theory i believe in is the flood. if you look at how sediments were placed it makes sense. this theory also says that the earth is roughly 10,000 years old.

Would you like to provide some evidence for that...from a reliable site rather that answersingenisis.com or goddidit.org

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by blue1000rr

the main idea/theory i believe in is the flood.

Requirements for the flood to be literal


1. Rainfall rates of 30 feet per hour on every square foot of the Earth’s surface for a total of 960 hours (six weeks) non-stop

2. Four men and their wives building a ship larger than any wood ship ever known to exist – one and a half football fields long and as tall as a five story building --and gathering 2.8 million pounds of wood and hewing it into planks

3. All of the Earth’s plants surviving a year of being flooded with salt water and being buried by sedimentation and undergoing erosion, mountain building and continental upheaval

4. Vegetation regeneration atop newly deposited sedimentary rocks (no soil)

5. Animals from entire planet collected by eight people without transportation – including all microscopic animals that could not have been known to the people

6. Animals returned to diverse habitats worldwide by eight people without transportation (including very delicate animals)

7. Evolution of plants and animals more rapid than any ever proposed by science

8. Fresh water fish surviving a year in salt water

9. Continents being shoved apart by water pressure

10. Faulting being caused by water pressure

11. Earth’s mountains being built in a year

12. All sedimentary rocks deposited in a year

13. All major erosional features produced in the same year sediments were deposited

14. One hundred percent survival rate for pairs of animals for one year on ark – and successful re population of the Earth by each single pair of animals (when we know that in reality animals whose population declines to a few breeding pairs are very likely to go extinct)

15. Carry aboard the ark enough feed for all animals for a year (including carnivores and herbivores with very specific diets).

16. Environmental requirements being met for all animals with a crew of eight on the ark

17. Furnishing adequate climate control aboard an ark with millions of animals with a single 17.5 inch window

18. Re-population of the Earth by humans beginning with less than one couple per every two continents

19. People living hundreds of years and producing children at advanced ages

20. Millions of cubic miles of water magically appearing, killing all animals (but magically not killing plants), then magically disappearing

21. Presence of a “water blanket” atmosphere pre-flood (though there were obviously people, animals, plants)

22. Claimed absence of rain pre-flood (even though humans and crops lived at the time)

If a few details were illogical, one might accept the tale as literal by excusing the errant details as mistakes. However, when the entire tale is one colossal illogical claim after another, it is unreasonable to claim that it is literately true.

Perhaps it is time to use the all-purpose “goddidit”?
.

[TattooedGQ]

Originally Posted by vertical954rr

Hiram Abiff and the Loyal Order of the Water Buffaloes?

Damn Tootin!!

[TattooedGQ]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Requirements for the flood to be literal

Perhaps it is time to use the all-purpose “goddidit”?
.

I don't think anyone here is saying that it's a 100% literal document, so you're pretty much trying to debunk something that we all agree can't be taken literally.

[steingar]

Actually, creationists are saying the judeao-christian bible is indeed literal truth. That the world was created as the bible purports, and has been changing ever since. The creationist's argument centers around their belief that if they can debunk evolution, the biblical story of creation is proved. This is illogical, as has been pointed out there are plenty of competing creation stories.

Of course, so called "creation science" is the product of fundamental christians who prefer a literal interpretation of scripture. I have pointed out in the past that there is no conflict between modern science, including evolution, and religious belief for anyone who is not a fundamentalist. The scientific view of evolution does not obviate a creator in any fashion, but it does not invoke one, because to do so would not be Science.

It seems to me common sense that when we se change all around us, and realize that change as occurred through history, to think that similar changes were occurring before humans were around to record them.

[lanbrown]

Originally Posted by blue1000rr

i my self am a creationist. im not saying that there wasnt a little bit of evolution involved in how some things came to be but i think for the most part everything was created by a higher power. quite frankly i find it hard to believe that i came from a dust particle floating through space that one day decided to spontaneously combust. i also dont think i came from a damn monkey. the main idea/theory i believe in is the flood. if you look at how sediments were placed it makes sense. this theory also says that the earth is roughly 10,000 years old.

So who created this "higher being" then? You don't believe something can just come from nothing. If true, then did a higher higher being create the higher being? Then what created the higher higher being? It is the chicken and the egg complex.

[blue1000rr]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

...but you don't find it "hard to believe" that your god scooped a handful of dust, blew on it and created humans?

Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys....it never has. Sorry but you give the impression that you know absolutely nothing about evolution...other than what you have gleaned from Bible apologetic sites.

Would you like to provide some evidence for that...from a reliable site rather that answersingenisis.com or goddidit.org

look man, i just putting my 2 cents in as to what i believe. and please dont sit there and tell me i know absolutely nothing about anything. i will be the first to admit that i dont know everything there is to know about evolution, but i have taken a couple biology classes that briefed me on them and then i have also actually taken a class strictly about evolution. and personly i find it to be a crock of sh*t. i have spent hours studying about creationism so dont say that i dont know anything about it. i am a religious person and i believe in a higher power that created everything. there could have been some evolution but i honestly dont buy into the whole spiell about it.

Im not telling you what to believe and that if you believe in evolution you should go to hell. I couldnt care less what you believe in, thats between you, you, and no one else.

i am on this forum to discuss motorcycles in general, not religion and or beliefs so i am done with this thread

[vertical954rr]

In the beginning....

Genesis 1 / Hebrew Bible in English / Mechon-Mamre

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by TattooedGQ

I don't think anyone here is saying that it's a 100% literal document, so you're pretty much trying to debunk something that we all agree can't be taken literally.

Fine! But if it isn't 100% literal, what is true and what isn't? Who decides what is true and what isn't? What about the Garden of Eden...true or metaphor?
If the G of E is metaphor then it didn't happen.
If it didn't happen there was no talking snake to tempt Eve.
If there was no talking snake to tempt Eve, there was no original sin.
If there was no original sin there was nothing for Jesus to save you from.
If there was nothing for Jesus to save you from there was no crucifixion.
If there was no crucifixion there was no resurrection.
....and without the crucifixion and resurrection, Christianity collapses like a house of cards.

Do you see what I'm getting at here Tatooed?

Fundamentalists say that the Bible is 100% accurate....that it all happened as it states in the Bible and IMO, if you are theist, that's the only way you should be looking at it. It's this 'cherry picking' of what is true and what isn't that has produced thousands of different denominations, all claiming "Truth."

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by blue1000rr

look man, i just putting my 2 cents in as to what i believe. and please dont sit there and tell me i know absolutely nothing about anything.

I haven't said you know absolutely nothing about anything. I said that you give the impression that you know very little about evolution and you proved that yourself when you said that humans evolved from monkeys.

i will be the first to admit that i dont know everything there is to know about evolution, but i have taken a couple biology classes that briefed me on them and then i have also actually taken a class strictly about evolution. and personly i find it to be a crock of sh*t.

If that class told you that we evolved from monkeys then I'm not surprised that you find it a "crock of sh*t.

i have spent hours studying about creationism so dont say that i dont know anything about it.

I didn't. I said that you give the impression that you know very little about evolution.

Im not telling you what to believe and that if you believe in evolution you should go to hell. I couldnt care less what you believe in, thats between you, you, and no one else.

This is a forum for debate in which people discuss their different beliefs.

i am on this forum to discuss motorcycles in general, not religion and or beliefs

Then perhaps you should stay in a forum that discusses motorcycles instead of posting in a forum that is specifically for discussing religion.

[vertical954rr]

I think Jesus/Joshua rode a Honda!!

[vertical954rr]

Enoch is my co-pilot!!

The Pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch

[blue1000rr]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

I haven't said you know absolutely nothing about anything. I said that you give the impression that you know very little about evolution and you proved that yourself when you said that humans evolved from monkeys.

If that class told you that we evolved from monkeys then I'm not surprised that you find it a "crock of sh*t.

I didn't. I said that you give the impression that you know very little about evolution.

This is a forum for debate in which people discuss their different beliefs.

Then perhaps you should stay in a forum that discusses motorcycles instead of posting in a forum that is specifically for discussing religion.

i know i said i was done but let me clarify what i earlier said as it was taken wrong due to my lack of wording. what i ment when i said we evolved from monkeys wasnt that we actually evolved from monkeys. i was refering to Common decent. the theory that humans and primates decended from a common ancestor. that is what i find to be, in a nut shell, a crock of sh*t

[TattooedGQ]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Do you see what I'm getting at here Tatooed?

Yes I see what you're trying to do. but on the same token, prove the big bang. and if you can prove it, tell me what caused it, or where the matter came from. If you want to go the purely scientific route then you must agree in physics that according to the Laws of Conservation of mass/energy respectively matter or energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, only changed. Since that is scientific law, where did the initial mass/energy come from to be converted into what we know as the universe? And the atheists garden of eden is just as easy to pick apart as the garden of eden. are we to believe in this matter (which i'm waiting to see where it came from) begins an almost improbable chance that the proper conditions exist for carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc came together in a similar place, in the proper ratios to form simple amino acids which evolved into sentient life WITHOUT the outside aid of anything. You say prove the garden of eden(which is an accepted creation myth by many religious scholars). I say prove when and where such conditions existed. In essence the atheist view falls to pieces without the assumption that matter and energy existed infinitely.

The convenient thing about science is that it is built on theories and standard practice is to throw out ideas if found to be incorrect. unfortunately the Bible is pretty much not going to be changed to say what should be counted historically and what is meant only for a message without uprooting the belief structure of many. The council of Nicea pretty much took care of that. Again, that point in history is another piece of evidence backing up my statement that the book has been changed by man so many times it cannot be taken as 100% literal. As I'm sure you know, the Book was edited to suit the needs of the religion(an event i highly disagree with), not taken as the absolute unobstructed word of God.

I mean Hell, if you want to believe that when you die it all goes black and you rot in the ground, that's fine by me, but I'd like to at least think that there's something after. And if I'm wrong on that and you're right(which is completely possible), I'm not going to know the difference, am I? But I'll play it safe and have some kind of belief structure, even if it isn't 100% right.

At the risk of sounding juvenile, I'll just leave you with something from the movie Dogma(which I know isn't a scholarship piece by far, but put out a very interesting message that i turned into an A paper in college) and I'll paraphrase:
It's better for people to have ideas, ideas can be changed and adapted to fit the individual, beliefs are much harder, Wars have been started over beliefs. It's better to have a good idea because we REALLY don't know whats out there.

I tried to make that as coherent as possible being it's 1am and all

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by TattooedGQ

Yes I see what you're trying to do. but on the same token, prove the big bang. and if you can prove it, tell me what caused it, or where the matter came from.

What does the origins of the universe have to do with any of this? And why do you assume that atheists even have any kind of stance on origins, much less believing that the universe magically appeared from nothing? I, for one, have no idea how the universe came to be or whether it has always existed. My non-belief in your god has nothing to do with the universe. However, if I wanted to just make something up, I could easily say....uh......it was previously in a non-temporal state which does not require a cause, thereby assigning it the same qualities that you have assigned to your God character allowing it to circumvent the caveats that lead you to conclude that where ever everything came from MUST be an omnipotent sentient being.

If you want to go the purely scientific route then you must agree in physics that according to the Laws of Conservation of mass/energy respectively matter or energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, only changed. Since that is scientific law, where did the initial mass/energy come from to be converted into what we know as the universe? And the atheists garden of eden is just as easy to pick apart as the garden of eden. are we to believe in this matter (which i'm waiting to see where it came from) begins an almost improbable chance that the proper conditions exist for carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc came together in a similar place, in the proper ratios to form simple amino acids which evolved into sentient life WITHOUT the outside aid of anything.

Take a look at what you're doing here. You note that the universe exists and then immediately jump to the assumption that at some point it didn't exist. There's no evidence to support your assumption. You make the assumption to provide something for your God to have done.

The universe exists -- done. When you find evidence that the base components ever didn't exist, then you can proceed to questioning how those components came to exist. But so far, you're just attempting to insert a god into a situation that has no supporting evidence in order to explain the existence of something which has likely always existed. I have no more difficulty in accepting that the Universe has always existed than you have in accepting that your God has always existed. If you say that the Universe didn't always exist then it's up to you to provide evidence for your claim, not me.

When I posed the same sort of question to theists by saying 'Where did God come from' they always claim that 'God has always been there'. If they can so easily accept that "God" has always been there why so much difficulty in accepting that the base components of the universe have always been there?

You say prove the garden of eden

I haven't asked you to prove anything of the sort. I was pointing out the dangers of not believing in a literal Bible.

I say prove when and where such conditions existed. In essence the atheist view falls to pieces without the assumption that matter and energy existed infinitely.

Why couldn't matter and energy have existed infinitely? I am more than willing to admit that I don't know whether it did or not. It's you that is claiming that there was a time when the base component of the Universe didn't exist so the burden of proof falls on you to provide evidence to support your claim. As I've said, I have no idea where they came from, if indeed they came from anywhere. As far as I know they could always have existed. What I don't do is make the assumption that because I don't know...it must have been the work of a supernatural entity....and a specific supernatural entity at that.

.....unfortunately the Bible is pretty much not going to be changed to say what should be counted historically and what is meant only for a message without uprooting the belief structure of many. The council of Nicea pretty much took care of that. Again, that point in history is another piece of evidence backing up my statement that the book has been changed by man so many times it cannot be taken as 100% literal. As I'm sure you know, the Book was edited to suit the needs of the religion(an event i highly disagree with), not taken as the absolute unobstructed word of God.

I agree, but that still leaves my question unanswered.How do you know what is literal and what is metaphor....who decides?

I mean Hell, if you want to believe that when you die it all goes black and you rot in the ground, that's fine by me, but I'd like to at least think that there's something after. And if I'm wrong on that and you're right(which is completely possible), I'm not going to know the difference, am I? But I'll play it safe and have some kind of belief structure, even if it isn't 100% right.

You do realise that even Pascal himself admitted that his "Wager" was flawed? Pascal's Wager assumes that if a god exists then it must be the Christian god.....but what if it isn't? Let's say that instead of being met by the Christian god we are met by Zeus. Then you're in the same boat as me aren't you? Perhaps you will be even worse off than me because I might be able to convince Zeus that it I had an excuse for not believing in gods due to the lack of evidence for them. You, on the other hand, do believe in gods.... but you are worshipping a god other than Zeus...which could make him pretty pissed off!!

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by blue1000rr

i know i said i was done but let me clarify what i earlier said as it was taken wrong due to my lack of wording. what i ment when i said we evolved from monkeys wasnt that we actually evolved from monkeys. i was refering to Common decent. the theory that humans and primates decended from a common ancestor. that is what i find to be, in a nut shell, a crock of sh*t

Do you find talking snakes and talking donkeys a crock of sh*t too?

[denzee]

Boy pladecalvo, for somebody who isn't trying to alter anyones mind on this matter, you sure are spending a lot of time trying to bolster your opinion.
I'm no psychologist but it appears that even though you seem to have all the answers to atheism, you are still afraid you might be wrong about it. Having more people feel the way you do, makes you more comfortable with your position.
For me personally, while there are questions we can't seem to know the answers for, I am comfortable with my belief in creationism.